1

1. Introduction

1.1. The study of metaphor: a popular topic in modern research

The study of metaphor is a popular topic in modern research. Not only philosophers,

psychologists and cognitive linguists have contributed to this field of growing scholarly

interest. Students of literature, exegetes and pragmaticians have also demonstrated an

active interest in metaphor. The literature on metaphor seems to be ever-expanding. Even

for researchers who specialize in metaphor it seems to be nearly impossible to keep up

with the newest literature and with the most recent insights. The time that metaphor was

ostracized by leading philosophers during the Age of Reason is definitely past tense.

Metaphor is no longer considered as ‘seducing the Reason’ and as a swayer of passions,

as philosophers from a rational-empiricist conviction tended to view it.1

The importance of metaphor for our knowledge of the world was recognized2 and

demonstrated by the analytical philosophers, who turned away from positivism and who

became interested in the ordinary language that people actually speak (as opposed to

formalized propositional language).3 Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) landmark study,

published under the title Metaphors We Live By4, has greatly contributed to the now

popular view that metaphor is a significant aspect not only of human language, but also

of human thought and behavior. As a result of this ‘paradigm shift’ the study of metaphor

has become popular in modern research, especially among cognitive linguists.

The current interest in metaphor is sometimes associated with postmodern hermeneutics

and philosophical relativism.5 However, it should be noted that interest in metaphor does

not necessarily imply a relativist or postmodern worldview.6 Metaphorical language

1 Cf. Kittay (1989, [1987]). Metaphor. Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, p. 1. 2 It should be noted that in certain respects the cognitive importance of metaphor had already been

discovered by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Cf. Kittay (1989:2), who claims that “the argument can be

made that Aristotle had already pointed out the cognitive importance of metaphor, particularly metaphor

based on analogy.” 3 Kittay (1989:8). 4 Lakoff & Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago

Press. 5 A typical example of a relativist approach to metaphor is McFague (1982). Metaphorical Models of God

in Religious Language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. It should be noted that Lakoff and Johnson’s

(1980:193) experientialist position is also basically relativistic. It can be argued, that, in a sense, some of

the relativist approaches to metaphor can be viewed as a variant of the old substitution view of metaphor,

according to which metaphor is dispensable. In the old view, metaphorical language needed to be

substituted by literal language in order to say something meaningful about the world; in the new view, the

importance of metaphor is fully recognized, but foreign metaphors from a source text like the Bible are

usually complemented or even substituted by familiar metaphors that correspond more closely with the

worldview and convictions of the readers. On the relation between metaphor and relativism, see Van Herck (1999). Religie en metafoor. Over het relativisme van het figuurlijke. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. 6 Examples of a non-relativist (anti-relativist) approach to metaphor are Van Herck (1999) and Stienstra

(1993). Brümmer (1993) maintains a good balance between relativism on the one hand and an ontological

interpretation of metaphors on the other. He agrees (1993:16) with McFague that metaphors “always

contain the whisper, ‘it is and it is not’”, but he does not engage in seeking metaphors and models that are

2

forms such an important part of our language – both sacred and mundane, ancient and

modern – that it simply cannot be ignored.

The modern interest in metaphor has led to an explosion of scholarly literature on

metaphor in various domains. Ortony (1979; 2nd

edition: 19967 [1993]) contains several

insightful articles by leading theorists from a variety of disciplines. Reddy’s article8 on

the ‘conduit metaphor’ in English is of particular interest to linguists and communication

theorists, as it shows that a lot of our talk about language is based on the metaphorical

concept that ‘messages are containers’. The use of the ‘conduit metaphor’ can easily lead

to faulty assumptions regarding communication. Schön’s paper9 on ‘generative

metaphor’ shows how metaphors direct social action. His use of the ‘frame’ metaphor is

particularly helpful for understanding the relationship between metaphorical concepts and

our understanding of social problems and their solutions. Kuhn10

demonstrates that

metaphors and models used in science are not just exegetical or pedagogical in nature,

but that they often are constitutive of the theories they express. This bundle, edited by

Ortony,11

clearly shows that metaphor is not just an embellishment that can be substituted

by plain literal language without any loss of meaning.

Black – following Richards – introduced the interaction view of metaphor in the early

sixties.12

According to this view, metaphor is not a comparison of two unrelated things,

like was asserted in the older comparison view of metaphor which dates back to Aristotle.

It rather involves an interaction between two thoughts (or: concepts) which together

produce a meaning that goes beyond anything a literal statement could produce.

According to the interaction view, metaphor is indispensable. It cannot adequately be

substituted by literal language. Another important point of the interaction view of

metaphor is that it views metaphor as a perspective on the world and not necessarily as an

objective description of the world.

Mooij (1976)13

wrote a book on the nature of metaphorical expressions. His approach is

basically a blending together of the interaction view of metaphor and the comparison

supposedly more relevant than the traditional (Judaeo-)Christian metaphors for God. According to Brümmer (1993:27), all metaphors and models for God are primarily relational. Metaphorical expressions

like ‘God is a rock’ are primarily intended to express in what way we can trust God. It is only in a

secondary, derived, sense, that metaphors like this one are intended to make a factual statement about God,

that He is the kind of Being that we can trust. 7 Ortony (Ed.). (1996, [19791]). Metaphor and Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 8 Reddy. ‘The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language.’ In: Ortony

(1996:164-201). 9 Schön. ‘Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy.’ In: Ortony (1996:137-

163). 10

Boyd. ‘Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In: Ortony (1996:481-532), the

pages 485-486 in particular. 11 The bundle contains several other insightful papers from leading scholars such as Black, Sadock, Cohen,

Searle, Lakoff, Glucksberg & Keysar and Kuhn. 12 Black (1962). Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy. 13 Mooij (1976). A Study of Metaphor. On the Nature of Metaphorical Expressions, with Special Reference

to their Reference. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.

3

view. Ricoeur (1979)14

wrote a monograph on the rule of metaphor. Soskice (1985)15

explored the relation between metaphor and religious language. And Kittay (1987)16

wrote a study on the cognitive force and the linguistic structure of metaphor. Kittay’s

main theoretical contribution lies in the fact that she views metaphor from a perspectival

theory of meaning and that she approaches metaphor from the notion of ‘semantic field’.

Lakoff and Turner (1989) wrote a monograph on poetic metaphor17

, in addition to other

studies they wrote on metaphor18

and on the relation between language and cognition in

general19

.

From a language pragmatic point of view, the work of Grice (1975)20

and of Searle

(1979) is of particular theoretical interest. Grice distinguished between things that are

‘said’ and things that are ‘implicated’. He introduced this distinction in the context of his

influential exposition of conversational maxims and conversational implicatures.21

He

describes metaphor as a ‘categorial falsity’, and as a deliberate flouting of the

conversational maxim of quality.22

Searle (1979)23

, and many pragmaticians after him, approach metaphor from a very

similar pragmatic distinction between (literal) sentence meaning and (figurative)

speaker’s utterance meaning. Metaphor, in this view, is not a matter of inherent language

meaning, but of language use. Metaphor should, therefore, be classified as a pragmatic

phenomenon rather than a semantic one. Davidson (1991)24

presented an extreme view of

metaphor, which denied it any cognitive or semantic status. In his causal view of

metaphor, metaphor has no meaning at all, but it brings about its effect the same way a

‘bump on the head’ does. Kittay (1987) and Nogales (1999)25

have convincingly argued,

however, that metaphor is a matter of both meaning and use.

Sperber and Wilson (2001:199)26

distinguish between strong and weak implicatures. In

their relevance theoretical view, the meaning of metaphors is seen as a wide range of

stronger and weaker implicatures. Sperber and Wilson do not give an in-depth analysis of

14

Ricoeur (1979). The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in

Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 15 Soskice (1985). Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 16 Kittay (1989, [19871]). Metaphor. Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 17 Lakoff & Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press. 18 Turner (1987). Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. 19 Lakoff (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. 20 Grice (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’, in: Cole & Morgan, (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, p. 41-

58. New York: Academic Press. 21 Grice (1975:43-44). 22

Grice (1975:53). 23 Searle. ‘Metaphor’. In: Ortony (1996:83-111). 24 Davidson. ‘What Metaphors Mean.’ In: Martinich (Ed.) (1991). The Philosophy of Language, 2nd edition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 439. Cited in Nogales (1999). 25 Nogales (1999). Metaphorically Speaking. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications (Center for the Study

of Language and Information). 26 Sperber & Wilson (2001, [1986]). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

4

metaphor. One of the areas they do not address is the question how the linguistic context

constraints the range of strong and weak implicatures. In other words: they do not answer

the question as to what degree metaphors in context are less indeterminate in meaning

than metaphors presented in isolation.

Relatively few researchers have approached metaphor from a more descriptive linguistic

approach. This is understandable, since metaphor is a phenomenon that fundamentally

transcends the linguistic forms of language. However, metaphor is also expressed in the

forms of language, and as such it can also be studied from a descriptive linguistic

perspective. Goatly’s (1997)27

work on metaphor seems to be the most promising

approach in this respect. He pays due attention to the linguistic aspects of metaphor,

while incorporating many insights from cognitive linguistics, relevance theory and

literary criticism. His major theoretical contribution lies in his emphasis on the

importance of interpreting metaphors in their context (linguistic, literary, social), and in

his distinction of a variety of cognitive, pragmatic and textual functions of metaphor.

Goatly’s work also has some flaws – he tends to multiply analytical categories beyond

necessity and he does not sufficiently do justice to the distinction between metaphor and

simile –, but his insights are very stimulating and they are useful for a descriptive

linguistic approach to metaphor with a functional slant.

The study of metaphor has received due attention from cognitive anthropologists and

linguistic anthropologists. Sapir and Crocker28

edited a volume on the social use of

metaphor. And both Duranti (1997)29

and Foley (1997)30

pay attention to metaphor in

their textbooks on anthropological linguistics. Despite the awareness that metaphors, like

symbols, are windows into the culture and worldview of the people, there have been

relatively few attempts to describe the metaphors in minority cultures in a way that is

both systematic and comprehensive.

The interest in metaphor studies is also reflected in an increasing number of monographs

on metaphor in the domain of biblical studies. Caird wrote a study on the language and

imagery of the Bible in general31

, while Brettler32

, Korpel33

, Stienstra34

, Hermanson35

,

27 Goatly (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London & New York: Routledge. 28 Sapir & Crocker (Eds.). (1977). The Social Use of Metaphor. Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric.

University of Pennsylvania Press. 29 Duranti (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30 Foley (1997). Anthropological Linguistics. An Introduction. Malden (USA) and Oxford (UK): Blackwell

Publishers Ltd. 31 Caird (1980). The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 32 Brettler (1989). God is King. Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOT, Supplement Series 76.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 33 Korpel (1990). A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 34 Stienstra (1993). YHWH is the Husband of His People. Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special

Reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House. 35 Hermanson (1996, [1995]). Metaphor in Zulu: Problems in the Translation of Biblical Metaphor in the

Book of Amos. Ph.D. dissertation University of Stellenbosch.

5

Eidevall36

, Van Hecke37

, and others wrote studies on various metaphors in the Old

Testament. Some of these studies make an attempt to describe and analyze a particular

metaphor as it occurs in the Old Testament as a whole38

, while other studies limit

themselves to the description of a particular metaphor as it occurs in a particular book of

the Old Testament.39

Eidevall’s approach is particularly interesting, as he pays a lot of

attention to the textual coherence of metaphors, both from a contextual and intertextual

perspective. Korpel’s (1990) study differs from most of the other studies in that her

approach is basically comparative: she compares a rather comprehensive inventory of

Old Testament metaphors of God with corresponding metaphors found in ancient texts

from Ugarit.40

One area of the study of metaphor that has received relatively little attention is the whole

area of metaphor reception and interpretation. Steen (1994)41

gives an account of

metaphor interpretation in journalistic and literary text processing. His approach is

basically empirical and comparative. He tested metaphor comprehension of ‘real

readers’ of texts rather than comprehension of professional readers.42

He found that

subjects of a test recognized twice as many metaphors during literary reading than during

journalistic reading.43

Steen’s plea for an empirical approach is very valuable, not only in

the area of the recognition and comprehension of literary metaphors in general, but also

in the area of the recognition and comprehension of Biblical metaphors by audiences who

do not share the cultural background of the Bible.

1.2. The translation of metaphor: a neglected topic in translation studies

The general interest in metaphor, as described in the previous section, is in sharp contrast

with the marginal role that the study of metaphor seems to occupy in the area of

translation studies. Newmark (1995, [1988])44

and Verstegen (1993)45

pay some

attention to the translation of metaphors, but they do not belong to the mainstream of

translation theorists. Their perspectives are mainly determined by respectively translation

36 Eidevall (1996). Grapes in the Desert. Metaphors, Models and Themes in Hosea 4-14. Stockholm:

Almqvist & Wiksell. 37 Van Hecke (2000). ‘Koppig als een koe is Israël, en JHWH zou het moeten weiden als een schaap in het

open veld?’ (Hos 4,16). Een cognitief-linguïstische analyse van de religieuze pastorale metaforiek in de

Hebreeuwse bijbel. (Deel I: Theorie en Methode; Deel II: Analyse en Synthese). Ongepubliceerd

proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. 38 For example, Brettler (1989), Stienstra (1993) and Van Hecke (2000). 39 For example, Hermanson (1996) and Eidevall (1996). 40 The framework of Korpel’s comparison is formed by the categories of physiomorphic (‘object-like’),

theriomorphic (‘animal-like’) and anthropomorphic (‘human-like’) metaphors of God. 41 Steen (1994). Understanding Metaphor in Literature. London & New York: Longman. 42 Steen (1994:75). ‘In empirical research the real reader is placed at the center of investigation, and as

many means as possible are employed to find out what goes on when people have literary experiences. The

common method of self-analysis by the literary critic cannot hope to come even close to this ideal, for reasons which I have suggested.’ 43 Steen (1994:68). 44 Newmark (1995, [19881]). A Textbook of Translation. New York, London, etc.: Phoenix ELT, p. 104-

113. 45 Verstegen (1993). Vertaalkunde versus vertaalwetenschap. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

6

pedagogy and translation criticism. In the strict sense of the word, they cannot even be

called translation theorists.46

They view metaphor primarily as a translation problem.

Their approach is basically prescriptive and focused on the exposition of good methods,

guidelines and criteria for translation.

Main stream translation theorists47

, on the other hand, are particularly interested in the

descriptive and explanatory aspects of translation. So far, the descriptive and theoretical

orientation of the mainstream translation theorists has not been very conducive to the

study of metaphor.48

The study of metaphor has received some more attention in the particular area of Bible

translation. However, compared to the vast literature on metaphor in general, the

literature on the translation of metaphor is still rather marginal. Most of the literature on

the translation of biblical metaphors is still based on the comparison view of metaphor.

In terms of the basic method of translating figurative language, the approach suggested

by Nida and Taber (1969)49

and by Beekman and Callow (1974)50

still plays an important

role in the theory and practice of translating and consulting. In the meaning-based51

view

of metaphor, metaphor is seen as something that is translatable. If at all possible, the

translator should try to keep the image term of the metaphor in the translated text. But, if

the meaning of the metaphor does not come across in the translation, the translator has

several options. He can change the metaphor into a simile, and/or add an explication of

the point of similarity (‘tertium comparationis’). If this does not help either, the translator

has two other options: he can either substitute the metaphor of the source text with a

similar metaphor of the target language, or use a literal expression instead of the

metaphorical expression. The way metaphors are translated is partly constrained by their

linguistic and textual function. The distinction between live and dead metaphors, and

between thematic and non-thematic metaphors plays an important role in this model.

46 Cf. van Leuven-Zwart (1992). Vertaalwetenschap: ontwikkelingen en perspectieven. Muiderberg: Coutinho BV, p. 63-64. 47 Holmes, Van den Broeck, Lefevere, Vermeer, van Leuven-Zwart, Baker and others. 48 The relatively low interest in metaphor as a translation problem does not mean that metaphors do not

play a role at all in modern translation theory. Various metaphors have been used to clarify various aspects

of the process of translation as well as of translation products. Cf. the chapters 8 (p. 252-253) and 12 (p.

388) below. 49 Nida & Taber (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Helps for Translators, volume VIII.

Leiden: E.J. Brill (Published for the United Bible Societies). 50 Beekman & Callow (1974). Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Publishing House. 51

The term ‘meaning-based translation’, as it is used in this study, is a cover term for both dynamic

equivalent translations and functional equivalent translations. The concept of functional equivalence was introduced in de Waard & Nida (1986). From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible

Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. In functional equivalent translation, the forms of the source text

play a more important role than in dynamic equivalence translation. The forms of the source text are seen

as contributing to the meaning of the source text rather than as elements and aspects that are to a large

extent irrelevant to meaning.

7

Gutt (2000, 19911)52

has argued that the comparison view of metaphor on which this

meaning-based approach is built is inadequate, or at least questionable. He has called

attention to the fact that metaphors may have more than one point of similarity. The

meaning of metaphor is often indeterminate and should be dealt with in the context of an

inferential model of communication (understood in terms of a range of strong and weak

implicatures) rather than of a code model.

The relevance theoretical distinction between strong and weak implicatures is valuable in

the context of metaphor analysis. A drawback of the relevance theoretical approach to

metaphor is, however, that it is rather sketchy and general. Relevance theory gives no

account of the fact that metaphors taken out of their linguistic context are usually much

more indeterminate than metaphors that are found in a particular linguistic context.

The insights gained in cognitive linguistics in general seem to be very helpful for our

perspective on metaphor. Cognitive linguistics has sharpened our eyes to the fact that

metaphors are often structured by cognitive-encyclopaedic domains, and that they also

play an important role in the structuring of texts. The few available translation studies

that are based on a cognitive linguistic approach tend to focus on a description of

metaphors in the source text (Stienstra, for example), or on a description of metaphors in

both the source text and the translated text (Hermanson, for example). Until recently, no

major attempts had been made to apply the insights of cognitive linguistics to the process

of translating itself. Wilt (2003)53

, however, presents a promising initiative of leading

consultants of the United Bible Societies to apply some important insights and concepts

from cognitive studies to the process and context of translating itself. The metaphorical

concept of ‘frame’ gives coherence to the cognitive, sociocultural, organizational,

communication-situational and textual aspects of translation.54

Generally speaking, however, there does not seem to be a lot of interest in theoretical

issues related to metaphor and metaphor translation.55

This relative lack of interest in the

study of metaphor could be a reflection of a certain degree of Theoriefeindlichkeit

(‘aversion against theory’). Most translators are practical people who want to get the

translation job done. The lack of interest in theoretical issues related to metaphor could

also indicate a common feeling that the existing models that deal with the translation of

metaphor (meaning-based and/or relevance theory) are adequate and do not need any

further reflection. Another reason for this relative neglect of the study of metaphor among

translation personnel in SIL and UBS might be the fact that most translators, advisors and

consultants have other priorities to deal with. These priorities range from producing

phonologies, grammars, texts and dictionaries of vernacular languages and doing

52

Gutt (2000, [19911]). Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Manchester & Boston: St.

Jerome Publishing. 53 Wilt (Ed.). (2003). Bible Translation. Frames of Reference. Manchester, UK & Northampton MA: St.

Jerome Publishing. 54 Wilt (2003:43-58). 55 This situation may be changing somewhat. I am aware of at least two SIL colleagues who are working on

doctoral dissertations on metaphor.

8

exegetical studies to the actual involvement in translation work, consulting and the

training of national translators.56

1.3. Metaphor: its nature and function

Before I give a more specific account of the challenges that translators of metaphor often

face, I will sketch in a few broad strokes some aspects of metaphor that seem to be most

relevant to translation theory and translation practice.

A. Metaphor pervades our language, thoughts and experiences

Recent studies on metaphor have convincingly shown that metaphor is not just a matter

of poetry and religious language. Lakoff and Johnson57

called attention to the fact that

metaphor is more than just ‘a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical

flourish’. Metaphor is not a matter of extraordinary (deviating) language, but it is part of

ordinary language. It is ‘pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought

and action.’ Lakoff and Johnson also claim that ‘our ordinary conceptual system, in

terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.’58

Lakoff and Johnson’s observation implies that metaphor is not just a figure of speech. It

is not an optional embellishment or a rhetorical amplifier of plain literal language. But it

is closely tied in with our worldview and with our actions and experiences in the world.

Metaphor not only reflects our worldview, actions and experiences; it also shapes them.59

The heart of the matter is a psychological (cognitive-conceptual) and even a cultural

phenomenon. Metaphor is not a formal device, but it is dense with meaning60

and has its

own pragmatic-rhetorical function.

Metaphors occur presumably in every natural language in the world. They are found not

only in ancient texts of classical Hebrew and Greek, but also in modern languages, like

English, Dutch, Indonesian and Korean. Metaphor is also found in Papuan and

Austronesian languages in the Asia-Pacific region. People living in different times and in

different places who speak different languages and function within different cultures

seem to have a similar capacity for thinking and speaking in metaphors.

56 SIL translators are often also involved in vernacular literacy projects. This is especially the case in

situations where the target audience of the translation is to a large extent monolingual and illiterate. 57 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3). 58 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3). 59 Note that the underlying metaphors in this sentence (‘metaphorical language is a mirror of our worldview

and experiences’ and ‘metaphorical language creates our worldview and experiences’) can also easily give

rise to misconceptions, when they are reified, just like the ‘conduit’ metaphor. It is important to realize,

though, that metaphors do not constitute a more or less objective blueprint of reality, but that they rather

provide a subjective window on reality. Metaphors not only highlight certain aspects of reality; they also

hide or ignore other aspects of reality. Metaphorical expressions can be a powerful tool for clarification and communication, but they can also be highly deceptive, if we forget their perspectival function and interpret

them in ontological terms. 60 Note that the term ‘meaning’, as it is used in this study, is a very broad category that may include a whole

range of semantic, pragmatic and textual aspects. It is much broader than just semantic (propositional)

meaning.

9

The ‘pervasiveness’ or ‘ubiquity’ of metaphor also entails that – even though the

prominence and frequency of these forms of figurative language may vary – they may

occur in any segment (genre, register) of language. Metaphors are used in religious

sermons, political speeches, poetry, scientific discourse, slang language, and a host of

other forms of language. Metaphors occur in all kinds of text genres (descriptive,

expressive, expository, hortatory). They also occurs in narrative genres, even though their

use in this genre is perhaps more restricted than in other genres.61

B. The ‘essence’ of metaphor

The term ‘metaphor’ is used in this study in a technical sense. It is understood as a form

of figurative (non-literal) language that contrasts with ‘simile’. A metaphorical

expression is an expression that is not literally true, but which suggests an identity

between two non-identical objects, events or attributes. The testimony expressed in Psalm

23:1 (‘The LORD is my shepherd’), for example, is a metaphorical expression.

A simile, on the other hand, is a figurative comparison. It can, in fact, be viewed as a

downtoned metaphor. A simile is characterized by the addition of the hedge word ‘like’,

which tones down the hyperbolic aspect which is inherent in many metaphors. An

expression like ‘The LORD is like a shepherd for me’ is an example of a simile.

Metaphor and simile are closely related to one another. They are generated by thought

processes that are very similar, but at the level of linguistic expression there may be a

notable difference in their pragmatic-rhetorical force.62

The ‘essence’ of metaphor has been described as ‘seeing one thing in terms of something

else’. In the Shakespearean metaphor ‘Juliet is the sun’, for example, Romeo’s beloved

one is viewed and described in terms of the center of the solar system to which the earth

belongs. And in the Old Testament metaphorical expression ‘YHWH is my shepherd’,

the God of Israel is viewed and described in terms of a shepherd from the ancient Near

61 Metaphors that are found in narrative genre seem to occur primarily in embedded descriptions of characters, objects and places and in embedded speech. Alistair MacLean, for example, makes extensive

use of imagery (both metaphor and simile) in his book Force 10 From Navarone. Cf. for example the

following description of a sea scene at night (1972:7; Italics are mine; DK): “Commander Vincent Ryan,

R.N., Captain (Destroyers) and commanding officer of His Majesty’s latest S-class destroyer Sirdar, leaned

his elbows comfortably on the coaming of his bridge, brought up his night glasses and gazed out

thoughtfully over the calm and silvered water of the moonlit Aegean. He looked first of all due north,

straight out over the huge and smoothly sculpted and whitely phosphorescent bow wave thrown up by the

knife-edged forefoot of his racing destroyer: four miles away, no more, framed in its backdrop of indigo sky

and diamantine stars, lay the brooding mass of a darkly cliff-girt island: the island of Keros …” Cf. also

MacLean (1972:37): “Below the bridge rushed the swiftly-flowing Neretva, greenish white in colour and

swollen with melting snow. To the south there was a narrow strip of green meadowland bordering the river

and, to the south of this again, a dark and towering pine forest began. In the safe concealment of the forest’s gloomy depths, General Zimmerman’s two armoured divisions crouched, waiting.” 62 From a cognitive perspective alone, it is difficult, however, to discuss metaphors without referring to

similes that express similar notions. The term ‘imagery’ is used as a cover term which includes metaphors

as well as similes and analogies. An analogy is, in fact, a developed form of a simile. An example of an

analogy would be: ‘The Lord takes care of me, like a shepherd takes care of his sheep’.

10

East. In metaphor, two distinct domains of meaning are linked together, and this linking

together usually generates a whole range of meanings.63

Many studies of metaphor give the impression that metaphor is a homogeneous concept.

The fact that we use one term (“metaphor”) can easily lead to the fallacious thought that

there is no diversity among metaphors. From a linguistic-pragmatic perspective,

however, there are – at least – three different kinds of metaphor: lexicalized, conventional

and creative metaphors. Lexicalized metaphors – sometimes referred to as “dead”

metaphors – are closely related to idioms. Despite the fact that the boundaries between

these different kinds of metaphor are often fuzzy, these distinctions are helpful, especially

for translators.

From a textual perspective, metaphors can be divided into thematic and non-thematic

metaphors. Thematic metaphors structure a text (like the shepherd metaphor in Psalm 23)

and/or have a high degree of intertextuality. Non-thematic metaphors are more peripheral

and can be more easily substituted by literal language in translation than thematic

metaphors.

From a cultural perspective, we can also distinguish between foreign, familiar,

borrowed, and adapted metaphors. From a social perspective, we can distinguish

between supportive (norm affirming) metaphors and subversive (norm challenging)

metaphors. And from the perspective of worldview, we can distinguish between root

metaphors and non-root metaphors. Root metaphors form, so to speak, the hub around

which other, more peripheral, metaphors rotate in the worldview of people.

C. Metaphor serves a variety of pragmatic functions

Metaphor serves a wide variety of pragmatic functions. Metaphors may function as terms

of endearment (e.g., ‘honey’ for a beloved one) or as terms of abuse (e.g., ‘pig’ for a

person who is messy and/or dirty and/or who has gross eating habits). They may have a

purely lexical function (e.g., ‘the leg of a table’) or rather a didactic function (e.g., when

the structure of atoms is modeled after the structure of a solar system). Metaphors can be

used as a direct means to shock people (e.g., ‘You brood of vipers’64

). But they may also

function as an indirect plea in a call to action (e.g., ‘Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel, …

awaken your might; come and save us.’65

). Whatever their more specific function is,

metaphors tend to grab people’s attention. Metaphorical expressions are marked forms of

language. Generally speaking, creative metaphors have a higher degree of markedness

63 Or, in less objectivistic language, it evokes a whole range of meanings in the minds of the hearers. 64 Matthew 3:7. 65

Psalm 80:1-2. Another example would be the use of the term ‘house rules’ on signs of the Nederlandse

Spoorwegen (Dutch national rail road company) posted near the entrance of railway stations. The term

‘house rules’ suggests that passengers in the trains and on the train stations behave, like guests, in a responsible manner, and that they comply with the rules of their host, the Nederlandse Spoorwegen. The

use of the term ‘house’ mitigates, in fact, the term ‘rules’ which may sound very authoritative, when taken

by itself. The use of the term ‘house rules’ appeals to the common sense of the passengers, while trying to

create a sense of commonality (‘house’) between the passengers and the company responsible for their

transportation.

11

than conventional metaphors, and conventional metaphors have a higher degree of

markedness than lexicalized metaphors.

In spite of the fact that metaphor is expressed in a wide variety of language forms and

language situations, and with a wide variety of pragmatic functions, its locus is

nevertheless not in language nor in linguistics.66

The locus of metaphor is in the minds of

people and in their cultures and traditions. Metaphor is primarily a cognitive

phenomenon that is expressed in language.

D. Metaphors are often ambiguous or indeterminate

The various meanings and associations evoked by metaphor are not necessarily consistent

with one another, nor are they necessarily equally prominent.67

The meaning of

metaphors can, in fact, be highly ambiguous or at least indeterminate. Take, for example,

the metaphorical expression ‘Juliet is the sun’. Does this metaphor, taken in its original

context, mean that Juliet functions for the speaker as the center of his universe (object of

personal love and devotion)? Or, that she gives him light, warmth and life (source of

happiness)? Or, does it mean that the speaker constantly feels the pull of gravitation

exerted by this magnificent woman (source of attraction)? Or, does he describe her as the

sun, because in his view, Juliet’s beauty and brilliance totally eclipses the beauty and

brilliance of all the other women (object of praise and adoration)? Or, does it express her

destructive character to those who come to close to her?68

Or, is perhaps a combination of

several or all of the above interpretations intended?69

This kind of indeterminacy, or even ambiguity, can also be found in Biblical metaphors.

In Luke 13:32, for example, Jesus refers to king Herod as a ‘fox’. Some exegetes have

interpreted this metaphor in the sense that it focuses of the ‘craftiness’ of king Herod70

.

Others have suggested that it is intended to express the ‘inferiority’ of king Herod, who is

an insignificant ‘fox’ compared to a real king like Caesar, who is a lion71

. However, in

66

This is probably one of the reasons that relatively few linguists have occupied themselves with the topic

of metaphor. 67 Relevance theory sees the meaning of metaphor as a range of stronger and weaker implicatures. It tends to overstate the indeterminacy of metaphor, however, by not taking into consideration that the range of and

force of the implicatures is to a certain degree constrained by its linguistic and cultural context. 68 Cf. Stern (2000:12): ‘… in a context in which Paris’s opinion of Juliet is that she is the kind of woman

who destroys admirers who try to become too close or intimate with her the expression ‘Juliet is the sun’ …

‘might be used to warn Romeo not to get involved with Juliet.’ 69 In the context of this dissertation I will make no attempt to interpret this Shakespearean metaphor. It is

important, though, to interpret this metaphor in its literary and historical context. Stern (2000) offers some

interesting insights related to the interpretation of this metaphor. He shows that the metaphoricity of light

and darkness and of sun and moon plays an important part in Juliet and Romeo. The metaphorical

expression ‘Juliet is the sun’ needs to be read against this background. Unfortunately, many students of

metaphor tend to discuss metaphors in isolation rather than in their original context. Paying attention to the

intratextuality of metaphor is important for the interpretation of metaphor, but this will perhaps never ‘resolve’ the inherent indeterminacy of many metaphors. 70 Cf. Rienecker. (1976). Das Evangelium des Lukas, p. 342: ‘Der Fuchs ist das Sinnbild der List und

Schlauheit.’ 71 Cf. Grundmann. (1981). Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 288: ‘… der Fuchs gilt als schlau und

verschlagen, nicht nur in Palästina; dort aber ist der Fuchs, das kleine Raubtier gegenüber dem Löwen, dem

12

light of the immediate context another interpretation seems to be even more plausible.

Herod is portrayed as the killing fox, who is contrasted with Jesus himself, who was

ready to protect the people of Israel ‘as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings’ (Luke

13:34).72

If ‘redness’ is implied by the term ‘fox’, this could even be an allusion to the

fact that King Herod was an Edomite (weak implicature).73

1.4. The translation of metaphors: a big challenge

The translation of metaphor presents a big challenge to translators and translation

consultants.74

A high percentage of translation problems encountered at the translator’s

desk are, in fact, directly related to the translation of metaphorical expressions or other

forms of figurative language75

. Translators of poetry and religious texts in particular are

well aware of the complexity of this kind of translation problems. This is not amazing,

since a lot of the texts they translate are densely packed76

with metaphorical

expressions.77

Translating metaphors is a big challenge for mainly two reasons: 1. The meaning of

many metaphors is ambiguous, or at least indeterminate; and 2. The cultural embedded-

ness of metaphor makes it highly sensitive to cultural interference and misconceptions,

when it is translated into another language for a secondary audience in a completely

different culture.78

The indeterminacy and ambiguity of metaphor may vary from text to text, but it poses a

challenge to both exegetes and translators. The translation of metaphor is further

complicated, when there is a huge cultural gap between the original text and the

secondary audience for whom the translation is intended. Metaphors are usually deeply

rooted in the cultural context from which they originate, and they build upon the primary

großen Raubtier, Bezeichnung für einen unbedeutenden und zugleich niedrigen Menschen gegenüber

einem großen und bedeutenden Mann. Jesu Antwort zeigt, daß er von anderswoher bestimmt wird als von den Absichten des Tetrarchen.’ Cf. also Hermanson (1999). 72 Note that in Matthew 23 the image of Jesus as protecting mother hen (23:37) occurs in the immediate

context of the imagery of the Pharisees as ‘snakes’ and ‘brood of vipers’ (23:33). Here too, the imagery

seems to be contrastive. 73 In Hebrew the root is sometimes related to ‘redness’. Cf. Genesis 25:30. 74 Translation consultant are experts who review the work of translators and give them advice. Bible

translations (and other translations as well) require a consultant check, before they can be published. 75 Other forms of figurative language include simile (figurative comparison), irony, hyperbole (stylistic

exaggeration), understatement and rhetorical questions. 76 The expression ‘densely packed’ is, of course, based on the ‘conduit’ metaphor, according to which texts

and messages are viewed as ‘containers’. In this study no attempt is being made to avoid the use of this

kind of metaphors, since this is the way we tend to talk about texts and messages. In the context of

discussing the theory of communication, however, it is important to be aware of the potential pitfalls of this

terminology and to avoid it altogether in cases where it might create confusion or misunderstanding. 77 When talking about metaphors, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between metaphor as a unit of thought and metaphor as a unit of linguistic expression. Both concepts are usually covered by the term

‘metaphor’. In this dissertation I am primarily concerned with the meaning(s) and rendering(s) of

metaphors as they are expressed in linguistic forms. 78 Another factor that contributes to the challenge of translating metaphors is the possible indeterminacy of

the pragmatic-rhetorical function of the metaphor.

13

audience’s knowledge of this culture. People who do not share the same cultural

background, have a hard time figuring out the intended meaning of a foreign metaphor, if

the cultural premises upon which the metaphor is built, remain implicit.79

In fact, people

tend to interpret foreign metaphors from their own cultural backgrounds, and they often

make wrong guesses. But if they are given explicit clues as to how to interpret the

metaphor, they may come up with an interpretation that is consistent with the intended

meaning of the metaphor.

Beekman and Callow (1974) give several interesting examples of how cultural

interference can result in misperceptions. The Biblical fox metaphor (as it is found in

Luke 13:34), for example, was interpreted by Mexican tribes as referring to ‘fearfulness’,

‘promiscuity’ or ‘homosexuality’. And Wendland (1987)80

, in his intriguing monograph,

has also shown how ‘the cultural factor’ plays an important role in the interpretation of

metaphors.

One possible solution would be to make the meaning of a metaphor explicit in the

translation. However, a solution like this often creates its own problems. If the cultural

premises upon which the metaphor is built, are ‘unpacked’ in a translation, the question

may be asked, whether the translator has spoilt the metaphor. If too much implicit

information is made explicit, the audience is prevented from making their own

inferences, and, according to some analysts, this would spoil the punch and impact of the

metaphor.81

Another difficulty of the unpacking approach is, that it does not take into account the fact

that metaphors, like symbols, can be indeterminate, multivalent or ambiguous in terms of

their meaning. Translators who make explicit ‘the ground’ of the comparison, run the risk

of narrowing down the intended or potential scope of the metaphor.

Yet another difficulty of a full-blown unpacking approach is, that it tends to result in an

overly expanded translation. Its lack of brevity and conciseness may be perceived as

interfering with a more conservative standard translation that may be available in the

national language. If too much implicit information is made explicit, the target audience

might even reject the translation, while claiming that it is interpretative and that it adds

extraneous information.82

79 This has, at least, been my experience as a Bible translator and as a translation consultant working with

minority language groups in Irian Jaya that are still illiterate to a large extent. 80 Wendland (1987). The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. A Study of Communicating the Word of God

in a Central African Cultural Context. UBS Monograph Series, No. 2. London, New York, Stuttgart:

United Bible Societies. 81

Metaphors have been compared with riddles, which are ‘spoilt’, if the narrator tells the solution, or

makes too much implicit information explicit. Cf. Bearth. (1979:11). ‘Should We Tell the Solution

Together with the Riddle?’ NOT 77. Puns and jokes likewise derive their intended effect from implied

information and from the hearer’s ability to make his or her own inferences. 82 This problem has been labeled by Andersen (1998) as the problem of ‘perceived authenticity’. Problems

related to ‘perceived authenticity’ are rather complex. They arise when people have access to a rather literal

translation of the Scriptures, and when they use this as a standard for measuring the credibility of other

translations. Formal correspondence with the standard translation is equated with a faithful rendering of the

meaning of the source text. One underlying reason why people object to translations that make a lot of

14

Translators – especially Bible translators who translate for audiences with a relatively

low education level and with marginal knowledge of the Bible – often face the dilemma

of translating the Bible text with minimal explication (resulting in minimal understanding

or even a distorted understanding of the text) or with at least some explication which

would help the audience to understand the foreign text. Translators need to be loyal to the

source text and they should not introduce meanings into the text that are foreign to the

form and content of the source text. However, if (based on careful comprehension

checking) there is a high likelihood that the target audience will derive wrong meaning

from a particular literal rendering of the source text, the question can be asked whether

the translator is still loyal to the intentions of the original author, if he does not try to find

a better – less form-bound – rendering of the source text in the translation.

The discussion of translation issues like these can, of course, not be separated from

questions that are related to translation strategy. When translation principles are

discussed, it is important to keep in mind who the intended target audience are: Is the

translation primarily intended for pastors, teachers, elders and evangelists, who are

supposed to explain the message to the other people who are less educated and who have

no theological background? Or is the translation primarily intended for monolingual

people who have little or no background knowledge of the culture and the theology of the

audience(s) for whom the text was originally intended?

Another – related – issue is the question, whether the translator should aim for a

translation that is easily understood throughout, or whether he should accept it as a given

that it takes more processing effort to understand a difficult text (e.g. Pauline epistle) than

it would take to understand a simple narrative text.

The issues related to the translation of metaphor raise the old question, whether the

translator should aim for a meaning-based translation, in which the implicit grounds of

the metaphors are spelled out, or whether he should aim for a more form-based

transposition, in which the grounds of the metaphors are kept implicit, in order to allow

the audience to make their own inferences.

Fundamental to all our translation strategies, however, are a lot of unspoken assumptions.

Some of those assumptions have a theological background, and are related to the question

of how we view the Bible, and how we view the role of the translated text. Other

assumptions are directly related to the question of how we see language and

communication. The notion of skopos (i.e., the intended function of a translation), as

developed by Vermeer and Nord, and applied by De Vries (2001, 2003), is a helpful tool

for making these assumptions explicit.83

implicit information explicit might be that too much perspicuity in religious texts is perceived as lack of

mystery or lack of reverence for the holy One. 83

The notion of skopos implies that no translator can be theologically neutral. Since no single translation

can reproduce all the relevant properties of the source text, the translator needs to make choices. The

translator’s choices (selectivity) and the translation’s underdetermination are (or: should be) directly linked

to the skopos of the translation and the translational norms it entails. Translation criticism should primarily

15

1.5. Basic concepts and terminology used in this dissertation

Before I give an overview of the research goals and methods used in this dissertation (see

section 1.6.), I will introduce some of the basic concepts. Some of these concepts are

related to the domain of metaphor, while others are related to the domain of translation in

general.

1.5.1. Basic concepts and terminology related to metaphor

“Metaphor”: This term is used for any figurative expression in which a particular

person, object, event or property from one conceptual domain is described in terms of a

person, object, event or property from another conceptual domain. The expression “The

Lord is my shepherd” is an example of a metaphor. Metaphors may occur in various

linguistic forms and serve a variety of cognitive, interpersonal and textual functions.84

“Simile”: This term is used for any figurative expression in which a particular person,

object, event or property from one conceptual domain is explicitly compared to a person,

object, event or property from another conceptual domain. Similes differ from metaphors

in that they usually include a comparative marker (“like”, “as”, etc.). The expression “be

wise as serpents” is an example of a simile.85

“Idiom”: This term is used for language-specific expressions “whose meaning cannot be

worked out from the meanings of its constituent words.”86

Examples: “let the cat out of

the bag” (for: revealing something publicly which is supposed to be a secret); and “buy a

pig in a poke (for: committing oneself to an irrevocable course of action without knowing

the relevant facts).87

Idioms include a lot of “dead” metaphors.

“Imagery”: This is a generic term which includes metaphors, similes and idiomatic

expressions (inasmuch as they can be classified as “dead metaphors”). Its scope is more

limited than the term “figurative speech”.

“Figurative speech”: This term is even more general than the term “imagery”. It

includes all forms of speech that are not used in a literal sense. Figurative speech

focus on the question whether or not the translator’s choices match the skopos of the translation. For the

notions of skopos, selectivity and underdetermination, see De Vries (2001) and De Vries (2003). 84 It should be noted that this definition of metaphor is more restricted than – for example – Goatly’s

(1997:8) definition of metaphor, which includes both metaphor and simile. He defines metaphor as follows:

‘Metaphor occurs when a unit of discourse is used to refer unconventionally to an object, process or

concept, or colligates in an unconventional way. And when this unconventional act of reference or

colligation is understood on the basis of similarity, matching or analogy, involving the conventional

referent or colligates of the unit and the actual unconventional referent or colligates.’ Goatly’s definition is also somewhat problematic in that it seems to equate metaphor with unconventional reference, which

would be inconsistent with the fact that many metaphors are in fact conventional. 85 For the distinction between metaphor and simile, see, for example, Cohen in: Ortony (1996:58). 86 Trask (1999:119). 87 Trask (1999:119-120).

16

includes metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, understatement, irony, rhetorical questions,

etc. in addition to metaphors, similes and idioms.88

“Conceptual domain”: A conceptual domain refers to a number of concepts that can be

grouped together based on a common cognitive (cultural) and experiential context. For

example, the concepts of “sheep,” “shepherd,” “shepherd’s crook,” “sheepfold,” “wool”

and “milk” belong to the conceptual domain of animal husbandry (shepherding). And the

concepts of “LORD,” “heaven,” “forgiveness,” “altar,” etc. belong to the conceptual

domain of religion.89

In metaphors and similes different conceptual domains are linked

together. The linking together of these domains may produce very complex meanings.

“Topic”: This term is used to refer to the person or object to which the image-term of a

metaphor or simile is applied. The topic of a metaphor is either overtly expressed, or it is

left implicit. In the metaphorical expression “The Lord is my shepherd”, “The Lord” is

the expressed topic of the metaphor. But in metaphorical expressions like “Go tell that

fox …” (Luke 13:32) the topic of the metaphorical expression (King Herod) has been left

implicit.90

“Image”: This term is used to refer to the part of the metaphorical or simile expression

that contains a non-literal predication or reference. In the metaphorical expression “The

Lord is my shepherd” “my shepherd” is the image-term.91

“Ground”: This term is used to refer to the mediating concept or concepts that link

topics and images together. The ground or grounds are often implied in the text, but they

can also be expressed. In the metaphorical expression “The LORD is my shepherd” the

concept that mediates between the topic (‘The LORD’) and the image (‘shepherd’) is left

implicit. In this case the ground(s) of the metaphor could be “care”, “protection,”

“guidance,” or a combination of those.92

In other cases, the ground is expressed in the

88 For the use of the term “figurative speech”, see, for example, Wendland (1987:83-132). 89

For an overview of the term “conceptual domain” as it is used in cognitive studies, see Van Hecke

(2000:51-101). Cf. also Kittay (1989:214-300) and Stienstra (1993:31-34). The term “conceptual domain”

as it occurs in this dissertation is used in a sense that is very similar to that of “content domain” (Cf. Kittay 1989:224-225). It should not be confused with the concept of ‘lexical field’, which provides the linguistic

labels for the concepts of a conceptual domain. “Conceptual domains” are also different from the concept

of “semantic domains” as it is used by lexicographers like Louw & Nida (1989) and De Blois (2000). Items

grouped together in “semantic domains” normally belong to the same semantic category (Object, Event,

Attribute, Relational). However, items grouped together in “conceptual domains” may belong to any

semantic category. 90 For the use of the term ‘Topic’, see Goatly (1997:198, 201). 91 Some researchers have argued that the term “image” is in fact not appropriate, since metaphors do not

necessarily involve concrete imagery. Compare John 11:25, where Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and

the life …” It can be argued, though, that these are examples of metonymy rather than of metaphor. And,

since the term “image” is often used by Bible translators and translation consultants, who are part of the

primary audience of this dissertation, I will continue to use this term instead of the term “vehicle” which is often used by metaphor specialists. 92 Beekman and Callow (1974) refer to this as the “point of comparison” or the “tertium comparationis”.

However, the problem with this term is that it is built on the wrong assumption that metaphors are

abbreviated similes. But Searle (in: Ortony 1996:83, 91) has correctly pointed out that not every metaphor

is a figurative comparison. Metaphorical expressions like “Sally is a block of ice” cannot be analyzed as

17

text: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John

10:11). The ground(s) of the metaphor are often referred to as “implicatures” (=

conclusions drawn by the hearer/reader partly based on his/her knowledge of the world

and on his/her understanding of the linguistic context of the metaphor.)93

“Indeterminacy”: This term - used in the context of figurative language – refers to the

phenomenon that the mediating concept or concepts that link topics and images together

are often not expressed in the (source) text. As a result, the exact meaning of the

metaphor or simile is not clear in these cases. However, not only the grounds, but also the

topic and/or the image of a metaphor can be more or less indeterminate. The

indeterminacy of metaphors is an important exegetical and translational problem.94

Explication of one or more grounds of a metaphor may avoid misunderstandings, but also

runs the risk of resulting in a translation that is too interpretative. But, non-explicitation

might result in misunderstanding and confusion.95

1.5.2. Basic concepts and terminology related to translation in general

“Skopos”: This term is used to refer to the intended function of a particular translation.

The term skopos (Greek for “goal”) was introduced by Vermeer (2000; 1978; 1983; etc.)

and Nord (2001, [1997]) in the context of general translation theory. De Vries (2000,

2001, 2003) has applied skopos theory to the field of Bible translation. He distinguishes

the following functions that Bible translations can fulfill: translations can have a

liturgical function, a culture-historical function, a Bible study function, a common

language function, and a missionary function. The first three types of translations tend to

be a rather literal rendering of the source text. The other two types of translations are less

bound by the forms of the source text and they are often more explicative. The use of the

concept of “skopos” can be very helpful for a fair description and evaluation of

translations: Translations should primarily be evaluated in terms of the specific

function(s) they intend to serve.

With regard to the term skopos a distinction has been made between the intended skopos

of a translation and between its expected skopos.96

The intended skopos guides the

decisions of the translators during the translation process; the expected skopos, on the

other hand, represents the expectations of the target audience with respect to the function

of the translation. The success of a particular translation is to a large degree dependent

upon the degree to which the intended skopos of the translators matches the expected

figurative comparisons. Another problem with the term “point of similarity” is that it is often used with the

understanding that there is only one point that links a topic with an image. The term “ground”, however,

leaves room for the understanding that a topic and its image are linked by multiple points of

contact/overlap. 93

For the use of the term ‘Ground’, see Goatly (1997:33, 117, 229-254). 94 Indeterminacy of meaning is, of course, not restricted to the meaning of metaphors and other forms of figurative language. Linguistic features such as genitive constructions are often indeterminate as well. 95 For the use of the term “indeterminacy”, see, for example, Gutt (2000: 90, 92). For a discussion of the

concept of ‘indeterminacy’ in the context of translation theory, see Malmkjaer in: Baker and Malmkjaer

(2001:8-12). 96 De Vries (2003:176).

18

skopos of the audience. In addition, it may be good to distinguish a third category,

actualized skopos, which refers to the actual function of a translation in a certain

institutional and/or personal context. The fact that translators intend to produce a

translation with a missionary skopos does not necessarily imply that the translation will

always actually function as such. Translations with a missionary skopos, for example,

could also function in a liturgical settings and/or Bible study settings. The projected

function of a translation does not necessarily match its actual use in a certain context.97

With regard to the notion of missionary skopos I propose a more refined conceptual grid

(see chapter 13). I distinguish between a missionary-contextualizing skopos, in which

cultural adaptation plays a significant role, and between a missionary-explicative skopos,

in which unfamiliar information is explained in literal (analytical) language rather than

using a cultural adaptation or substitution. In addition, it is also possible to distinguish a

missionary-persuasive skopos, which adds persuasive elements to the translation that are

not found in the source text, or which amplifies persuasive elements of the source text.98

These distinctions are used as a heuristic tool to get a better grasp on the diversity of

those translations that are usually referred to as “missionary translations”.

“Assumptions”: Every translator, commissioning agency and audience has their own

assumptions about the Bible, the communication of the Bible, the interpretation of the

Bible, the intended function of the translation, etc. These assumptions play a significant

role not only in the translation process but also in the expectations that audiences have

with regard to the translation product. Translation is not a more or less objective

linguistic practice that precedes interpretation. Translation, by its very nature, involves

interpretation, and a significant part of this interpretation is based on implicit

assumptions.99

“Frame”: This concept is used to describe translation processes and products from a

variety of socio-cultural and organizational perspectives. The following fourfold

distinction of frames is an adaptation of Wilt (2003)100

: 1. Organizational frame

97 Cf. for example De Blois in Rebera (1997:24), who describes how the common language versions in Spanish and English became bestsellers. These translations were primarily intended for people who spoke

these languages as a second language and who were not necessarily related to a church. However, to the

surprise of many, these translations made a big impact on first language speakers – both in and outside the

church. In a similar way, the status and function of a translation may change over time and from one

community to another. 98 Example: if the section heading above Psalm 23 would be rendered as ‘Let the LORD be your shepherd’. 99 De Vries (personal communication) views “assumptions” as part of the skopos (function) of the

translation. I prefer to distinguish between the skopos (intended function), which is explicit, and between

assumptions, which often remain implicit even to the point that people themselves are not aware of them. 100 Wilt (2003:43-58) distinguishes between cognitive, sociocultural, organizational and communication-

situation frames. In my opinion, it does not make sense to distinguish cognitive frames from sociocultural

frames, if cognitive frames are indeed to be defined as ‘structured mental associations developed through experience and reflection which enable us to “understand, integrate, and contextualize the information

currently under consideration” (Barsalou 1992:276). Since all our experience, reflection and cognition

(including our worldview) is to a large extent shaped and influenced by our sociocultural frames, there does

not seem to be a compelling reason for maintaining the distinction between cognitive and sociocultural

frames. I have added the translation-theoretical frame. In the context of a translation-theoretical frame,

19

(Community, Missionary organization, Professional translation organization, Translation

funding organization) 2. Sociocultural frame (Beliefs and assumptions regarding the

Bible, the translated text, the translation process, and the interpretive frame from which

the translated Bible is being read). 3. Communication-situation frame (Situation,

Participants, End, Act sequence, Key, Instrumentality, Norms, Genre.101

) 4. Translation-

theoretical frame (Community profile, communication profile, translation profile,

intended skopos as expressed in a translator’s brief). “Frame analysis” plays an

important role in this dissertation.

The notion of “text-cognitive frame” – which can be viewed as a special case of a

sociocultural frame – is developed to describe and explain the ways people (like the

Una’s) understand and misunderstand translated texts and metaphors. The concept of

“text-cognitive frame” is understood as a constellation of various kinds of frames of

reference from which an audience understand texts.102

The concept of “text-cognitive

frame” differs from “textual frame” in that it does not necessarily refer to formal textual

(discourse) features that structure a text. It rather reflects the audience’s interpretation of

the content and purpose of the text.

In this study the understanding of foreign texts and metaphors by native speakers of Una

is viewed in terms of matching (text-cognitive) frames, while misunderstanding is viewed

in terms of incongruent (text-cognitive) frames. When Una speakers understand a

translated text with more or less foreign content, their internalized (culture-dependent)

frames match the frames of the original text and its author(s) with regard to the most

relevant aspects. If they don’t understand it, or only partly understand it, there is a

significant mismatch between the frames of the text (author) and those of the receivers.

I use the concepts of “deframing” and “reframing” to analyze various degrees of

misunderstanding. “Deframing” occurs when a certain expression or concept that was

obviously intended in the original text to be understood in the context of a specific

framework is not understood in that context by the audience of the translated text.103

“Reframing” occurs when a certain expression or concept expressed in the original text is

not only disconnected from its original framework as intended in the source text, but

when it is also understood in the context of a completely different framework that makes

translation profiles can be described in relation to their corresponding community profiles, communication

profiles and translators’ briefs. 101 Hymes (1974:1-66). 102 I distinguish between content frames and metalinguistic frames. Content frames include TOPIC frames,

EVENT/ROLE frames, TIME frames and PLACE frames. Metalinguistic frames include LITERAL frames

and FIGURATIVE frames. For example, the metaphorical expression “The LORD is my shepherd” would

normally trigger the following three frames in the minds of the hearers: TOPIC frame (“the LORD”),

EVENT/ROLE frame (“shepherd”) and METALINGUISTIC frame (Figurative). However, a rendering like “The LORD is my caretaker” would trigger the following frames: TOPIC frame (“the LORD”),

EVENT/ROLE frame (“parental care”) and METALINGUISTIC frame (Literal). 103 “Deframing” occurs, for example, when the audience understands the biblical metaphor “the LORD is

my shepherd” (Psalm 23:1) in the sense of “the LORD is my caretaker”, while they miss the metaphorical

framework of pastoralism.

20

perfectly sense to the audience of the translated text.104

In the context of (foreign)

metaphor interpretation “deframing” and “reframing” occur rather frequently.

“Deframing” and “reframing” also occur when a literal expression in the source text is

understood by the audience as a figurative expression, or vice versa.

In addition, I use the expression “conditioned topic substitution” to refer to a particular

kind of “reframing”. “Conditioned topic substitution” occurs, for example, when the

audience understands the figurative part of a metaphor but when, in the eyes of this

audience, the image and its ground do not really fit with the topic of the metaphor and

they consciously or unconsciously substitute (overwrite) the topic of the metaphor with a

topic that better fits the image.105

Communication failures caused by a mismatch between the intended text-cognitive

frames of the source text and the actual text-cognitive frames with which the audience

approach the translated text can often be solved by “frame articulation” in the

translation. Frame articulation can be achieved in a translation by a variety of means,

which include lexical choices and explication of implied information.106

“Norms and expectations”: Norms and expectations related to translation processes and

products are linked to the different frames that form the context of the translation process.

Since the translation process involves multiple frames, and since it involves different

organizations and individual that have a stake in the project, there is always potential for

conflicting norms and expectations. In cases like these, there may be a need for

negotiating the norms and expectations.

“Translation strategy”: This term is used in two senses. It is used in a general sense,

when it refers to the overall translation strategy that has been adopted by a translation

team (e.g. meaning-based translation107

versus literal translation). The term is also used in

a more specific sense, when it refers to the preferred solution to a particular translation

problem. For example, when a translator renders a source text metaphor as an explicated

simile in the vernacular translation, this is also referred to as a translation strategy. The

term “translation technique” is avoided here, since it communicates the wrong

104 “Reframing” occurs, for example, when the audience – who completely missed the metaphorical

framework of pastoralism – interpret “He makes me [sheep] lie down in green pastures” (Psalm 23:2a) as

“He gives me [human] rest in green / fertile garden areas.” 105 “Conditioned topic substitution” occurs, for example, when the audience interprets the metaphorical

expression “I [God] will strike the shepherd [Messiah/Jesus]” as “I [Satan] will strike the shepherd

[Messiah/Jesus].” Within the theological framework of many Una people it is impossible that God would

strike Jesus, because God is on Jesus’ side. To them it makes much more sense if Satan – the archenemy of

God, Jesus and mankind in general – is the one who strikes Jesus. 106

“Frame articulation” can sometimes be achieved by a very subtle change of vocabulary. Una people, for

example, understand “and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever” (Psalm 23:6) as referring to heaven. However, by subtly changing the wording of the TIME frame (‘forever’) to ‘for the rest of my life’

this interpretation is excluded, and the interpretation of “The LORD’s sanctuary on earth” is evoked. 107 Meaning-based translation is based on three translation principles: accuracy, clarity and naturalness.

Recently, Andersen (1998) has proposed to add perceived authenticity (acceptability of translation in the

eyes of the audience) as a fourth translation principle.

21

assumption that translation is a mechanical process rather than an active selection process

that is at least partly guided by an overall translation strategy.

“Translation problem”: Translation problems and their solutions form the focal point of

translation pedagogy and criticism. It can be argued that there is a significant area of

overlap between translation problems and communication problems. Within the

framework of a meaning-based approach to translation, translations that do not

communicate the intended meaning may have a translation problem and not just a

communication problem. Translators who approach translation from a more linguistic

perspective, on the other hand, may recognize that a certain translation does not

communicate the intended meaning, but they may see this as an educational problem

rather than as a problem that needs to be solved by a translator.

“Translation shifts”: These are formal (and occasionally meaning-related) changes that

occur in the translation process. Examples: Rendering a metaphor as a simile, explication

of meaning, reordering of clauses or sentences, omissions, additions, rendering a specific

source language term with a more generic target language term, etc. Some translation

shifts are mandatory (required by the linguistic structures of the target language); others

are motivated (translator’s choice) or random.108

“Cultural interference”: This term is used to refer to misunderstandings of translated

texts caused by cultural differences between the target audience and the original

audience. Cultural interference plays a role in the understanding of original imagery of

the source text. In Una, for example, the biblical simile “be wise as serpents” is usually

misunderstood, since snakes are associated with evil (lying, Satan).109

“Foreignizing” versus “domestication”: Foreignizing translations tend to translate in

such a way that the cultural “foreignness” contained in the source text is clearly

maintained. Domesticating translations, on the other hand, tend to minimize this cultural

“foreignness” as they translate certain practices, ideas and images with cultural

substitutes of the target culture.110

108 Translation shifts play an important role in the work of Catford (1965), Popovic (1970), Van Leuven-

Zwart (1984), Blum-Kulka (1986) and others. Cf. also Vinay and Darbelnet in: Venuti 2002:84-93, who

discuss several translation shifts in the context of translation methodology. For an overview of different

kinds of translation shifts, see chapter 12.8. of this dissertation. 109 Beekman and Callow (1978) and Wendland (1987) give many examples of cultural interference as it

occurs in Bible translation in non-Western minority languages and communities. In literature on Bible

translation terms like “misunderstanding” and “noise” (cf. Wilt 2003:76) are often used to refer to “cultural

interference” and other kinds of interference (like “psychological interference”). 110 Cf. Venuti (2002:4, 7, 11-14, 468-469) and Berman in: Venuti (2002:284-285) for the use of the terms

‘foreignizing’ and ‘domesticating’. The term “foreignizing translation” should not be confused with the

concept of “alienation” (Cf. Sanneh 1998:31) which inevitably occurs in every translation, whether it is “foreignizing” or “domesticating”. Translated texts, both of the more literal kind and of the more meaning-

based kind, never achieve the same kind of communication that the source text achieved with the original

audience(s). Users of translated texts tend to forget this, as they often equate (their understanding of) this

translation with the content of the original text. Users of literal and meaning-based translations tend to

interpret these translations in the context of their own worldview, culture and theology rather than

22

1.6. Research goals and methods

The present study is an exploration into the theory and practice of the translation of

biblical metaphor in one particular missionary context (Una language of Papua, Eastern

Indonesia). In relation to translation practice, it seeks to describe the various aspects of

the translation process in general, and the various ways metaphors have been translated

in the resulting translation products in particular. In terms of translation theory, this

study seeks to synthesize important insights from a variety of disciplines and authors on

metaphor and its translation into other languages, and to contribute to the further

development and refinement of the method and terminology related to the description and

evaluation of translated (foreign) metaphors.

The various aspects of the translation process that will be explored include the skopos

(intended socio-religious function) of the translation, its norms and assumptions, and the

translation strategies and translation testing strategies employed. The translation of

metaphors is presented in the wider framework of the views, expectations and

assumptions of the users of translations and of their commissioners, as well as those of

the translators and consultants involved. This approach is consistent with the growing

insight that translation is not just a neutral linguistic operation, but that it is rather a

selective process that is constrained by organizational, sociocultural, communication-

situational, and – one might add – personal factors.111

The description of the exploration, translation and interpretation of metaphors in this

dissertation also serves the purpose of gaining a better insight into the methodology of

translating metaphors. The term ‘method’ in translation studies is often associated with a

prescriptive approach which deals with the question of how metaphors and other

linguistic and literary features should be translated. In this study, however, the term

‘methodology’ is understood in a more descriptive sense; translation methodology in this

sense of the word can help us to systematically explore a broad range of possible

translation variants and to evaluate those on the basis of their linguistic and literary

contexts as well as on the basis of their skopos (intended socio-religious function). The

evaluation based on this kind of a methodology is not a matter of prescribing what kind

of translation choices are good and what kind of translation choices are bad; it is rather a

matter of pointing out what kind of translation choices seem to be more consistent with

the skopos of the translation and what kind of translation choices seem to be less

consistent with it. Taken in this sense, translation methodology can become the meeting

point between translation theory and (the description of) translation practice.112

interpreting these in the context of the worldview, culture and theology of the author(s) and the original

audience(s). 111 Cf. Wilt (2003:43-58). 112

The current situation is such that translation theorists have not necessarily been involved in actual

translation work themselves, while many translators seem to be too busy with translating to give a substantial contribution to the theory of translation. In my opinion, this lack of cross-fertilization between

translation theorists and translators is a serious obstacle to a more healthy and balanced development of

both the theory and practice of translating. Another obstacle, at least in the more specific domain of Bible

translation, seems to be the lack of descriptive studies, and the lack of an agreed upon model for describing

and evaluating translations.

23

The present study is intended to be a case study in which the translation process and

products related to metaphor translation are described and evaluated. Frame theory,

skopos theory and relevance theory are used to describe and analyze various aspects of

the translation process and products.

1.7. Specification of the topic and research questions of this study

The specific topic that is the research object of this case study is the biblical metaphor of

shepherd and sheep as it has been translated into the Una language of Papua, Indonesia.

Three questions are particularly important here: 1. What is the meaning (are the

meanings) of pastoral imagery as it is found in the Old Testament and the New

Testament? 2. How have these meanings been expressed in the vernacular translation?

3. How are these meanings understood by native speakers? In order to answer these

questions due attention is paid to 1. Exegesis; 2. Analysis and comparison of translated

metaphors; and 3. Native speakers’ comprehension of translated metaphors.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is an important notion, both in the Old and New

Testament. In the Old Testament, God (YHWH) is depicted as the shepherd of his

people, and in the New Testament Jesus is described as a shepherd of his people.

This research is not intended to be a full-blown exegetical study. A full exploration of the

historical, cultural, exegetical and symbolical aspects of this metaphor falls outside the

scope of this dissertation. Instead, the focus will be on those aspects that seem to be most

relevant to the translation of the imagery of shepherd and sheep.

Some of the questions that are relevant to the study of pastoral imagery are: What are the

major meanings (grounds) that are expressed by the shepherd metaphor? And to what

degree is the meaning of this metaphor indeterminate? And, is there a fundamental

distinction between the imagery of the shepherd of the sheep and the image of the owner

of sheep? Or, do these images necessarily entail one another? Or, do they easily alternate

between each other? A more detailed analysis is given of the shepherd metaphor in the

context of Psalm 23. This forms the heart of a more general exposition of the metaphor of

shepherd and sheep in the Old and New Testament. Due attention is paid to the

interaction between the shepherd metaphor and other metaphors found in this

‘Shepherd’s Psalm’.

The concept of shepherd and sheep is traditionally unknown in the worldview and culture

of the Una people113

, who live in the Eastern Highlands of Irian Jaya (Papua, Indonesia),

not too far from the border with Papua New Guinea. The Una people were first contacted

by Dutch and Papuan missionaries in 1973. The concept of ‘sheep’ was introduced by the

term bisam domba (lit. ‘pig sheep’), which combined the Una term for ‘pig’ with the

113 The Una language is spoken by approximately 5,200 people who live on the southern slopes of the

Eastern Highlands of Irian Jaya. The Una language is a non-Austronesian (Papuan) language, which

belongs to the Mek Language Family (Trans-New Guinea Phylum). At present, 75 % of the Una population

is still illiterate. For a description of the Una language, see Louwerse (1988). See chapter 10 of this

dissertation for an introduction to the language and culture of the Una people.

24

Indonesian loan word for ‘sheep’.114

At some point in time the missionaries brought

sheep into the area (for wool and meat), but the related (culturally determined) concepts

of ‘flock’ and ‘shepherd’ remained foreign to the Una people.

It is interesting to note, however, that despite the fundamental foreignness of the concept

of sheep and shepherd, and despite the Una people’s negative attitude toward sheep115

,

the metaphor of shepherd and sheep is very popular among Una people. An important

reason for this popularity of this foreign metaphor seems to be the fact that the foreign

concept of sheep is inextricably linked with the familiar concept of domesticated pig.

Pigs are an important value in Una society, and the metaphor of shepherd and sheep is

basically interpreted from the vernacular framework of domesticated pigs. The positive

attitude toward pigs is carried over to a positive attitude toward sheep, at least at the

metaphorical level, not at a literal level with regard to sheep as (more or less)

domesticated animals.

A key question in the translation part of our research is the question: How have the

biblical metaphors related to shepherd and sheep been translated into Una? Are the

biblical metaphors still recognizable as metaphors, or have they been changed into

similes in the process of translation? To what extent have the ground(s) of these

metaphors been made explicit in the translation? And, to what extent have vernacular

metaphors or non-figurative renderings been used to express these biblical metaphors?

Another key question in this context is, of course, the question: To what extent do the

Una people understand these different kinds of rendering of the biblical metaphor? And,

to what extent is their perception of shepherd and sheep imagery shaped by the role pigs

play in their culture?

In terms of the corpus of data used for this research, three different sources have been

used: 1. The pioneering Una translation, consisting of Genesis, the Four Gospels, Acts,

with a focus on Psalm 23. These materials were translated by John Louwerse, an NRC

missionary, together with Una translation helpers, between 1975 and 1983.116

2. A

number of translated biblical texts, containing metaphors related to shepherd and sheep

and some other metaphors. These were translated by the Una translators Wilem Balyo

114 The Una term for ‘pig’ was added to the Indonesian loan word ‘sheep’ to help the Una people, so that

they would relate this new concept of ‘sheep’ to the familiar concept of ‘pig’. The way the two words were

linguistically structured suggested that ‘pig’ was the more general classifying term, while ‘sheep’ was the

more specific term. This contributed to the popular thought among the Una people that sheep are a sub-

species of pigs. 115 I have personally observed several cases where people (both adults and children) were afraid of a

roaming sheep, or where they pestered and/or chased them. Una people do not like sheep meat. 116 Generally speaking, this pioneering translation is a rather literal translation, which proved to be difficult

to read and which is sometimes hard to understand for native speakers. In this research no use was made of

the Una Shorter New Testament, which was published in 2001. This translation was produced by the

pastors and mother tongue translators Titus Bitibalyo and Wilem Balyo under my own supervision as an exegetical and linguistic advisor. This translation has been extensively tested for comprehension with

native speakers of Una. The Una Shorter New Testament consists of the following books: Mark, Acts,

Galatians, Ephesians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1-3 John, Jude. This translation is

meaning-based in the sense that it explicates the meaning only when this is strictly necessary, that is when

the non-explication would cause serious misunderstanding of the text.

25

and Titus Bitibalyo and myself.117

Several versions of Psalm 23, reflecting different

degrees of explication, were drafted and tested for comprehension with a variety of Una

people. 3. In order to get a better picture of the translation practices in other languages in

Papua and in Indonesia in general, a number of fairly literal (written) back-translations in

English of vernacular Bible translations in Papuan and Austronesian languages were

researched with regard to the question how metaphors have been dealt with in these

translations. In addition, a survey questionnaire was sent out to a number of translators

and consultants working in Indonesia.

1.8. Relevance of this study

The present study is relevant in the following respects:

(a) This study seeks to give an overview of the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the

Bible, as it is applied to God and his people. This imagery constitutes a significant

part of the religious and political imagery in the Bible. It is found in a wide

variety of biblical texts, from Genesis to Revelation. Van Hecke (2000) is perhaps

the most extensive study on the metaphor of shepherd and sheep in the Old

Testament. However, his study does not include a discussion of New Testament

texts where the imagery of shepherd and sheep occurs. And his primary focus is

on the cognitive and systematic aspects of the imagery. The present study

includes an overview of both the Old Testament and New Testament data, and it

focuses particularly on Psalm 23. Attention is paid not only to the cognitive

aspects of the imagery of shepherd and sheep, but also to its pragmatic and

contextual aspects.

(b) This study seeks to provide a systematic description of metaphors found in the

Una language. The study of metaphor in vernacular languages is particularly

relevant and interesting from a cultural perspective, since it opens a window to

the worldview of the people. It is also relevant from the perspective of

translation. Translators who are aware of the imagery of the target languages into

which they render a source text are much better equipped to translated foreign

metaphors and to avoid cultural interference. Although the translation of

metaphors is a key issue in the theory and practice of Bible translation, there are

only few descriptive studies available on this topic.118

117 I am aware of the risk of subjectivity and biased interpretation in including my own work as object of

description and evaluation. I have tried to assure an objective representation as much as possible by

applying the same rigorous criticism and testing procedures as I applied to the work of others. 118

The most important studies on Biblical metaphor that approach the subject from a translation

perspective are Stienstra (1993). YHWH is the Husband of His People. Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor

with Special Reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House; and: Hermanson (1996, [1995]). Metaphor in Zulu: Problems in the Translation of Biblical Metaphor in the Book of Amos. (The

University of Stellenbosch.) Stienstra limits herself to the description of one particular metaphor (marriage)

in the biblical (Old Testament) source text. Hermanson, on the other hand, also looks at metaphors in the

target language. At this point I am not aware of any other similar monograph that pays extensive attention

to both biblical metaphors and vernacular metaphors from a translation point of view.

26

(c) This study also contributes to the question of how translated metaphors are

understood or misunderstood by unconditioned native speakers.119

So far, there

have been very few empirical studies in which the interpretations of native

speakers have been systematically documented and analyzed.120

This study also

seeks to explain the understanding and misunderstanding of metaphors, based on

the cultural frames and assumptions of native speakers. 121

(d) This study is also relevant in that it presents a description of how translation

principles have been applied by Bible translators who work in minority languages

in Indonesia (based on English back-translations and responses to a

questionnaire). This is a thus far rather unexplored area, since most books and

articles on Bible translation have focused on how translation problems can be

tackled, or should be tackled (prescriptive). rather than how they have been solved

in actual practice (descriptive).

(e) In terms of translation methodology, the translation of imagery, metaphor and

simile in particular, is a topic that needs further clarification. Metaphor theory of

the past decades has undergone many new developments, which were set into

motion by thought-provoking contributions from linguists, philosophers, students

of literature, psycholinguists and others. These developments have not received

the attention they deserve in the particular context of Bible translation. It is hoped

that the present study will contribute to a better understanding of the various ways

metaphors can be best translated under various contextual (linguistic, social,

cultural, organizational, situational) conditions.

(f) In terms of translation theory, this study is an attempt to apply a frames of

reference approach – as advocated in Wilt (2003) – to the translation process and

the translation products in one particular translation project, i.e., the Una

translation project. The concept of text-cognitive frame is developed in order to

explain the understanding and misunderstanding of foreign (translated) metaphors

by native speakers of Una. In this study I recognize the importance of relevance

theory for the theory and practice of translation. However, I also express some

reservations, as I find this theory too narrow to function as the main paradigm in

119 The expression “unconditioned native speakers” (UNSes) is used to refer to native speakers of the

target audience of a translation who are more or less representative for that audience in terms of education

level and background knowledge of the Bible. SIL translators usually check a first draft of a translation

with “unconditioned native speakers” who have not been involved in the translation process of this

particular text and to whom the translated text is new. The term “unconditioned native speakers” does, of

course, not imply that these speakers are unconditioned in the sense that they are a “tabula rasa”. On the

contrary. Comprehension checks with these speakers show very clearly that they – like any other listeners

and readers of texts – are to a large degree conditioned by their own understanding of the world even when

they try to make sense of foreign texts. 120 Cf. for example Bolton (1999), who tested the understanding of Biblical key terms related to baptism and communion among the Nuaulu people of Maluku. 121 The results of the present study may also have ramifications for the communication of the Gospel in the

Una language (evangelism, preaching and teaching in church, and theological education). However,

theological and missiological issues like these fall outside the scope of this study, which focuses on

translation issues.

27

translation studies. In terms of the skopos theory of translation – which like

relevance theory is included under the umbrella of a frame of reference approach

– I distinguish between three different kinds of missionary skopos: missionary-

explicative, missionary-contextualizing and missionary-persuasive. It is hoped

that these distinctions will contribute to a more refined skopos-based typology of

translations.

1.9. Outline of this study

Chapter 1 introduces the topic of this dissertation on the translation of the biblical

metaphor of shepherd and sheep (“The LORD is my shepherd”) within the broader

context of metaphor theory and translation theory in general. The chapter describes a

number of particular translation problems related to metaphor and discusses the dilemma

(explication versus high potential for misunderstanding) that translators of metaphor

often face. This chapter also gives an overview of research goals, methods and object of

research, and of the basic terminology used in this dissertation. It also points out the

relevance of this study and gives an outline of the rest of the book.

The chapters 2-3 give a more detailed overview of metaphor as a cognitive and linguistic

phenomenon in general. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the various views on metaphor in

general. Chapter 3 is an attempt to give a systematic and integrated overview of some

aspects of metaphor that seem to be most relevant to translation.

The chapters 4-7 contain an exposition of the metaphor of shepherd and sheep in

respectively the ancient Near East (chapter 4), the Old Testament (chapter 5), Psalm 23

(chapter 6) and the New Testament (chapter 7). The chapter on the exegesis and

metaphor analysis in Psalm 23 forms the core of this group of chapters on the imagery of

shepherd and sheep in the Bible and in the ancient Near East.

The chapters 8-9 give a fairly detailed overview of translation theory in general (chapter

8) and of theoretical and methodological contributions to the translation of metaphor in

particular (chapter 9). These two chapters set the stage for the rest of the dissertation

which focuses on the translation of metaphor into Una and other (Papuan and

Austronesian) languages in eastern Indonesia.

The chapters 10-14 deal with the translation of metaphors in the context of the Una

language of Irian Jaya (Papua, Indonesia). The chapters 10-12 are introductory. After a

general introduction to the Una language and culture (chapter 10), a description is given

of vernacular metaphors and similes that are commonly used by Una speakers (chapter

11). Chapter 12 gives background information on the Una Bible translation project,

which is still in process. Attention is paid to the history, strategy and skopos of the Una

translation project. In addition, information is given about the translation process

(including procedures of quality assurance) and the translation product (including

translation shifts). The concept of institutional (organizational) frame and its related

norms, expectations and assumptions structures this chapter.

28

The chapters 13-14 form the focal point of this study. In chapter 13 four different

versions of Psalm 23 are analyzed, compared and evaluated based on the results of

comprehension testing with native speakers of Una. Chapter 14 contains a discussion of

the results of comprehension testing of a broader variety of metaphors which were tested

with native speakers of Una. Not only metaphors related to shepherd and sheep, but also

metaphors like ‘God is a rock’ and ‘God is a shield’ are tested. The concept of text-

cognitive frame plays an important role in the description and explanation of the data.

Chapter 15 gives an overview of metaphor translation in fifteen vernacular translations

from eastern Indonesia (Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua) are presented. This research is based

on the analysis of written back-translations in English or Indonesian. The presentation of

the data is preceded by the results of a survey that was sent out to translators about

metaphor translation. It is followed by a comparison of the vernacular translations with a

number of English and Indonesian Bible translations.

Chapter 16, finally, summarizes the results of this study, and points out a number of

insights that might be helpful for further theoretical reflection on the translation of

metaphor in the context of translations with a missionary skopos.

The Appendices give some more detailed background information on a number of key

aspects discussed in this dissertation. This dissertation further includes a Bibliography,

Summaries in Dutch and Indonesian and a Topical Index.

29

2. Various Views of Metaphor

2.1. Introduction

Metaphor is a multi-faceted phenomenon which has captivated the interest of many

people. Various philosophers and scholars have made an attempt to describe or define the

essence of metaphor. Due to the many-sided and rather elusive nature of metaphor as

well as the different angles from which metaphor can be approached, there is a wide

variety of perspectives on metaphor.122

Generally speaking, five major types of approaches can be distinguished with regard to

the study of metaphor123

:

1. Semantic approaches, in which the content of metaphors is described in terms

of more or less stable meanings (comparison view; categorization view);

2. Pragmatic approaches, in which metaphors are described in terms of language

use and inferentiality (implicatures) rather than in terms of stable and inherent

semantic meanings (pragmatic view);

3. Cognitive approaches, in which metaphors are seen as cultural schemata or as

expressions dependent upon schemata (interaction view; conceptual view)124

;

4. Functional approaches, in which metaphors are seen as ways of controlling

our social and natural environment (anthropological approaches125

; linguistic-

pragmatic approach).

5. Integrated approaches, which combine insight from a variety of

approaches.126

122 According to Soskice (1985:15), one scholar claims to have found 125 different definitions of metaphor.

Soskice comments that ‘the subject-matter [is] elusive’ and that ‘a definition of metaphor useful to one discipline often proves unsatisfactory to another.’ 123 This typology is based on a combination of Levinson (1997 [1983]:148), who distinguishes between

semantic and pragmatic approaches to metaphor, and Duranti (1997:38), who distinguishes between the

functional view of metaphor and cognitive views of metaphor. Since the semantic approaches differ from

cognitive approaches, and functional approaches only partly overlap with the pragmatic approaches, I view

these as separate approaches. I have added the category of integrated approaches, since such an approach

would have high potential for being a balanced representation of metaphor and for leading to cross-

pollination of insights. 124 According to recent cognitive theories of metaphor, metaphors are processes “by which we understand

and structure one domain of experience in terms of another domain of a different kind.” Cf. Johnson

(1987:15). Cognitive theories of metaphor are based on the idea that we understand the world, including

language, in terms of prototypes. Prototypes are simplified, generalized views or folk theories of experience. 125 Cf. Sapir and Crocker (1977). 126 Mooij (1976) is an example of an integrated approach in which a correspondence view of metaphor is

combined with the interaction view. Goatly (1997) combines elements from the correspondence view,

relevance theory, literary studies and descriptive linguistics. Goatly’s most significant contribution – from a

30

A number of views on metaphor – which are more or less related to the semantic approach

(comparison view, substitution view and similarity view) – have also been described as

‘Objectivist theories’ or ‘Literal-meaning’ theories.127

Johnson (1987:67) describes these ‘objectivist’ theories as follows:

‘The most long-standing and commonly held view is that metaphor is

cognitively reducible to literal propositions. Objectivist theories of meaning

have always assumed that metaphor is derivation from, or a derivative

function on, proper literal meaning. Treated as a "literary device", metaphor

would seem to be nothing more than a rhetorically powerful or artistically

interesting mode of expression without its own unique cognitive content. At

best, it can be only a forceful or convincing alternative way of reporting on

an independently existing state of affairs, whose proper description would

be given by literal concepts and propositions.’

The major assumption of the Objectivist view of metaphor on which literal-core theories are

based can be summarized as follows:

‘The objective world has its structure, and our concepts and propositions, to be

correct, must correspond to that structure. Only literal concepts and

propositions can do that, since metaphors assert cross-categorical identities

that do not exist objectively in reality. Metaphors may exist as cognitive

processes of our understanding, but their meaning must be reducible to some

set of literal concepts and propositions.’

Johnson, together with Lakoff and others, presented the conceptual view of metaphor as an

alternative to the literal-core theories of metaphor. Black and others had already presented

their interaction view of metaphor as an alternative, while Searle and others advocated a

pragmatic view of metaphor. Goatly (1997) combined good insights from several of these

research traditions. Working from the framework of Halliday’s genre and register analysis,

he identified various functions of metaphor at the ideational, the interpersonal and the

textual level, and applied these to metaphors in texts.

pragmatic-descriptive perspective – is his overview of various pragmatic functions of metaphor. For a

detailed overview of these functions, see chapter 3 of this dissertation (section 3.7. “Pragmatic functions of

metaphor.”) 127 Lakoff and Turner (1989:114) describe the Literal Meaning Theory as follows: “The Literal Meaning

Theory is about language, not concepts. In particular, it is about ordinary, conventional language. The

general thrust of the theory is to claim that all ordinary, conventional language (called “literal language”) is semantically autonomous, that it forms the basis for metaphor, and that metaphor stands outside of it.”

Lakoff and Turner (1989:120-12) identify nine spin-offs of the literal meaning theory: 1. the paraphrase

position; 2. the decoding position; 3. the similarity position; 4. the reason-versus-imagination position; 5.

the naming position; 6. the deviance position; 7. the fallback position; 8. the pragmatics position; and 9. the

no concepts position. Cf. also Hermanson (1996:8ff) for a discussion of these theories.

31

In this chapter, eight of the most prominent views of metaphor – including the ones just

mentioned – will be presented and evaluated. Within each of these views there exists

more or less variation, but for reasons of clarity I will limit this overview to a description

of the main points of these eight viewpoints.

2.2. The Comparison View of Metaphor

The comparison view of metaphor is probably the oldest view of metaphor and the one

that used to have the widest acceptance (and probably still has the widest acceptance

among educators and lay people128

). The classical comparison view sees metaphors as

abbreviated similes. According to this view, metaphors are based on a perception of

similarity (resemblance) between two different entities.

Aristotle’s (384-322 BC) perspective on metaphor is perhaps most typical for the

comparison view. In his Poetics, the great philosopher defined metaphor as ‘the application

to one thing of the name of another’. He pointed out that "metaphor" functions by analogy.

In the philosopher’s opinion, “the greatest thing, by far, is to be a master of metaphor. It

is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius since a

good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of similarity of dissimilars. Through

resemblance, metaphor makes things clearer.”129

However, Aristotle’s position with regard to metaphor is in fact broader than the

comparison view. Kittay (1989) has argued that Aristotle was also aware of the cognitive

importance of metaphor, particularly metaphor based on analogy.130

She observes that

“Aristotle most valued metaphor based on analogy, because he regarded analogy as

important for reasoning. If two things bear an analogous relationship to one another, the

analogy can be a basis for classification and selection different from those applied when

two things possess a common generic name.”131

Aristotle’s evaluation of metaphor was not undividedly positive. The philosopher

recognized that, “as argumentation, metaphorical expression is always obscure because

metaphor results in the same object being placed in two different genera, neither of which

included the other.”132

Kittay observes that Aristotle by recognizing this incongruity

almost hit upon the modern interest in the cognitive role of metaphor.133

128 Cf. Hermanson (1996:5-6). 129 Aristotle, Poetics, trans. W.D. Ross, 1459a 5-7, cited in Kittay (1989:2). 130 Kittay (1989:2): “The argument can be made that Aristotle had already pointed out the cognitive

importance of metaphor, particularly metaphor based on analogy.’ Kittay (1989:3): ‘Aristotle, believing

similarity to be the basis of metaphorical transference, and granting to the perception of similarity an

important cognitive role, saw in metaphor a conceptual tool of much power.” 131 Kittay (1989:3). 132 Aristotle, Topics, 139b 32-140a 2, cited in Kittay (1989:4). 133

Kittay’s (1989:4) description of Aristotle’s perspective on metaphor seems to suggest that the modern

interaction view of metaphor, and in particular her own reconceptualization variant, has some ground in

Aristotle’s observations: “If a genus is regarded as a perspective upon an object, metaphor results in the

placing of an object in two perspectives simultaneously. From the juxtaposition results a

reconceptualization, sometimes permanent, more frequently transient, in which properties are made salient

32

However, Kittay also points out, that – contrary to modern conceptualizations of the

relation between language and reality134

– “Aristotle and the scholastic tradition relied

on the coincidence of language and reality: distinctions in the language are seen as

capturing ontological distinctions (Ross 1981).”135

Modern variants of the comparison view (sometimes referred to as correspondence

views) differ from the older one in that they are not tied to the philosophical claim that

metaphorical language captures ontological distinctions. According to the modern

variants, the similarities on which metaphors rest are not necessarily a reflection of

reality, but they rather involve a creative (and culture bound) interpretation of reality.

Despite these differences in philosophical orientation, both the comparison view and the

modern correspondence view see the form of metaphor as something that is more or less

dispensable. Since metaphors are viewed as abbreviated similes, a metaphor can be easily

changed into a simile, without a change of meaning.

Evaluation: The comparison and correspondence views of metaphor capture an

important aspect of metaphor, namely that it is often based on a perceived similarity

between an image and a topic. A disadvantage of the comparison view is, however, that it

tends to blur the pragmatic-rhetorical distinction between metaphors and corresponding

similes (metaphors are usually more forceful than their corresponding similes). It also

does not take into account the fact that there may be more than one point of similarity

active between the image and the topic. Another disadvantage is the fact that it does not

account for the fact that some metaphors (like “Sally is a block of ice”) are not based on

similarity but on culture-dependent and – more or less – arbitrary mapping (“Responsive

behavior is heat; unresponsive behavior is coldness”).

2.3. The Substitution View of Metaphor

According to the substitution view of metaphor, metaphors can be replaced by non-

figurative (literal) expressions without any change of meaning. The substitution view of

metaphor can in fact be divided into two sub-groups, i.e., the ornamental view and the

rationalist-empiricist view.136

which may not previously have been regarded as salient and in which concepts are organized both to

accommodate and to help shape experience.’ 134 Kittay’s own position is one of critical realism, which steers a middle course between realism and

nominalism. She sees ‘the justification of the analogical and metaphorical in a validity tied not to

ontological commitments but to their role in the formation of predictive and explanatory hypotheses.’

These hypotheses are, in fact, ‘generated metaphorically and analogically from current conceptualizations

of the world. Through such metaphorical generation, current conceptualizations undergo transformations.’

Kittay (1989:4). 135 Kittay (1989:3). 136 It should be noted that my definition of the substitution view of metaphor is a little broader than the one

advocated by Soskice. Soskice (1989:24-25) claims that “The latent explanatory notion for the Substitution

theory is one of deviant word meaning; metaphor is regarded as an improper word which substitutes for the

proper one …”

33

According to the ornamental view of metaphor, the function of metaphor is only

decorative. Metaphor is seen as a figure of speech which adds elegance and beauty to

spoken or written language. It does not have a cognitive function. Both Quintilian137

and

Cicero138

have made comments that support an ornamental view of metaphor.

Even though the ornamental view of metaphor does not recognize the cognitive function

of metaphor, it definitely entails a positive orientation towards metaphor.139

The

rationalist-empiricist view of metaphor, on the other hand, entails a negative orientation

towards metaphor. In this view, metaphors are to be eliminated from philosophical

discourse, since they tend to sway the passions and do not yield any insights that are

relevant to the philosopher. John Locke’s denunciations of figurative language are well-

known. Rationalist exegetes used to peel away metaphor in order to find the true meaning

of Scripture. In this perspective, truth is equated with literal (propositional) language.

It is interesting to note, however, that even the most fervent opponents of metaphor have

never been able to rid themselves completely from the ‘ubiquity of metaphor’ and its

pervasive influence on human thinking and language use. Gaston Bachelard, for example,

condemned metaphor, while using metaphorical language.140

Post-modern philosophy – in spite of all its expressions of appreciation for metaphor –

seems to come close to the substitution view of metaphor. McFague, for example,

emphasizes the importance of metaphor. But, in her view, metaphors seem to be nothing

more than culture bound images. Biblical metaphors can and should be complemented, or

even substituted, by metaphors that are relevant to hearers and readers. The metaphorical

model of ‘God is Father’ metaphor is complemented, or even substituted141

, by

metaphorical models like ‘God is a mother,’ ‘God is a friend’ or ‘God is a lover’. The

root metaphor of the kingdom of God seems to be the only metaphor that is invariable

and cannot be substituted by other metaphors.142

137 Quintilian wrote: “The ornate is something that goes beyond what is merely lucid and acceptable’ (De

Institutione Oratoria, 803.61, trans. H.E. Butler).” See Kittay (1989:1). 138

According to Cicero, “metaphor was first invented out of necessity (‘it sprang from necessity due to the

pressure of poverty’), but in the affluence of a mature language it became decorative and noble: “As

clothes were first invented to protect us against cold, and afterwards began to be used for the sake of

adornment and dignity, so the metaphorical employment of words began because of poverty, but was

brought into common use for the sake of entertainment.” (De Oratore, 3.155, E.W. Sutton and H.

Rackham.)” See Kittay (1989:1). 139 Cf. Kittay (1989:1). “To its champions, its lack of utility, its sheer capacity to delight, was the reason for

its privileged place in language.” 140 Cf. Kittay (1989:1). ‘To its detractors it was a mere embellishment, swaying the passions, ‘seducing the

Reason’, as Gaston Bachelard wrote – while he himself used the figure seductively, to damn it.’ 141

Cf. Biezeveld (1996:237), who describes the development of McFague’s theology: ‘In eerste instantie

bedoeld als tegenwicht – en niet als alternatief – ten opzichte van het vadermodel, bleek het nieuwe model [God als moeder; DK] ontworpen te zijn vanuit het nieuwe paradigma [panentheïsme; DK], dat wil zeggen

vanuit de nieuwe verbondenheid van al het bestaande, inclusief God.’ 142 Cf. Van Herck (1999:28). It should be noted, however, that, strictly speaking, McFague is an adherent of

the interaction view of metaphor. Her metaphorical theology is an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of ‘idolatry’

and ‘irrelevance’ of God-language. For McFague, metaphors function in a heuristic model. Metaphors are

34

The substitution view of metaphor – like the comparison view – sees metaphor as

something that is dispensable and can be substituted by another form of language. It

should be noted, however, that the substitution view advocates or allows for a much more

radical transposition of metaphors than the comparison view would allow.143

According

to the substitution view, metaphors can be substituted by literal language or by other

metaphors without a change of meaning. This is a much more radical transposition than

the transposition from a metaphor into a simile (by adding the comparative marker

“like”) as is commonly allowed or advocated by proponents of the comparison view.

Evaluation: The substitution view of metaphor, as it was expressed by rationalist

scholars, captures an important aspect of metaphor, namely that it often carries

ideological baggage and that it may be used for the rhetorical purpose of manipulating

audiences. Uncritical use of metaphor can indeed easily seduce the reason and sway the

passions. However, the substitution view does not take into account the fact that

metaphor is not just a linguistic device, but rather a way of thinking that is deeply

entrenched in our culture(s) and worldview(s). The substitution view also implies an

overly simplified view on the relation between form and content of language. The

reduction of metaphor to literal language will often result in the reduction of content

(meaning) as well.

2.4. The Romantic View of Metaphor

According to the Romantics, language is basically metaphorical. Metaphorical language

is the rule, while literal language is the exception. P.B. Shelley, for example, states that

“it marks the before unapprehended relations of things and perpetuates their

apprehension, until words, which represent them, become, through time, signs for

portions of classes of thought instead of pictures of integral thoughts. If no new poets

should arise to create afresh the associations which have been thus organized, language

will be dead to all the nobler purposes of human intercourse.”144

Rousseau regarded all language as originating in metaphor. Kittay summarizes his

position as follows: “Literal language is a pruning away and a rationalization of our

figurative thought. We invest our first perceptions with a magical and metaphorical

nature whereby that which is perceived appears to incorporate a multitude of feelings and

perceptions.”145

viewed as ‘thinking experiments’, which are simultaneously true (‘is’) and false (‘is-not’) rather than as

expressions of ontological truth. 143 Black (1967:19-43) claims that the comparison view is in fact a special case of the substitution view. It

should be noted, though, that there are some critical differences between these views, which make this kind

of subordination problematic. Black does, for example, not take into account the fact that comparison (as a

form of figurative substitution for metaphor) remains formally and pragmatically much closer to metaphor

than literal substitutions, which eliminate the figurative aspect completely. From a pragmatic perspective,

metaphor and simile (figurative comparison) are both forms of marked language, while literal language is

unmarked. 144

P.B. Shelley, A Defence of Poetry, quoted in Richards (1936, 90-1). Cf. Kittay (1989:4). 145 Kittay (1989:5).

35

Coleridge sees language not just as a conduit (channel of information), but as an

expressive medium for both artists and thinkers. He views the imagination as “the power

by which one image or feeling is made to modify many others and by a sort of fusion to

force many into one … combining many circumstances into one moment of thought to

produce that ultimate end of human thought and human feeling, unity.”146

Metaphor is

the linguistic realization of this unity.

The romantic view of metaphor was new in the sense that it entailed the idea that

“metaphor, or at least metaphor shaped through the imagination, does not record pre-

existing similarities in things; rather, it is the linguistic means by which we bring together

and fuse into a unity diverse thoughts and thereby re-form our perceptions of the

world.”147

Kittay sees the romantic view of metaphor as a precursor of the interaction view, which

was advocated by Max Black (see section 2.5.). Black borrowed heavily from I.A.

Richards, who in turn was a student of Coleridge.148

The romantic view differs from the

interaction view, however, in that it views meanings generated by metaphor as primarily

emotive and evocative, but not as cognitive.

The romantic view of metaphor is in sharp contrast with the comparison and substitution

views of metaphor, which take literal language as their starting point, and according to

which metaphor as an implicit comparison or an ornament is a derived form of language.

According to the romantic view, however, metaphor forms the very heart of language,

thought and feelings, and literal language is a derived form of language.

Evaluation: The Romantic view of metaphor captures an important aspect of metaphor,

namely its capacity to unify diverse thoughts and to describe new insights and

experiences. The Romantic view of metaphor is diametrically opposed to the rationalist

view in that it has an eye for the uniqueness of metaphor: Metaphors can express things

that cannot be expressed by literal language. Another interesting feature of the Romantic

view of metaphor is that it contends that metaphorical language is the norm, and that

literal language is a secondary form of language use. A disadvantage of the Romantic

view is that it focuses primarily on metaphor as a creative and poetic form of language

use. The fact that many metaphors are not creative, but rather conventional or lexicalized,

is not taken into account.

2.5. The Interaction View of Metaphor

2.5.1. Introduction

According to the interaction view, metaphor involves an interaction between two

thoughts (or: concepts), which together produce a meaning that goes beyond anything a

146 Coleridge (1817). Biographia Literaria, ch. 2. Cited in Kittay (1989:6). 147 Kittay (1989:6). 148 Kittay (1989:6).

36

literal statement could produce. ‘The hearer or reader is forced to connect two ideas in a

way he would never have thought of without the metaphor.’149

The interaction view of

metaphor implies that metaphor is a unique way of expressing meaning, which cannot be

substituted by a literal expression without a considerable loss of meaning.

The interaction view of metaphor was developed by Max Black. But some of the key

notions in Black’s theory had already been developed by Samuel Johnson and I.A.

Richards.150

Samuel Johnson was the first to recognize that metaphor usually evokes

more than one thought simultaneously. He wrote: ‘As for metaphorical expression, that is

a great excellence in style … for it gives you two ideas in one.’151

Richards claimed that metaphor as the omnipresent principle of language was not just ‘an

added power of language’ but rather its ‘constitutive form’.152

His position implied that

metaphor is not just a matter of excellence in style, but that it has a cognitive function.153

Richards saw language in general as much more than just a ‘signalling system’. He saw

words as ‘the meeting points at which regions of experience which can never combine in

sensation or intuition, come together.’154

This ‘coming together’ of different regions of

experience is in a special way exemplified in metaphor.

Richards, who regarded metaphor as a ‘transaction between contexts’155

, distinguished

between the tenor and the vehicle of a metaphor. He did not offer a definition of these

terms, but the vehicle is basically the idea conveyed by the literal meanings of the words

149 Stienstra (1993:22). 150

Cf. Kittay’s (1989:6) comment that Black ‘borrowed heavily’ from I.A. Richards. 151 Johnson, in: Boswell’s Life, ed. G.B. Hill, rev. L.F. Powell, iii. 174; quoted in Richards (1936), 93.

Quoted in Kittay (1989:15). 152 Cf. Kittay (1989:17). The theoretical ground for holding that metaphor is the omnipresent principle of

language lies in Richard’s contextual conception of meaning: signs are efficacious as they “bring together

into new unities the abstracts, or aspects, which are the missing parts of their various contexts’. (1936, 93).”

“Black’s emphasis on ‘systems’ can best be elaborated by an understanding of all language as contextually

and systematically linked.” “Language itself is a bringing together of diversities into a unity of meaning

which is contextually supported. Metaphor enhances and distilles this process by juxtaposing ideas which

are distinct and incongruent, given the conceptual frame relative to which the expression is metaphorical.

Metaphor is both continuous with, and distinct from literal language. The distinction is salient in the

difference between metaphor and literal comparison.” 153 Cf. Kittay (1989:14): “From Richards to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), theorists have insisted that

metaphor is conceptual and that many of our actions are based on metaphorical conceptions.” 154 Richards (1936:130-131): “Language well used, is a completion and does what the intuitions of sensation by themselves cannot do. Words are the meeting points at which regions of experience which can

never combine in sensation or intuition, come together. They are the occasion and the means of that growth

which is the mind’s endless endeavor to order itself … Language is no mere signalling system.” Quoted in

Kittay (1989:96). 155 Richards (1936:94). Cf. Kittay (1989:31).

37

that are used metaphorically, while the tenor is the idea conveyed by the vehicle.156

The

metaphor is neither the vehicle nor the tenor but the two conjoined.157

Kittay (1989:22) summarizes the salient features of the interaction theory as follows:

1. Metaphors are sentences, not isolated words.

2. A metaphor consists of two components.

3. There is a tension between these two components.

4. These components need to be understood as systems.

5. The meaning of a metaphor arises from an interplay of these components.

6. The meaning of a metaphor is irreducible and cognitive.

2.5.2. Max Black’s contribution

Black’s interaction view of metaphor, which was built on insights from Samuel Johnson

and I.A. Richards, added a new dimension to metaphor analysis:

1. Black paid attention to the psychological (cognitive158

) aspects of metaphor and

included metaphor interpretation as a central object of scholarly reflection. In his

eyes, both the substitution and comparison theories are inadequate to explain the

complex process that goes on in metaphor interpretation.

2. Black, unlike Richards, applies the term “metaphor” not to isolated terms, but to

whole sentences. He calls the metaphorical sentence the frame and the word of

words used metaphorically the focus.159

3. Black distinguishes between the ‘principal subject’ (later: ‘primary subject’) of a

metaphor and its ‘subsidiary subject’ (later: ‘secondary subject’).160

4. Black’s concept of system of associated commonplaces highlighted the fact that

the meaning (or rather, interpretation161

) of at least one type of metaphors

156 Kittay (1989:16). It should be noted, though, that Richards uses the term ‘metaphor’ in a restricted

sense, as he sees it as operating at the level of words rather than of sentences. The concepts of tenor and

vehicle are applied to different aspects of the meaning of what Goatly (1997) would call the vehicle-term of

the metaphor. In the metaphorical expression ‘The Lord is my shepherd’, for example, both the vehicle and

the tenor would be viewed as pertaining to the vehicle-term ‘shepherd’. 157 Kittay (1989:16). According to Kittay (1989:26-27), “Richard’s naming of the two components has played a role analogous to Frege’s distinction between sense and reference. When metaphor is no longer

conceived as an image conveying meaning, and meaning is no longer confused with one of its components,

metaphor can be more adequately conceptualized.” 158 Cf. Kittay (1989:14). “From Richards to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), theorists have insisted that

metaphor is conceptual and that many of our actions are based on metaphorical conceptions.” 159 Kittay (1989:16). 160

The ‘primary subject’ is basically identical with what Goatly (1997) would call the topic term of the

metaphor, while the ‘secondary subject’ is identical with what Goatly would call the vehicle term. 161 Note that Black does not describe these systems of associated commonplaces in terms of meaning, but in

terms of implicative systems. Black’s theory of metaphor implies, in fact, the importance of pragmatic

theory in metaphor comprehension. It tacitly acknowledges the role of the hearer or reader to figure out the

meaning of the metaphor, based on their knowledge of the systems of associated commonplaces evoked by

38

(resonant) is complex and organized in networks of meaning. It also implied an

awareness that cultural knowledge is necessary for metaphor interpretation.

5. According to Black, metaphor is bidirectional. Even though metaphor is

primarily intended to say something about the principal subject, it also tends to

influence people’s view of the subsidiary subject as well; if a man is called a wolf,

it seems as if this makes the wolf look more human than would otherwise be the

case.162

The system of associated commonplaces consists of the general knowledge of the average

native speaker. This knowledge may or may not be accurate, but it forms the basis for

understanding the meaning of the metaphor.163

The metaphor “man is a wolf”, for

example, activates a whole network of ideas, all related to the “wolf-system”. It is

important that the hearer or reader is familiar with the ideas to be connected, otherwise he

will not be able to interpret the metaphor.164

In terms of types of metaphor, Black distinguishes between extinct, dormant and active

metaphors. Extinct metaphors are only recognized by native speakers who have learned

language etymology. Dormant metaphors are not readily recognized by native speakers,

but will be understood by them once they have been explained to them. Active metaphors

are usually readily understood by native speakers.165

Active metaphors may have the properties of emphasis and resonance. Metaphors are

emphatic when they are real interaction metaphors, giving the receiver “food for

thought”. Resonant metaphors are metaphors with a high degree of implicative

elaboration.166

Black envisions the interaction in metaphor processing as follows: “In the context of a

particular metaphorical statement, the two subjects ‘interact’ in the following ways: (a)

the presence of the primary subject incites the hearer to select some of the secondary

subject’s properties, and (b) invites him to construct a parallel implication-complex that

the metaphor. Cf. also Stienstra (1993:25-26): “Indeed Black goes so far as to say: “Their producers need

the receiver’s cooperation in perceiving what lies behind the words used” (p. 26). Here the role of the

receiver is explicitly stated; attention should be paid to the way a metaphor is interpreted, not just the way it

was (presumably) intended. The degree of interpretative response will depend on the complexity of the

metaphor, on the richness of the possible implications.” A metaphor with a high degree of implicative elaboration is called resonant.” 162 Black (1962:44). 163

Stienstra (1993:23). ‘It should be emphasized … that it is not what biologists know about wolves, but

what an ordinary native speaker thinks he knows about wolves that is relevant here.’ 164 Cf. Stienstra (1993:23): ‘In Western culture these associations [re: wolf] include fierceness, treachery,

being a man-eater, but these may not be universal.’ 165 In this context Stern’s (2000:7) distinction between ‘knowledge of metaphor’ and ‘knowledge through metaphor’ is very helpful. Native speakers differ in terms of their ‘knowledge of metaphor’, i.e., the stock

of metaphors that are readily available to them and their ability to identify and interpret metaphors in

general, and this affects their ‘knowledge through metaphor’, i.e., their understanding of the meaning

expressed through metaphor. 166 Cf. Stienstra (1993:25-26).

39

can fit the primary subject, and (c) reciprocally induces parallel changes in the secondary

subject” (p. 29).

Stienstra (1993) observes that in Black’s view, “metaphor (or as he says a metaphorical

statement) is a verbal action that demands a creative response from a competent reader.”

However, she also points out that “we should, however, not be surprised that metaphors

are ambiguous, or even unintelligible out of context as it is the context that provides us

with the necessary clues for interpretation.”

Stienstra summarizes Black’s position as follows “Black is prepared to assign a strong

cognitive function to at least certain metaphors; they are cognitive instruments enabling

us to see connections, aspects of reality, that would remain obscure, or would not even be

there, without the pertinent metaphors. They can indeed reveal “how things are”, not in

the sense that they may be classified as true or false, but in the sense that they reveal and

aspect of reality, like a map or a chart shows “how things are” without actually being

the thing itself.”167

2.5.3. Kittay and Lehrer’s semantic field theory

Kittay and Lehrer (1981) introduced the idea of ‘semantic field theory’ to the study of

metaphor. In their opinion, the unit of metaphor is the semantic field rather than the word

or even the sentence.168

A semantic field is defined as ‘a set of lexemes which cover a

certain conceptual domain and which bear certain specifiable semantic relations to one

another.’169

Kittay and Lehrer proposed that ‘in metaphor two otherwise unrelated

conceptual domains are brought into contact in a manner specifiable through the use of

the linguistic notion of a semantic field.’170

The novelty of this approach is that not only

the vehicle but also the topic of the metaphor is viewed as belonging to a system, and that

metaphor depends on the denotations of the vehicle terms rather than their connotations

(or, associated commonplaces).171

Kittay and Lehrer regard metaphor as “a moving across semantic fields – a crossing over

conceptual domains.”172

They distinguish between the recipient field and the donor field.

The recipient field is related to what Black would call the principal or primary subject,

while the donor field is related to what Black would call the subsidiary or secondary

subject.

Stienstra (1993:34) has pointed out that the notion of “semantic field” has not been used

by Lakoff (1987) and Lakoff and Turner (1989), and is in fact “a heuristic device in the

area of metaphor research rather than a full-fledged theoretical notion.” Stienstra

167 Stienstra (1993:26). 168 Stienstra (1993:31). 169 Kittay and Lehrer (1981:32). 170 Kittay and Lehrer (1981:31). 171

Cf. Kittay (1989:31), where she indicates that her proposal differs from Black’s in two respects: ‘First,

the systems are not ‘associated commonplaces’ but semantic fields; secondly, both the vehicle and the topic

belong to systems, not only the vehicle (the subsidiary subject).’ 172 Kittay and Lehrer (1981:44).

40

(1993:33) has also pointed out the problem that “… choosing one’s semantic field is by

no means an automatism, and it is not always as obvious as it seems to be in the case of

examples provided by Kittay and Lehrer what semantic field is the appropriate donor

field.” Nevertheless she welcomes the notion of “semantic field” as an important

contribution to our understanding of metaphor.

2.5.4. Evaluation of the interaction view of metaphor

The most important contribution of the interaction view to our understanding of metaphor

is perhaps the insight that metaphorical expressions do not just link a topic term and an

image term together, but that they link two conceptual domains together. These

conceptual domains interact with one another and give rise to all kinds of inferences.

According to the interaction view of metaphor, metaphorical expressions are the focal

points of complex meanings. Like in the Romantic view of metaphor, metaphors are

viewed as unique expressions that cannot be substituted by literal language without a

considerable loss of meaning. Another advantage of the interaction view is that it

incorporates cultural aspects into its account of metaphor. With regard to metaphors like

“Richard is a gorilla”, for example, the actual behavior of gorilla’s is not relevant to the

interpretation of the metaphor. What is important is how language users perceive the

behavior of gorilla’s.

The interaction view also has a number of drawbacks. The bidirectionality of metaphor,

for example, can perhaps be maintained as far as metaphorical thinking (as a process) is

concerned. But, it can certainly not be maintained for metaphorical expressions (as

cognitive products expressed in language). A metaphorical expression like “That butcher

is a surgeon”, for example, means something totally different than its reversal “That

surgeon is a butcher”.173

Metaphorical expressions are basically unidirectional. Reversal

of topic and vehicle roles of the terms involved usually generates meaning that is totally

different from what it was before.

The focus of the interaction theory seems to be on our understanding of active metaphors.

The interpretation of these metaphors is portrayed as a conscious process of

interpretation. However, it should be noted that a lot of our metaphor interpretation seems

to be non-conscious and automated, or at least semi-conscious and semi-automated.

Lexicalized and conventional metaphors form the vast bulk of metaphors that we process.

These internalized metaphors with more or less stable meanings seem to also guide our

understanding of creative metaphors, which may or may not be a creative variation of

lexicalized or conventional metaphors that we already know.

173

The first metaphorical expression is a positive evaluation and would imply that a certain butcher cuts his

meat with the precision of a surgeon. The second metaphorical expression is a negative evaluation as it would imply that the surgeon does at best a very messy job. It could even imply that patients might not

survive the operation due to the surgeon’s ways of handling his knives. The concepts of ‘butcher’ and

‘surgeon’ evoke different frames of reference (food preparation versus health care) and imply different

objects (slaughtered animals versus people who need medical treatment) and different skill levels and

levels of responsibility.

41

Another (potential) disadvantage of the interaction view is that it could easily leads to an

exaggeration of the complexity of the meaning of metaphor. Metaphors – as they are used

by speakers with particular intentions in mind – do not necessarily mean everything they

could possibly mean. It seems to be wise to steer a middle way between limiting the

meanings of metaphor to one point of similarity only (like the proponents of the

comparison theory tend to do) and between reading too much meaning (implicatures) into

the metaphor. Careful exegesis will usually be needed to make an informed decision

about the meanings that are primarily involved. The meaning of metaphors is usually

much more restricted when they occur in a specific situation and in specific linguistic

context than when they occur in isolation.

2.6. The Conceptual View of Metaphor

The conceptual view of metaphor has been propagated and popularized by Lakoff,

Johnson, and Turner.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3) observe that “metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic

of language alone, a matter of words rather than ordinary language.” In their conceptual

view of metaphor, however, metaphor is seen as “pervasive in everyday life, not just in

language but in thought and action.” Consistent with this view is their opinion that

metaphor is a matter of ordinary rather than extraordinary language, and that “our

ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally

metaphorical in nature.”

Metaphor, in this view, is something that is indispensable, and not reducable to literal

language. Lakoff and Johnson (1980:5) define the essence of metaphor as “understanding

and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” They also observe that, because

metaphorical concepts are systematic, the language we use to talk about those concepts is

also systematic.174

Metaphorical concepts like ARGUMENT IS WAR and TIME IS

MONEY and the conceptual networks generated by these metaphorical concepts structure

our thinking and our language use.

Metaphorical concepts have a double function of highlighting and focusing on some

aspects, while hiding other aspects of a concept.175

The implication is that a concept can

only partially be structured by a metaphor.176

The experiential basis of metaphor is an important aspect of the conceptual view of

metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson feel that “no metaphor can ever be comprehended or even

adequately represented independently of its experiential basis.”177

The human body plays

an important role in structuring metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson also call attention to the

cultural embeddedness of metaphors: “The most fundamental values in a culture will be

174 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:7). 175 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:10). 176 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:13). 177 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:19).

42

coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most fundamental concepts in the

culture.”178

Lakoff and Johnson are aware of the fact that “our conceptual system is not something

we are normally aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we simply think

and act more or less automatically along certain lines. Just what these lines are is by no

means obvious.”179

Proponents of the conceptual theory of metaphor reject the literal meaning theory of

metaphor, according to which literal language is understood in terms of conventional,

semantically autonomous and objective language.180

They claim that conventional

thought and conventional language are to a large extent metaphoric.

Poetic metaphors are not completely different from metaphors in daily language. Poetic

metaphors exploit and enrich the metaphors that competent speakers use in their everyday

language.181

Evaluation: The conceptual view of metaphor is very valuable, as it points out the fact

that metaphor is not an anomaly, but that it pervades our language, thoughts and actions.

It also points out that metaphors are structured in a way that is more or less systematic.

The close connection between metaphors used in daily life and poetic metaphors is

another useful insight.

The grounding of metaphor in experience is another valuable insight. But it also raises

the question of the translatability of metaphor across languages, cultures, and

experiences. To what degree can, for example, a metaphor like “The LORD is my

shepherd” be communicated to people who are not pastoralists? To what degree can

metaphors only be understood based on experience? Or, is it possible to understand

foreign metaphors based on analogy with what is culturally known and experienced? To

what degree is the role of experience in understanding metaphor crucially important, and

to what degree is it limited to “coloring” our understanding rather than “shaping” it?

Understanding plays an important role in the conceptual view of metaphor. But this raises

the question of what exactly is the nature of this understanding, as a lot of our processing

of metaphor occurs unconsciously? Is this a tacit, non-propositional experiential

understanding? Or, is it basically a culturally determined pre-understanding?

It should be noted that the conceptual theory of metaphor seems to view the

understanding of metaphor primarily in terms of understanding people, their culture and

178 Lakoff and Johnson (1980:22). 179

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3). However, the observation that we are normally not aware of our

conceptual system seems to be in contrast with the claim that metaphor is a matter of ‘understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.’ Strictly speaking, it is impossible to understand

something of which one is unaware. 180 Lakoff and Turner (1989:114). 181 Lakoff and Turner (1989) show how poetic metaphors interact with common metaphors used in daily

life.

43

worldview. It is not so much an understanding of metaphors as they occur in the verbal

messages that people communicate with one another. Metaphor is primarily seen in

cognitive terms and not so much in terms of the meanings they have in specific texts and

utterances. The focus is on the system (paradigm), not on meaning in situational and

linguistic contexts.

2.7. The Pragmatic View of Metaphor

Pragmatic views of metaphor see metaphor as a matter of language use rather than a

matter of stable semantic meaning. Characteristic for pragmatic views of language is the

distinction between sentence meaning and speaker’s utterance meaning. In cases of

metaphor, the literal sentence meaning is viewed as being false.

Grice (1975)182

was the first one to distinguish between things that are ‘said’ and things

that are ‘implicated’. He describes metaphor as a ‘categorial falsity’, and as a deliberate

flouting of the conversational maxim of quality.183

Searle (1979)184

, and most other pragmaticians after him, approach metaphor from a very

similar pragmatic distinction between (literal) sentence meaning and (figurative)

speaker’s utterance meaning. Metaphor, in this view, is not a matter of inherent language

meaning, but of language use. Metaphor should, therefore, be classified as a pragmatic

phenomenon rather than a semantic one. Davidson (1991)185

presented an extreme view

of metaphor, which denied it any cognitive or semantic status. In his causal view of

metaphor, metaphor has no meaning at all, but it brings about its effect the same way a

‘bump on the head’ does. Kittay (1987) and Nogales (1999)186

have convincingly argued,

however, that metaphor is a matter of both meaning and use.

Sperber and Wilson (1986)187

distinguish between strong and weak implicatures. In their

relevance theoretical view, they see the meaning of metaphors as a wide range of stronger

and weaker implicatures. Sperber and Wilson do not give an in-depth analysis of

metaphor. One of the areas they do not address is the question how the linguistic context

constrains the range of strong and weak implicatures. In other words: they do not answer

the question as to what degree metaphors in context are less indeterminate in meaning

than metaphors presented in isolation.

Evaluation: The pragmatic view of metaphor is valuable as it views metaphor primarily

from the perspective of language use. The view that the intended meaning (or: content) of

metaphors is inferential seems to be very basic for our understanding of metaphor. A

182 Grice (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’, in: Cole and Morgan, (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, p.

41-58. New York: Academic Press. 183

Grice (1975:53). 184 Searle. ‘Metaphor’. In: Ortony (1996:83-111). 185 Davidson. ‘What Metaphors Mean.’ In: Martinich (Ed.) (1991). The Philosophy of Language, 2nd

edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 439. Cited in Nogales (1999). 186 Nogales. (1999). Metaphorically Speaking. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications (Center for the

Study of Language and Information). 187 Sperber & Wilson. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 199.

44

disadvantage of pragmatic approaches is that they seem to be built on the assumption that

literal language is the norm and that metaphorical language is a deviation from the norm.

The fact that English and other languages contain a lot of lexicalized and conventional

metaphors seems to speak against this assumption. But, metaphorical language (in non-

lexicalized metaphors) can be seen as a form of marking, which lends prominence and

intensity to the utterance. Kittay’s position that both semantic meaning and pragmatic

meaning play a role in metaphors is perhaps the most balanced view in this regard. The

distinction between strong and weak implicatures – as developed in relevance theory – is

also very useful.

2.8. The Categorization View of Metaphor

The categorization view of metaphor is another – and perhaps less widely known – theory

of metaphor. According to this view, metaphors are class-inclusion statements. A

metaphoric statement like ‘Margaret Thatcher is a bulldozer’, for example, expresses that

this former Prime Minister of Great Britain belongs to the class of bulldozers. The

categorization view of metaphor was developed as an alternative to the pragmatic view of

metaphor. According to the class-inclusion view, a metaphor expresses exactly what it

means. There is no discrepancy between what is being said and what is being meant. 188

The categorization view which was first proposed by Glucksberg and Keysar (1979;

1990; 1996) and further developed by Nogales (1999). Glucksberg and Keysar reject the

view that metaphors are implicit comparisons. They claim that metaphors are class-

inclusion statements instead, like their surface forms already suggest.189

The categorization view goes in fact one step beyond the comparison view in claiming

that metaphors are class-inclusion statements rather than implicit comparisons. According

to the categorization view, the topic term and the vehicle term of a metaphor belong to

the same class. The vehicle term functions not only as a prototypical category member

name but it also names the superordinate class to which both the vehicle and the topic

belong.190

Nogales, who sees reconceptualization as the basic underlying function of metaphor,

describes the classes to which both the topic and the vehicle terms belong as ‘ad hoc’

188 Cf. Glucksberg and Keysar in: Ortony (1996:401). ‘When, for example, someone says that “Sam is a

pig,” that is precisely what is meant: that person designated by the name “Sam” is a member of the

superordinate category referred to by the word “pig”. 189 Glucksberg and Keysar even “turn the traditional comparison view on its head, arguing that when

metaphors are expressed as comparisons (i.e., similes) they are understood as implicit class-inclusion

statements” (Ortony 1996:12). 190 Glucksberg and Keysar make a distinction between taxonomic and attributive categories (Ortony 1996:408-409). Metaphor vehicles belong to the latter category. Attributive categories ‘are used primarily

to attribute specific properties to their metaphor topics.’ The term ‘animal’, for example, is not only a

taxonomic category which is used in a biological context to refer to sheep, birds, fish, etc., but it can also

function as an attributive category, for example, to refer to drunken fraternity members or awesomely

muscular and violent actors.

45

classes.191

A non-metaphorical example of an ad hoc category would be ‘things to take

on a river trip’. Ad hoc categories are similar to common categories in that they also

constitute category trees and have a graded structure. They are different from common

categories in that they do not have a superordinate name which covers all the items that

are included in the category. They are also different in the sense that they violate the

correlational structure of the environment, and that they are not well established in the

memory (Barsalou).192

Evaluation: The categorization view has some distinct advantages: 1. It takes the surface

form of metaphors as its point of departure, and does not need to rephrase them as similes

before they can be interpreted. 2. It accounts for the fact that most metaphors and similes

cannot be reversed without changing their meaning. 3. It recognizes the distinction

between metaphors and similes. 4. It recognizes the difference between metaphors and

statements that are not true. 5. It takes into account the systematic nature of metaphors.

There are some important disadvantages as well. 1. The categorization view assumes that

an ‘a is b’ statement expresses either an identity relation or a class-inclusion relation

between a and b.193

However, ‘a is b’ statements are also used for other purposes,

including the predication of properties (including attitudes, relational roles, and habitual

actions) to people and objects.194

Viewing metaphors of the ‘a is b’ type as a hybrid form

of predication seems to make more sense than viewing them as class-inclusion

statements. 2. Interpreting metaphorical statements of the ‘a is b’ type as class-inclusion

statements would imply that certain topics – like ‘God’ in the Old Testament – belong to

a multitude of ad hoc classes, since many different images have been predicated of him.

This seems to be inconsistent with the fact that categories – in the taxonomic sense of the

word – are exclusive, defining characteristics which do not allow that a specific item

belongs to more than one category.195

3. Metaphorical expressions are also different from

class-including statements and ad hoc categories in that the image term that occurs in the

predicate slot often lacks the generic meaning that is typical for predicates in class-

inclusion statements (including those related to ad hoc categories, like “things to bring on

a fishing trip”).

191 Note that Nogales’ (1999:31) concept of category is very broad: ‘… while categories can include

different syntactic categories (i.e. verb phrases as well as noun phrases), they are only associated with

denoting terms. However, in our conception, categories need not possess individuation and persistence

criteria.’ 192 Nogales (1999:38-39). 193 Glucksberg and Keysar in Ortony (1996:412). 194 Cf. Healey and Healey (1992:48), who – based on Beekman (1981:53) – list seventeen different kinds of

state propositions, many of which have an ‘a is b’ structure. 195 Foley (1997:125).

46

2.9. The Functional view of metaphor

Goatly (1997:148) uses Halliday’s three metafunctions - the ideational, the interpersonal

and the textual - in sketching out the functions of metaphor. He defines the ideational

function as ‘understanding the environment’; the interpersonal as ‘acting on others in the

environment’; and the textual as ‘the providing of resources to ensure that what is said is

relevant and relates to co-text/context.’ According to Goatly (1997:149), the interpersonal

metafunction of metaphors is just as important as the ideational, despite the common

misconception that metaphor is simply a descriptive device. Goatly acknowledges that

metaphors may fulfill more than one function simultaneously.

Goatly lists the following functional varieties of metaphors:

1. Filling lexical gaps

2. Explanation and modeling

3. Reconceptualization

4. Argument by analogy and/or false (?) reasoning

5. Ideology, the latent function

6. Expressing emotional attitude

7. Decoration, disguise and hyperbole

8. Cultivating intimacy

9. Humor and games

10. Metaphorical calls to action or problem-solving

11. Textual structuring

12. Fiction

13. Enhancing Memorability, Foregrounding and Informativeness

Evaluation: Goatly’s functional view of metaphor is based on a wide variety of

ideational, interpersonal and textual functions. It provides a good model for describing

metaphors at a level that is concrete enough to be useful for exegetes, linguists and

translators. A more detailed overview of this functional framework will be given in

chapter 3 (section 3.7.).

2.10. Conclusion

In this chapter I have given an overview of the most important views of metaphor.

Attention was given to the comparison view, the substitution view, the romantic view, the

interaction view, the conceptual view, the pragmatic view, the class-inclusion view, and

the functional view. The most important strengths and weaknesses of each of these views

were explained briefly.

It turned out that most of the views on metaphor discussed in this chapter contain

valuable elements. Different views of metaphor bring out different aspects of metaphor.

For example, the value of the comparison (correspondence) view of metaphor is that it

calls attention to the fact that many metaphors are based on comparison. However, it

neglects the pragmatic-rhetorical distinction between metaphors and figurative

comparisons (similes). Many metaphors are indeed based on figurative comparison (as a

47

mental process), but this does not mean that metaphors are identical with figurative

comparisons. Metaphorical expressions are usually more forceful than corresponding

similes.

The interaction view of metaphor calls attention to the uniqueness of metaphorical

expressions to express meaning that could not be expressed by literal language. It also

calls attention to the fact that metaphorical expressions do not just link topics to images,

but that they rather link complete donor domains to complete recipient domains. As a

result, the meaning of metaphor can be very rich (resonant).

The conceptual view of metaphor articulates the pervasiveness of metaphor in all our

language, thought and action. Metaphor is viewed, not as an anomaly or as a deviation,

but rather as a pervasive phenomenon that is based on experience and bound by culture.

The pragmatic view of metaphor capitalizes on the inferential nature (implicatures) of the

meaning of metaphor, while the functional view of metaphor provides us with a list of

specific functions (ideational, interpersonal and textual) which can be fulfilled by

metaphors.

The romantic view of metaphor reminds us of the fact that metaphors are not just about

denotative meaning, but also – and perhaps primarily – about expressive meaning. The

connotations and evaluations that are part of the image are very important.

The substitution view of metaphor and the class-inclusion view turned out to be rather

problematic. It is definitely true that certain metaphors (lexicalized) can perhaps be

substituted without a significant loss of meaning. But the substitution view does not seem

to be plausible at all as a general (more or less representative) view of metaphors.

Likewise, the class-inclusion view of metaphor did not seem to be a plausible theory, at

least not from a linguistic and functional perspective.

Despite the fact that all of the above mentioned approaches contribute valuable insights

to our understanding of metaphor, none of them seems to capture all the relevant aspects.

The integrated and functional view of metaphor, as proposed by Goatly (1997), seems to

come closest to the ideal of a comprehensive view of metaphor. However, the question

can be asked whether it is at all possible to grasp all the aspects of metaphor in one

comprehensive view or theory. More systematic analysis is needed to lay out the

intricacies of metaphor. However, at the same time it is good to realize that the essence of

metaphor will probably continue to elude us and transcend our analyses. Metaphor is like

a multifaceted diamond that needs to be viewed from multiple perspectives in order to

reveal its light and beauty.

48

3. Towards a Systematic Description of Metaphor

3.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter I have reviewed different views of metaphor. It was found that

metaphor is a multi-faceted phenomenon that can (and should) be viewed from different

angles. In the present chapter I will make an attempt to give a systematic and more or less

integrated description of the phenomenon of metaphor in relation to other forms of

figurative speech.196

Metaphor is the most prominent form of figurative speech. In a sense metaphor is a

prototype of figurative speech. When people are asked to give an example of figurative

speech, they will often give an example of a metaphor. The flip side of the coin is that

people sometimes use the term metaphor for related figures of speech, which – from a

technical point of view – are not metaphors, but similes, metonymies, symbolic language,

etcetera.

But even among scholars there are differences in the way they use the term “metaphor”.

Some scholars seem to reserve the term for what are sometimes called “live” metaphors,

i.e., metaphors that are a form of language use and that are not part of the lexical stock of

a language. But other scholars seem to use the term “metaphor” in a broader sense, while

including “dead” metaphors as well. In addition, the term metaphor is sometimes also

used in the more general sense of figurative language (as opposed to literal language).197

The approach taken in this study is to include both “live” metaphors and “dead”

metaphors in the concept of metaphor. Metaphor is seen as a matter of both language use

and of language structure. The study of metaphor is a matter of both pragmatics

(inferential meaning) and semantics (encoded meaning).198

Prototype theory is very helpful to describe the relationship between these different kinds

of metaphors. Metaphoricity is seen as having a graded structure. Novel metaphors are

probably the ones that are most prominent and have the highest degree of metaphoricity;

conventional metaphors occupy a middle position; and lexicalized metaphors have the

lowest degree of metaphoricity.199

196 The ideas presented in this chapter are a combination of insights from the literature on metaphor and of

my own observations in relation to metaphor. 197 Cf. Stern (2000:23): ‘The term “metaphor” is often said to have two senses, one wide, one narrow. In

the wide sense, the metaphorical is contrasted with the literal and includes the full range of nonliteral and

figurative interpretations of language – irony, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, and so on. In the narrow

sense, the metaphorical is contrasted not only with the literal, but also with the other figures or tropes.’ 198 An important reason for including both “live” and “dead” metaphors in the concept of metaphor is that

the boundaries between these kinds of metaphors are often fuzzy, and that “dead” metaphors can be easily

“resurrected” in certain contexts. 199 Generally speaking, novel metaphors and conventional metaphors together are equivalent to “live”

metaphors, while lexicalized metaphors are equivalent to “dead” metaphors.

49

In this chapter an attempt is made to clarify the relationship between metaphors and other

figures of speech, and between different types of metaphor. Metaphors will be described

from a variety of angles: linguistic, textual, sociocultural and pragmatic.

3.2. Metaphors and other forms of figurative language

Metaphor is primarily a cognitive phenomenon, but it is also expressed in language. The

technical identification of metaphor as metaphor is in fact based on a combination of

linguistic and semantic (logical) properties.

3.2.1. Metaphor and simile

Metaphor can be easily distinguished from simile, its twin sister. In metaphor, a particular

person, object, event or property from one conceptual domain (the “topic”) is described

in terms of a person, object, event or property from another conceptual domain (the

“image”). In simile, a similar cross-domain mapping occurs, but here the topic is not

described in terms of the image, but it is rather compared to the image. Metaphors are

figurative equations, whereas similes are figurative comparisons, marked by the use of

comparative markers such as “like” and “as”.

Example of a metaphor: “The Lord is my shepherd.”

Example of a simile: “The Lord is like a shepherd to me.”

Proponents of the comparison view of metaphor see metaphors as abbreviated similes. In

their view, there is no difference in meaning between metaphors and similes. From a

propositional (informative) meaning perspective, they are probably right. However,

meaning is much more than just propositional content. It has also expressive and

pragmatic aspects. In the above simile example, the content of the simile seems to be

much weaker than the content of the corresponding metaphor. In the simile “the Lord” is

no longer portrayed as a prototype of shepherding, but the emphasis has shifted to an

earthly shepherd as prototype of shepherding. In addition, the comparative marker “like”

does double duty as a hedge of metaphoricity (rather than as a marker of

metaphoricity).200

3.2.2. Metaphor and metonymy

Metaphor and simile are examples of cross-domain mapping: the topic and the image

belong to different conceptual domains. In the example of the shepherd metaphor, the

topic (‘the Lord’) belongs to the religious domain, whereas the image (‘my shepherd’)

200 Stern (2000:232) gives a good summary of the differences between metaphor and simile: ‘As many

authors suggest, a simile is less direct and forceful than its corresponding metaphor. The reason is not that

the one is “shorter” or more concise than the other, but that ‘like’ functions as a hedge, or qualifier, on the

content.’ Metaphors cannot be interpreted as elliptical similes, since this would require that sentences like

‘Juliet is not like the sun, she is the sun’ would be self-contradictory.

50

belongs to the domain of animal husbandry. In metonymy, however, the topic and the

image are “contiguous” as they belong to the same conceptual domain.

Example of a metonymy (1): “The hamburger wants a cup of coffee.”

[i.e., the customer who just ordered a hamburger wants a cup of coffee.]

Example of metonymy (2): “I am the resurrection and the life.”

[i.e., I [Jesus] am the one who causes people to resurrect from death, and I

am the one who gives life to people.]

3.2.3. Metaphor and parable

Parables are another form of figurative speech. Parables usually contain a narrative plot

line (either fictive or reality-based). Metaphors lack any kind of narrative plot; they are

primarily descriptive and highlight more or less stable (habitual) qualities of topics.

Another difference between metaphors and parables is that in parables the topic is often

concealed.201

Example of a parable (2 Samuel 12:1-4 NIV):

The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were

two men in a certain town, one rich man and the other poor. The rich man had

a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except

one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him

and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his

arms. It was like a daughter to him.

“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking

one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had

come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man

and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

The purpose of most parables is persuasive: they try to change the ideas and behavior of

the audience.202

Metaphors can also serve a persuasive function, but this is not

necessarily the case.

Example of a metaphor (Matthew 5:13-14 NIV):

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be

made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out

201 In the above parable, for example, “the rich man” stands for king David, “the poor man” stands for Uriah, and the “little ewe lamb” stands for Bathsheba, but this is not revealed in the parable. Also, the

“taking away” of the ewe lamb stands for David’s adultery with Bathsheba. 202 In this particular parable, the prophet Nathan confronts king David with his sin in an indirect way. He

changes to a very direct approach, when in verse 7 he identifies the topic of the parable: “Then Nathan said

to David, “You are the man …”

51

and trampled by men.

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.”

The above two metaphors serve an indirect persuasive function. It is an indirect warning

that believers should not lose their saltiness (do well) and that they should not hide their

good behavior from the people of the world.

3.2.4. Simile and similitude

The difference between similes and similitudes is very similar to the difference between

metaphors and parables. Similitudes are similar to similes in that they use a comparative

marker such as “like”. But, similitudes have a narrative plot line, which similes don’t

have. Like metaphors, similes are descriptive, and highlight more or less stable (habitual)

properties of topics.

Example of a similitude (Matthew 13:44-46 NIV)

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found

it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that

field.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.

When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had

and bought it.”

Example of a simile (Matthew 11:16 NIV)

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the

market places and calling out to others: ‘We played the flute for you, and you

did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’”

3.2.5. Metaphor and hyperbolic comparison

Hyperbolic comparisons are a form of figurative speech that differs from metaphorical

expressions and similes. Hyperbolic comparisons differ from metaphors and similes in

that they focus on a gradual difference between the topic and the image rather than on the

equation or similarity between the topic and the image.

Example of a hyperbolic comparison (Matthew 19:24 NIV)

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle

than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

When restated in literal language, the above hyperbolic comparison would read like this:

“It is already very difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. But it would be

even more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

52

3.2.6. Metaphor and anthropomorphic language

Metaphors about God need to be clearly distinguished from anthropomorphic language.

In the Old Testament YHWH is described as having “eyes” and “ears” and by his

“mighty hand” (Deut. 7:8) he rescued the people of Israel. We also read that God “came

down” to see the city and the tower of Babel that the men were building (Genesis

11:5).203

Expressions like these are different from metaphorical language. Strictly speaking,

anthropomorphic language is not a form of figurative speech. Expressions like “God is

king”, “God is judge,” and “God is a shepherd” are examples of divine metaphors. The

relationship between metaphors and anthropomorphic language is one of partial overlap:

Some metaphors about God are anthropomorphic, but others are non-anthropomorphic

(theriomorphic or physiomorphic); and, conversely, some anthropomorphic expressions

about God are metaphorical, while others are non-metaphorical.

3.2.7. Metaphor and poetic-mythical language

In certain Old Testament passages poetic-mythical language is used to express the mighty

power of YHWH. The language used in those passages is reminiscent of the language of

ancient Near Eastern creation myths. In Psalm 74:12-14, the parting of the Red Sea as

part of God’s salvation act is blended here with ancient Near Eastern creation myths

where creation is depicted as a battle between a creator-god and a many-headed monster

called Leviathan.

It may be assumed that the Israelite authors intended this myth-sounding language to be

understood in a metaphorical sense. But, given the influence of Canaanite and other

Near-Eastern worldviews in ancient Israel, the possibility should not be ruled out that at

least some of the Israelites may have understood this in a very literal sense.

Example of poetic-mythical language: Psalm 74:12-14 (NIV)

But you, O God, are my king from of old;

you bring salvation upon the earth.

It was you who split open the sea by your power.

You broke the heads of the monsters in the waters.

It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan

and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

203 Cf. Stienstra (1993:10): ‘… a distinction should be drawn between the use of anthropomorphic language

as such and anthropomorphic metaphors, a distinction that is not generally recognised in the discussion of

biblical anthropomorphism.’

53

3.2.8. Metaphor and symbolic language

Symbolic language is very much related to metaphorical language, but it is not

necessarily identical with it. In symbolic language the relationship between the topic and

image is usually contiguous, tight and unique. Symbolic language is usually heavily tied

in with the worldview and value system of an audience.

Symbolic language may have a literal base or a metaphorical base. But in either case

there is a very tight contiguous connection between the symbol and the person, object,

event or situation that is symbolized.

Example of symbolic language (Isaiah 11:6-9 NIV)

The wolf will live with the lamb,

the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,

their young will lie down together,

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of a cobra,

and the young child will put his hand in the viper’s nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy

on all my holy mountain,

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

In the above example all the images symbolize the peace that will exist in the messianic

end-time. Symbolic language like this plays an important role in prophetic visions in both

the Old Testament and the New Testament (Revelation).

Another example of symbolical language is found in Matthew 26:26-28:

Example of symbolic language (Matthew 26:26-28 NIV)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave

it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from

it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many

for the forgiveness of sins.”

In cases like these, readers/hearers may have different interpretations with regard to the

question of these symbolic words were intended in a literal sense or in a metaphorical

sense. Translators of passages like these are usually encouraged to render symbolic

language like this in a way that resembles the forms of the original as closely as possible.

54

Another example of symbolic language is found in Matthew 10:38:

Example of symbolic language (Matthew 10:38 NIV)

“… and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me [Jesus] is not

worthy of me.”

Here the cross is not just a random metaphor that stands for a willingness to follow Jesus

even if this would entail heavy suffering and death. The cross is also a symbol of the

disciples’ fellowship with Jesus, who died on the cross himself.

3.3. Different kinds of metaphors

Metaphors can be classified in different ways. One way of classifying metaphors is to

describe them in terms of their usage (novel, conventional, lexicalized). Another way of

classifying metaphors is to distinguish them based on attributes of the image-terms

(anthropomorphic, theriomorphic, physiomorphic204

). In this section, I will propose a

more general classification that is based on a particular kind of paradigmatic relationship

between the topic and the image.205

In one of the previous sections we have seen that metaphors differ from similes in that

they are figurative equations rather than figurative comparisons. But, despite the fact that

metaphors cannot be identified with figurative comparisons, it cannot be denied that quite

a number of them are based on some kind of comparative thinking, and that they are

often interpreted as implied comparisons.

Based on this observation, metaphors can be distinguished in the following categories:

A. Metaphors that are based on physical correspondence between the topic and the

image

B. Metaphors that are based on functional correspondence between the topic and the

image

C. Metaphors that are based on arbitrary mapping between the topic and the image

A. Metaphors that are based on physical correspondence between the topic and the

image

The following example from Dutch shows a metaphor that is based on physical

correspondence between the topic and the image:

204 Or: ‘human-like,’ ‘animal-like,’ and ‘object-like’, respectively. 205 Syntagmatic and other textual relationships between topics and images will be discussed in the

following two sections.

55

Example of a metaphor based on physical correspondence:

‘Hij is een boom van een kerel’ (Dutch)

He is a tree of a guy

[He is very tall]

The implied correspondence between the vehicle (‘tree’) and the topic (‘man’) is bigness

and tallness. The meaning of the metaphor can be restated in the form of a simile in

which the implied correspondence is made explicit:

‘That guy is as big and tall as a tree’206

The physical correspondence between the vehicle and the topic has also a relational

aspect (implied superlative): The man who is described as ‘a tree of a guy’ is implicitly

compared with others: his physical appearance ‘stands out’; he is taller than others, just

like a tree is much taller than people in general.207

B. Metaphors that are based on functional correspondence between the topic and

the image

Quite a few metaphors are not based on physical correspondence between their vehicle

and topic but rather on functional correspondence.

Example of a metaphor based on functional correspondence:

‘The Lord is my shield’

[The Lord continually protects me]

There is no physical correspondence whatsoever between the topic and the image of this

metaphor. “The Lord” is a supernatural spiritual being, and “shield” is a material object

used in warfare. The metaphor is purely based on functional correspondence: the Lord

provides protection for the speaker just like a shield protected an ancient soldier on the

battle field from the arrows that were shot at him by the enemy.208

206 It should be noted, though, that, at least in Dutch, a rendering like this (‘Die man is zo lang / hoog als

een boom’) does not sound idiomatic at all. A much more natural rendering would be: ‘Hij is een hele grote

kerel’ (‘He is a very tall guy’). This shows that a propositional representation of a metaphor is not

necessarily an idiomatic representation of that metaphor in any particular language. It should also be noted

that propositional representations can be helpful to describe the truth conditions of the metaphor, but that

they do not necessarily capture the whole range of its intended implicatures and/or its pragmatic function. 207 In order to bring out this superlative element, the metaphor can be restated as follows: ‘That guy is very

big and tall’. The notion of tallness that is implied in the metaphor is not necessarily limited to physical

appearance, but it may also have the connotation of physical power and its potential threat to other people. The metaphor may be an expression of a feeling of intimidation (negative connotation): ‘That guy is very

big and tall [and people/I feel intimidated by his appearance of physical power]’ 208 The functional correspondence is embedded in relational correspondence. The shield metaphor implies

the idea of a foe (enemy) who attacks or at least poses a threat to the speaker. An anthropomorphic variant

of the shield metaphor would be: “The Lord is my ally, who continually protects me against my enemies”.

56

Functional correspondence between the topic and the image can be either simple, multiple

or indeterminate. In the case of the shield metaphor the functional correspondence is

simple, because the function of a shield is pretty straightforward as a weapon of defense

and a device of protection.

The biblical shepherd metaphor is a good example of a metaphor whose meaning is either

simple, multiple (as indicated by multiple applications implied by its context) or

indeterminate (in the absence of any specified context):

Example of a metaphor based on functional correspondence (indeterminate):

‘The Lord is my shepherd’

In the absence of any further context the intended meaning of this metaphor can be said

to be indeterminate.209

The metaphor in itself does not give any clue as to which function

of a shepherd is primarily intended: provision of food, guidance in dangerous terrain,

protection against thieves and predators, or perhaps all of the above.

If more context is added, it becomes clear whether the primarily intended meaning of the

metaphor is single or multiple:

Example of a metaphor based on functional correspondence (single):

‘The Lord is my shepherd. I shall lack nothing’

Example of a metaphor based on functional correspondence (multiple):

‘The Lord is my shepherd. He guides me and I am not afraid.’

In the first example the primarily intended meaning is single: the additional context (‘I

shall lack nothing’) implies that the intended meaning of the metaphor focuses on the

shepherd’s function of providing food, drink and perhaps even rest and shelter for the

flock. In the second example the primarily intended meaning is multiple: the additional

context implies that the intended meaning of the metaphor focuses on the shepherd’s

function of guidance (‘he guides me’) and protection (‘I am not afraid’).210

209

Note that, viewed from a more abstract level the shepherd metaphor is not indeterminate: provision,

guidance and protection can be subsumed under the more inclusive category of care. The metaphor could be restated as follows: ‘The Lord takes good care of me, just like a shepherd takes care of his sheep.’ 210 In these cases too, the functional correspondence between the vehicle and the topic implies relational

correspondence. Sheep need constant care and protection from the shepherd, otherwise they will get into

trouble. As a result the shepherd will always be with them. Shepherd and sheep are inseparable. This

relation of inseparability is carried over to the relationship between the Lord and the speaker.

57

C. Metaphors that are based on arbitrary mapping between the topic and the image

Many metaphors are based on a comparison that involves physical or functional

correspondence between the vehicle and the topic. But there are other metaphors where

the correspondence between the topic and the image is based neither on physical

similarity nor on functional similarity. Searle’s example is a case in point:

Example of a metaphor based on arbitrary mapping:

‘Sally is a block of ice’

[Sally is unresponsive, unfriendly, hostile]

Arbitrary mapping is often found in metaphors that have a strong culture-specific base.

The above metaphor is based on the more general metaphor UNFRIENDLINESS IS

COLDNESS. This metaphor associates unfriendliness and unresponsiveness with

coldness. ‘Ice’ is a prototypical member of ‘coldness’, and it indexes extreme coldness

and unresponsiveness. It contains a strong element of intensification: Sally is described

not just as an icicle that will easily melt when it is exposed to a warming atmosphere

(friendly person), but as a massive block of ice which does not easily melt.

This kind of arbitrary mapping lies at the basis of many metaphors that usually evoke

very different interpretations from people who belong to different cultures. See, for

example, the following metaphor:

Example of a metaphor based on arbitrary mapping:

‘Herod is a fox’

People from an Indo-European background will tend to interpret this metaphor in the

sense that Herod is a sly and slick person.211

People who pay attention to the linguistic

context of this metaphor, and who are familiar with the role that foxes played in the Old

Testament, on the other hand, will probably interpret the metaphor in the sense that

Herod is a destructive person.

In addition to the above mentioned differences between metaphors, Goatly’s (1997:18)

distinction between approximative metaphors and transfer metaphors is also helpful. In

approximative metaphors “the distance between the thought and the proposition is small”,

whereas in transfer metaphors “the gap is larger”. A metaphor like “God is a king”

would, for example, be found towards the approximative end of the scale, while “God is a

211 The arbitrary mapping of slyness is based on European folktales in which the fox figures as a trickster

animal which outwits everyone else. This mapping is also expressed in the idiomatic expression ‘as smart

as a fox’.

58

lion” would be found towards the transfer end of the scale. “God is a shepherd” would be

found somewhere in the middle.212

3.4. Linguistic forms of metaphor

The linguistic forms of metaphors (and similes) can be best described in terms of

different ways in which topics are linked to the associated images. We can distinguish

between syntactic linkage and pragmatic linkage. Syntactic linkage includes predicative,

attributive, genitive, and comparative linkage. Pragmatic linkage usually occurs when

there is no syntactic linkage between the topic and the image. In cases like that the reader

or hearer needs to infer the implied linkage.

1. Predicative linkage between the topic and the image.

Example of predicative linkage:

‘Hercules is a lion’

Topic Image (Predicate)

2. Attributive linkage between the topic and the image.

Example of attributive linkage:

‘Hercules the lion defeated his enemies’

Topic Image (Attribute)

3. Genitive linkage between the topic and the image.

Example of genitive linkage:

‘I will give you the crown of life’

Image Topic (Genitive)

4. Adverbial linkage between the topic and the image

Example of adverbial linkage:

‘The students obeyed their teachers slavishly’

Topic Image (Adverbial)

212 Generally speaking, the salience (perception of relative prominence) of metaphors is perhaps linked to the width of the conceptual gap between the topic and the image. “God is a lion” would, for example, be

perceived as being more salient than “God is a king”, since the conceptual distance between “God” and

“lion” (animal) is bigger than between “God” and “king” (royal person). However, factors of

conventionality and non-conventionality and alignment and non-alignment with the culture and worldview

also play a role here.

59

5. Comparative linkage between the topic and the image.

Example of comparative linkage:

‘Hercules is like a lion’

Topic Image (Comparative)

6. Pragmatic linkage between the topic and the image, where the topic is not

expressed in the same syntactic unit (sentence) as the image, but where it is

mentioned in the linguistic context, or where it can be deduced from this context.

Example of pragmatic linkage:

‘… [Hercules] … The lion defeated his enemies’

[Topic] Image (Referential)

Another linguistically relevant distinction is the distinction between predicative

metaphors and referential metaphors. In predicative metaphors the image term fills a

predicate slot in the sentence. “Hercules is a lion” (example 1) is an example of a

predicative metaphor. In referential metaphors the image term fills a subject or object slot

in the sentence. “The crown of life” (example 3) and “the lion” (example 6) are examples

of referential metaphors.

In addition to this syntax-based typology of metaphors and similes, metaphors and

similes can also be classified in terms of the number of “arguments” they contain. “One-

place” metaphors only contain the image-term, leaving the topic-term and ground-terms

implied. “Two-place” metaphors usually contain a topic-term and an image-term.

“Three-place” metaphors contain topic, image and ground-terms.

Examples of one-place metaphors: “The lion” [= Hercules]

“That fox” [= King Herod]

Examples of two-place metaphors: “The Iron Lady” [= Margaret Thatcher]

“The Lord is my shepherd”

Examples of three-place metaphors: “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf”

“I am the good shepherd”

Similes that contain one or more grounds may be very elaborate, especially if they

contain more than one clause. In cases like this we may even speak of “six-place”

similes:

Example of a six-place simile:

‘The Lord takes care of me, just like a shepherd takes care of his sheep”

TOPIC TOP

Ground TOP

Object IMAGE IMG

Ground IMG

Object

60

3.5. Textual aspects of metaphor

Metaphors may play different roles in discourse. In some texts (like Genesis 49 and

Psalm 23) metaphors play an important role in structuring the text and providing

cohesion. In other texts metaphors play a marginal role or are totally absent.

Biblical metaphors often occur in pairs or triplets. In those cases, the intended meanings

(grounds) of the parallel metaphors are not necessarily the same, but they are usually

related.

Examples of parallel metaphors:

“… the LORD God is a sun and shield …’ (Psalm 84:11)

“… I [the LORD] am your shield, your very great reward.” (Genesis 15:1)

“The LORD is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer …” (Psalm 18:2a)

“He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” (Ps 18:2c)

In some cases there is also a contrast between imagery. In Luke 13:32-34 there is a

contrast between King Herod, who is portrayed as a destructive fox, and between Jesus,

who is portrayed as a protective mother hen who wants to gather her chicks under her

wings. In Matthew 23:33-39, there seems to be a similar contrast between the teachers of

the law and the Pharisees, who are portrayed as snakes and brood of vipers, and between

Jesus, who once again is portrayed as a protective mother hen who wants to gather her

chicks under her wings.

In some cases there is a climactic relationship between various images. In Psalm 23, for

example, the imagery starts with a shepherd-sheep relationship, which then develops into

a host-guest relationship, and culminates in a house owner – companion relationship.

Generally speaking, it can be said that metaphors and other forms of figurative speech are

a form of marked language. This means that they are more prominent than non-figurative

speech.

3.6. Sociocultural dimensions of metaphor

From a sociocultural perspective metaphors can be classified as culture-affirming,

culture-challenging, or iconoclastic. Metaphors usually evoke very positive associations

or very negative associations. It is difficult to find metaphors that are neutral.

The metaphor of “the good shepherd”, both in the Old and New Testament, is an example

of a culture-affirming metaphor. The notion of sheep herding was a positive notion in

ancient Israel, and this image was used to express God’s care and protection of his

people.

61

The metaphor of the necessity of “being born again”, as it was expressed by Jesus in John

3:3, was certainly a culture-challenging message for Jewish leaders like Nicodemus who

considered themselves as “children of Abraham”.

Iconoclastic metaphors are not just culture-challenging, but they are shocking. Jesus’

statement that his audience had the devil as their “father” (John 8:44) is an example of an

iconoclastic metaphor. Expressions like “you brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33), used for

the religious establishment of Jesus’ days, fits in the same category.

Certain images by their very nature are highly ambivalent. The image of a lion, for

example, can be used in a positive sense as an image of power and victory. It can also be

used in a negative sense as an image of a deadly threat and destruction.

Metaphors are in fact the fingerprints of a culture. “Cultural inscription” of messages is

partly achieved by the use of culture-specific imagery. The mentioning of culture-specific

objects, animals and practices is, of course, another source of cultural inscription.

3.7. Pragmatic functions of metaphor

Goatly (1997) has done important ground work in terms of identifying different functions

of metaphors (ideational, textual and interpersonal). In this section, a number of metaphor

functions will be illustrated, following Goatly’s model.213

3.7.1. Metaphors may fill lexical gaps

Quite a few metaphors are part of the lexical stock of a language. These metaphors fill

lexical gaps, i.e., they name concepts that the language does not have a name for.214

Examples of metaphors filling lexical gaps:

“The leg of a table”

“The mouth of a river”

Metaphors that are part of the lexical stock of a language are usually no longer

understood as (“live”) metaphors. These terms are understood in a literal sense.215

But, new experiences and new developments in science and technology also require the

filling of lexical gaps. New computer technology, for example, has spawn quite a few

213 Most of the examples are from the Bible and a few from personal experiences and observations. When

occasionally an example has been taken from Goatly, this is indicated. 214

Goatly (1997:149) rightly observes that the filling of lexical gaps is sometimes not a question of

unavailability of words in the lexicon, but rather a question of processability. The term light-year, for example, is much easier to process than 94,630,000,000,000 kilometers. 215 Stern (2000:28) makes a very valid comment with regard to the distinction between ‘life’ and ‘dead’

metaphors: ‘Notice … that this distinction between the living and the dead is not between kinds of

expressions but between interpretations in contexts.’ Goatly (1997:276-277 and elsewhere) also points out

that dead metaphors can be revitalized.

62

metaphors that fill lexical gaps. Terms like “window,” “mouse,” and “file” have taken on

new meanings to fill lexical gaps related to the use of computers.

Metaphoricity gives elasticity to a language: It allows the speakers of a language to refer

to a broader scope of objects, experiences and situations without expanding the lexicon.

Metaphoricity expands the meaning capacity of words and phrases.

3.7.2. Metaphors may be used for explanation and modeling

Metaphors are often used to explain a relatively abstract concept in terms which are more

familiar to the hearers. In metaphors like these the (implied or expressed) grounds of the

metaphor play an important role.

Example of metaphors that explain (John 10:11):

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the

sheep.”

In the above metaphor Jesus explains his mission and commitment with regard to the

people of God in terms of shepherd-sheep imagery. The shepherd-sheep imagery

provided a well-known framework for talking about God’s care and protection for his

people.

3.7.3. Metaphors may be used for reconceptualization

This function is, in fact, closely connected to the concept of culture-challenging and

iconoclastic metaphors mentioned in section 3.6.

Example of metaphors used for reconceptualization (Matthew 23:33 NIV):

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to

hell?”

The above metaphors, addressed to the religious establishment of Jesus’ days, were

certainly intended to change the thinking of these people about themselves. They thought

they were in good standing with God, but Jesus warns them that they are in danger of

being condemned by God.

Another clear case of metaphor as reconceptualization is found in Matthew 9:12:

Example of metaphors used for reconceptualization (Matthew 9:10-13):

“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and

“sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw

this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors

and “sinners”?

63

“On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the

sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I

have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

In the above example, the medical metaphor is used to change the audience’s perception

of the tax collectors and ‘sinners’. Jesus does not deny that they are sinners, but they are

sinners who need help, just like a patient needs help of a doctor.

In these cases the function of reconceptualization is closely linked with the function of

persuasion, justification and even rebuke.

Goatly (1997:152) mentions defamiliarization as a form of reconceptualization. This

often occurs with poetic metaphors, when a familiar concept is expressed by using

unconventional terms or unfamiliar categories. Defamiliarization invites us to view our

experiences from a different perspective.

An example of defamiliarization is perhaps found in Mark 6:39, where Jesus said to the

people who were crying and wailing, because Jairus’ daughter had died:

Example of metaphors that defamiliarize (Mark 6:39):

“Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.”

In this case the term “asleep” is not used as a euphemism216

for “death”. But Jesus

prepares his audience for the miracle of resurrection that he is about to perform. By

saying that the girl is “not dead but asleep”, Jesus does not deny that she has already died

physically, but he invites the audience to think about death as something temporary that

is followed by resurrection, just like sleep is temporary and is followed by getting up in

the morning.

3.7.4. Metaphor may be used for justification and/or persuasion

This function217

is closely related to the previous one. Matthew 9:14-17 is a good

example of metaphors used for justification.

Example of metaphors that are used for justification (Matthew 9:14-17):

“Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the

Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is

with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from

them; then they will fast.

216

Euphemism is in fact another form of reconceptualization. 217 Goatly (1997:152) calls this “argument by analogy and/or false (?) reasoning”.

64

“No-one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will

pull away from the garment, making the tear worse.

Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will

burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour

new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

An example of persuasion is found in Matthew 11:28-30:

Example of metaphors that are used for persuasion (Matthew 11:28-30):

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in

heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my

burden is light.”

3.7.5. Metaphor may involve hidden ideological content

Metaphors can be used for genuine communication, but they can also be used for clever

manipulation. Regimes who persecute and kill dissidents may, for example, refer to this

as a necessary act of “house-cleaning”. Or, the dissidents are defined as a “problem” that

needs to be “solved”.

Ideology is a latent function of metaphor. Strictly speaking, ideology includes any kind of

worldview, ideas, perceptions, and values of speakers and hearers. Ideology, used in a

more general sense, is not necessarily negative or problematic.

Metaphorical statements like “property is theft,” “religion is the opium of the people,”

and “the state is our father” are clear examples of ideology-based metaphors with a

persuasive function. “Soccer is war” and “top scorers are saviors” are other examples of

ideology-based metaphors. Crusaders of the Middle Ages as well as modern terrorists

have acted upon the metaphor “religion is war”.

Metaphors like “death is a sleep,” “death is the crossing of a river,” “the body is sown in

weakness, it is raised in power” (1 Corinthians 15:43) reveal underlying beliefs of

Christians regarding death and life. These underlying beliefs contrast, for example, with

the panta rhei kai ouden menei (“Everything flows, and nothing stays”) perspective of

antiquity and with the principle of reincarnation (“rebirth”) in Buddhism.

Ideology, however, does not only operate at the level of worldview and religion. It also

operates at a more mundane level, for example in our daily work. Different organizations

– including business organizations, non-profit organizations, educational institutions and

government agencies – may make use of different metaphors to foster some kind of

desired behavior in their workers: Metaphors like “the organization is a (soccer) team”

capitalize on cooperation among the workers. Hierarchical organizations, on the other

65

hand, may constantly make use of “ladder” and “pole” metaphors in order to perpetuate

hierarchical relationships. They may also make use of spatial metaphors like “inner

circle” and “outer circle”.

3.7.6. Metaphors may express emotional attitude

The expression of emotion and attitude – either positive or negative – is a very important

function of metaphors. But this is usually connected with other functions, like

explanation, persuasion, etc.

Example of simile used for emotional attitude (Psalm 103:13):

“As a father has compassion on his children,

so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him.”

Example of metaphors used for emotional attitude (Matthew 23:33 NIV):

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to

hell?”.

3.7.7. Metaphors may be used for decoration, disguise and hyperbole

According to Goatly (1997:158-159), “reconceptualizing, theory-constitutive and

impositive metaphors are at the radical extreme of metaphorical use,” while, “at the other

extreme are metaphors used, as it were to dress up concepts in pretty, attention-grabbing,

or concealing clothes …” Metaphors used for decoration, disguise (euphemism) and

hyperbole fall in the latter category.

Euphemisms are usually employed for “subjects which have strong emotional

associations of the negative kind.” Death, certain body functions, and sexuality are often

referred to by euphemisms.

Goatly mentions the following metaphorical euphemisms related to death and dying used

in American English – and collected by Pound (1936) –: climb the golden stair, called to

the eternal sleep, crossed over the big divide, answered the last muster. In the Old

Testament, death was sometimes referred to as be gathered to his people (Genesis 49:33).

Hyperbolic metaphors are also very common. “John is a power house” is a metaphor that

expresses that John is very energetic and successful in his work and that he empowers a

lot of other people by his energy and enthusiasm. “Margaret Thatcher is a bulldozer” is

another metaphor that is hyperbolic.

66

The decorative use of metaphor is no doubt an important function too. But, an evaluation

like this is highly dependent on the evaluator’s personal taste. It is difficult to spell out

clear and objective criteria that show when a metaphor is primarily used as a decoration.

3.7.8. Metaphors may be used for cultivating intimacy

Metaphors may also be used for cultivating intimacy. In many cases, however, this may

not be the primary function, but rather a by-product of the metaphor.

Many years ago, when I was still in high school, our pastor218

once explained a special

metaphor to me and other students who were in his catechism class. The metaphor that he

explained had been used by a mature Christian, who knew that his sins had been forgiven

by the blood of his Savior, but who was still bothered by what he called a “spiekergat”

(“nail hole”) in his local dialect. He used this metaphor to refer to the memory of the

sinful things he had done in the past. Even though the nail had been removed (his sins

had been forgiven), it had left a deep trace in his memory.

The use of this metaphor made a deep impression on me, not only because as a son of a

carpenter I was very familiar with the image, but also because I was struggling with the

same spiritual issues.

The use of special metaphors like this, known to the speaker and the hearer (or: shared by

the speaker with the hearer), but not necessarily known to (shared with) others, creates a

sense of intimacy between the speaker and the hearer.219

3.7.9. Metaphors may be used for humor and games

Metaphors are also used for humor and games. Goatly (1997:161) refers to the riddle of

the sphinx: “What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs in the mid-day and three

legs in the evening?” The answer is: a man. This solution is reached by giving

metaphorical interpretations to the parts of the day (babyhood, middle age and old age)

and to the third of the legs (the old man’s stick).

In this context, Samson’s riddle (Judges 14:14 NIV) is very interesting:

“Out of the eater, something to eat;

out of the strong, something sweet.”

The answer to this riddle is expressed in verse 18:

“What is sweeter then honey?

218 The late Reverend P. Honkoop, who pastored the congregation of the Gereformeerde Gemeente

(Netherlands Reformed Congregation) of Kampen between 1965 and 1994. 219 A similar thing happens when speakers and hearers switch to a certain language, code or dialect that is

shared by them, but not by others, or if they discuss a topic of mutual interest that others are not familiar

with.

67

What is stronger than a lion?”

The answer to this riddle is given in the form of a (rhetorical) question. But, in the

context of a wedding feast the answer could very well be understood as a riddle in its

own right: “What is sweeter than honey, and what is stronger than a lion?” The obvious

answer would be: “love”.220

If a double entendre was indeed intended here, this would

certainly give an ironical twist to the story of Samson’s unhappy and short-lived

marriage, and his repeated attempts to get honey (a woman; love) from the lion (the

Philistines).

This kind of metaphorical use is often found in punning221

:

“The NASA launched a new space traveling plan.”

“Limitations Schiphol probably off the runway.”

Advertisements often contain this kind of punning. Here are a few more related to

aviation222

:

“The best engines earn their wings.

At BMW Rolls-Royce, we get our wings the old-fashioned way. We earn

them.”

“The world’s leading aircraft are taking off with Honeywell (Avionics)

There’s no stopping a powerful idea.”

“Professional pilot new hires will climb to a six-year high

This engine will propel regional airliners and corporate jets to new heights of

cost efficiency, reliability and environmental acceptability.”

“Whilst other projects are still grounded on the drawing board, the BR700 is

flying now and chosen to power the Gulfstream V.”

3.7.10. Metaphors may involve a call to action or problem-solving

Metaphors may be used as an indirect appeal to action. In Psalm 80, for example, the

metaphorical expression “O Shepherd of Israel” (vocative) is already an indirect appeal to

YHWH to save, protect and guide his people, like he did in the past.

Several years ago (1998), the people who live near the Amay beach of Irian Jaya (Papua;

Indonesia) placed the following sign at the beach to prevent beach pollution:

220 Cf. Song of Songs 8:8 (“… for love is as strong as death …”) and Proverbs 9:17 (“Stolen water is

sweet…”) 221 Source: Reformatorisch Dagblad 13 January, 1998. 222 Source: Aviation Magazine.

68

Laut dapurku, pantai rumahku, jangan kau kotori dengan sampahmu.

The sea is my kitchen, the beach is my house, you must not make it dirty

with your trash.

Another sign read:

Jagalah aku dari tangan-tangan yang ingin merusak indahnya Amay.

Protect me from hands that want to destroy the beauty of Amay.

In the latter case, the beach is personified and portrayed as a lady who asks visitors to

protect her beauty.

Schön223

has shown that metaphors play an important role in problem setting and in

problem solving in social policy. Policy makers involved in urban renewal created more

problems than they solved when they viewed certain parts of the town as “slums” instead

of “folk communities”. By frame restructuring, they were able to focus on the social

realities rather than on the physical realities, and this helped them to make substantial

progress in the planning and implementation of urban development.

3.7.11. Metaphors may be a means of textual structuring

The role of metaphor in textual structuring has already been discussed in a previous

section.224

3.7.12. Metaphors may be a means of giving prominence

According to Goatly (1997:164-166), metaphors may be a means of enhancing

memorability, foregrounding and informativeness.

3.7.13. Evaluation of Goatly’s model of metaphor functions

Goatly’s model of metaphor functions is a useful framework for describing the textual,

ideological and interpersonal functions of metaphor and simile. Some of the functions

seem to have some overlap, and the model does not specify which functions can occur

simultaneously, and which ones are mutually exclusive. But, since the model covers a

broad scope of metaphor functions, it is very useful as a heuristic tool.

3.8. The meaning of metaphor

The meaning of “live” metaphors – both conventional and novel – is variable and has a

certain degree of indeterminacy. Pragmatically oriented writers on metaphor tend to view

the meaning of metaphor as a set of implicatures.225

Implicatures are inferences drawn by

223 In: Ortony (1993:137-163). 224 Goatly (1997:164) also mentions fiction as one of the functions of metaphor. But, fiction is, in fact, a

genre specification, and not a function of metaphor. 225 Metaphorical implicatures are in fact very similar to the grounds of the metaphor.

69

the hearer based on his or her knowledge of the topic, the image and the context of the

metaphor. Some of these implicatures may be strong, while others are weak.

With regard to these implicatures, we need to distinguish between cultural frame

implicatures, which are activated in the mind of a native speaker when he hears a

metaphorical expression in isolation. Textual implicatures form a subset of these cultural

frame implicatures. They are activated when a metaphor is presented in a linguistic

context. This linguistic context helps the hearer to decide which of the cultural frame

implicatures are most in focus.

The expression “The LORD is my shepherd”, when presented in isolation, may yield the

following implicatures: (a) the LORD takes care of me; (b) the LORD guides me; (c) the

LORD protects me; (d) the LORD is near me. All these implicatures are cultural frame

implicatures.

When the same metaphorical expression is presented in a particular context, the range of

active implicatures the metaphor is usually narrowed down. If, for example, “The LORD

is my shepherd” is followed by the statement “I am not afraid”, then implicature (c) the

LORD protects me is activated as the most prominent (textual) implicature. The other

cultural frame implicatures may still play a role in the background, but the spotlight is on

implicature (c). If, on the other hand, the metaphorical expression “The LORD is my

shepherd” would be followed by the statement “I will not go astray”, then implicature (b)

the Lord guides me would be activated as the most prominent (textual) implicature.

Metaphors do indeed have a degree of indeterminacy, but a significant part of this

indeterminacy is a result of viewing metaphors in isolation. When metaphors occur in

context, the degree of indeterminacy usually decreases.

The metaphorical implicatures (both cultural frame implicatures and textual

implicatures) need to be distinguished from entailments on the one hand and

connotations on the other. Entailments are inferences that are necessarily true. The

metaphorical expression “The LORD is my shepherd” entails, for example, “I am a

sheep/goat of the LORD’. Connotations are positive or negative feelings that are

associated with the topic and the image of the metaphor.

3.9. The mental processing of metaphor

The mental processing of metaphors of conventional metaphors is facilitated by the

presence of cultural frames226

in the minds of the hearers. These cultural frames make it

possible for native speakers to interpret metaphors almost instantaneously. In many cases

the processing of metaphorical language does not take more time than the processing of

non-metaphorical language.

226 For a more detailed exposition of a frames of reference approach, see chapter 13 (section 13.5.). Cf. also

chapter 8 (section 8.2.2.5., sub-section D1), where the concept of frame is applied to translation theory. The

frames of reference approach is closely related to schema theory and script theory (cf. section 8.3.1. of this

dissertation). Cf. also the chapters 13 and 14 for the application of frame analysis to metaphor data.

70

Metaphors that are not linked to familiar cultural frames are usually a lot more difficult to

interpret. In cases like this the interpretation is not instantaneous or semi-instantaneous,

as the intended implicature(s) of the metaphor need to be worked out consciously.

Metaphors that send mixed signals in terms of connotations usually take more processing

time than metaphors that don’t send mixed signals.227

The mental processing of metaphor in cross-cultural communication is often hampered

by cultural interference. Cultural interference is in fact the result of a clash between a

cultural frame of the source text and a cultural frame of the target audience. Jesus’

original advice to his disciples to “be wise as serpents”, for example, was consistently

misinterpreted by Una respondents as “you must become followers of Satan”. In Una

culture, the cultural frame of snake imagery includes “lying” and “being a follower of

Satan.” The situational context (Jesus speaking to his disciples) and the linguistic context

(explication of the ground; “be wise”) together were not strong enough to overrule this

cultural frame in the minds of the hearers.

The mental processing of metaphor in cross-cultural situations is often a matter of

conflicting contexts. In many cases the internalized context (cultural frames) of the

audience will overrule the linguistic (external) context found in the text.

3.10. The “essence” of metaphor

Metaphor is a powerful linguistic-pragmatic tool which helps speakers and hearers to

communicate. It is a condensed way of expressing information, attitudes and evaluations,

and of linking together different conceptual domains. Metaphor and simile are forms of

marked language (prominence) that contrast with literal (unmarked) language.

The “essence” of metaphor is that it describes a topic from one particular perspective, to

the exclusion of other perspectives. The metaphor is like a spotlight that highlights some

of the properties of a topic, but which leaves other properties in the dark. Highlighting

and hiding of properties belong to the “essence” of metaphor.

In the Biblical metaphor “The LORD is my shepherd,” for example, YHWH’s properties

of care, guidance, protection, and even salvation are highlighted. But, his properties of

justice, transcendence, holiness etcetera are hided. Properties like these are highlighted in

other metaphors like “The LORD is king” and “The LORD is judge”.

Metaphors in which the grounds are not expressed usually operate under the assumption

that the hearers understand these grounds. The communication of metaphor assumes that

speakers and hearers share a common ground of understanding. This common ground of

understanding is minimal in cases where speakers and hearers come from different

cultural backgrounds.

227 Example of a metaphor that may send mixed signals in terms of connotations: Jesus (positive

connotation) will come as a thief in the night (negative connotation).

71

4. The Imagery of Shepherd and Sheep in the Ancient Near

East

4.1. Introduction

The present chapter contains a brief survey of the shepherd228

metaphor in the ancient

Near East. The main function of this survey is to set the stage for the next chapter which

gives an overview of the shepherd metaphor as it is used for God (YHWH) in the Old

Testament. Long before the Old Testament was written the shepherd metaphor was

already known in the ancient Near East.

Shepherd metaphors in the ancient Near East were frequently used as titles and epithets

for gods and kings.229

Both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt the title of shepherd was

usually applied to the sun god, who had a benevolent character and who played a key role

in the pantheons of the ancient Near East (Shamash in Babylon, and Amun in Egypt). In

Ugarit the vegetation god Baal was called the shepherd of the underworld. The people

who were protected by the ‘shepherding’ god were called the ‘flock of god’.

The shepherd title was not exclusively the prerogative of the gods, however. Especially in

Mesopotamia, but also in Egypt, the title was extended to the kings, who were believed to

have a special relationship with the gods230

. The ‘shepherdship’ of kings was inextricably

related to the notions of caring for their people and of being responsible to the god who

had called them to reign over his people. And not only kings, but also high officials that

ranked below the king were sometimes referred to as shepherds.

Several researchers have given an account of the shepherd metaphor in the ancient Near

East. Hinze231

, Janssen232

, Müller233

and others have written about the shepherd metaphor

and its cultural background in Egypt. Proosdij234

and Seibert235

, among others, have given

an account of the shepherd metaphor in Mesopotamia. De Moor236

and Korpel237

have

228 The term ‘shepherd’, as it is found in this chapter, is used in the extended sense of ‘animal tender’. In

this sense it is a cover term which includes both sheep tender (someone who takes care of sheep and goats)

and herdsman (someone who takes care of cattle). The metaphors of sheep tender and herdsman are closely

related to one another, and their meanings (grounds) are very similar. They mainly differ in terms of the

objects of care, location of care, and their cultural setting and value. 229 The Ancient Greeks used the shepherd title in a similar way. Homer (Iliad 1:263, 2:243 etc.), for

example uses the shepherd title () for kings and other leaders. 230 Kings were believed to have been ‘called by god’, and they were often called the ‘son of god’. And

certain attributes of the gods were sometimes ascribed to the kings as well, e.g., being a shepherd, and

being a sun-god. 231 F. Hintze. (1943). ‘Noch einmal die Menschen als Kleinvieh Gottes.’ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache

und Altertumskunde 78. 232

J. Janssen. (1954). ‘De Farao als Goede Herder, Mens en Dier’ (in: Festschrift Sassen). Amsterdam. 233 D. Müller. (1961). ‘Der gute Hirte.’ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86. 234 B.A. van Proosdij. (1944). ‘Enige vergeten afbeeldingen van den assyrischen pastor bonus.’ Jaarbericht

Ex Oriente Lux 9, p. 188 ff. 235 Ilse Seibert. (1969). Hirt – Herde – König. Zur Herausbildung des Königtums in Mesopotamien. Mit 64

Strichzeicnhungen und 5 Photographien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 236 See footnote 239 below.

72

written about the shepherd metaphor in Ugarit. And De Robert238

, De Moor239

, Bosetti240

,

and Van Hecke241

have summarized the results of shepherd metaphor research with

regard to the Ancient Near East in general.

4.2. Shepherd imagery in Mesopotamia

4.2.1. Introduction

A. The King is a Shepherd

Based on ancient literary and pictographic sources it is clear that the metaphor of “the

King is a Shepherd” was already known in Mesopotamia in the third millennium B.C.242

In Mesopotamia the king was often referred to as sipa or re‘u (“shepherd”). The king also

performed certain rituals that were related to the tending of cattle in order to express his

authority over his people.243

The concepts of kingship and shepherd were so much related

that it was difficult to distinguish these.244

The use of the shepherd metaphor for kings is used throughout the history of ancient

Mesopotamia. Almost every king245

– including Sumerian, Assyrian and neo-Babylonian

kings – was called a shepherd of his people. Several times the king is called “righteous

shepherd” (sipa-zi or re‘u kenu). The title of shepherd was frequently linked to the

notion of divine election246

: the king was believed to have been called by the god to rule

over his (= the god’s) people and to take good care of them. The kings were also often

identified with the chthonic shepherd-god Dumuzi, and in that capacity they were

responsible for the fertility of the land.247

237 M.C.A. Korpel. (1990). A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster:

UGARIT-Verlag. 238

Ph. de Robert. (1967). “La figure du berger dans l’ancien orient.” In: Le berger d’Israël. Paris. p. 9-20. 239 J.C. de Moor. (1982). “De goede herder. Oorsprong en vroege geschiedenis van de herdersmetafoor”.

In: Bewerken en bewaren. Studies aangeboden aan prof. dr. Klaas Runia, vijfentwintig jaar na zijn inauguratie als hoogleraar in de theologie, te Geelong, Australië. (ed. G. Heitink et al) Kampen:

Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok. p. 36-45. 240 Elena Bosetti. (1993). YAHWEH. Shepherd of the People. Pastoral Symbolism in the Old Testament.

Middlegreen, UK and Kildare, Ireland: St. Pauls, p. 12-16. 241 P. Van Hecke. (2000). Koppig als een koe is Israël, en zou JHWH het moeten weiden als een schaap in

het open veld? Leuven: Proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Chapter 3 (P. 291-319) discusses

“Pastoral metaphors in the Umwelt [life scene] of ancient Israel”. 242 See Seibert (1969:2-3). 243 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:298). 244 See Seibert (1969:2-3). 245

The following kings, for example, had the title of “shepherd”: Enannatum I of Lagash (25th

century

B.C.), Gudea of Lagash (2141-2122), Hammurabi of Babylon (1728-1686), Tukulti-Ninurta I of Ashur (1244-1208), Merodach-baladan II (721-710), and Ashurbanipal of Ashur (668-627). 246 Cf. for example Ashurbanipal’s prayer to Ishtar, found in Frankfort (1951:318), as cited in De Robert

(1967:14): “Tu m’as pris du milieu des montagnes, tu m’as appelé à être le berger des hommes, tu m’as

confié le sceptre de la justice.” 247 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:305).

73

Pastoral imagery applied to kings occurs in a variety of genres. It occurs in royal texts248

,

like the Cylinders of Gudea (around 2100 B.C.), where king Gudea refers to himself as

“me being the shepherd, she [i.e. the goddess] has entrusted me with the office and

authority.249

It is also found in the prologue of the Code of Hammurabi, where the king

refers to himself as “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil am I.”250

Pastoral imagery

is also found in Ashurbanipal’s Coronation Hymn: “May Shamash, king of heaven and

earth, raise you to shepherdship over the four regions … Place in his hand the weapon of

combat and battle, and give him the black-headed people, that he may rule as their

shepherd.”251

And in a royal hymn which describes the birth of king Shulgi in the temple

of Nippur not only the god Nunanmir / Enlil is praised as “the eternal shepherd of the

land” and as “the powerful shepherd”, but also king Shulgi is portrayed as “the shepherd

of prosperity”, whose “land is a (peaceful) pasture.”252

Pastoral imagery for kings is also

found in the Lamentation over Ur-Nammu. In this Lamentation this king is repeatedly

referred to as the “righteous shepherd” who has been “snatched away”.253

Based on the widespread use of the terms ‘shepherd’ and ‘shepherding’ for kings in

Mesopotamia, Van Hecke (2000:299) concludes with Dürr that these terms often

functioned as technical terms that referred to the royal activity of ruling the people.

Schott (1929:68-77) has given an overview of the imagery used for kings in the Akkadian

royal inscriptions. With regard to pastoral imagery, he noted that the following

expressions are used to refer to kings: “Shepherd,” “shepherd of people,” “shepherd of

the black-headed people,” “shepherd of the people of the four regions of the world,”

“faithful shepherd,” “shepherd of Ashur,” “shepherd of the holy shrines,” “the wise

shepherd,” “the courageous shepherd,” “the pious shepherd,” “the trustworthy shepherd”.

248 Some scholars, like De Moor (1982:36-37), have advocated the view that shepherd imagery also occurs

in the Sumerian Kings List, which dates back to the late third millennium B.C. In this list, three of the kings

(Dumu-zi, Etana and Lugulbanda) have the epithet of ‘shepherd’ (sipa). Alster (1972:9ff), however, thinks

that the term “shepherd” is used in a literal sense here. Alster’s literal interpretation of the shepherd terms seems to be more plausible than De Moor’s figurative interpretation. The following arguments can be

brought against a figurative interpretation. 1. All the names mentioned in the list are names of kings; If the

term ‘shepherd’ were intended as a figurative (royal) epithet, there would be no satisfactory explanation as

to why some of the kings have the epithet of “shepherd”, while others don’t. 2. If a figurative (royal)

epithet were intended, one would expect a definite article (‘the shepherd’ instead of ‘a shepherd’). (Cf.

Jacobson (1939:72-73), who translates dumu-zi sipa as ‘Dumu-zi, a shepherd’.) 3. Dumu-zi of Uruk,

mentioned right after ‘shepherd’ Lugalbanda, has the epithet of ‘SHU.PESH-fisherman’. Based on this

analogy, it seems best to interpret the epithets ‘shepherd’ and ‘fisherman’ as an indication of the kings’

former occupations and/or the socio-economic contexts from which these kings originated. It could even be

argued that the epithets of ‘shepherd’ and ‘fisherman’ were intended to distinguish two kings with the same

name: Dumu-zi ‘a shepherd’, who reigned before the Flood, and Dumu-zi ‘a fisherman’, who reigned after

the Flood. 249 Hallo (2000:420). 250 ANET 164. 251 Hallo (1997:473-474). 252 Hallo (1997:552-553). 253 Beyerlin (1976:116-117).

74

It is interesting to note that the king is not only portrayed as a “shepherd’, but also as a

“leading flock animal.”254

Care, protection and leadership seem to be the predominant notions that are expressed by

the pastoral imagery as it is applied to royal people. In addition, the notion of ‘gathering

the dispersed flock’ is also attested as a ground of the royal shepherd metaphor.255

Shepherd imagery capitalizes on the benevolent relationship between the king and his

people.

De Fraine summarized the function of the king as shepherd as follows: 1. As a shepherd

the king determines the destiny of his people; 2. He also protects them against all kinds of

danger; and 3. He provides them with earthly goods in abundance.256

Seibert makes it

clear that the king as a shepherd was responsible for the protection and safety of his

people and for the food production and their general welfare. On the other hand, the king

as a shepherd also had the right to receive the products and labor of his people.257

Van Hecke (2000:300-301) does not agree with the idea that the king as a shepherd had

the right to receive the products and labor of his people. He points out that there is no

evidence from the ancient texts that the king as a shepherd had the automatic right to

receive products from his people. The focus is much more on the responsibility of the

king to take care of his people – as part of the task that the deity had given him. The king

was not the owner of the people that he was taking care of as a shepherd. Van Hecke also

observes that the focus of the shepherd metaphor is on the protection of the flock, the

keeping together or bringing together of the flock, and the provision of food and water.

Van Hecke also calls attention to the correlation between the emergence of concentrated

settlement of people along the banks of the rivers of Mesopotamia and between the need

for a more centralized social and political system. The agriculture required intensive

irrigation, and this in turn required a centralized system of government. Like a shepherd

was supposed to provide water for his flock in a dry area, the king was responsible for a

good functioning of the irrigation system.258

254

Other figurative expressions for kings, as noted by Schott (1929:68-77) include: Peasant/soil tiller:

“faithful peasant,” “the peasant of Babel, who takes care of the holy shrines of Babel.” Sun: “the sun of

Babel,” “the sun of all people,” “the sun of his country”. Shade/roof: “shading roof of the country,”

“shading roof of the world,” “shading roof of his men”. Rein: “rein of people,” “rein of (other) kings,”

“rein of the land”. Wild bull: “the wild bull who fells his enemies”. Lion: “lion.” Elements: “fire,” “rain

of fire,” “flood that cannot be stopped.” 255

Cf. De Robert (1967:13), who mentions that king Marduk-apla-iddin II is referred to as “Celui-ci est

vraiment le berger qui rassemblera ceux qui ont été dispersés.” Cf. also Van Hecke (2000:300), who cites the following testimony about Hammurabi: “De verstrooide bevolking van Sumer en Akkad verzamelde ik,

spijs en drank bood ik hun daar aan, met zegen en volheid weidde ik hen.” 256 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:300). 257 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:300). 258 Van Hecke (2000:302).

75

B. The Deity is a Shepherd

The term “shepherd” was used less frequently for Mesopotamian deities. Mesopotamian

deities were called shepherd of the areas for which they were responsible. The main gods

Enlil, Marduk and Shamash were viewed as the shepherds of all the people. The moon

god Suen/Nanna was sometimes portrayed as the shepherd of the stars.259

Pastoral imagery occurs, for example, in a hymn to Enlil, where this god is acknowledged

as the ruling deity of the universe. In that hymn, “father” Enlil, who is the “lord of the

lands” is also called “shepherd of the black-heads” and as the one who has the “shepherd-

crook” of the gods under his care.260

Pastoral imagery is also found in the Weidner

Chronicle, where it is applied to the god Marduk.261

In the Akkadian hymn to the sun-god

Shamash262

this god is given the title of ‘shepherd of the lower world’ and ‘guardian of

the upperworld’. The shepherd metaphor is connected with the notions of protection and

guidance.263

In Ashurbanipal’s hymn for Shamash, the sun-god is called ‘lofty judge’ and

‘shepherd of the celestial and earthly regions’.264

In the same hymn, the imagery of

‘shepherding’ is also applied to the king.265

In the Lamentation of the gods of Sumer who abandon their temples, the temples are

compared to stables and sheepfolds, while the gods are compared to shepherds who have

abandoned their temples (stables) and people (cattle).266

According to Van Hecke (2000:302), the use of shepherd imagery for gods, as it was

used in Mesopotamia, occurs in almost every historical period, and was not subject to

historical development. He agrees with Van der Toorn that, when gods were portrayed as

‘shepherds’, the focus was on their protection of people. The rather frequent use of

theophoric personal names with re‘u, ‘shepherd’ (like Shamash-re‘ua, ‘Shamash is my

shepherd’) points in this direction.

259 Cf. Bosetti (1993:12): ‘In one of these formulae, Mekhenty-irty is described as he who lets the deceased

sleep in his arms, therefore in safekeeping, and is called the shepherd of the Pharaoh’: ‘Behold, he has

arrived! Behold, he has arrived! Behold, your brother has arrived! Behold, Mekhenty-irty has arrived! Even

though you may not recognize him. You sleep in his embrace. Even when your secretion dries up, He is as your calf, as your Shepherd.’ (Pyr 1864a-1865b). Cf. alsoVan Hecke (2000:305). 260 ANET 576. Note that in the same hymn Enlil is also addressed as ‘recumbent wild ox’ and ‘unruffled

bull’. 261 Hallo (1997:469): ‘May Esagila, the majestic shrine, be [ ] to the limits of heaven and earth! May the

Lord of Lords, who dwells in the shrine, from east to west, XXXX! May he shepherd human beings like

sheep! May the city be famous XXX! 262 This hymn belongs to the library of Assurbanipal of Assur (668-633). But it originates from the end of

the 2nd millennium B.C. 263 ANET 387-388. ‘Those endowed with life, thou likewise dost tend; Thou indeed art their shepherd both

above and below. Faithfully thou dost continue to pass through the heavens; The broad earth thou dost visit

daily. (…). The lower region, belonging to the prince Kubu (and) the Annunaki, thou dost guard;The upper

world, consisting of all inhabited places, thou dost lead aright. Shepherd of the lower world, guardian of the upper, Guide, light of everything, O Shamash, art thou.’ 264 Hallo (1997:474). 265 Hallo (1997:474): ‘May he constantly shepherd over your peoples, whom you gave him, in justice. (…)

May he shepherd the peoples of Enlil in abundance and justice!.’ 266 Hallo (1997:535-536).

76

According to Soggin, the term ‘shepherd’ [naqidu, re‘u, utullu] became a technical term

for the deified king, who was seen as a manifestation of the shepherd god

Dumuzi/Tammuz.267

The title of shepherd, as it was used in Mesopotamia, referred to the

cultic authority of the king as a high priest and mediator between the gods and the people.

The king was also shepherd in the sense that he gathered his people together and

protected them, and that he supplied them abundantly with goods while he maintained

justice.268

4.3. Shepherd imagery in ancient Egypt

4.3.1. Introduction

A. The Deity is a Shepherd

In Egypt, the first evidence of the metaphor of “The Deity is a Shepherd” is already

found in the third millennium B.C. It is found in the pyramid texts of the Old Empire

(2686-2181 B.C.). In those texts the blind sky god Mekhenti-irti is called the shepherd of

the stars. The shepherd-god is viewed as the one who embraces the stars with his arms.

According to the ancient beliefs of the Egyptians, the kings of Egypt became stars after

they died.269

In these pyramid texts the shepherd metaphor is used to express the

relationship between the deity and the king (Pharaoh) after his death. During this period it

is not used as an expression of the relationship between the deity and the people of Egypt.

During the First Interim Period (2181-2040 B.C.) the metaphor of “The Deity is a

Shepherd” is popularized. The Pharaoh is no longer the only one who is the object of the

shepherding care of the deity, but all the people of Egypt are included in this care.

Van Hecke (2000:293) points out that this popularization of the shepherd metaphor

coincided with the time that the Egyptians’ view on the established world order was in a

crisis. The pessimistic sage Ipu-ur, for example, questions the validity of the popular

expression that the sun god is the shepherd of all people. In this context the shepherd

metaphor does not primarily express the care of the deity towards his people, but it is

used as an appeal to remind the deity of his responsibility to take care of the people

whom he had created.

The Rule of Merikare (end of 22nd

century B.C.) opposed this pessimistic view. It made

clear that the sun god Ra was indeed taking care of his people, like a shepherd takes care

of his flock.270

In this Rule, it is contended that kings and principles were created for the

267

THAT II, p. 793-794. 268 THAT II, p. 794. ‘Im Zweistromenland bezieht sich der Hirtentitel einerseits auf die kultische Befugnisse des Königs als Oberhaupt des Priestertums und Mittler zwischen den Göttern und dem Volk;

anderseits ist der König Hirte, indem er sein Volk sammelt und schützt, es reichlich mit irdischen Gütern

versieht und die Gerechtigkeit wahrt.’ 269 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:292). 270 ANET 417: “Well directed are men, the cattle of the god.”

77

sake of the people, the Egyptian people in particular. The people see themselves as the

property of the gods, while they view the kings and leaders as servants of the gods and as

the ones who are responsible for taking care of the people. The use of the “shepherd”

(mnjw) title for the Pharaohs is not an expression of their autonomy, but rather an

expression of their responsibilities with regard to the people.

The metaphor of “The Deity is a Shepherd” also occurred very frequently during the first

generations of the Middle Empire (2040-1786 B.C.), but during the later generations it is

no longer attested, except for one isolated case at the end of the period.

During the New Empire (1570-1085 B.C.) the imagery of “The Deity is a shepherd”

becomes universal and individual. The imagery occurs predominantly in hymns to the

sun god.271

In one of the four hymns to Amun (before 1365 B.C.), the sun-god is

addressed as “the good shepherd, who appears wearing his white crown” and as the one

with his many hands, “who guards at night, when the whole world is asleep, while you

seek what is useful for your herd”.272

In the Hymn of Mer-Sekmet the sun-god Amon-Re-

Har-akhti is addressed as “thou art valiant as a herdsman tending them [the people]

forever and ever.”273

In the same hymn the deity is also called “O our Ptah who loves his

craft, herdsman who loves his herds.”

The Book of the Dead also contains a confession in which people are referred to as “the

herd of god”: “I have not done injustice to the people. I have not brought distress on the

herd of god …”274

B. The King is a Shepherd

In Egypt, kings began to bear the title of shepherd from the 12th dynasty (1991 – 1786

B.C.) on. As a shepherd of his people, the king had the responsibility to take good care of

his flock. Like in Mesopotamia, the shepherd title was often linked to the notion of divine

election. Queen Hatesjepsut (1516 – 1484 B.C.), for example, refers to herself as ‘the one

whom he [i.e. the god Amun] has chosen to be a shepherd of Egypt, and a protector of the

people.’ And king Amenhotep II (1450-1425 B.C.) says regarding himself: ‘He [i.e. the

god Amun] has made me to a shepherd of this country, because he knew that I would lead

it for him.’275

271 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:296). He refers to a hymn for Amon, in which the sun-god is portrayed as the

shepherd of an individual, in a way that is similar to Psalm 23: “Amon, jij leidt mij, de hongerige, naar

voedsel, want Amon is waarlijk een herder, een herder die niet traag is.” Cf. Beyerlin (1976:46). 272

Beyerlin (1976:25, 27). 273 ANET 371. 274 Beyerlin (1976:63). 275 Cf. De Moor, Johannes C. (1982). ‘De goede herder. Oorsprong en vroege geschiedenis van de

herdersmetafoor’ In: Bewerken en bewaren. Studies aangeboden aan prof. dr. Klaas Runia, vijfentwintig

jaar na zijn inauguratie als hoogleraar in de theologie, te Geelong, Australie. (ed. G. Heitink et al) Kampen:

Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok. p. 37.

78

Pharaoh Sesostris I referred to himself as the herdsman of the land, who had been

appointed by Re-Har-akhti.276

This shepherd metaphor occurs in a royal address in which

the king explains his plans to build a temple. The king claims that he had been appointed

by the god to be a herdsman of the land and that he knows the will of the god. This means

that his plan to build a temple is in accordance with the will of the god.

During the New Empire (1570-1085 B.C.) not only Pharaoh’s but also other leaders were

called “shepherds”.

4.4. Shepherd imagery in the Western Semitic world

The relatively few texts from the Western Semitic world (other than the Hebrew Bible)

contain very few instances of pastoral imagery. In one of the tablets from El-Amarna

(14th century B.C.) governor Adu-Heba of Jerusalem refers to himself as a ruhi of the

king. This term could be interpreted as a form of the root r‘y, ‘shepherd’, but this is not

certain at all.277

Clear cases of pastoral imagery for kings are also absent from Ras

Shamra (Ugarit) texts. The term nqd occurs several times in these texts, but the meaning

of this term is probably ‘official’ rather than ‘shepherd’.278

Pastoral imagery for deities does occur, however. Ebla texts (2500-2200 B.C.) contain a

Canaanite theophoric name, which can be read as ré-ì-ma-lik, ‘(the god) Malik is my

shepherd’. And the Mari archives (2000-1700) contain the name I-la-ra-hi-ya, ‘[The god]

Il is my shepherd’.279

And in texts from Ugarit (1400-1250 B.C.) the god Had (Baal) is

called ‘shepherd’.280

Baal/Had is also called “shepherd” in a text which describes the

resurrection of the souls of kings that have died.281

However, in none of these texts

Baal/Had is pictured as the shepherd of the souls of the dead, like in Egypt.

Pastoral imagery for gods is also attested in the toponym hdr‘y, “Haddu (Ba‘lu) is the

shepherd”, which was a city intimately connected with the Canaanite cult of dead

ancestors. And in Mari texts the place name ha-du-ra-ha-a is found, which can be

interpreted as “Haddu pastures”.282

276 Beyerlin (1976:36). “He [i.e. Re-Har-akhti] formed me to do what he has done, and to bring into

existence what he ordered. He appointed me to be a shepherd of the land, because he knew who would

keep the land together for him.” 277 Cf. De Robert (1967:16) and Van Hecke (2000:310). 278 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:311), who bases his interpretation on the work of Dietrich and Loretz (1977). Die

Ugaritische Berufsgruppe der nqdm und das Amt des rb nqdm. In: Ugarit-Forschungen 9 (1977:336f). 279

Cf. Van Hecke (2000:311). 280 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:312), who translates this text (KTU 1.108, r. 3-4) as follows: “El, de rechter [is gezeten] naast Had, de herder, die zingt en speelt op de luit en de fluit (?), op de tamboerijn en de

cimbalen.” 281 De Moor (1982:44). According to Korpel (1990:449), ‘Ba‘lu is the only god who is explicitly called a

shepherd [r ‘y].’ 282 Korpel (1990:449).

79

Korpel also mentions the fact that some deities (the goddess ‘Anatu and the god Ilu) are

described with a staff in their hand. However, she points out that in those cases the staff

is to be interpreted as a weapon or as a hunting tool, and not as a shepherd’s staff.283

4.5. Conclusions

Our survey of shepherd imagery in the ancient Near East has shown that this imagery

occurred predominantly in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. Shepherd imagery (as applied to

gods and kings) was very sparse in the Western Semitic world (excluding the Old

Testament).

By way of conclusion, I’d like to mention some important observations and conclusions,

which have been put forward by Bosetti and Van Hecke.

Bosetti (1993:12-13) concludes that there are three important differences between the use

of pastoral imagery in Mesopotamia and in ancient Egypt. She concludes that, ‘in

Mesopotamia, this title [of shepherd; DK] was initially the prerogative of a king, then of

the divinity.’ This use of pastoral imagery is different from its use in ancient Egypt,

where, ‘the process is reversed’ and where ‘it is foremost God who is named as

shepherd.’

Another difference, according to Bosetti, is that in Mesopotamia the care of the

metaphorical shepherd is primarily focused on common people, while in Egypt the care

of the metaphorical shepherd is primarily focused on the Pharaoh.284

A third difference is that: ‘the Mesopotamian concept of the shepherd-god does not

concern itself primarily with life after death, but rather with life here and now.’ This is

in marked contrast with the use of the shepherd metaphor in ancient Egypt, where it often

refers to life after death.285

Van Hecke (2000:292, 297, 302) mentions another significant difference between the use

of shepherd imagery in Mesopotamia and in Egypt: The use of shepherd imagery in

Mesopotamia, as it occurs in almost every historical period, seems to be very stable and

does not show a clear historical development. This is in contrast with the use of shepherd

imagery in ancient Egypt, where the use of the imagery undergoes significant changes

over time.

Particularly interesting is Van Hecke’s (2000:295) observation that the frequency of the

use of ‘the king is a shepherd’ in ancient Egypt seems to be oppositely congruent with the

283 Korpel (1990:449). 284

However, Bosetti (1993:14) also observes that ‘a certain democratization of the theology of the shepherd

is noticeable in Egypt at the beginning of the First Intermediate Period (2135-2040 BC). It was a period of crisis and instability. The age of the pyramids, the pomp and security of the Ancient Empire give way to

unrest, rebellion and the demand for social justice. And it is precisely in this context that the notion of God

as shepherd assumes a symbolic value. It serves to express the attitude of the divinity towards creatures,

towards all humanity, not only those who are princes and masters.’ 285 Bosetti (1993:13).

80

internal and external stability of the country. This would then contrast with the use of the

imagery in Mesopotamia, where a similar correlation between political circumstances and

the use of pastoral terminology for kings seems to be absent.

Generalizations like these need, of course, be handled with care, especially since an in-

depth study of pastoral imagery in Mesopotamian texts is not available.286

But, they shed

some light on the differences in the use of pastoral imagery, as they are perceived by

contemporary researchers.

286 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:292): ‘Een omvattend chronologisch onderzoek, vergelijkbaar met dat van Müller,

is echter bij mijn weten voor het Mesopotamische (Sumerische en Akkadische) cultuurgebied nog niet

doorgevoerd.’

81

5. The Imagery of Shepherd and Sheep in the Old Testament

5.1. Introduction

The imagery of shepherd and sheep, as it is found in the Old Testament, is applied to a

variety of topics. Pastoral imagery is predicated of God himself, of political leaders and

kings of Israel and other nations, of prophets and other spiritual leaders of the people of

Israel, of ‘the lips of the righteous,’ and of the promised king/Messiah.287

In this chapter

the focus of our discussion will be on the imagery of shepherd and sheep as an expression

of the relationship between God (YHWH) and his people (Israel). The imagery of

shepherd and sheep is expressed in metaphors, similes, and symbolic language.288

The focus of our present research is on the metaphors and similes that portray God

(YHWH) as a shepherd of his people. The Old Testament texts expressing this imagery

can, in fact, be divided into two different groups: 1. Texts where God (YHWH) is

portrayed as a shepherd of individual sheep; and 2. Texts where He is described as a

shepherd of a flock of sheep. The first group of texts reflects God’s care for individual

believers, while the second group of texts expresses His provision for the people of Israel

as a religious (and political) community.

Shepherd and sheep imagery as an expression of the relationship between God and his

people occurs primarily in Genesis, the Psalms and the Prophets. It is remarkable that

explicit shepherd imagery for God is relatively sparse in the Pentateuch accounts of the

exodus event. In the Psalms and the Prophets, however, the shepherd metaphor for God is

more explicit and developed. In most of these contexts the shepherd metaphor is

expressed in the historical situation of the impending exile and/or the promised return to

Israel. The return to Israel is cast in terms of a new exodus. Also, the first exodus (from

Egypt to Canaan) is portrayed in retrospect as an event in which YHWH as a shepherd

leads his people to the promised land.

Modern exegetes have claimed that the imagery of God as a shepherd was originally

applied to the people of Israel as a religious community, and that at a later stage this was

also applied to God’s care for individuals.289

However, there is no conclusive evidence

that pastoral imagery applied to the relationship between YHWH and the people of Israel

is necessarily older than pastoral imagery applied to the relationship between YHWH and

individual believers.290

287 Cf. section 5.2. for an overview of the most important texts where these different applications occur. 288 Although there are linguistic-pragmatic differences between similes and metaphors, there is no reason to

limit the thematic exposition of the imagery of shepherd or sheep to metaphors alone. From a cognitive and

thematic point of view, metaphors and similes refer to very similar thoughts. Metaphors and similes are

complementary expressions of figurative language, which can illuminate each other. 289 See, for example, Claus Westermann (1982:214): ‘Das Bildwort des Hirten für Gott wurde zuerst auf Israel als Volk bezogen (Ps 80,2; Gen 49,24?), erst nachträglich auf den Einzelnen (Ps 23,1).’ Based on this

presupposition, Westermann (1982:212) concludes that the shepherd metaphor for God in Genesis 48:15

was included at a later stage (‘nachträglich eingeführt’). 290 The fact that “GOD IS MY SHEPHERD” occurs in ancient blessings pronounced in the context of the

Old Testament patriarchs (Jacob/Israel) would speak in favor of considering the individual application of

82

In a number of texts, YHWH is also explicitly referred to as the owner of the flock.291

The imagery of the shepherd and the imagery of the owner of the flock are closely related

motifs, but they differ in terms of their range of implicatures. The imagery of the

shepherd focuses on YHWH’s provision, guidance, protection, unification of his people

and on his presence with his people. The imagery of the owner of the flock, on the other

hand, focuses on YHWH’s rights and duties towards his people, and on the judgment that

he will bring on the false shepherds who have neglected, mistreated and abandoned his

people.

Shepherd and sheep imagery in the Old Testament is not limited to the expression of the

caring and guiding relationship between God and his people. Political en religious leaders

are also referred to as shepherds of the people that are under their authority. It is

remarkable, though, that the kings of Judah and Israel are only occasionally referred to as

‘shepherd (of Israel)’. This could very well be an indication that the title ‘shepherd of

Israel’ (in its singular form) was primarily seen as a prerogative of God himself.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is often applied in a positive sense. There are cases,

however, where the imagery is used to express negative feelings and negative states of

events. Death is, for example, portrayed as a shepherd who leads people to the grave292

.

And the defeated people of Israel cry out to God, because for His sake they face death all

day long, and they are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.293

In their lamentation, they

accuse God, that he has given them up to be devoured like sheep and that he has scattered

them among the nations.294

The imagery related to shepherd, owner and sheep, as it occurs in the Old Testament, is

primarily applied to the religious and political domains.295

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is not always made explicit. This is, for example, the

case with metaphors ‘in absentia’, where, instead of a clear metaphorical expression like

‘the LORD is my shepherd’, a verb like ‘lead’ is used (Cf. Exodus 15:13), which

the shepherd imagery as ancient. This would also be consistent with the personal character of the relationship between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For other arguments, see note 31 below. 291 In the Old Testament, the people who tend flocks of sheep and goats are not always the owners of the

flock. Abram and Lot had shepherds who took care of their flocks. Moses tended the sheep of his father-in-

law Jethro, etc. 292 Psalm 49:14. Another interpretation of is that death is an animal that feeds on the people that

are dead. 293 Psalm 44:23. 294 Psalm 44:12. 295

In 2 Samuel 12:1-4, however, pastoral imagery is applied to the social (ethical) domain. In this passage,

the prophet Nathan tells king David the story of the rich man who stole the little ewe lamb of the poor man. Nathan’s story turned out to be a parable of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

The parable sets the stage for Nathan’s accusation of the king and for the subsequent announcement that the

Lord would bring a severe penalty on David. In this parable, the affectionate and caring relationship

between owner and ewe lamb is an image of the love of Bathsheba’s husband Uriah toward his wife.

83

could imply that its subject is thought as a shepherd.296

In some cases, like with the verb

‘keep’ (), it is not always easy to tell whether or not shepherd imagery forms the

background.297

5.2. Words for ‘shepherd’ and ‘sheep’ in the Old Testament

5.2.1. Overview of the main terminology

Shepherd and sheep terminology in the Old Testament belongs to the cognitive (cultural)

domain of animal husbandry. It also constitutes a sub-domain in its own right. The

vocabulary related to this sub-domain can be classified in terms of Entities (A), Events

(B), Locations (C), and Attributes & Relations (D):

A. Entities: 1. People: SHEPHERD: , masculine participle (qal-form),

‘shepherd’298

; , ‘sheep tender’299

; , ‘herdsman’300

; OWNER (OF

FLOCK): no specific term (noun) is used.301

2. Animals302

: FLOCK: a. generic:

296 The verb ‘lead’ occurs seven times in the Old Testament. In Psalm 23:2, Isaiah 40:11 and 49:10 it

occurs clearly in contexts where shepherd imagery is intended. In Exodus 15:13, Psalm 31:4, Isaiah 51:1

and 2 Chronicles 28:15 either shepherd imagery or guidance imagery is intended. 297 In Psalm 121:4-8, for example, YHWH is portrayed as the (‘guard/watchman/keeper of

Israel’), who continually watches over his people. Verse 3a (‘He will not let your foot slip’) and verse 8

(‘The LORD will watch over your coming and going’) would fit in very well with a shepherd and sheep

interpretation. Also verse 6 (‘the sun will not harm you by day nor the moon by night’) would be consistent

with the interpretation of a shepherd who takes care of his sheep. However, there does not seem to be any

conclusive evidence that shepherd imagery is intended here. In other texts, like in the Aaronite benediction

in Numbers 6:24, , ‘YHWH bless you and keep you’, it is also not sure whether any

shepherd imagery was originally intended. It is important to steer away from the pitfall of interpreting

every instance of the verb ,‘keep’ as an implied shepherd metaphor. The verb could, for instance, also

be an expression of the imagery of a watchtower guardian, or it could be used in a neutral sense, with no

particular imagery in mind. The context should be the decisive factor. Another text where shepherd

imagery could be involved is Genesis 4:9, where Cain replies to God, after he killed Abel:

, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ If this interpretation is plausible, Cain would not only

express indifference with respect to his brother’s fate, but he would also express contempt for the

occupation of his brother whom he just killed (‘I’m not a shepherd, it’s not my job to take care of others’). 298 The feminine term , ‘shepherdess’ is also attested in the Old Testament, but it occurs only once (in

Gen. 29:9). 299 The term could also mean ‘sheep breeder’ (Cf. Gesenius-Buhl 1962:519, who gives ‘Schafzüchter’

as the primary meaning of this term.) 300 The term is normally used for people who tend cattle; In Amos 7:14, however, the term is used to

denote a tender of sheep (cf. 7:15). 301 The following verbal and other non-nominal expressions are used to express the notion of ownership:

(cf. Genesis 13:5), (“I own”) and (“what you own”) (cf. Genesis 33:9). The verb

, ‘buy’implies ownership (cf. 2 Samuel 12:3). 302 It should be noted that this overview is not intended to be an exhaustive list of terminology related to the

domain of animal husbandry (shepherd and sheep). Terminology related to ANIMAL PRODUCTS

(“milk,” cheese,” “fat,” “wool,” “leather,” etc.) is, for example, not included here, since these are not

particularly relevant to the imagery of shepherd and sheep in general.

84

, ‘property, flock’; (collective), ‘flock of sheep (and goats)’; ,

‘flock’; , ‘young animal (lamb or goat)’. b. specific: (collective), ‘sheep’;

, ‘ram’; , ‘ewe’; , ‘ewe that are nursing their young ones’; ,

‘lamb’; , ‘young lamb’; , ‘goat’; , ‘male goat’; WILD ANIMALS: a.

generic: , ‘wild animal’; b. specific: , ‘lion’, ‘bear’ (cf. 2

Samuel 17:34), , ‘lion,’ , ‘wolf’ (cf. Jeremiah 5:6). SHEEP DOGS:

, “sheep dogs”. 3. Objects: SHEPHERD’S TOOLS: ,

‘shepherd’s rod’; , ‘shepherd’s staff’; , ‘sling’; , shepherd’s

bag.

B. Events: 1. People as Main Participant: SHEPHERD: I qal (transitive),

‘tend sheep’; qal and hi., ‘lead (people, flock)’; pi., ‘drive’; pi.,

‘lead’; hi., ‘gather (flock)’; hi., ‘give rest’; qal and pi., ‘gather

(flock)’; hi., ‘give water (to sheep), moisten (land)’; qal, ‘watch’;

pi. and hi., ‘rescue’; qal ‘search for’; qal, “care”; qal, “shear

(sheep)”. OWNER: qal, ‘acquire’, hi. (Object: ; Oblique: )

‘appoint as a shepherd over [flock]’; qal , ‘ask restitution, hold

accountable’; hi. , ‘fire (the shepherd), remove (shepherd) from

tending the sheep’; THIEVES and ROBBERS: No specific terminology. 2.

Animals as Main Participant: FLOCK: I qal (intransitive), ‘graze, eat,

find pasture’; qal, ‘lie down’; qal and ni. ‘be scattered’; WILD

ANIMALS: qal. ‘devour’.

C. Locations: 1. Land: PASTURE LAND: ‘pasture land’; ,

‘pasturage’; , ‘pasture ground’; , ‘pasture ground, place, settlement’;

, ‘pasture land’, , ‘meadow’. 2. Enclosure: SHEEPFOLD:

‘sheepfold’; ‘pen for sheep’; 3. Places for drinking: “well”.

D. Attributes & Relations: 1. Predicated of People: No specific terminology.

2. Predicated of Animals: ATTRIBUTES: (), ‘fat (sheep)’; ( ),

‘lean (sheep)’; , ‘the weak (ones)’; , ‘the sick (ones)’;

,‘the injured (ones)’; , ‘the strayed (ones)’; , ‘the lost

(ones)’; , ‘the fat (ones)’; , ‘the strong (ones)’; RELATIONS:

, ‘(sheep) of his pasture’; 3. Predicated of Locations: GOOD:

(), ‘good (pasture)’; ( ) ‘good (pasture)’; ( ), ‘rich

(pasture)’; , ‘green (pastures)’; , ‘quiet waters’; BAD: no

specific terminology.

85

The terminology related to the domain of animal husbandry can be divided into terms

like ‘shepherd,’ ‘sheep’ and ‘flock’ that are primarily linked to this domain, and other

terms like qal‘watch’ and qal and hi., ‘lead (people, flock)’ etc., that have a

wider application which is not restricted to this particular domain. And terms like ‘lion’

and ‘bear’ belong primarily to the domain of wild animals, but as predators of flock

animals they are also secondarily related to the domain of animal husbandry.

5.2.2. Frequency counts of the terminology

A. General word counts

The verb root I, “to graze, shepherd”, occurs 166 times in the Old Testament.303

The

verb occurs most frequently in the qal-form. But, occasionally it occurs in the hiph‘il-

form.

Shepherd: The masculine participle , “shepherd,” occurs 83 times, while the

feminine participle “shepherdess” occurs only once (Genesis 29:9). There are two

other terms for “shepherd”, but they occur only a few times: The term , “shepherd,”

is found only twice (2 Kings 4:3; Amos 1:1). And the term , “herder,” occurs only

once (Amos 7:14). Shepherd’s attributes: The term , “staff, rod, tribe” occurs 178

times. It occurs .. times in the sense of “shepherd’s staff”. The term , “support,

staff” occurs 11 times.

Flock: The term “flock,” occurs 35 times. The term , “flock animal” occurs 261

times. The term , “small cattle, sheep, goat” occurs 39 times. ,“lamb” occurs

100 times. , “ewe-lamb” occurs eight times. , “ewe” occurs four times.

,ram” occurs .. times. The term contrasts with , “cattle”, which occurs 182

times. The expression occurs times in the sense of “young flock animals”.

The term , “she-goat,” occurs 67 times. The term , “goat, buck, kid,” occurs 16

times.

Sheep pen and pasture: The term , “sheep pen,” is occurs five times, while the

term , “sheep pen,” is found three times. The term , “pasture,” occurs 12

times, while , “pasture,” occurs 10 times, and , “pasture,” occurs only once.

The term occurs 16 (?) times in the sense of “pasture”.

Shepherd’s activities: Other terms related to the domain of shepherd and sheep are: the

verb pi. “lead (flock),” qal “lead” (39x), hi. “make lie down”. The verbs

303 Jenni-Westermann THAT II (1976:791) counts 168 occurrences. A frequency count done in Paratext

yielded 141 references. But apparently, Paratext counts multiple occurrences in the same verse as one.

86

“keep, watch, observe” and qal “gather” are also used in context of watching

over sheep and gathering sheep.

B. Figurative and non-figurative uses of the root I

An overview of the frequencies of figurative and non-figurative uses of the root I

is presented below.304

The root is used in a figurative sense in over three-quarters of the

cases that it occurs in the Old Testament. Figurative use of forms of this root occurs most

frequently in Ezekiel (31x), Jeremiah (24x), Isaiah (16x), Zechariah (12x), and the

Psalms (8x).305

Book

306 Literal Symbol. Metaph. Simile Meton. Ambigu. Total %

Figurat.

Genesis 19 x

N:11/V:8

2x

N:0/V:2

2x

N:1/V:1

-- -- -- 23x

N:12/V:11

17.4 %

Exodus 4x

N:2/V:2

-- -- -- -- -- 4x

N:2/V:2

0.0 %

Numbers 1x N:0/V:1

-- -- 1x N:1/V:0

-- -- 2x N:1/V:1

50.0 %

1 Sam. 7x

N:3/V:4

-- -- -- -- -- 7x

N:3/V:4

0.0 %

2 Sam. -- -- 2x

N:0/V:2

-- -- -- 2x

N:0/V:2

100.0 %

1 Kings -- -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

100.0 %

2 Kings 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- -- -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

0.0 %

Isaiah -- 6x

N:1/V:5

6x

N:3/V:3

4x

N:3/V:1

-- 1x

N:0/V:1

17x

N:7/V:10

94.1 %

Jeremiah 1x

N:1/V:0

1x

N:1/V:0

19x

N:15x/V:4

4x

N:4/V:0

-- -- 25x

N:21/V:4

96.0 %

Ezekiel -- -- 30x

N:13/V:17

1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- 31x

N:14/V:17

100.0 %

Hosea -- -- 1x

N:0/V:1

1x

N:0/V:1

1x

N:0/V:1

-- 3x

N:0/V:3

100.0 %

Amos 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- 2x

N:2/V:0

50.0 %

Jon 1x

N:0/V:1

-- -- -- -- -- 1x

N:0/V:1

0.0 %

Micah -- -- 5x N:1/V:4

-- -- -- 5x N:1/V:4

100.0 %

Nahum -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

100.0 %

Zeph. -- 1x

N:1/V:0

2x

N:0/V:2

-- -- -- 3x

N:1/V:2

100.0 %

Zech. -- 1x

N:1/V:0

11x

N:8/V:3

-- -- -- 12x

N:9/V:3

100.0 %

304 A detailed overview of the figurative and non-figurative uses of the other terms related to the domain of

animal husbandry falls outside the scope of the present chapter. 305 Note that N stands for “Noun/Participle” and that V stands for “Verb”. 306 The root I is not found in the following books: Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Joel,

Obadiah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Malachi, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah

87

Book Literal Symbol. Metaph. Simile Meton. Ambigu. Total % Fig.

use

Psalms -- -- 8x

N:2/V:6

-- -- -- 8x

N:2/V:6

100.0 %

Job 2x

N:0/V:2

-- 2x

N:0/V:2

-- -- -- 4x

N:0/V:4

50.0 %

Proverbs -- -- 2x

N:0/V:2

-- -- -- 2x

N:0/V:2

100.0 %

Song of

Solomon

-- 3x

N:1/V:2

3x

N:0/V:3

1x

N:0/V:1

-- -- 7x

N:1/V:6

100.0 %

Eccles. -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

100.0 %

1 Chron 1x N:0/V:1

-- 2x N:0/V:2

-- -- -- 3x N:0/V:3

66.7 %

2 Chron -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

-- -- -- 1x

N:1/V:0

100.0 %

TOTAL

38x

N:19/V:19

14x

N:5/V:9

98x

N:46/V:52

14x

N:11/V:3

1x

N:0/V:1

1x

N:0/V:1

166x

N:81/V:85

76.6 %

% 22.9 8.4 59.0 8.4 .5 .5 99.7 %

Literal Symbolic Metaphor Simile Metonym Ambig TOTAL

Texts where the root I, ‘shepherd, feed,’ is used in a figurative sense:

I Frequency Texts

Metaphor 98x Genesis 48:15; 49:24; 2 Samuel 5:2; 7:7; Isaiah 14:30; 44:20; 44:28; 49:9;

56:11; 63:11; Jeremiah 2:8, 16; 3:15; 6:3; 10:21; 12:10; 17:16; 22:22 (2x);

23:1; 23:2 (2x); 23:4 (2x); 25:34, 35, 36; 50:6, 19; Ezekiel 34:2 (5x), 3, 5, 7,

8 (5x), 9, 10 (4x), 13, 14 (2x), 15, 16, 18, 19, 23 (4x); 37:24; Hosea 12:1 [2];

Micah 5:4 [3], 5 [4], 6 [5]; 7:14 (2x); Nahum 3:18; Zephaniah 2:7; 3:13;

Zechariah 10:2, 3; 11:4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17; 13:7 (2x); Psalm 23:1; 28:9;

37:3; 49:15; 78:71, 72; 80:2, 13 [14]; Job 24:21; Proverbs 10:21; 15:14;

Song of Solomon 2:16; 6:2, 3; Eccles. 12:11; 1 Chronicles 11:2; 17:6; 2

Chronicles 18:16.

Simile 14x Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Isaiah 31:4; 38:12; 40:11 (2x); Jeremiah 31:10; 43:12; 49:19; 50:44; Ezekiel 34:12; Hosea 4:16; Amos 3:12; Song of

Solomon 4:5.

Metonymy 1x Hosea 9:2

Symbolic 14x Genesis 41:2, 18; Isaiah 11:7; 13:20; 27:10; 30:23; 61:5; 65:25; Jeremiah

33:12; Zephaniah 2:6; Zechariah 11:3; Song of Solomon 1:7, 8 (2x).

TOTAL 127x

Summary

Figurative use of the term “shepherd” is primarily found in the books Ezekiel, Jeremiah,

Isaiah and the Psalms. It is especially frequent in Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 23, and in

Zechariah 11.

88

76.3 % of all the forms of I, ‘shepherd, feed,’ were used in a figurative sense.

Metaphorical use of these terms (59.0 %) occurred much more frequently than its use as a

simile (8.4 %) or as symbolic language (8.4 %).

It is remarkable that the imagery of shepherd and sheep does not play a role in the

historical accounts of the Exodus event (Exodus – Deuteronomy) and in the speeches

embedded in those accounts. “Guidance” terminology is used rather than “shepherding”

terminology. The people of Israel were guided by the LORD “who went ahead of them

( ) in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way ( )

and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or

night.” (Exodus 13:21).307

C. Figurative and non-figurative uses of the terms and

The terms , “flock” and , “flock,” “sheep,”form together with the root I

and the terms for “pasture” the core of the lexical domain of animal husbandry. In this

section an overview is given of the figurative and non-figurative uses of the terms ,

“flock” and , “flock, sheep,”and the texts where they occur.

, ‘flock’ Frequency Texts

Literal 15x Genesis 29:2,3,8; 30:40; 32:17,20; Judges 5:16; 1 Samuel 17:34; 2

Chronicles 32:28; Job 24:2; Proverbs 27:23; Song of Songs 1:7; Jeremiah 51:23; Joel 1:18; Malachi 1:14.

Metaphor 6x Psalm 78:52; Jeremiah 6:3; 13:17, 20; Micah 4:8; Zechariah 10:3;

Simile 9x Song of Solomon 4:1, 2; 6:5,6; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah 31:10; Ezekiel 34:12;

Micah 2:12; 5:7 [8];

Symbolic 4x Isaiah 17:2; 32:14; Jeremiah 31:24; Zephaniah 2:14;

TOTAL 34x

The term is more frequently used in a literal sense (44.1 %) than in a figurative

sense (55.9 %). Used in a figurative sense it occurs more frequently as a simile (26.5 %)

than as a metaphor (17.6 %) or symbolic language (11.8 %).

, ‘flock’ Frequency Texts

Literal 179 x Genesis 4:2, 4; 12:16; 13:5; 20:14; 21:27, 28; 24:35; 26:14; 27:9; 29:2, 3, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10; 30:31, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43; 31:4, 8, 10, 12, 19, 38, 41,

43; 32:6, 8; 33:13; 34:28; 37:2, 12, 14; 38:12, 13, 17; 45:10; 46:32, 34; 47:1,

3, 4, 17; 50:8; Exodus 2:16, 17, 19; 3:1; 9:3; 10:9, 24; 12:21, 32, 38; 20:24;

21:37; 22:29; 34:3; Leviticus 1:2, 10; 3:6; 5:6, 15, 18, 25; 22:21; 27:32;

Numbers 11:22; 15:3; 22:40; 31:28, 30, 32, 36, 37, 43; 32:16, 36; Deuteronomy 7:13; 8:13; 12:6, 17, 21; 14:23, 26; 15:14, 19; 16:2; 18:4;

307 In Exodus – Deuteronomy the relationship between YHWH and the people of Israel is portrayed in

metaphorical terms taken from other domains: YHWH is portrayed as a warrior (Exodus 15:3), a healer

(Exodus 15:26), a banner (Exodus 17:15), an eagle carrying its young (Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 32:10-

11), a Father (Deuteronomy 1:31; 32:6), a Rock (Deuteronomy 32:18), a shield and sword (Deuteronomy

33:29).

89

28:4, 18, 31, 51; 32:14; Joshua 7:24; 1 Samuel 8:17; 14:32; 15:9, 14, 15, 21;

16:11, 19; 17:15, 20, 28, 34; 24:4; 25:2, 4, 16, 18; 27:9; 30:20; 2 Samuel

7:8; 17:29; 1 Kings 1:9, 19, 25; 5:3; 8:5, 63; 2 Kings 5:26; 1 Chronicles

4:39, 41; 5:21; 12:40; 17:7; 27:31; 2 Chronicles 5:6; 7:5; 14:14; 15:11;

17:11; 18:2, 16; 29:33; 30:24; 31:6; 32:29; 35:7; Ezra 10:19; Nehemiah 3:1,

32; 5:18; 10:37; 12:39; Job 1:3, 16; 30:1; 42:12; Psalms 78:70; 144:13;

Proverbs 27:23; Ecclesiastes 2:7; Song of Solomon 1:8; I Samuel 7:21; 22:13; 60:7; 65:10; Jeremiah 3:24; 5:17; 31:12; 49:29; Ezekiel 24:5; 43:23,

25; 45:15; Joel 1:18; Amos 6:4; 7:15; Jonah 3:7.

Metaphor 36x 2 Samuel 12:2, 4; 2 Samuel 24:17; 1 Chronicles 21:17; Psalm 74:1; 79:13;

95:7; 100:3; Isaiah 63:11; Jeremiah 13:20; 23:1, 2, 3; 25:34, 35, 36; 49:20;

50:6, 45; Ezekiel 34:2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 31; Micah 7:14;

Zechariah 11:4, 7, 11, 17; 13:7.

Simile 24x Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chronicles 18:16; Job 21:11; Psalm 44:11

[12], 22 [23]; 49:14 [15]; 77:20 [21]; 78:52; 80:1 [2]; 107:41; 114:4, 6;

Isaiah 13:14; 53:6; Jeremiah 12:3; 50:8; Ezekiel 34:12; 36:37, 38; Micah

2:12; 5:7; Zechariah 9:16; 10:2

Symbolic 9x Psalm 65:13 [14]; Isaiah 61:5; 65:10; Jeremiah 33:12, 13; Ezekiel 25:5;

Hosea 5:6; Habakkuk 3:17; Zephaniah 2:6.

TOTAL 248x

The term is more frequently used in a literal sense (72.2 %) than in a figurative sense

(27.8 %). Used in a figurative sense, it occurs more frequently as a metaphor (14.5 %)

than as a simile (9.7 %) or symbolic language (3.6 %).

In its literal sense, the term occurs in the following types of contexts:

a. shepherds who tend their sheep/flock [sheep/flock as object of care] (cf. Genesis

4:2; 37:2; 1 Samuel 16:11)

b. people who are on the move with their flocks (cf. Genesis 32:6; Exodus 12:38)

c. people who bring sacrifices to God [sheep as sacrifice] (cf. Leviticus 1:2; 1 Kings

8:63; Ezra 10:19)

d. people who pay a tithe to God [sheep as gift/tax/payment] (cf. 2 Chronicles 31:6).

e. people who pay tribute to the king of Israel or to a foreign king [sheep as

gift/tax/payment] (cf. 1 Samuel 8:17; 2 Chronicles 17:11)

f. victorious army who plunder the sheep/flock of the enemy [sheep as plunder] (cf. 1

Samuel 14:32)

g. flocks as food for people (cf. Numbers 11:22)

h. sheep/flocks are slaughtered for abundant meals related to important social or

political occasions (cf. 1 Kings 1:19; 2 Kings 18:2; 2 Chronicles 30:24; 35:7).

90

D. Figurative and non-figurative uses of terms related to “pasture”

In the tables below an overview is given of the figurative and non-figurative uses of the

terms , “pasture land”, , “(act of) pasturing” and , inasmuch it occurs in

the sense of “pasture land”. The term is not included in a diagram, as it occurs only

once (1 Kings 5:3, where it is used in a literal sense).

Frequency Texts

Literal 7x Genesis 47:4; 1 Chronicles 4:39, 40, 41; Job 39:8 (wild donkey); Isaiah

32:14; Joel 1:18;

Metaphor 3x Ezekiel 34:14,18; Nahum 2:12 (lion)

Simile 1x Lamentations 1:6 (deer)

Symbolic 0x --

TOTAL 11x

Frequency Texts

Literal 0x --

Metaphor 9x Psalm 74:1; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3; Isaiah 49:9; 23:1; 25:36; Ezekiel 34:31; Hosea 13:6

Simile -- --

Metonymy 1x Jeremiah 10:21 (“flock”);

Symbolic -- --

TOTAL 10x

Frequency Texts

Literal 7x 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Chronicles 17:7; Isaiah 27:10 (calves); Jeremiah 23:10; Joel

1:19, 20; Amos 1:2;

Metaphor 6x Psalm 23:2; Jeremiah 23:3; 49:20; Jeremiah 50:7 (The LORD is pasture);

50:19; Ezekiel 34:14;

Simile 3x Jeremiah 49:19; 50:44, 45

Symbolic 8x Psalm 65:13; Isaiah 5:10 (pasture for flocks); Jer. 9:10; 25:37; 33:12;

Ezekiel 25:5 (camels); Joel 2:22 (wild animals); Zephaniah 2:6

TOTAL 24x

The term also occurs in the sense of the “homeland”308

, “dwelling, settlement,”

“house,”309

and “property.”310

In cases like these it sometimes occurs in parallelism with

the term , “tent”311

or , “house”.312

The term is even used for the dwelling

place of God in the land of Canaan/Israel or Jerusalem.313

308 Psalm 74:20; 79:7; 83:12 [13]; Jeremiah 10:25; Hosea 9:13; Lamentations 2:2. 309 Job 5:3, 18:15; Proverbs 3:33; 21:20; 24:15; Isaiah 32:18; Isaiah 33:20. Isaiah 34:13; 35:7 (home for

jackals). Jeremiah 31:23. 310 Job 5:24. 311 Job 18:15; Isaiah 33:20. 312 Proverbs 3:33. 313 Exodus 15:13, 2 Samuel 15:25 and Jeremiah 25:30. In Exodus 25:30 pastoral imagery could be intended

as a weak implicature, especially since the verb suggests pastoral imagery too.

91

E. The application of pastoral imagery to various topics

The following diagrams show the application of pastoral imagery to various topics.

Topic ( I, ‘shepherd’) Texts

God/YHWH Genesis 48:15; 49:24; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah 31:10; Ezekiel 34:12, 13, 14, 15, 16; Hosea 4:16; Amos 3:12; Micah 7:14; Psalm 23:1; 28:9;

80:2; Ecclesiastes 12:11.

Leader of Israel (Moses, Joshua) Numbers 27:17; 2 Samuel 7:7; Isaiah 63:11; 1 Chronicles 17:6;

King of Israel (David; other) 2 Samuel 5:2; 1 Kings 22:17; Psalm 78:71, 72; 1 Chronicles 11:2; 2

Chronicles 18:16.

Promised King/Messiah Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24; Micah 5:4 [3]; Zechariah 13:7.

Foreign king (Cyrus;

Nebuchadnezzar; other)

Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 6:3; 12:10; 43:12; 49:19; 50:44;

Leaders of Israel Isaiah 31:4; 56:11; Jeremiah 2:8; 3:15; 22:22; 23:1, 2, 4; 25:34, 35, 36;

50:6; Ezekiel 34:2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; Micah 5:5 [4], 6 [5]; Zechariah

11:5.

Leaders of Assyria Nahum 3:18

Prophet (Jeremiah; Zechariah) Jeremiah 17:16; Zechariah 11:4, 7, 9,

Spiritual leaders of Israel Zechariah 10:2, 3

Lips of the righteous Proverbs 10:21

Topic ( I, ‘feed, graze’) Texts

People of Israel Isaiah 14:30; 49:9; Jeremiah 50:19; Ezekiel 34:14, 19; Hosea 12:1 [2];

Zephaniah 2:7; 3:13;

The righteous people Psalm 37:3

Bad shepherds Ezekiel 34:18

Foolish (worthless) shepherd Zechariah 11:15, 16, 17

Death Psalm 49:14 [15]

Bores from the forest Psalm 80:13 [14]

Evil people Job 24:21

Mouth of the fool Proverbs 15:14

Topic ( , ‘flock’) Texts

People of Israel Psalm 78:52; Jeremiah 13:17, 20; Micah 4:8; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah

31:10; Ezekiel 34:12;

The house of Judah Zechariah 10:3;

The remnant of Israel Micah 2:12;

Armies of the enemies Jeremiah 6:3;

The nations Micah 5:7 [8]

Deserted town, place of flocks Isaiah 17:2; 32:14; Zephaniah 2:14;

Restoration of peace Jeremiah 31:24;

Hair of the bride (flock of goats) Song of Solomon 4:1; 6:5;

Teeth of the bride (flock of sheep) Song of Solomon 4:2; 6:6;

92

Topic (, ‘flock/sheep’) Texts

wives 2 Samuel 12:2, 4;

Innocent people (of Israel) 2 Samuel 24:17; 1 Chronicles 21:17;

People of Israel Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chronicles 18:16; Psalm 44:11 [12],

22 [23]; 74:1; 77:20 [21]; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1 [2]; 95:7; 100:3; Isaiah 53:6; 63:11; Jeremiah 23:1, 2, 3; 25:34, 35, 36; 50:6, 8; Ezekiel 34:2,

3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 31; Micah 2:12; 7:14; Zechariah

9:16; 11:4, 7, 11, 17; 13:7.

People of Judah Jeremiah 13:20; Zechariah 10:2;

The redeemed of the LORD Psalm 107:41

People of other nations (Edom,

Babylon)

Jeremiah 49:20; 50:45; Micah 5:7;

Multitude of offspring Job 21:11;

Multitude of people Ezekiel 36:37, 38

Wicked people Psalm 49:14 [15]; Isaiah 13:14; Jeremiah 12:3;

Mountains, hills Psalm 114:4, 6;

Blessing Psalm 65:13 [14];

Restoration after exile Isaiah 61:5; 65:10; Jeremiah 33:12, 13; Zephaniah 2:6

Desolation Ezekiel 25:5; Habakkuk 3:17; Zephaniah 2:6

Bring sacrifices Hosea 5:6;

F. Other important imagery related to the domain of animal husbandry

In addition to the terms for “shepherd,” “feed,” “flock,” and “flock/sheep” there are two

other terms in the domain of animal husbandry that are particularly worth mentioning as

sources of figurative speech. These terms are “lamb” and “goat”. Detailed analysis of

these terms lies outside the scope of the present chapter, but a short summary of imagery

related to these terms is in order.

The term “lamb” is primarily “associated with gentleness, innocence, and

dependence.”314

God is pictured as the Shepherd of the people returning from the exile

and as the One who gathers the lambs in his arms (Isaiah 40:11). Lambs are helpless and

need special care. In Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 the messianic time of peace is pictured in

terms of the lamb feeding and lying down peacefully with the wolf, its archenemy. In

Jeremiah 51:40, people killed in mass killings during wartime are likened to lambs that

are brought down to the slaughter. The suffering Servant of the LORD is also compared

to a lamb led to slaughter (Isaiah 53:7). The “lamb” is also intrinsically linked with the

sacrificial system of the Old Testament, especially with the sacrifice during the Passover

celebration (Exodus 12), during which the people of Israel commemorated that the

LORD had rescued them from their slavery in Egypt. The blood from the sacrificed lamb

was to be sprinkled on the sides and tops of the doorframes of their houses in order to

prevent that their first-born males of the Israelites would be killed by the angel of death.

The term “ram” (“he-goat”) is associated with leadership and power. In Jeremiah 50:8,

goats are pictured as leading the flock. In Daniel’s prophetic vision (Daniel 8:5-8), “a

great goat, representing a powerful empire, charges across the whole earth without

314 Ryken (1998:484).

93

touching the ground and attacks a huge horned ram (a rival empire), knocking him down

and trampling on him…”315

Like the terms “sheep” and “lamb”, “ram” is also associated

with the sacrificial system of the Old Testament: “Bulls, rams, goats, lambs, doves and

pigeons were all used, some of them interchangeably, to burn in sacrifice to God for the

purpose of atonement and worship.”316

In the annual Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16),

one goat was sacrificed for a sin offering and the other goat (”for Azazel,” the

“scapegoat”) was sent away into the desert, after the priest had laid his hands on it and

confessed over it the sins of the Israelites.317

5.3. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in the Historical Writings

5.3.1. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Genesis

The first occurrences of the shepherd metaphor for God are found in the final chapters of

Genesis, where the accounts of the Old Testament patriarchs find their closure. In both

cases the shepherd metaphor occurs in a blessing (benediction addressed to a specific

person / tribe) spoken by Jacob (Israel) at the end of his life. And in both cases ‘the God

of the fathers’ is described as the shepherd of an individual patriarch (‘my shepherd’ in

48:15; and ‘the shepherd, the rock of Israel’ in 49:25).

A. ‘The God who has shepherded me all my life to this day’

Genesis 48:15-16 contains the blessing which Jacob (= Israel) bestowed on Ephraim and

Manasseh, the sons of Joseph:

15 Then he [Israel] blessed Joseph and said,

“May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,

the God who has shepherded me all my life to this day, 16 the Angel who has delivered me from all harm

- may He bless these boys.

May they be called by my name

and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,

and may they increase greatly upon the earth.”

315 Ryken (1998:331). 316 Ryken (1998:331). 317 Cf. Ryken (1998:763). According to Ryken, “in any case, the scapegoat was certainly no sacrifice to

God, for only an animal without defect could be sacrificed as an atonement (Leviticus 1:10). The

scapegoat, however, was loaded with the sins of the people. It was supposed to carry the sins into the realm

of a personified evil force, by no means then as an offering but rather as a scorn.”

94

Genre: Westermann classifies this text as a promise (‘Verheissungswort’) in the form of

a blessing (‘Segenswort’). The promise, which concerns the increase of the number of

descendants (‘Mehrungsverheissung’318

), is cast in the form of a benediction

(‘Segenwunsch’).319

Structural analysis: The benediction consists of two major parts: 1. the threefold

attributive predication of God (‘Gottesprädikation’)320

, asyndetically put together, in the

verses 15 and 16a; and 2. the threefold promise regarding the increase of descendants and

their naming, connected by two verbs of the weyiqtol type, in verse 16bc.

The benediction as a whole reflects a chiastic structure (A B B’A’): the outer ring of the

benediction speaks of the God of the fathers (Abraham and Isaac) and expresses that the

promised descendants will increase and be called by the names of these fathers; the inner

ring, on the other hand, speaks of God as Jacob’s (= Israel’s) personal God and expresses

that the promised descendants as people will be called by Jacob’s (= Israel’s) own name.

The personal aspects of the blessing are embedded in its historical and traditional aspects:

A. May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked

B1. the God who has shepherded me321

…

B2. the angel who has delivered me …

C. May he bless these boys

B’. May they be called by my name

A’. and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac

C’. and may they increase greatly upon the earth

318 Westermann speaks, in fact, of a simple promise to increase the descendants (‘einfache

Mehrungsverheissung’), but this seems to contradict the threefold parallelism of the promise (‘bless’ –

‘called by name’ – ‘increase’.) 319 Westermann (1982). Genesis (III): p. 212-213. 320 Westermann (1982). Genesis (III): p. 212-213. It is unfortunate that Westermann claims that the words

of benediction are not original, but that they are later additions intended to connect the tradition of the

fathers with the religion of Israel. It cannot be denied that the blessing words of the Old Testament have

their own history of tradition, but this does not necessarily imply that the blessing words of Gen. 48:15-16

are a later addition. Westermann does not present any conclusive argumentation to support his thesis. His

interpretation is based on the assumption that the shepherd imagery for God was originally applied to Israel

as a community (like in Psalm 80:2), and was only at a later stage applied to individuals (like in Psalm

23:1). Cf. Westermann (1982). Genesis (III): p. 214. For a good refutation of Westermann’s position, see

Korpel (1990:450). Korpel points out that the individual use of the shepherd epithet is attested in Egypt and

Babylonia from an early date on. She also remarks that it is debatable whether such a distinction between

collective and individual use is valid in the conceptual world of Israel. She concludes that ‘it would seem

that at least in Gen. 49:24 this distinction places us in a false dilemma’, but that ‘also the seemingly individual nature of Psalm 23 is deceptive,’ because ‘apparently it is the poet’s intention to hearten many of

his brethren by his confidence in YHWH his shepherd.’ 321 Note that NIV, for example, translates this as “the God who has been my shepherd.” The above

translation follows the Hebrew more closely (using accusative “me” instead of possessive “my”), while

keeping the parallelism with the following metaphorical expression (“the Angel who has delivered me”).

95

Attributive expressions of God: The attributive expressions at the beginning of the

benediction identify and qualify the divine source of the blessing. God as the source of the

blessing is not referred to by a name, but by three different appellative clauses, each

containing a metaphorical expression for God (‘shepherd,’ ‘redeemer-kinsman’) or for

the fathers’ relationship to God (‘walk before God’). The first two attributive expressions

are introduced by ‘the God who …’ ( ). The third attributive

expression is introduced by ‘the angel who …’ ( ). This expression is the

antecedent of the metaphorical attributive expression, of which the verb , ‘deliver,

redeem’ is the nucleus. This verb stems from the domain of social relations, and

describes God’s character in terms of a kinsman-redeemer, who protects and delivers the

people who belong to his clan.

The first metaphor in Jacob’s benediction in Genesis 48:15 speaks of a characteristic

habit of Jacob’s grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac in their relation to God: “The

God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked.” The primary meaning of this

metaphorical (or rather: idiomatic) expression is the notion of obedience.322

Jacob’s

father and grandfather, who had previously received God’s blessings, lived a life of

obedience to God.

But, when it comes to Jacob’s own role, he does not talk about what he did for God, but

what God did for him: “The God who has shepherded me.” Abraham and Isaac walked

before God, that is, they obeyed God. But, when it comes to Jacob’s own role, he does

not say that he walked before God, but he suggests that God walked before him, namely

as his shepherd.323

If it is a valid interpretation to see the shepherd metaphor in 48:15 as a

reversal of the walking metaphor in the same verse, the aspect of guidance is probably

most in focus.324

322

Cf. Genesis 17:1-2: ‘When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and

will greatly increase your numbers.’ Note that the expression ‘walk before [God]’ occurs here in the

context of God’s covenant with Abram. 323 Van Hecke’s (2000:255) interpretation that “following the sheep” is part of the semantic structure of the

verb I is not very convincing. The task of a shepherd required both going before the sheep and

following them (cf. Genesis 32:20; 33:14; 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Chronicles 17:7; Psalm 78:71), depending on the

specific situation. The fact that the verbs and “lead” are used in the context of shepherding (at

least in its metaphorical sense; cf. Psalm 23:2,3; Isaiah 40:11) shows that “going before” is also an

important part of shepherd imagery. In terms of the semantic structure of the verb I, the aspect of

“feeding, give pasture” seems to form the core of its meaning. The physical position of the shepherd(s) in relation to the flock is part of the encyclopaedic aspects of the domain of animal husbandry, but there is no

evidence from the texts in which the verb I is used that this is part of the semantic structure of the

verb. 324 The fact that shepherd imagery is found in two ancient blessings (Genesis 48:15 and 49:24) makes it

very plausible that this is an ancient metaphor that is closely related to the time of the Old Testament

patriarchs, who were shepherds themselves. The individual (rather than collective) application of the

metaphors also fits in with the special relationship Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – as patres familiae and as

receivers of God’s covenant and blessings – had with God.

96

However, it is very well possible that the aspect of protection is also active in the

shepherd metaphor. Westermann has pointed out the parallel between the shepherd

metaphor in 48:15 and YHWH’s promise to Jacob in Genesis 28:15325

:

‘I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this

land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.’

These words are part of the promise that YHWH gave to Jacob, during his dream at

Bethel, at the beginning of his journey, just before he left for Paddan Aram. They could

very well be a non-metaphorical representation of the shepherd metaphor expressed in

48:15, where Jacob looks back on his life’s journey.

The words in Genesis 28:15 contain the following key words which could very well serve

as the grounds (implicatures) of the shepherd metaphor: ‘be with,’ ‘watch over,’ ‘bring

back,’ and ‘not leave’.326

If it is valid to interpret the shepherd metaphor from this key

verse expressing the same blessing/promise at an earlier stage in Jacob’s life, the focus of

the shepherd metaphor would be on God’s protective presence and guidance.327

This interpretation would fit very well with at least one other text that shows a direct link

between the shepherd metaphor and YHWH’s (protective) presence. In Psalm 23:4, the

shepherd’s Psalm, the author testifies: ‘I do not fear evil for

you are with me’.328

Another possible interpretation would be to see the most prominent ground of the

shepherd metaphor in 48:15 as ‘provision of food’.329

This would square with the fact

325 Cf. Westermann (1982:214): ‘Das segnende, stetige Wirken an ihm (“mein Leben lang bis auf diesen

Tag” wie in Nu 22,30) faßt er in das Bild des Hirten. Es begegnet hier zum erstenmal im AT. Es entspricht

der an Jakob ergangenen Verheißung Gen 28,15 (20) “Ich will dich behüten überall, wohin du ziehst.”’ 326 Note the chiastic structure of these verbs: A. ‘be with’; B. ‘watch over’; B’. ‘bring back’; A’. ‘not leave’ 327 Cf. also Jacob’s vow in Genesis 28:20-22, in which provision of food and clothing are also mentioned:

‘Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am

taking and will give food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s house, then the

LORD will be my God and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that you

give me I will give a tenth.’ 328

Cf. also Deuteronomy 32:12, where YHWH’s presence is linked with the guide metaphor:

‘The LORD alone led him (= Jacob); no foreign god was with him.’ 329 This interpretation would come close to the one followed in the Statenvertaling, which translates this

verse as follows: “En hij zegende Josef en zeide: De God voor Wiens aangezicht mijn vaders, Abraham en

Izak, gewandeld hebben, die God, Die mij gevoed heeft, van dat ik was tot op dezen dag (…).” However, it

should be noted that the translators of the Statenvertaling apparently did not view the expression

as a shepherd metaphor (like they did in 49:24), but rather as an idiomatic expression related to

the provision of food.

97

that the Hebrew verb I often means “to pasture, feed.” This interpretation would

also fit in with the life experiences of the patriarch Jacob (Israel). Shortage of food is a

recurring theme in the Genesis accounts of the patriarchs. The famine in Canaan was an

important reason why Jacob and his clan had moved from Canaan to Egypt. Reference to

“provision of food” would also fit in with the content of a blessing330

, even though it

should be noted that in this particular blessing there is no explicit reference to “provision

of food” as part of the blessing.

The above discussion shows that it is sometimes difficult to exactly pinpoint the intended

meaning of a metaphor. Various interpretations are possible in cases where the immediate

and/or the wider context does not seem to support one particular interpretation. The

meaning of metaphors is often indeterminate (open-ended), while various related

meanings are active simultaneously. Some of these may function as stronger

implicatures, while others are may be present as weaker implicatures.331

The intended meaning of the third metaphor for God, (God as a

kinsman-redeemer) is clear from the context. God is described here as ‘the angel who has

delivered me from all harm’. The notion of ‘deliverance from harm’332

is the ground of

the kinsman-redeemer metaphor.

The images of God as a shepherd and God (referred to as ‘the angel’333

) as a kinsman-

redeemer are parallel metaphors. This does not imply that both metaphors necessarily

have the same meaning or the same range of implicatures.334

But it does imply that the

meaning(s) and implicatures of each metaphor are similar and are thought to be

complementary to one another.

330 Abundance of food was part of the blessing that Isaac had given to Jacob in Gen. 27:28: ‘May God give

you of heaven’s dew and of earth’s richness – an abundance of grain and new wine.’ 331

As a rule of thumb, the implicatures that seem to be most consistent with the immediate linguistic

context should perhaps be considered as the stronger implicatures. However, theme and intertextuality are

also factors that may play an important role here. 332 This ‘deliverance from harm’ would probably include deliverance from actual harms as well as from

potential harm (= protection). 333 In the Old Testament, the mal’ak YHWH is often associated with salvation or the announcement of

salvation. Cf. Jenni-Westermann I:904: ‘In vielen Fällen bedeutet das Auftreten des mal’ak Jhwh Rettung

aus Gefahr oder Not (Gen. 19, Ex. 14, 19, Num. 20,16) oder Ankündigung einer Rettung (Ri. 13).’ The

activities of the mal’ak YHWH are never confined to a definite place or time, but he meets people right

where they are, on the road (Gen. 16:7; 32:2), in the wilderness (Gen. 21:17), during work time (Jdg.

6:11ff), and in the fields (Jdg. 13:9ff). Cf. Jenni-Westermann I:906. In many cases the identity of the

mal’ak YHWH is ambiguous: Is he a messenger of YHWH or is he YHWH himself? Cf. Genesis 16:12 and 16:13. In Genesis 48:15 the expression ‘the angel who delivers me’ seems to be unambiguously used as an

attribute for God himself. 334 Harmonization of the grounds of parallel metaphors tends to reduce the meaning and function of

metaphors to mere ‘embellishments’, whereas a more diversified interpretation underscores the cognitive

and communicative function of metaphors.

98

Parallel texts: The threefold predication of God, expressed in the first part of the

benediction, corresponds to a certain degree335

with the Aaronite benediction in Numbers

6:24-26. Genesis 49:22-26 is an important parallel text, because this is another

benediction (Joseph) where the shepherd metaphor occurs.

Conclusions: 1. The metaphorical expression ‘walk before God’ does not belong to the

imagery of shepherd and sheep; it is an idiomatic expression that refers to the notion of

‘obedience’. 2. The shepherd metaphor in Genesis 48:15 is a reversal of the ‘walk before

God’ imagery in the first part of the verse; 3. The meaning of the shepherd metaphor is

rather indeterminate in this context; It may express YHWH’s guidance and/or his

protective presence as primarily intended implicatures; But it could also express the

notion of provision of food; 4. The metaphor of God as kinsman-redeemer expresses the

notion of deliverance from all (actual and potential) harm; 5. The threefold

‘Gottesprädikation’ in Jacob’s benediction in Genesis 48:15, expressed in figurative

language, are thematically linked together. They include the notion of ‘human obedience’

(expressed by the ‘walk before God’ metaphor) as well as God’s protective presence and

guidance (expressed by the shepherd metaphor) and his deliverance from harm

(expressed by the kinsman-redeemer metaphor).

B. ‘The Shepherd, the Stone of Israel’

The second occurrence of the shepherd metaphor in the Old Testament is found in the

blessing that Jacob bestowed on his son Joseph in Genesis 49:22-26.

Metaphorical expressions occur rather frequently in these “blessings”336

, in which Jacob

blessed his sons who would become the fathers of the various tribes of Israel. The

majority of the metaphors serve to characterize Jacob’s sons (and their descendants)337

335 Westermann seems to overstate the correspondences between these texts. The formal and thematic

correspondences between Jacob’s benediction in Genesis 48:15-16 and the aaronite benediction in

Numbers 6:24-26 should not close our eyes to the fact that there are some important differences between

these texts as well: a. The threefold repetition of the name YHWH in the aaronite benediction contrasts

with the repeated use of the more neutral reference , which is combined with three different

metaphorical attributives for God in Jacob’s benediction. b. The metaphors of ‘YHWH’s face shining

upon’ Israel, and of ‘YHWH turning his face toward’ Israel are absent from Jacob’s benediction. c. The key

expressions ‘be gracious’ and ‘give peace’ are not found in Jacob’s benediction. d. The threefold

parallelism in Genesis 48:15-16 is confined to the ‘Gottesprädikation’, which forms the introduction to the

promise. In Numbers 6:24-26, however, there is no ‘Gottesprädikation’, and the threefold parallelism is directly applied to the promise of the benediction itself. e. In Genesis 48:15-16 the focus of the blessing is

on the increasing of descendants and on their receiving the name of their forefathers, whereas in Numbers

6:24-26 these elements are absent, and the focus of the blessing is on God’s gracious and salvific presence

with the blessed Israelites. 336 The term “tribal sayings” is perhaps a better term than “blessings”, since not every tribe received a

blessing (Simeon and Levi; cf. Genesis 49:5-7). Wenham (1994:468) suggests “the testament of Jacob” as a

genre description of these combined sayings rather than “the blessing of Jacob”. 337

The majority of those metaphors are animal metaphors (expressing power and aggressiveness), with an

occasional metaphor related to agriculture (expressing fertility). Joseph, for example, is described as ‘a

fruitful vine near a spring whose branches climb over a wall’ (49:22) and as someone who is attacked and

shot at by archers, but whose bow remained steady (49:23-24). In addition, most of the sayings contain a

word-play on the name of the sons of Jacob (tribes of Israel). Cf. Wenham (1994:486).

99

who are being blessed (or: cursed). The blessing of Joseph is the only blessing which also

contains a number of metaphors that serve to characterize the God of Jacob, who is the

source of the blessings.338

24 But his bow remained steady,

his strong arms stayed limber,

because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,

because of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel, 25 because of your father’s God, who helps you,

because of the Almighty who blesses you …

Like in Genesis 48:15, the shepherd metaphor is part of a multiple ‘Gottesprädikation’. In

Genesis 49:24-25 there is a fivefold ‘Gottesprädikation’. The first ( )339

and

the last appellations ( ) focus on God as the powerful One who made sure that

Joseph’s bow remained steady and that his arms stayed limber. The metaphorical

appellation ‘the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel’ occurs in parallelism with ‘the Mighty One

of Jacob’, whereas ‘your father’s God, who helps you’ is found in parallelism with ‘the

Almighty’.

The expression ‘the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel’ in 49:24 is not without textual

problems. Some exegetes have suggested that (‘stone of Israel’) should not

be interpreted as a ‘Gottesepitheton’ which is more or less similar in meaning to

(‘rock of Israel’)340

, but rather as a writing error (‘Defektiv-schreibung’) of

(‘sons/children of Israel’). In that case, this verse would read ‘By the power

of the Mighty One of Jacob, and through the help of the shepherd of the sons of Israel.’341

338 It is also remarkable that the shepherd metaphor for God occurs in blessings related to Joseph (49:24)

and the blessing related to his sons Ephraim and Manasseh (48:15). It is also remarkable that in Genesis 49

Jacob does not refer to God as the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac, like he did in Genesis 48, when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, but only as his own (Jacob, Israel) God. 339 It should be noted that Alt (1929) interpreted the expression as “bull of Jacob”, and saw it

as an epitheton of the God of the fathers. 340 Cf. D. Eichhorn. (1969). Gott als Fels, Burg und Zuflucht, quoted in THAT II:540: ‘Eben … bedeutet im

Unterschied zu tsur niemals ‘Fels’ (oder ‘Berg’). Der Begriff dient zur Bezeichnung von Feldsteinen,

Malsteinen, Kultsteinen, Altarsteinen, Bausteinen, Verschlusssteinen, Edelsteinen.’ 341 An emendation like this would seem to be inconsistent with the fact that in blessings God is referred to

as the God of the fathers, and not as the God of the sons who are being blessed.

100

Despite the arguments that have been brought against the reading of the massoretic text,

no decisive arguments have been put forward that would require an emendation of the

massoretic text. There are, in fact, some good arguments in support of the idea that the

massoretic text should be maintained.

1. There is no textual evidence (manuscript of the Hebrew text or ancient versions)

that suggests that the term “stone” ( ) needs to be changed into “sons” ( ).

2. The reading of the massoretic text is the lectio difficilior (et probabilior) in

comparison with the proposed emendation.

3. Metaphorical appellations for God often come in pairs or triplets; This would

speak in favor of maintaining both the shepherd metaphor and the stone metaphor.

4. The expressions (‘the Mighty One of Jacob’) and

(‘stone of Israel) have a parallel structure (status constructus consisting of a

metaphorical term followed by parallel names of the same patriarch).342

5. The expression ‘the stone of Israel’ as an appellation for God could be a

(metonymic) reflection of Jacob’s Bethel experience (Genesis 28:10-20). In

Bethel God promised Jacob to give him the land and descendants, and Jacob

erected a stone there as a commemoration.343

This passage also contains notions

that are closely related to the grounds (meaning) of the shepherd metaphor.344

6. There could be a link between the “Stone” metaphor and the “Rock” metaphor,

which occurs rather frequently in the Old Testament, often in the context of

protection and deliverance. The lexical differences between (‘stone’) and

(‘rock’) should not be exaggerated.345

There are more Old Testament texts346

where the ‘God is a (our) rock’ metaphor co-occurs with the ‘God is a shepherd’

metaphor.347

The meaning of the shepherd metaphor in Genesis 49:24 seems to be less indeterminate

than the corresponding metaphor in 48:15. At least, the immediate context clearly

suggests one particular meaning (ground) that is most prominent: God’s protective

342 Formal correspondence even includes the first two consonants of the terms and : . 343 Cf. Genesis 28:10-20 and 35:14. Cf. also Bernd (1983:281) and Wenham (1994:486). According to

Bernd, “Die merkwürdige Bezeichnung Gottes als ‘Hirt des Israelsteins’ … dürfte an das Geschehen von

Bet-El erinnern, konkret an jenen Stein, den Jakob nach seinem nächtlichem Traumgesicht dort als

Gedenkstein gesalbt und aufgerichtet hatte (vgl. 28,18.20-22 E).” According to Westermann, however, the

combination of the shepherd and stone metaphor is “eine sekundäre Zusammenstellung aus späterer Zeit.” 344 Cf. the discussion in the previous section on Genesis 48:15. 345 Cf. Wenham (1994:486): “… “stone of Israel … this is a unique variant of the more common divine title

“Rock of Israel,” 2 Sam 23:3; Isa 30:29).” 346 See for example Psalm 28:1.9; 95:1.7. In Deuteronomy 32 the rock metaphor (; 32:4, 15, 18, 30,

31) occurs in the context of the ‘God is a guide’ metaphor (32:12). 347

It should also be noted that the expression (‘stone of Israel’) occurs in the immediate

context of the expression (‘from the God of your father, who helps you’). This makes

Genesis 49:24-25 a close parallel to 1 Samuel 7:12, where (‘stone’) and (‘help’) also occur in the

same context. 1 Samuel 7:12 reports that after the victory over the Philistines ‘Samuel took a stone and set

it up between Mizpah and Shen’ and that ‘he named it Ebenezer, saying, “Thus far has the LORD helped

us.”’

101

presence.348

Thanks to God’s protective presence as the shepherd of Israel, Joseph’s bow

remained steady and the ‘archers’ were not able to harm him. Notions like “guidance”

and “provision” could also be active in the background (as weak implicatures of the

shepherd metaphor), but are not prominent in this particular context.

5.3.2. The imagery of guidance in the accounts of the exodus event

The Pentateuch accounts of the exodus account (from Exodus through Deuteronomy) do

not contain any explicit shepherd metaphors for YHWH. YHWH is nowhere explicitly

acknowledged as ‘the shepherd of Israel’. There are, however, several texts which depict

YHWH as the guide of his people. Since these texts are more or less open to the more

specific interpretation of YHWH as the shepherd of his people349

, and since later Old

Testament texts picture the journey through the wilderness as an act of shepherding, the

imagery of guidance will be briefly discussed in this section.

According to Exodus 13:21, God ‘went ahead’ ( ) of his people in

order to ‘guide’ ( ; verb qal ‘lead’) them on their way, during their

departure from Egypt. Guidance is given by the pillar of cloud by day and by the pillar of

fire by night.350

YHWH went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way

and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by

day or night.

The same verb qal ‘lead’ also occurs in the song of Moses in Exodus 15:13, where it

is found in parallelism with the verb pi. ‘guide’:

In your unfailing love you will lead ( ) the people you have redeemed

In your strength you will guide ( ) them to your holy dwelling

The verb is connected here with a specific destination, i.e. YHWH’s ‘holy

dwelling’( ). This is probably a reference to the house of worship at

Shiloh, and ultimately the temple on Mount Zion, the “place” God would “choose” (Deut.

12:14 et passim).351

348

This interpretation of the metaphor is consistent with the preceding expression about God (“because of

the Mighty One of Jacob”) and with the following expression (“because of your father’s God, who helps

you”). 349 Cf. for example C. Houtman (1996:247), according to whom Exodus 15:13 evokes the image of YHWH

as the shepherd of his people. Van Hecke (2000:366-368), on the other hand, has pointed out that none of

the lexical items used in this verse are exclusively related to the domain of pastoralism. However, he gives

this text the benefit of the doubt and considers it as a case of pastoral metaphor. 350 The verb qal., “lead” is also used in Exodus 13:17 and the verb hi., “lead around” is used in

13:18. 351 Cf. also Psalm 23, where the shepherd imagery is connected with the imagery of house of YHWH. Cf.

also Exodus 33:14 where accompany imagery is connected with the notion of ‘rest’.

102

In Exodus 23:20, the notion of guidance (expressed by a form of the verb hi.,

‘bring’) is complemented by the notion of protection. God promises to send his angel

ahead of the Israelites in order to guard them along the way ( ;

qal)352

:

See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring

you to the place that I have prepared.

The Pentateuch texts differ as to who actually led the people of Israel. Some texts

mention God as the one who led his people. Other texts mention God’s angel and/or

Moses as the one(s) that led the people of Israel through the wilderness. In Exodus 32:34,

after Israel had made the golden calf and worshipped it, YHWH tells Moses that he must

lead ( ) the people of Israel, because he himself will not lead them:

Now go, lead the people to the place that I spoke of, and my angel will go before

you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their

sin.

But, later on, in Exodus 33:14 YHWH tells Moses that his Presence ( , ‘my face’) will

go with him and give him rest ( ):

The LORD replied to him: “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

In Deuteronomy 2:7 Moses looks back on the LORD’s provision during Israel’s journey

through the wilderness. In this text, no shepherd imagery is used, but the content would

fit in very well with shepherd imagery353

:

The LORD your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He has watched

over your journey through this vast desert. These forty years the LORD your God

has been with you, and you have not lacked anything.

Deuteronomy 32:12-14 is another text that evokes the idea of YHWH as a guide of his

people. In addition to the notion of guidance ( , ‘he led him’), it also evokes the idea

of provision ( , ‘he fed [him]’ and , ‘he nourished him’):

12

The LORD alone led him;

no foreign god was with him.

352 In this context, it is no longer God who guides and guards his people, but it is his angel who guides and

guards his people. This concept seems to be consistent with the transcendence and awesomeness of God

who dwells on mount Sinai. 353 Note that the expressions ‘be with you’ () and ‘have not lacked anything’ ( ) have

similar counterpart expressions in Psalm 23.

103

13 He made him ride on the heights of the land

and fed him with the fruit of the fields.

He nourished him with honey from the rock,

and with oil from the flinty crag, 14

with curd and milk from herd and flock

and with fattened lambs and goats,

with choice rams of Bashan

and the finest kernels of wheat

You drank the foaming blood of the grape.

Conclusion: 1. In the Pentateuch accounts of the exodus event the shepherd metaphor

does not occur; 2. However, the basic ingredients of the shepherd metaphor (‘leading,’

‘guarding,’ and ‘feeding’) are all expressed with regard to the Exodus event, where

YHWH led his people through the wilderness from Egypt to the borders of the land of

Canaan; 3. In a number of texts the idea of ‘leading’ is connected with the destination of

God’s ‘holy dwelling’ or ‘rest’ in the promised land.

5.4. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in the prophetic literature

5.4.1. Hosea: YHWH is a shepherd and a devouring lion

Shepherd and sheep imagery in the Old Testament is not confined to the notions of

provision, protection, and guidance. Wild animals and the destruction they can bring to

the flock also belong to this domain.

In Hosea 4:16 the Israelites are compared to a stubborn heifer (cf. also 10:11). This

attitude makes it impossible for the LORD to pasture them like a lamb in a meadow. The

image of the lamb reflects the ideal behavior of the people of Israel. Its meaning focuses

on the notion of obedience (following the shepherd without resistance). It contrasts with

Israel’s real behavior which is expressed by the image of a stubborn heifer. The

metaphorical verb , as it occurs in this context,expresses the notions of ‘leading’,

‘feeding’ and ‘taking care of’ in a more general sense354

. Since the people of Israel do not

follow YHWH, YHWH does not lead them and take care of them. The simile is used in a

context where YHWH rebukes the people of Israel because of their unfaithfulness in

terms of idolatry and prostitution.

The Israelites are stubborn,

like a stubborn heifer.

How then can the LORD pasture them ( )

like a lamb in a meadow? ( )

354 Taking ‘feeding’ (provision of food) as a ground of the simile makes sense in the context of the book of

Hosea, where YHWH punishes his people with drought and famine, because they followed the Baals. Cf.

Hosea 2:3.5-6. 8-9.12; 4:10.18; 9:2.

104

In 5:14 the prophet portrays YHWH as a lion who tears the unfaithful people of Israel

(Ephraim and Judah) to pieces:

For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, like a great lion to Judah.

I will tear them to pieces and go away;

I will carry them off, with no one to rescue them.

The same motif also occurs in Hosea 13:4-8. YHWH is portrayed as a devouring lion

(verses 7-8). The section of YHWH devouring his people occurs immediately after a

section where he is portrayed as the shepherd who fed his people in the past (verses 4-6).

This change in YHWH’s role is not the result of capriciousness on his side. But it is

motivated by the sin of the people of Israel.

4

But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt.

You shall acknowledge no God but me,

no Savior except me. 5I cared for you in the desert,

in the land of burning heat. 6

According to their pastures, they were satisfied;

when they were satisfied, they became proud;

then they forgot me. 7

So will I come upon them like a lion ( ),

like a leopard I will lurk by the path. 8

Like a bear robbed of her cubs,

I will attack them and rip them open.

Like a lion I will devour them;

a wild animal will tear them apart.

However, the image of the lion is not only connected to destruction. It also occurs as an

expression of restoration. In Hosea 11:9-11, the roaring of the lion announces salvation:

9I will not carry out my fierce anger

nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim

For I am God, and no man –

the Holy One among you.

I will not come in wrath. 10

They will follow the LORD;

he will roar like a lion ( ).

When he roars,

his children will come trembling from the west. 11

They will come trembling

like birds from Egypt

like doves from Assyria.

I will settle them in their homes,”

declares the LORD.’

105

Hosea 1:11 [2:2] speaks of the promise of reunion of the people of Judah and Israel. No

explicit shepherd terminology is used, except for the verb , “gather together”. This

verb can be used for the gathering together of the flock, but has a wider application than

the domain of animal husbandry and pastoralism.

‘The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited ( ¸ ni.),

and they will appoint one leader ( ) and will come up out of the land, for

great will be the day of Jizreel.’

5.4.2. Amos: the roaring lion, the shepherd and the saved remnant

The theme of YHWH as a roaring lion is also found in Amos 1:2, where Amos

announces a drought to Judah and Israel and their neighboring countries:

‘The LORD roars from Zion

and thunders from Jerusalem;

the pastures of the sheep dry up,

and the top of Carmel withers.’

In 3:4 and 3:8 the image of the roaring lion is further developed:

‘Does a lion roar in the thicket when he has no prey?

Does he growl in his den, when he has caught nothing?

(…)

‘The lion has roared – who will not fear?

The Sovereign LORD has spoken – who can but prophesy?’

YHWH is portrayed as a roaring lion, who is about to devour his prey. Or, to use an

image from the agricultural domain, He will ‘crush’ Israel ‘as a cart crushes when loaded

with grain’ (2:13). The sins of Israel and Judah and their neighboring countries had

provoked YHWH’s anger.

However, the destruction of Israel will not be complete; part of Israel will be saved

(Amos 3:12). YHWH is pictured as a shepherd who rescues part of the flock animal from

the lion’s mouth.

‘This is what the LORD says:

“As a shepherd saves from a lion’s mouth

only two leg bones or a piece of an ear,

so will the Israelites be saved,

those who sit in Samaria on the edge of their beds

and in Damascus on their couches.’

106

Several exegetes have pointed out that the imagery is highly ironical here, since the type

of rescuing that is referred to here implies that the flock animal had already been killed

and torn apart by the lion. The act of rescuing the limbs of the flock animal was intended

to prove that the shepherd was not responsible for the death of the flock animal. At best, a

few individuals would perhaps be rescued, but the majority of the Israelites would

perish.355

5.4.3. Micah: YHWH will gather the remnant of Israel like sheep in a pen

Shepherd and flock imagery is found in Micah 2:12; the focus of the imagery is the

gathering of the remnant of Israel. The people of Israel are pictured here as a scattered

flock, the remnant of which will be gathered together by the LORD.

I will surely gather ( ) all of you o Jacob;

I will surely bring together () the remnant of Israel.

I will bring them together ( ) like sheep in a pen

( ),

like a flock in its pasture ( );

the place will throng with people.

Micah 4:6-8 contains a variation on the same theme. The remnant of the flock that will be

gathered together by YHWH is pictured as a group of lame flock animals (Cf. Ezekiel

34:4.16).

6

“In that day,” declares the LORD,

“I will gather ( ) the lame;

I will assemble ( ) the exiles,

and those I have brought to grief. 7I will make the lame a remnant,

those driven away ( ) a strong nation.

The LORD will rule over them in Mount Zion

from that day and forever. 8

As for you, O watchtower of the flock ( ),

O stronghold of the Daughter of Zion,

the former dominion will be restored to you;

kingship will come to the Daughter of Jerusalem.”

In Micah 5:2-5 [1-4] shepherd and flock imagery is used to announce salvation.

Here the shepherd is not YHWH, but a messianic descendant of Judah who will

stand and shepherd the flock of Israel. The imagery of the shepherd, as it occurs in

this context, seems to primarily express the grounds of protection and security.

355 Cf. Van Hecke (2000:494) for a more detailed discussion of the exegesis of this passage.

107

2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah,

though you are small among the clans of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel ( ),

whose origins are from of old,

from of ancient times.

(…) 4

He will stand and shepherd his flock ( )

in the strength of the LORD,

in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.

And they will live securely, for then his greatness

will reach to the ends of the earth. 5

And he will be their peace.

The final prayer in Micah also contains shepherd and flock imagery (Micah 7:14). Here

the shepherd imagery is applied again to YHWH himself. In terms of the grounds of the

imagery, the notions of guidance (implied by the use of the term ‘staff’) and feeding seem

to be most in focus.

Shepherd your people with your staff ( ),

the flock of your inheritance ( ), which lives by itself in the forest,

in fertile land ( ).

Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead ( )

as in days long ago.

5.4.4. Isaiah

Lion imagery is also found in Isaiah 31:4. Here too the imagery is used to express

YHWH’s punitive actions against the people of Israel. YHWH is portrayed as a

fierce lion who fights off a band of shepherds, after he has caught his prey. battle

on Mount Zion.

This is what the LORD says to me:

As a lion growls,

a great lion over his prey--

and though a whole band of shepherds ( )

is called together against him,

he is not frightened by their shouts

or disturbed by their clamor--

so the LORD Almighty will come down

to do battle on Mount Zion and on its heights.

108

Shepherd imagery is found in Isaiah 40:11, in the context of the return from the

Exile and the restoration. Here YHWH is pictured as the caring shepherd who takes

special care of the flock animals that need special care.

He tends his flock like a shepherd ( ):

He gathers the lambs in his arms ( )

and carries them close to his heart ( );

he gently leads those that have young ( ).

Isaiah 49:9-10 contains a combination of sheep-focused imagery and shepherd-

focused imagery. Verse 9-10a pictures how the returnees “find pasture” beside the

roads, and have food, drink and shelter from the sun. Verse 10b pictures YHWH as

the compassionate shepherd who guides his people to springs of water.356

They will feed beside the roads ( )

and find pasture on every barren hill ( ).

They will neither hunger nor thirst,

nor will the desert heat or the sun beat upon them.

He who has compassion on them will guide them ( )

and lead them beside springs of water ( ).

In Isaiah 63:11. 13-14 shepherd imagery is used to refer to the Exodus event of the

past. Moses is portrayed as the shepherd who brought the people of Israel through

the sea. In verse 14, however, YHWH himself is portrayed as the shepherd who

guided his people and gave them rest in the land of Canaan.

Then his people recalled the days of old,

the days of Moses and his people--

where is he who brought them through the sea ( ),

with the shepherd of his flock ( )?

Where is he who set

his Holy Spirit among them …

who led them ( ) through the depths?

Like a horse in open country,

they did not stumble;

like cattle that go down to the plain ( ),

they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD ( ).

356 It should be noted that in Matthew 9:36 shepherd and sheep imagery occurs similarly in the context of

compassion: Jesus having compassion on the crowds.

109

This is how you guided your people ( ) to make for yourself a glorious name ( ).

Sheep-focused imagery is found in Isaiah 53:6-7. In verse 6 the imagery refers to

the people of Israel, and it expresses the notion of going astray. In verse 7 the

imagery of the lamb refers to the Servant of the LORD, and expresses the notion of

undergoing affliction without resisting. These verses show the flexibility of the

imagery in terms of the topics that it is applied to (people of Israel, servant of

YHWH) and in terms of the meanings assigned to it: going astray (disobedience to

YHWH) and being led to slaughter (undergoing affliction without resisting).

We all, like sheep, have gone astray ( ),

each of us has turned to his own way ( );

and the LORD has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter ( ),

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent ( ),

so he did not open his mouth.

5.4.5. Jeremiah

In Jeremiah 13:17 the people of Israel are referred to as “the flock of YHWH”. The

words occur in a warning that the people of Israel will be taken captive, if they do

not listen to YHWH.

But if you do not listen,

I will weep in secret

because of your pride;

my eyes will weep bitterly,

overflowing with tears,

because the LORD's flock will be taken captive ( ).

In verse 20 of the same chapter, the sheep imagery is used again to refer to the

people of Israel. The people addressed here are obviously the shepherds of Israel,

i.e. the leaders who are supposed to take care of the people of Israel.

Lift up your eyes and see

those who are coming from the north.

Where is the flock that was entrusted to you ( ),

the sheep of which you boasted ( )?

110

In Jeremiah 12:10 the disaster that will come over Israel as a result of their sins is

seen in terms of shepherds (foreign kings) who will trample YHWH’s vineyard:

Many shepherds will ruin my vineyard

And trample down my field;

They will turn my pleasant field

Into a desolate wasteland.

In Jeremiah 23:1-4 the prophet announces YHWH’s judgment and punitive action

against the leaders of Israel. The shepherds have not taken care of the people of

Israel – identified as the sheep of YHWH’s pasture – but they have destroyed them

and scattered them.

“Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of

my pasture!” declares the LORD.

Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the

shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered

() my flock and driven them away ( ) and have not

bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil

you have done,” declares the LORD.

“I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries

where I have driven ( ) them and will bring them back to their

pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number.

I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no

longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the

LORD.

In this passage YHWH is primarily portrayed as the owner of the sheep rather than

as the shepherd of the sheep. YHWH will gather the remnant of his flock from all

the countries where he had driven them.357

This looks like a temporary intervention,

where the owner of the flock takes over the responsibilities of the shepherds of the

flock. YHWH will place other (and better) shepherds over the flock of Israel. The

use of the plural instead of a singular is also significant here: Jeremiah does not see

the restoration of the flock in terms of one shepherd (Messiah) who will take care

of the flock.

In Jeremiah 31:9-10, the restoration of the flock is pictured in similar terms as

YHWH bringing his flock back and watching over them. But in this context there is

357 This text is interesting, as it portrays the driving away of the flock of Israel into captivity both as an

activity of the false shepherds and of YHWH himself.

111

no mention of YHWH placing shepherds over the people of Israel. Instead, YHWH

himself is portrayed as the shepherd.

They will come with weeping;

they will pray as I bring them back.

I will lead them ( ) beside streams of water

on a level path where they will not stumble,

because I am Israel's father,

and Ephraim is my firstborn son.

“Hear the word of the LORD, O nations;

proclaim it in distant coastlands:

“He who scattered Israel will gather them ( )

and will watch over his flock like a shepherd ( ).”

In Jeremiah 25:34-38 YHWH’s punitive action against the leaders of Israel is

announced in terms of slaughtering of flock animals (shepherd flock animal

reversal!), destruction of the pasture, and predatory activities of the lion. In addition

to these images from the domain of pastoralism, punitive action is also pictured in

terms of the breaking of pottery.

Weep and wail, you shepherds;

roll in the dust, you leaders of the flock.

For your time to be slaughtered has come;

you will fall and be shattered like fine pottery.

The shepherds will have nowhere to flee,

the leaders of the flock no place to escape.

Hear the cry of the shepherds,

the wailing of the leaders of the flock,

for the LORD is destroying their pasture.

The peaceful meadows will be laid waste

because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

Like a lion he will leave his lair,

and their land will become desolate

because of the sword of the oppressor

and because of the LORD's fierce anger.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is also used in the context of YHWH taking

punitive action against the nations. In Jeremiah 49:19-20 (= Jeremiah 50:44-45)

YHWH is pictured as a lion who chases the people of Edom (Babylon) from their

land.

112

“Like a lion coming up from Jordan's thickets

to a rich pastureland,

I will chase Edom from its land in an instant.

Who is the chosen one I will appoint for this?

Who is like me and who can challenge me?

And what shepherd can stand against me?”

YHWH will punish the kings of Assyria and Babylon, because they have behaved

like lions who scattered, chased away, devoured and crushed the people of Israel

(Jeremiah 50:17-19).358

Punitive action against these kings is followed by salvific

action towards his own people: YHWH will bring the people of Israel back to their

own pasture, the land of Canaan.

“Israel is a scattered flock ( )

that lions have chased away.

The first to devour him

was the king of Assyria;

the last to crush his bones

was Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.”

Therefore this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says:

“I will punish the king of Babylon and his land

as I punished the king of Assyria.

But I will bring Israel back to his own pasture

( )

and he will graze on Carmel and Bashan ( );

his appetite will be satisfied

on the hills of Ephraim and Gilead.”

In Jeremiah 50:6-8 the people of Israel are once again described as lost sheep, who

have been led astray by their leaders, and who were devoured by their enemies. The

wandering over mountains and hills could be an allusion to Israel’s idolatry on the

mountains and hills. Interestingly enough, YHWH himself is portrayed as the

resting place and the pasture of the people of Israel. At the end of the passage, the

people of Israel are summoned to “be like the goats that lead the flock” and to leave

the land of Babylon.

“My people have been lost sheep;

their shepherds have led them astray

358

Punitive action is not restricted to the kings of these nations. In Jeremiah 51:38-40, for example,

YHWH announces his judgment over the people of Babylon. Even though they roar like lions, he

will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter. “Her people all roar like young lions, they growl

like lion cubs. But while they are aroused, I will set out a feast for them and make them drunk, so

that they shout with laughter -- then sleep forever and not awake,” declares the LORD. “I will bring

them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams and goats.”

113

and caused them to roam on the mountains.

They wandered over mountain and hill

and forgot their own resting place ( ).

Whoever found them devoured them;

their enemies said, ‘We are not guilty,

for they sinned against the LORD, their true pasture ( ),

the LORD, the hope of their fathers.’

“Flee out of Babylon;

leave the land of the Babylonians,

and be like the goats that lead the flock.

In Jeremiah the imagery of shepherd and sheep is not only used to express the

relationship between YHWH and his people, but it is also a symbol of the restored

situation after the Exile. The presence of flocks symbolizes the restored situation of

peace and prosperity (Jeremiah 33:12-13):

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In this place, desolate and

without men or animals--in all its towns there will again be pastures

for shepherds to rest their flocks.

In the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the

Negev, in the territory of Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem

and in the towns of Judah, flocks will again pass under the hand of the

one who counts them,’ says the LORD.

5.4.6. Ezekiel

In Ezekiel 20:36-38 the imagery of shepherd and sheep is used to express the new

covenant between YHWH and the people of Israel. YHWH is pictured here as a

shepherd who counts his sheep before they enter the sheep pen. Entering the sheep

pen is entering the bond of covenant with YHWH.

As I judged your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will

judge you, declares the Sovereign LORD.

I will take note of you as you pass under my rod, and I will bring you

into the bond of the covenant.

I will purge you of those who revolt and rebel against me. Although I

will bring them out of the land where they are living, yet they will not

enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 34:1-24, 31 is one of the most well-known shepherd texts of the Old

Testament. In this chapter YHWH accuses the shepherds of Israel that they have

taken care of themselves rather than taking care of his flock, the people of Israel

(Ezekiel 34:1-6).

114

The word of the LORD came to me:

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and

say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the

shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not

shepherds take care of the flock?

You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the

choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock.

You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up

the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the

lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they

were scattered they became food for all the wild animals.

My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill.

They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or

looked for them.

YHWH will remove the bad shepherds from the task they had neglected. And he

himself will search for his sheep and look after them (34:11) and pasture them on

the mountains of Israel (34:13). He will also search for the lost, bring back the

strays. Ezekiel 34:11-15:

“ ‘For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for

my sheep and look after them.

As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so

will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places

where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness.

I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the

countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture

them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the

settlements in the land.

I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel

will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing

land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of

Israel.

I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the

Sovereign LORD.

In addition, YHWH will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak (34:16).

YHWH’s punitive actions are not only directed against the shepherds who had

neglected their task, but also against the stronger flock animals that oppressed the

weaker flock animals. The flock is seen here as a mixed group of animals that show

different behavior. YHWH will judge between the strong animals and the weak

animals. The stronger animals trample on the pasture, making it unsuitable for the

115

weaker animals to graze on, and they muddy the drinking waters by trampling in it

with their feet. The stronger animals also but the weaker animals with their horns.

YHWH also announces the restoration of the flock (Ezekiel 34:23-24):

23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will

tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.

24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince

among them. I the LORD have spoken.

Unlike Jeremiah, Ezekiel does not announce that YHWH will place (unspecified)

shepherds over the people of Israel. But, he speaks about YHWH’s “servant David”

(Messiah) who will tend the people of Israel as a shepherd. According to this

imagery, YHWH is the owner of the sheep, while the Messiah is the shepherd of

the sheep. This conceptualization co-exists with the conceptualization in 34:15 that

YHWH himself is the shepherd of his people.

5.4.7. Zephaniah

In Zephaniah 2:6-7 shepherd and sheep imagery is found both as a symbolic

expression of peace and prosperity for the people of Judah that will be the result of

the restoration that YHWH will bring to his people and as an expression of the

relationship between YHWH and the people of Judah.

The land by the sea, where the Kerethites dwell,

will be a place for shepherds and sheep pens.

It will belong to the remnant of the house of Judah;

there they will find pasture.

In the evening they will lie down

in the houses of Ashkelon.

The LORD their God will care for them;

he will restore their fortunes.

It should be noted, though, that the expression that the land of the Kerethites will

be a place for shepherds and sheep pens does double duty, both as an expression of

peace and prosperity for the people of Israel (verse 6-7) and as an expression of the

destruction of the people of the Kerethites (cf. verse 5). When areas that are

normally populated with people are used as a place for shepherds and sheep pens,

this is a symbol of destruction.

Woe to you who live by the sea,

O Kerethite people;

the word of the LORD is against you,

O Canaan, land of the Philistines.

“I will destroy you,

and none will be left.”

116

The land by the sea, where the Kerethites dwell,

will be a place for shepherds and sheep pens.

In Zephaniah 3:19-20 the restoration of the people of Judah is expressed in terms of

a shepherd who gathers the flock and takes care of the weaker flock animals.

At that time I will deal

with all who oppressed you;

I will rescue the lame

and gather those who have been scattered.

I will give them praise and honor

in every land where they were put to shame.

At that time I will gather you;

at that time I will bring you home.

I will give you honor and praise

among all the peoples of the earth

when I restore your fortunes

before your very eyes,”

says the LORD.

5.4.8. Zechariah

In Zechariah 9:16 the deliverance that YHWH will bring to his people is expressed

in terms of shepherd and sheep imagery.

The LORD their God will save them on that day

as the flock of his people ( ).

They will sparkle in his land

like jewels in a crown.

In Zechariah 10:2-3 the people of Israel are compared to wandering sheep who

have no shepherd. The wandering is related to Israel’s involvement in idolatry and

lending an ear to false dreams and visions. YHWH will, therefore, punish the

leaders of Judah (identified as “shepherds”) and take care of his people.

The idols speak deceit,

diviners see visions that lie;

they tell dreams that are false,

they give comfort in vain.

Therefore the people wander like sheep ( )

oppressed for lack of a shepherd ( ).

“My anger burns against the shepherds,

117

and I will punish the leaders;

for the LORD Almighty will care

for his flock, the house of Judah,

( )

and make them like a proud horse in battle.”

In Zechariah 11:4-6 YHWH’s punitive action is announced against the people of

Judah. YHWH summons the prophet to “pasture the flock marked for slaughter”.

The people of Judah are pictured as a flock that has been sold by their shepherds.

Now YHWH will have no longer pity on them either.

4 This is what the LORD my God says: “Pasture the flock marked for

slaughter. 5 Their buyers slaughter them and go unpunished. Those who sell

them say, ‘Praise the LORD, I am rich!’ Their own shepherds do not

spare them. 6 For I will no longer have pity on the people of the land,” declares the

LORD. “I will hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They

will oppress the land, and I will not rescue them from their hands.”

Zechariah pastured the flock marked for slaughter, especially the oppressed of the

flock. He took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and pastured

the flock. However, the flock detested Zechariah, and he grew weary of them. He

announced that he would no longer be their shepherd and broke the staffs called

Favor and Union. Zechariah 11:15-16 tells what happened next:

15

Then the LORD said to me, “Take again the equipment of a foolish

shepherd. 16

For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not

care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the

healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their

hoofs.

YHWH’s punitive action against the worthless shepherd is announced in verse 17:

17

“Woe to the worthless shepherd,

who deserts the flock!

May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!

May his arm be completely withered,

his right eye totally blinded!”

YHWH’s punitive action against the worthless shepherd is paralleled by his

punitive action against the shepherd who is close to him (13:7). This is announced

as a judgment against the people of Judah: in addition to the fact that no prophets

will be left (13:1-6), there will no shepherd be left either. The shepherd will be

118

struck with the sword and the sheep he tends will be scattered. YHWH will even

turn his hand against the little ones.

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,

against the man who is close to me!”

declares the LORD Almighty.

“Strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be scattered,

and I will turn my hand against the little ones.”

However, there will be salvation following the punitive action:

8 “In the whole land,” declares the LORD,

“two-thirds will be struck down and perish;

yet one-third will be left in it.

9 This third I will bring into the fire;

I will refine them like silver

and test them like gold.

They will call on my name

and I will answer them;

I will say, ‘They are my people,’

and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’”

5.4.9. Summary

In the prophetic literature of the Old Testament the imagery of shepherd and sheep is

used both in the context of the announcement of YHWH’s punitive actions against his

people and in the context of the promised restoration.

In the context of the announcement of YHWH’s punitive actions, the people of Israel are

portrayed as wandering sheep, while their leaders are pictured as shepherds who do not

take care of the flock. YHWH’s punitive actions are directed against the shepherds of

Israel, or against the strong flock animals that oppress the weaker animals, or against the

flock as a whole, including the little ones.

YHWH’s punitive actions are often accompanied by salvific actions. Two images are

particularly important. According to the one picture, YHWH himself will be the shepherd

of the people of Israel; and according to the other picture, YHWH will appoint other

shepherds (plural) or one shepherd (singular) from the tribe of Judah to shepherd (the

remnant of) the people of Israel. These images of YHWH as the SHEPHERD of his

people (flock) and YHWH as the OWNER of his people (flock) are sometimes co-

existent in the same passage.

119

The imagery of lions – as predators of sheep – plays an important role in the message of

the prophets. YHWH is portrayed as a roaring lion who devours his own people. The

kings of Ashur and Babylon, likewise, are portrayed as lions who chase and devour the

people of Israel. But, YHWH himself is also portrayed as a lion who chases and devours

the kings of Ashur and Babylon. Even though those people roar like lions, YHWH will

slaughter them like lambs.

What is particularly interesting about the imagery used by the prophets is the flexibility

with which the imagery of shepherds, sheep, lambs and lions is used to refer to a variety

of topics and grounds.

5.5. The Imagery of Shepherd and sheep imagery in the Ketubim

Shepherd and sheep imagery occurs several times in the Book of Psalms. YHWH is

sometimes portrayed as the shepherd of an individual believer. More often, however, he

is directly or indirectly pictured as the shepherd of the people of Israel as a religious and

political community. In most cases YHWH is viewed as the faithful shepherd who takes

care of his people, protects them and guides them. But, in the context of communal

laments he is also described as the one who is angry with his sheep, and as the one who

gives them over to be devoured by wild animals or to be slaughtered. Shepherd imagery

is also applied to Moses and Aaron and to king David in relation to the people of Israel.

5.5.1. Psalm 2: YHWH’s Anointed One rules (or: breaks) the nations

In this coronation psalm359

the newly installed human king is referred to as YHWH’s

‘Anointed One’ (2:2) and as YHWH’s ‘son’ (2:7.12). Shepherd imagery is possibly found

in 2:9, where the new king of Zion installed by ‘the One enthroned in heaven’ (2:4)

proclaims the decree of the LORD:

7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:

He said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have become your Father. 8 Ask of me,

and I will make the nations your inheritance,

the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You will rule (or: break) them with an iron scepter (or: rod);

you will dash them to pieces like pottery.

359 Cf. Craigie (1983:64). He sees Psalm 2 as a royal psalm, which ‘must be interpreted in association with

the Hebrew monarchy.’ Based on parallels between this psalm and the promises given to king David in the

oracle of Nathan (2 Samuel 7:8-16), it is very likely that the psalm was originally composed for the

coronation of Davidic kings.

120

The interpretation ‘you will rule them with an iron scepter” is based on the reading

(from qal ‘to shepherd’) rather than on (from qal, ‘to break,

shatter’). According to Craigie (1983:64), ‘either reading is possible, depending on the

vocalization of the consonantal text.’ However, in his view, ‘the context as a whole

suggests the more powerful “break them”.’

In the Septuagint, the action performed by the king in 2:9a is interpreted as an act of

“ruling” ( ; “you will shepherd”) rather than an act of “breaking”.360

The

interpretation followed by the Septuagint is also found in those New Testament passages

where Psalm 2:9 is quoted.

A reading of Psalm 2:9 would imply that a ‘shepherding’ (verb) metaphor is

applied here to a Davidic king, and that it is used in the sense of a powerful ruling over

subjugated kings and nations. This kind of ‘shepherding’ would imply a hostile

(overpowering) relationship between the king and the people he rules with an ‘iron

scepter’ ( ).

5.5.2. Psalm 23: YHWH is my shepherd

Psalm 23 is a song of confidence, in which an individual, who is possibly a royal person,

expresses his trust in YHWH. The author’s trust and thankfulness are expressed in terms

of shepherd imagery (23:1-4), table/host imagery (23:5) and dwelling in the house of

YHWH imagery (23:6). These different kinds of imagery are cognitively linked by the

notion of divine presence and fellowship as expressed in verse 4, the center of the Psalm:

‘I will fear no evil, for you are with me.’

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,

he leads me beside quiet waters,

3 he restores my soul.

He guides me in paths of righteousness

for his name's sake.

4 Even though I walk

through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil,

for you are with me;

your rod and your staff,

they comfort me.

A more in-depth exploration of this Psalm will be given in chapter 6. In the context of

this section it suffices to say that the shepherd metaphor expressed in this Psalm is

applied to YHWH and to his benevolent relationship and actions towards an individual

believer. The pastoral imagery is used to expresses the notions of YHWH’s provision for

360

121

the believer (23:1-2), religious or ethical guidance (23:3), and protection and consolation

even in the face of death (23:4). The frequent use of first and second person singular

pronominal suffixes and the direct address in the second person singular in the middle of

the psalm underscore the intimate relationship between YHWH and the believer.

The Psalm is similar to Genesis 48:15 and 49:24 in that the pastoral imagery is not

applied to YHWH in relationship to his people as a community, but rather to YHWH in

relation to an individual believer.

5.5.3. Psalm 28: YHWH, my rock, shepherd your people

Shepherd imagery is found at the end (28:9) of this Psalm, which has been characterized

as a ‘liturgy of supplication’.361

9 Save your people and bless your inheritance;

be their shepherd and carry them forever.

In this context the imagery of shepherding is applied to YHWH, who is asked to be the

shepherd of his people, and to carry them forever. The imagery of shepherding is

employed to express YHWH’s caring for his people.362

In the first part of the verse (9a)

YHWH’s people are described, not as YHWH’s flock, but as his ‘inheritance’

( ).

The imagery of shepherding ( ) in verse 9b is found in parallelism with the imagery

of carrying ( ). In this context it is perhaps best to view the imagery of carrying as

part of the imagery of shepherding. In that case YHWH is portrayed here as the shepherd

who is carrying his people like lambs (cf. Isaiah 40:11). However, it should be noted that

in ancient texts related to the Exodus tradition the imagery of ‘carrying’ is used in the

context of an eagle carrying its young (Exodus 19:4) or to a father carrying his son

(Deuteronomy 1:31). The possibility should not be excluded that either one of these

imageries is intended here, or at least alluded to.

In terms of the interaction between the various imageries in this Psalm, it is remarkable

that rock imagery is found at the beginning (28:1) of the Psalm, while shepherd imagery

is found at the end (28:9).363

In addition, YHWH is also described as the author’s

strength and shield (28:7). The imagery of shepherding differs from the other kinds of

imagery in that it occurs in a communal context (“be their shepherd”, i.e., “be the

361 Cf. Craigie (1983:237), who follows Ridderbos in his interpretation. 362 Cf. Craigie (1983:240): “The imagery of the prayer in V 9b is that of the caring shepherd, similar in tone

to the language of Ps 23:1 and Isa 40:11.” 363 Shepherd imagery also co-occurs with rock imagery in Genesis 49:24 and in Psalm 95:1.7.

122

shepherd of your people.”) rather than in an individual context (“my rock,’ “my strength,”

“my shield,”). Another difference is that the imagery of shepherding occurs in a more or

less prescriptive context (appeal), while the other imageries occur in a descriptive context

(“God [is] my strength and my shield”, etc.).

5.5.4. Psalm 44: You gave us up to be devoured like sheep

Pastoral imagery also occurs in Psalm 44, which is a national (communal) lament,364

following a military defeat (cf. 44:9-10 [MT:10-11]). God is not portrayed here as the

faithful shepherd who takes care of his sheep and who protects them. Instead, he is

pictured as an unfaithful shepherd who gave his people up to be devoured by the enemies

(pictured as wild animals) and to be scattered among the nations (verse 11 [MT:12]).365

11

You gave us up to be devoured like sheep

and have scattered us among the nations.

In verse 22 [MT:23] pastoral imagery is found again, but it has shifted here from sheep

that are devoured by wild animals (verse 11) to sheep that are slaughtered by human

agents.

22

Yet for your sake we face death all day long;

we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

5.5.5. Psalm 74: Why does your anger smolder against the sheep of your pasture?

Psalm 74 is a communal lament.366

It starts with a complaint which is cast in the form of

two parallel rhetorical questions. In the second rhetorical question the community of

believers refer to themselves as ‘the sheep of your pasture’ (( ) (74:1). This

self-designation – together with the self-designations in verse 2 – forms the basis of the

appeal in the verses 2 and 3. These self-designations have the function of softening up

God’s heart so that he will defend the cause of his people. They are used to remind God

of the great things he did in the past, and to call him to action so that the current desolate

situation of the destroyed sanctuary will be reversed.

1 Why have you rejected us forever, O God?

Why does your anger smolder against the sheep of your pasture? 2 Remember the people you purchased of old,

the tribe of your inheritance,

364 Craigie (1983:331). 365 Note that in the following verse 12 [MT: 13] God is portrayed as the one who has sold his people. ‘You

sold your people for a pittance, gaining nothing from their sale.’ This is a complete reversal of the past,

when God led his people as a shepherd and when he purchased them (cf. Psalm 74:1-2). 366 Tate (1990:246).

123

whom you redeemed –

Mount Zion where you dwelt. 3 Turn your steps toward these everlasting ruines,

all this destruction the enemy has brought on the sanctuary. 4 Your foes roared in the place where you met with us;

they set up their standards as signs.

God is portrayed here as having a smoldering anger against the sheep of his pasture.

Having a smoldering anger against sheep does not fit the normal role of a shepherd or

owner of sheep towards his sheep. Normally, a shepherd would take care of his sheep and

protect them. While referring to themselves as the sheep of God’s pasture, the community

expresses the initial laments in verse 1 as a prelude to their plea for help.

The verb ‘roar’ () in verse 4 evokes the scene of the enemies, who behave like

roaring lions, while they devastate the sanctuary367

. In this particular context, the

‘roaring’ of the enemies seems to be primarily directed against God’s sanctuary, and not

against the sheep of God’s pasture.

Verse 19, however, implies that the anger of the enemies is also directed against the

community of believers. In this prayer, the community refers to itself as God’s dove

(), and it describes the enemies as wild beast ( ).

19 Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beast

do not forget the lives of your afflicted people forever.

The imagery of the dove implies the notions of preciousness and vulnerability.

5.5.6. Psalm 77: Remembering the deeds of the Shepherd in the past

This ‘prayer of unanswered lament’ (Tate 1990:275) ends on a positive note. The author

remembers God’s salvation work of the past. The exodus from Egypt is described in

terms of a theophanic intervention (77:15-19; [MT:16-20]), which ends with ‘Your path

led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not

seen’ (verse 19; [MT:20]).

In the verses 15-19 [MT:16-20] God’s redemptive work was described in terms of

theophany, battle and stress. But here, at the very end of the Psalm (verse 20; [MT:21],

the focus shifts to an image that does not imply any stress at all: God is portrayed as the

shepherd who led his people in the past.

20

You led your people like a flock

by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

367 Tate (1990:248): ‘The actions of the enemies are described with strong language. They have roared in

the sanctuary like lions (v 4), and the damage they have done has left it in total ruins.’

124

This shepherd imagery – predicated of God in relation to the children of Jacob and

Joseph whom he rescued from Egypt (cf. verse 15 [MT:16]) – is expressed in the form of

a simile. The ground of the imagery is explicitly stated: ‘you led ( ) your people like a

flock’.

God led his people like a flock ‘by the hand of Moses and Aaron.’ This means that not

only God, but also Moses and Aaron are indirectly portrayed as shepherds who led the

people of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. God is portrayed as the primary agent, while

Moses and Aaron are portrayed as the secondary agents. This does not necessarily imply

that Moses and Aaron are pictured as helping shepherds who assist God as the main

shepherd.

5.5.7. Psalm 78: God led his people like a flock and chose David as a shepherd

In Psalm 78:14 the same verb is used as in 77:20 ( ) to refer to the event of God

guiding his people through the wilderness from Egypt to Canaan. However, in the

particular context of 78:14 there is no explicit reference to shepherd imagery. God is

portrayed as a guide rather than as a shepherd.

14

He guided them with the cloud by day

and with light from the fire all night.

However, in 78:52-54 God is portrayed as the shepherd of the people of Israel. The

shepherding imagery is cast in the form of a simile. God’s shepherding of his people is in

sharp contrast with the fate of the firstborn of Egypt (78:51) and with the ones engulfed

by the sea (78:53).

51

He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt

the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham 52

But he brought ( hi.) his people out like a flock;

he led ( ) them like sheep through the desert. 53

He guided ( ) them safely, so they were unafraid;

but the sea engulfed their enemies. 54

Thus he brought ( hi.) them to the border of his holy land,

to the hill country his right hand had taken.

Psalm 78 differs from 77:20 in that Moses and Aaron are not mentioned here as the

ones through whom God shepherded his people. This does not mean that shepherd

imagery is not applied at all to human leaders. In 78:70-72 the shepherd imagery is

applied to king David, who used to be a shepherd of sheep, and who became a

shepherd of the people of Israel.

70

He chose David his servant

and took him from the sheep pens;

125

71 From tending the sheep he brought him

to be the shepherd ( ) of his people Jacob,

of Israel his inheritance 72

And David shepherded ( ) them with integrity of heart;

with skillful hands he led ( ) them

The application of the shepherd imagery to this human king occurs in the context where

God’s election of David as his special servant is mentioned. A similar connection

between divine election (servitude) and shepherdship is also found in Mesopotamian

texts where kings are portrayed as shepherds who have been called to this service by the

deity they serve.

The grounds of the shepherding imagery used in this Psalm are expressed by verbs

related to guidance and leading. In addition, the shepherding imagery predicated of God

in the verses 52-53 also implies the notion of protection (God guided them safely so that

they were unafraid). And king David is portrayed as a pastor bonus who was upright and

who had skillful hands.

5.5.8. Psalm 79: We, the sheep of your pasture, will praise you forever

Pastoral imagery is also found in the final verse of Psalm 79, which is a communal

lament.368

In this verse the community of believers, who are confronted with the

destruction of God’s sanctuary369

, refer to themselves as ‘we your (the Lord’s) people,

the sheep of your pasture.’ They vow that they will praise the Lord forever, when he will

pay back the neighboring peoples for the bad things they have done to his sanctuary

(verse 1), to his servants the people of Israel (verse 2), and even to God himself (verse

12):

12

Pay back into the laps of our neighbors seven times

the reproach they have hurled at you, O Lord. 13

Then we your people, the sheep of your pasture,

will praise you forever;

from generation to generation

we will recount your praise.

It may be assumed that the continuous praising of God is thought of as being done in the

context of communal praise in the restored sanctuary.

368 Tate (1990:298). 369 According to Tate (1990:300), ‘the historical referent is not given, but the psalm most likely reflects

Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 B.C.E.’

126

5.5.9. Psalm 80: Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel

Shepherd imagery is found at the beginning of the psalm, which is a communal lament370

and a prayer for God to restore his people:

1 Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel,

you who lead Joseph like a flock;

you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine forth 2 before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh.

Awaken your might;

come and save us 3 Restore us, O God;

make your face shine upon us.

that we may be saved.

In the invocation and initial petition of the Psalm (80:1-3; MT:2-4) God is first addressed

by the metaphorical title of ‘shepherd of Israel’. This is the only occurrence in the Old

Testament where the metaphorical title ‘shepherd of Israel’ is explicitly applied to God.

In the ancient Near East the title of shepherd was frequently used for deities and kings as

an expression of their benevolent relation to their people. In the light of this general usage

and of the particular context of this psalm the GOD IS ISRAEL’S SHEPHERD metaphor

in verse 1 could be an expression of the metaphor that GOD IS ISRAEL’S KING.

The ground(s) of the metaphor in verse 1a are not overtly expressed. Care and protection

are two grounds that are probably primarily intended here. Taken in this sense, the title

‘Shepherd of Israel’ can be paraphrased as ‘You who take care of the people of Israel and

protect them’. God’s role as Israel’s caring and protective shepherd is used as a basis for

the appeal to God to rescue and restore his people.

The title is followed by a more or less parallel title or epithet, which is cast in the form of

a simile, and which serves the same function (basis of appeal): ‘you who lead Joseph like

a flock’. Here the ground of the imagery is expressed overtly in terms of leading.371

The

use of the participle ( ) implies that God’s leading of the descendants of Joseph is

viewed as a continuous action, including the past, the present and the future. God’s

leading is not restricted to the past when he led the descendants of Joseph out of Egypt

and through the wilderness372

, even though these events may be primarily in focus here as

a model for God’s salvific actions that are requested.

370 Tate (1990:308). 371 The use of the designations “Israel” and “Joseph” suggests that this psalm is concerned with the

destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians. Cf. Tate (1990:309). He mentions the generally

held assumption that the Psalm “reflects the period of Assyrian conquests after 745 B.C.E., especially the

time between 732 and 722 when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed.” 372 In the light of the context of this psalm it is very likely that the ‘leading of Joseph like a flock’ refers

primarily to the exodus from Egypt. Cf. verse 8 (MT:9), where the metaphor of ISRAEL IS A

(TRANSPLANTED) VINE is explicitly linked to the exodus from Egypt: ‘You brought a vine out of Egypt

you drove out the nations and planted it.’ Also verse 5 (MT:6) seems to allude to the theme of the feeding

and watering of the people of Israel in the wilderness. The present situation differs completely from the

127

The shepherd imagery is followed by kingship imagery: the Shepherd of Israel is

subsequently addressed as ‘you who sit between the cherubim’. This image evokes the

idea of God sitting as a king on the Ark of the Covenant, which is conceived as his

throne.373

The kingship imagery is used as a basis for an appeal to God’s power in order

to take action and rescue the people of Israel and Joseph and bring them to restoration.374

According to Tate (199:313), ‘the imagery of “enthroned on the cherubim” seems to

carry at least three ideas: (1) the mobility of Yahweh, who comes to his people in times

of need and manifests his power in deeds of deliverance; (2) the divine warrior who rides

his throne chariot across the heavens and through the storm to save (Psalm 18:8-18); (3)

the one whose great wings provide relief and protection for those who are under them

(Psalm 91:4; cf. Deuteronomy 33:11-12).’

The invocation is followed by an initial petition. In this petition God is called to action in

terms of ‘shining forth’, ‘awakening his might,’ ‘coming,’ ‘saving’ and ‘letting his face

shine upon his people’. The imagery of God shining forth victoriously (theophany)375

before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh evokes the idea of God leading his people in

battle, while they march behind the Ark of Covenant.376

And the call for God to “let his

face shine” upon his people in verse 3 [MT:4] is a plead for God to be gracious again to

his people, to bless them and to give them peace.377

5.5.10. Psalm 95: We are the people of his pasture, the flock of his hand

Pastoral imagery is also found in Psalm 95. This Psalm contains a call to worship (1-7b)

and a divine message which has the character of a sermonic admonition (7c-11). In the

first part of the call to worship (1-4) YHWH is identified as ‘the rock of our salvation’

(verse 1), who is worthy of praise, because he is the Creator of the world. In the second

part (6-7), YHWH is portrayed as being worthy of praise, because he is Israel’s Creator

(expressed) and Shepherd (implied). Pastoral imagery is used here to express one of the

grounds 378

for praising YHWH and kneeling before him:

situation in the past. In the past God fed his people with Manna, but now he feeds them with ‘bread of

tears’; in the past he gave them water from the rock, but now he makes them drink tears by the bowlful. 373 Cf. Ryken (1998:43): ‘… the ark was understood to be the throne or the footstool to the throne of God (2

Kings 19:15). Above the ark were placed two cherubim with outstretched wings and downcast eyes. God

was envisioned as enthroned on the wings. The ark was the symbol of God’s very presence on earth.’ 374 Kingship imagery is also implied by the expressions ‘God Almighty’ ( ) in the verses 7

[MT:8] and 14 [MT:15] and ‘LORD God Almighty’ ( ) in 4 [MT:5] and 19 [MT:20],

where YHWH is portrayed as a king-warrior. 375 According to Tate (1990:305), a term related to ( , ‘shine forth’; verse 1 [MT:2]) occurs in

Ugaritic texts in the context of battles between gods. In those contexts it implies the notion of ‘shining forth

victoriously in battle’. Cf. also Psalm 50:2 and 94:1, which are also Psalms of Asaph, just like Psalm 80

and which also contain a plea for a theophanic intervention. 376 Cf. Tate (1990:312), who mentions that the three tribes mentioned in this Psalm are in the order of

march immediately behind the Ark in Numbers 2:17-24. 377 The same metaphor is used in the Aaronite benediction in Numbers 6:24, where it occurs in the context

of YHWH blessing, protecting, being gracious and giving peace to his people. 378 At the same time this passage is also part of the content of the praise.

128

6 Come, let us bow down in worship

let us kneel before the LORD our Maker 7

for he is our God

and we are the people of his pasture

the flock of his hand379

The YHWH IS OUR SHEPHERD metaphor is not explicitly expressed in this psalm, but

it is implied by the parallel expressions ‘(we are) the people of his pasture’ ( )

and ‘the flock of his hand’ ( ). These expressions refer to the people of Israel

(community of worshipers).

The grounds of the pastoral imagery are not explicitly expressed here. However, the

notions of care, guidance and protection would certainly fit in with the context. YHWH

is the one who takes care of his people, who guides and protects them, and therefore the

people are summoned to worship and obey him.

In the sermonic admonition at the end of the Psalm, the believers are summoned to listen

to God’s voice, and to avoid the sin of the people of Israel in the past, who rebelled

against him in the wilderness (Meribah and Massah). The possibility that the ‘listening to

God’s voice’ in verse 7c is a continuation of the shepherd metaphor should not be

excluded. In that case the people are portrayed as sheep who listen to the voice of the

shepherd and who follow him.380

It is worth noting that the pastoral imagery found in this Psalm occurs in a context where

YHWH is also portrayed as a king (verse 3): ‘For the LORD is the great God, the great

King above all gods.’ The fact that the shepherd metaphor occurs in a context where there

is also mention of the rock metaphor (verse 1) has already been pointed out.

5.5.11. Psalm 100: We are his people, the sheep of his pasture

The pastoral imagery found in this ‘imperative hymn’381

is very similar to the imagery

found in Psalm 95. Like in Psalm 95, which probably functioned in a very similar (cultic)

setting as Psalm 100382

, YHWH is explicitly acknowledged as the Creator (expressed)

and Shepherd (implied) of his people.

3 Know that the LORD is God

It is he who made us, and we are his;

We are his people, the sheep of his pasture.

379 NIV translates this as ‘the flock under his care.’ Another possibility would be to translate this as ‘the

flock under his guidance’. 380 Note that the expression (‘people whose hearts go astray’) in verse 10 does not

specifically belong to the lexical domain of pastoralism. Consequently, this expression does not continue

the pastoral imagery (in the sense that people are portrayed as having hearts that go astray, just like sheep

may go astray). 381 Cf. Tate (1990:534). 382 Cf. Tate (1990:535).

129

There are some minor differences in wording between the imagery in Psalm 95 and the

imagery in Psalm 100. In Psalm 95 pastoral imagery was found in two parallel

expressions (‘we are the people of his pasture’ / ‘the flock of his hand’). In Psalm 100,

the imagery is only found in the second parallel expression (‘the sheep of his pasture’).

The first parallel expression is non-metaphorical ‘we are his people’.

According to Tate (1990:537), ‘the shepherd motif in verse 3d is a monarchial one,

applied to kings and leaders.’ Even though the Psalm does not contain any explicit

reference to God as a king, this notion may certainly be implied.

5.5.12. Psalm 119: I have strayed like a lost sheep

The very last verse (176) of this acrostic and Torah-centered wisdom Psalm contains a

simile, in which the author compares himself to a lost sheep:

176

I have strayed like a lost sheep.

Seek your servant,

for I have not forgotten your commands.

Van Hecke (2000:562-563) interprets the imagery of the strayed sheep as referring to an

unintentional moral or religious straying of a believer. Interpreted in this sense, imagery

of the straying sheep would be closely connected with the ‘path is moral behavior’

metaphor, which is pervasive in this Psalm.383

Allen (1983:139), on the other hand,

interprets the imagery as it is found in this psalm as ‘exposure to danger and being lost

and lonely among foes’. In either case, helplessness and vulnerability seems to be the

major ground of the metaphor. The believer is in a helpless situation, and needs God’s

intervention (seek him) to end this situation.

5.5.13. Ecclesiastes 12:11: The words of the wise are like goads and nails given

by one shepherd

Shepherd imagery also occurs in the Epilogue of the book of Ecclesiastes.

11

The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like

firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd.

In this verse the words of the wise are compared to goads ( ). These are sharp

metal objects that are used to drive cattle. The implied imagery is that people are like

cattle and that the words of the wise urge them to walk in the right direction. In the

parallel imagery ( ) the words of the wise are compared to embedded

383

Cf. for example 119:9 (‘How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your

word’), 119:105 (‘Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path’), 119:110 (‘I have kept

my feet from every evil path so that I might obey your word.’), and 119:133 (‘Direct my footsteps

according to your word; let no sin rule over me’).

130

nails. Seow (1997) and Van Hecke (2000:565) interpret these as nails that are embedded

in goads. Lohfink (1995), on the other hand, sees this as a reference to rods that are

planted to mark the boundaries of pasture lands. Podechard (1912) connects the imagery

to carpentry rather than to animal husbandry. He thinks that the imagery refers to nails

that have been firmly embedded in a wall.

Van Hecke bases his interpretation on the parallelism between the nails and the goads.

This seems indeed the most plausible interpretation, even though the other interpretations

should not be ruled out.

The expression could refer to either ‘experts who have knowledge of

wisdom collections’, ‘writers of wisdom collections’ or to ‘leaders of congregations of

people’.

These words of the wise have been given by “the one shepherd.” Various interpretations

have been given as to whom is intended by this one shepherd: Solomon, Moses, the

writer of Ecclesiastes, or God. According to another interpretation, this expression is to

be viewed in the more indeterminate sense of ‘one shepherd’ (indefinite). Lohfink (1995),

for example, interprets this in the sense that one and the same shepherd uses both the

goad and the boundary mark.384

5.5.14. Summary

In the Psalms shepherd and sheep imagery – as it is applied to the relationship between

YHWH and his people – occurs in a variety of genres. The imagery is found most often

in communal songs of lamentation (44, 74, 77, 79, 80). It also occurs in an individual

song of confidence (23), a supplication (28), a historical (didactic) psalm (78), a call to

worship (95), an imperative hymn (100), and a wisdom psalm (119). In addition, it

possibly also occurs in a coronation Psalm (2), where the king as the anointed one of

YHWH is described as shepherding the subjugated kings and nations of the earth.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is used to describe a continuous relationship between

YHWH (God) and his people in the Psalms 23, 95 and 100. It is used to describe a past

action (exodus) of YHWH (God) towards his people in the Psalms 77 and 78. The

imagery is part of a complaint (rebuke) in the Psalms 44 and 74. It is part of an appeal to

God (supplication) in the Psalms 28 and 80. It is part of a vow/promise in Psalm 79. And

in Psalm 119 it is part of a personal confession of sin.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is most developed in the extended metaphor in Psalm

23:1-4, where the grounds of care/provision, guidance, protection and consolation are

expressed. The ground of guidance is clearly expressed in the pastoral similes in the

Psalms 77, 78, 80. The grounds of devouring, scattering and slaughtering of the flock are

expressed in the pastoral similes of Psalm 44. The ground of straying is expressed in the

pastoral simile of Psalm 119.

384 For a more detailed discussion see Van Hecke (2000:564-566).

131

The grounds of the imagery are indeterminate in the pastoral metaphors found in the

Psalms 28, 74, 79, 80, 95, 100. The grounds of care/provision, protection and guidance

would certainly fit here.

5.6. Conclusions

With regard to the imagery of shepherd and sheep – as it is found in the Old Testament –

the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The use of the shepherd metaphor in the Old Testament fits in very well with the

cultural context and experiences of semi-nomadic shepherds and of settled

farmers who owned and pastured flocks.

2. Shepherd imagery is used not only in relation to YHWH, but also to kings,

prophets and other leaders, both of Israel and other nations. In Jeremiah and

Ezekiel the term “shepherds” occurs frequently as a titular expression for political

leaders.

3. Shepherd and sheep imagery, as it predicates the relationship between YHWH

and his people, occurs is a wide variety of genres (blessings, promises,

announcements of punitive action, appeals, expressions of trust).

4. The metaphor YHWH IS THE SHEPHERD OF HIS PEOPLE, as it occurs in the

Old Testament, is not found in expressions of self-revelation by YHWH (in the 1st

person singular), but rather in statements by believers about YHWH (in the 3rd

or

2nd

person singular).

5. The focus of the imagery of YHWH as the shepherd of his people is on the

protective and benefactive aspects of YHWH’s dealing with his people or with

individual believers.385

The following aspects are expressed by the imagery of

shepherds: providing pasture and water, leading the sheep, protecting the sheep,

bandaging the sheep, taking special care of the weak sheep, gathering the flock.

6. YHWH is not only portrayed as the SHEPHERD of his people, but also as the

OWNER of his flock who uses other shepherds to take care of the flock. Both

concepts sometimes co-exist in the same passage.

7. The YHWH is the SHEPHERD and/or OWNER OH HIS PEOPLE correlated

with THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (JUDAH) are the FLOCK/SHEEP of YHWH.

The following aspects are expressed by the imagery of sheep/flock: they form the

object of YHWH’s special care; they are neglected, mistreated or led astray by

false teachers; they wander away from YHWH; they are attacked by lions or

slaughtered by enemies as part of YHWH’s punitive action; the remnant of the

flock is taken care of by YHWH and/or the shepherd(s) whom YHWH will

appoint over them.

385 Compared to the related imagery of YHWH IS THE KING OF HIS PEOPLE – which focuses on the

transcendental aspects of YHWH’s dealing with his people – the YHWH IS THE SHEPHERD OF HIS

PEOPLE focuses on the condescending aspects of his dealing with his people.

132

8. YHWH’s relation to the people of Israel is not only benefactive but also punitive.

This punitive aspect is sometimes expressed as YHWH is a LION who devours

his own people.

9. YHWH’s punitive actions against his own people are not caused by

capriciousness. They are rather provoked by the unfaithfulness of the people of

Israel who behave like straying sheep that have no shepherd or that have been led

astray by their own shepherds.

10. Explicit shepherd and sheep imagery is not found in the historical accounts of the

Exodus account and the embedded speeches. In the later texts, however, God and

Moses are pictured as a shepherd who led the people of Israel through the

wilderness.

11. Shepherd and sheep imagery occurs relatively frequently in the prophetic

literature and in the Psalms, where it is often related to the impending Exile

and/or the promised restoration after the Exile.

12. Shepherd imagery is related to David, the King of Israel, and to the Messiah, who

– as a descendant of David – will shepherd the people of Israel.

133

6. The LORD is My Shepherd: Exegesis and Image Analysis of

Psalm 23

6.1. Introduction

Psalm 23 has often been called “the shepherd psalm”. It contains the shepherd metaphor

in an extended form. This “pearl among the Psalms” also contains some other metaphors

(host, house of the LORD) which interact with the shepherd metaphor and amplify its

meaning. This chapter discusses the exegesis of Psalm 23 in some detail (in section

6.2.)386

and provides an analysis of the imagery found in this Psalm (section 6.3.). This

chapter gives the exegetical background for chapter 12 (“Analyzing and Testing Four

Una Versions of Psalm 23”).

6.2. Exegesis of Psalm 23

6.2.1. Text and Translation

Psalm 23

A psalm of David

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall lack

nothing

2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,

he leads me beside quiet waters,

3 he restores my soul.

He guides me in paths of righteousness

for his name’s sake.

4 Even though I walk

through the valley of the shadow of

death,

I will fear no evil, for you are with me;

your rod and your staff,

they comfort me.

5 You prepare a table before me

in the presence of my enemies.

You anoint my head with oil;

my cup overflows

6 Surely goodness and love will follow me

all the days of my life, and I will return and dwell in the house of the

LORD forever

386 Due to the nature of this dissertation (which has translation as its main focus) a full-blown discussion of

all the relevant literature has not been attempted here.

134

Psalm 23 is a short psalm which is “relatively free from textual and translation

problems”387

. In verse 5, the Greek Old Testament reads “your cup” instead of , “my

cup” of the Massoretic text. It also combines the first two words of verse 6 with the last

words of verse 5. This resulted in the following rendering: “and your cup cheers me like

the best. Also your mercy shall follow me.”

Some emendations have been proposed to “improve” the Massoretic text, but none of

these are very convincing. Instead of , “they [= your rod and staff] will comfort

me” (verse 4) BHS proposes “they will lead me”. Another proposed emendation is

that , “table,” is to be read as , “weapon, spear, javelin”. The resulting

rendering would then be: “you prepare arms for my defence against my enemies.” In both

cases a metaphorical or idiomatic reading of the text is substituted by a non-metaphorical

reading of the text. However, the textual readings make good (metaphorical) sense, which

makes it difficult to justify any emendation of the text. Also, the textual readings form the

more difficult readings (lectio difficilior) and are therefore more plausible (probabilior)

than the emendations.

Some of the emendations involve the vocalisation of the Hebrew words rather than the

consonants. Some exegetes read , “shadow of death” as (Budde) or

(Barth), while interpreting this reading as a nominalized form (intensive or plural) of II, “be

dark”. The MT rendering fits in very well with the metaphorical character of the Psalm.

The form in verse 6 means literally “and I will return” (from ). The

Septuagint, however, reads this as a form of the verb “to dwell” ( ):

Olshausen (1853) and

others follow this reading, which assumes that (“and my dwelling”; waw plus

infinitive constructus) rather than (“and I will return”) represents the original

vocalisation.388

I consider as the most plausible reading, since this is the more

difficult reading in the light of the fact that the vocalization suggests that this is a form of

the verb ‘return’, while the following preposition (instead of ’to, towards’) or

’to’) suggests that it is a form of the verb ‘dwell’.

This text-critical decision does not necessarily mean that the verb is to be translated as

‘and I will return’. Dahood has suggested that is a shortening of , and

needs to be translated as “and I will dwell”. Craigie (1983:204), following Delitzsch,

maintains the massoretic vocalization. He suggests that the expression is “pregnant” and

implies both the returning to the house of the LORD and the dwelling: “And I shall return

387 Craigie (1983:204). 388 Seybold (1996:153) has pointed out that the reading of the massoretic text ( , “return” in combination

with the preposition) is unusual. In his opinion, “Die Vokalisation von MT ist vermutlich eine

Aktualisierung die die Hoffnung auf Rückkehr nach Jerusalem und vor allem auf den Wiederaufbau des 70

n. Chr. zerstörten Tempels einträgt.”

135

and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord.” The final interpretation seems to be the most

plausible solution.389

6.2.2. The structure of Psalm 23

Segmentation of stanzas and strophes: A detailed discussion of the poetic structure of

Psalm 23 falls outside the scope of this chapter, which primarily focuses on the

structuring of this Psalm in terms of its discourse, lexical relations and imagery. Various

analyses have been proposed. In this section I briefly mention two recent analyses.

Schuman (2002:31) views Psalm 23 as a poem consisting of two stanzas. The first stanza

consists of three strophes (verse 1; verse 2-3; verse 4), and the second stanza consists of

two strophes (verse 5; verse 6). Except for the single colon in the first strophe of the first

stanza (verse 1), all the other strophes consist of two cola.

Zogbo and Wendland’s (2000) analysis is similar, but they also point out the concentric

patterning of the Psalm both at a thematic and metric level.390

They observe that,

“thematically two stanzas can be noted … The first stanza has the subject “The LORD

my shepherd” in 3-4 … The second stanza, 5-6, has the picture of being hosted by the

LORD. Danger in the form of “enemies” comes in the first line after the center,

chiastically matching that of the “valley of darkness” and “evil” just before the peak.”

They also point out that, “as is often the case in Hebrew poetry with two major divisions,

the central peakline is the end of the first stanza.” In both stanzas the same confidence in

the protection of the LORD is shown. Zogbo and Wendland also observe that “the last

lines, with dwelling in the “house of the LORD” in “goodness and mercy,” are

chiastically parallel to the picture of “lying down in green pastures beside still waters”

with “the LORD my shepherd.”

Parallelism: The verses 2a and 2b form a parallelism. Verse 3b runs parallel with these

verses in the English translation, but in the Hebrew text the order of the clause

constituents is reversed (verb initial) compared with 2a and 2b (verb final). The verses 6a

and 6b are also more or less parallel, especially their final parts: (6a) and

(6b). The negative statements at the end of 1a ( ) and 4a

( ) show structural resemblance, even though they do not form a parallelism

in the strict sense of the word.

389 Other exegetes, however, prefer the rendering ‘and I will return’. Tromp, for example, argues that

“returning” is a better rendering than “dwelling”, since “returning” in 6b (movement) would be more in line

with “surely goodness and love will follow me” (movement) in verse 6a. This argument is not very

convincing, however. Parallelism does not necessarily mean that both parts of the parallelism have exactly

the same meaning. It makes much more sense to interpret verse 6 as a merism, just like verse 2, in which

both the elements of rest and movement are represented. In verse 2 the rest precedes the motion, while in

verse 6 the rest follows the motion (chiastic structure). 390 Zogbo and Wendland analyze the metric system of the Psalm as a numerical inversion: 4655 6 5564.

The center of the Psalm is formed by in verse 4b.

136

Connectors: The majority of the clauses (sentences) are not connected by connectors

(asyndetic structure). Only 4a ( , “even though”), 4b (, “for”) and 6b ( ,

“and I will return/dwell”) have a connector at the beginning of the sentence.

The switching back and forward between 3rd

person language and 2nd

person

language as a principle of structuring: Several exegetes have pointed out that the

switching from 3rd

person language (verses 1-3) to 2nd

person language (verse 4-5) and

back to 3rd

person language (verse 6) is structurally significant.

The use of key words as a principle of structuring: Craigie (1983:206) points out that

the name is found both at the beginning (verse 1) and at the end (verse 6) of the

Psalm, forming an inclusio. It could be added that the expression “for his

name’s sake” is found towards the middle of the Psalm (verse 3).391

Dahood sees the use

of the divine name as an enveloping structure as a sign that Psalm 23 (like 29) has pre-

Israelite roots that have been reworked to become a hymn to YHWH the God of Israel.

The use of imagery as a principle of structuring: According to Craigie, “the structure

of the psalm is (…) difficult to define with clarity or certainty.” He states that “there is

some consensus that the psalm falls into two main sections: (1) the Lord as shepherd

(23:1-4); (2) the Lord as host (23:5-6).” But, “there is considerable debate (…) as to the

interpretation of vv 5-6.” In the traditional view, “these verses have been interpreted as

reflecting a change in imagery from the Lord as the shepherd to the Lord as host.”

In addition to the twofold interpretation of Psalm 23, there are two major perspectives on

this Psalm: a harmonizing view and a differentiating view. Köhler and Morgenstern

represent a harmonizing view. They argue that the shepherd metaphor is retained

throughout in the Psalm.392

Briggs and Weiser, on the other hand, represent a

differentiating view. They argue that Psalm 23 consists of three major images: the image

of the shepherd (23:1-2), the traveler (23:3-4) and the host (23:5).393

However, the

twofold distinction of Psalm 23 into a section of the shepherd metaphor and another one

of host metaphor seems to be the most commonly accepted view.

391 Cf. also Bazak’s (334) interpretation, mentioned in Zogbo and Wendland: “Bazak (…) points out the

importance of “you” in that “the pronoun designating God is in the center of the central expression” for you

are with me, which has 26 words before it and 26 after it. He further points out (335) that the “numerical

value of the Tetragrammaton is 26,” and that “it is quite possible that the central phrase . . . was so

calculated in order to refer to the name of God.” (“Tetragrammaton” means the name of YHWH or

“Yahweh,” which when read as numbers rather than letters totals 26 (Y =10, H = 5, W =6, and H =5.).” 392 Köhler interprets Psalm 23 in terms of the ‘Weidewechsel”, the change of pasture grounds in the context

of pastoralism based on transhumance. He sees the changing of pasture grounds metaphor as the one that

determines the interpretation of the whole Psalm. However, Kraus’ (1987:335) criticism is very much to the

point: “Seit wann trinken Schafe aus einem Becher? Endet die Transhumanz der Herde im Tempel?” 393 Here again Kraus’ (1987:336) criticism is very much to the point: The mentioning of “the rod and staff” (both belonging to the imagery of the shepherd) in verse 4 makes it very unlikely that the verses 3-4 are

about a traveler metaphor rather than the shepherd metaphor. Cf. also Van Uchelen’s (1971:158) comment

that “de gedachte van de opeenvolging van de beelden van God als herder (vs. 1,2), als gids (vs. 3,4) en als

gastheer (vs. 5,6), zoals voorgestaan door Briggs en Weiser, beroept zich wel op rijke oosterse beeldspraak,

maar verknipt de psalm al te pasklaar.”

137

Tromp (1992:129) sees the shepherd metaphor expressed in this psalm in close

connection with the notion that God is king. He bases this interpretation on the fact that in

the ancient Near East kings were usually called shepherds, and on the fact that the

mentioned in verse 4 does not only refer to the shepherd’s weapon to defend his flock

against wild animals, but also evokes the notion of a scepter as a token of royal dignity.

He also interprets the two companions mentioned in verse 6a as more than just an

abstraction or a personification. These terms evoke the idea of two messengers who

accompany the author, like traveling royalties in the ancient Near East were often

accompanied by messengers.394

A royal reading of Psalm 23 is certainly a valid option,

but it is by no means the only reading that is valid. The content of psalm 23 is rather

indeterminate and it allows multiple interpretations.

The view presented in this dissertation is a differentiating view, but one that differs from

the one proposed by Briggs and Weiser. The Psalm is interpreted as containing three

major images: shepherd (verse 1-4), host/banquet (verse 5) and the house of the LORD

(6b). Verse 6a could be interpreted as a traveler metaphor that connects the themes of

host/banquet and the house of the LORD.395

There is progression in the use of the

imagery: the shepherd-sheep relationship between the LORD and the speaker makes

place for a transitory host-guest relationship and culminates in a permanent head of the

household – member of the household relationship. The role of danger and enemies

progressively subsides with each following image: It goes from a real threat (the valley of

the shadow of death) in verse 4, to subjugated (or, at least harmless) enemies in verse 5,

to the total absence of enemies in verse 6.

6.2.3. Theme and motifs

Main theme: The theme of the Psalm can be best expressed as “YHWH takes care of

me; He guides and protects me.”396

The notion of care is found in the verses 1-3a and 5-

6. It forms an inclusio around the notions of guidance and protection expressed in the

verses 3b and 4. Verse 4b ( , “for you are with me”) forms the core of the

Psalm.

Both the imagery of the shepherd and of the host bring out the element of abundant

provision. The provision given by YHWH exceeds the needs of the speaker. The

abundant provision is cast in terms of abundant food and abundant drinks that are

available for the sheep (green pastures; quiet waters) and for the guest (table; overflowing

cup). Interestingly enough, the notions of eating and drinking remain implicit in the

psalm.

394 If this interpretation is correct, then the poet could be a king, and the anointing of the poet’s head (5b)

could be an allusion to him being anointed as the king. 395 It should be noted that the “leading” and “guidance” mentioned in the verses 2 and 3 form an inclusio with the “following” in verse 6a. However, the lexical items used in this verse do not suggest that verse 6a

returns to the imagery of shepherd and sheep (with Goodness and Love being assistant-shepherds who

follow the sheep that is led by YHWH the shepherd). 396 Van Uchelen (1971:159) summarizes the imagery of the Psalm as an image of a shepherd who provides

food, security and joy. (“voedsel, veiligheid en vreugde.”).

138

The imagery of host and guest goes beyond the imagery of shepherd and sheep in that the

anointing of the head is mentioned, right in the middle between the mentioning of the

table (food) and the cup (drinking). The anointing of the head is a token of hospitality and

of the host honoring his special guest. It could also be an allusion (weak implicature) to

the anointing of the king.

The aspect of guidance, as it is expressed in this short Psalm, is applied in two ways.

First, it is related to the notion of provision: YHWH guides the speaker to green pastures,

quiet waters, and rest, which are all images of the good life that is enjoyed in YHWH’s

presence (verse 2). And secondly, it is related to the notion of religious and moral

behavior: YHWH guides the speaker in paths of righteousness (verse 3).

The theme of protective presence of YHWH on the road and in the face of danger (verse

4) is carried through in the table fellowship with YHWH before the subjugated (or, at

least harmless) enemies (verse 5) and culminates in the presence of the speaker in the

house of the Lord forever, without any trace of danger or enemies left.397

The speaker

expresses that he is being followed ( ) all the days of his life. But the ones that are on

his heels are not by his enemies, but YHWH’s “goodness” ( ) and (steadfast) “love”

().

The motif of rest and movement: Tromp (1992:119-132) has pointed out the dynamics

of rest and motion as an important motif in Psalm 23. His interpretation of the Psalm is to

a large extent dominated by the “swinging of the pendulum” between rest and motion.

Both elements are, for example, combined in the merism of verse 2: “He makes me lie

down in green pastures [rest]; He leads me beside quite waters [motion followed by

rest].” Tromp sees the notion of motion recurring in verse 3: , “He restores

my soul” (literally: “He makes my soul return”), in verse 4: ,

“even if I walk through the valley of the shadow of death”, and in verse 6b:

, “and I will return to the house of the LORD forever”398

.

The element of rest is found in verse 4 ( , “for you are with me”) and in the

notion of the house of the LORD in verse 6.

The motif of hospitality and protection: The banquet motif in psalm 23 is related not

only to table fellowship between YHWH and the speaker and to the aspect of abundant

provision for him, but also to the aspect of hospitality and protection.399

The element of

397 Hossfeld & Zenger (1993:156) also point out that there is another “Steigerung” involved between the

image of the host/banquet, where the poet is an “einmaliger Gast” and the image of the house of the LORD,

where the poet is portrayed as a “Dauerbewohner”. In the latter case, the focus is no longer on “eine

einmalige Ehrung” but rather on “eine bleibende Schutz- und Tischgemeinschaft mit JHWH”. 398 399 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger (1993:155): “Das in 5 angedeutete Mahl ist ein Festmahl, durch das der Beter

vor seinen ihn bedrängenden Gegners nicht nur geehrt … wird, sondern wodurch der Gast zugleich unter

den besonderen Schutz des Gastgebers … gestellt wird.” Cf. also Matthews (1993:83) who summarizes the

following protocol for hosts and strangers in the social world of ancient Israel: Hosts are fathers of

households in their own village; they offer an invitation, then repeat it; they wash strangers’ feet to signify

139

protection is clearly implied in 23:5: “You prepare a table for me in the presence of my

enemies.” However, the banquet can also be interpreted as a victory banquet, after the

enemies have been subjugated.400

The motif of the shadow of death: In the Old Testament the expression is used both for

situations of doom and gloom for people who live on earth (cf. Isaiah 9:2 [1]; Jeremiah

2:6;) and for the world of the dead (the afterlife). In Job 10:21-22 and 38:17 the

expression is used in the latter sense. In its non-figurative senses, the word is also used

for the dark places where people mine for ore (Job 28:3), for dark places where evildoers

try to hide (Job 34:22), and for the dungeons where prisoners are (Psalm 107:10.14).

Jeremiah 2:6 is a particularly interesting as a parallel of psalm 23:4, since there the

concept of the “shadow of death” occurs in the context of Israel’s wandering through the

desert: “They did not ask, “Where is the LORD, who brought us up out of Egypt and led

us through the barren wilderness, through a land of deserts and rifts, a land of drought

and darkness ( ), a land where no one travels and no one lives?”

Several exegetes have claimed that the expression “the shadow of death” in Psalm 23:4

needs to be interpreted as a reference to death.401

The fact that the shepherd (or: feeding)

metaphor is sometimes used to predicate death (cf. Psalm 49:14) plays an important role

in this kind of interpretation. An interpretation like this would also be consistent with

conceptions that are known from ancient near eastern mythology.

However, in the context of Psalm 23 a metaphorical (rather than a mythical) reading of

the concept of “shadow of death” seems to be the most plausible interpretation. It can be

argued that the dwelling in the house of the LORD is pictured as something that happens

during the speaker’s life on earth (in YHWH’s house on earth) rather than on his life after

his death.402

In addition, it can be argued that the interpretation of “shadow of death” as a

situation of doom, gloom and danger during the speaker’s life makes perfectly sense in

the context of this Psalm. The focus is not on death as a passage from life to the afterlife,

but rather on an extreme situation of doom, gloom and danger that the author experiences

they are guests; they provide food and protection; they do not question guests. Strangers (guests), on the

other hand, refuse the first invitation, but accept the second; they remain only for an agreed upon time, which may be extended; they do not ask for or covet their host’s possessions; they bless the host’s

household upon departing. This last item of blessing is very interesting in the context of psalm 23: In

Psalm 23 the guest (the author) does not bless the host (YHWH), but the host rather blesses the guest

(reversal), by sending Goodness and Love as the ones who follow him all the days of his life. 400 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger ( :155): “Möglicherweise liegt auch eine Anspielung auf das Festmahl nach

siegreicher Schlacht vor: Rettung vor den Feinden!” 401 Cf. for example Hunziker-Rodewald (2001:176): “Nimmt der Beter in Ps 23,4 aber gedanklich die

Situation seines Sterbens vorweg, wird er sich in dem als Einladung zu Tisch gestalteten Ausblick (V. 5)

die Hoffnung auf ein “Danach”, d.h. auf eine Form postmortaler Fortexistenz in Jhwh’s Nähe, genauer: in

Jhwh’s Haus (vgl. V. 6b) ausmalen.” 402 This is suggested by the use of the expression , “for the length of days” in 6b (which occurs

in parallelism with , “all the days of my life” in 6a).

140

during his life. Even in those difficult situations YHWH’s rod and staff (YHWH’s own

presence) reassure him.403

The motif of two attendants (Goodness and Kindness): According to Dahood, “the

metaphor may be an adaptation of the motif of two attendants accompanying a god or a

dignitary. Cf. Psalm 25:21; 37:37; 43:4; 89:15; Habakkuk 3:5. In Canaanite myths, the

gods are often accompanied by two messengers.”404

The motif of the house of the LORD: This motif connects Psalm 23 with other Psalms

in its direct neighborhood.405

Psalm 24, for example, is a song related to the entering of

the temple courts by the pilgrims. And in psalm 27 the temple is portrayed as an asylum

and a blissful place for the believer.

6.2.4. Genre and communicative intent

In terms of its genre, Psalm 23 has been characterized as “a psalm of trust or confidence”

(“Vertrauenslied”).406

Craigie suggests that the psalm must be interpreted as “a psalm of

confidence in the context of some ritual or the context of thanksgiving (“Danklied”).”

Vogt and others consider it as “a psalm of thanksgiving”. However, according to

Gerstenberger (1988:116), “there is no reference to danger already overcome, as is

customary in thanksgiving songs. Instead, confidence and hope are articulated looking at

the future, especially in verse 6.”407

The absence of a thanksgiving formula (“I will give

you thanks”) would be another argument against considering Psalm 23 as a “thanksgiving

psalm”. Psalm 23 has also been classified as a “prayer song” (“Gebetslied”408

). However,

403 This interpretation does not mean, of course, that it would be illegitimate to apply this Psalm in

situations where people face death in a physical sense. On the contrary. But, the meaning of the expression

“shadow of death” has a much wider application than this. Psalm 23 is a Psalm about the life experiences of

the poet. It is not about death and afterlife. But, death – in the form of doom, gloom and danger – casts its

shadows on the life path of the poet. 404 Dahood (1966:148). 405 Cf. Seybold (1996:5): “[Die Psalmen] 23-29 haben – bis auf 25 – als gemeinsames Merkmal den …

implizit erwähnten Bezug zum Jerusalemer Tempel.” He refers to the “table” in Psalm 23; the “gates” in

Psalm 24; the altar in Psalm 26; the temple house in Psalm 27; and the temple in Psalm 29. 406 Cf. Craigie (1983:204): “There has been general agreement since Gunkel’s time that the psalm is a

psalm of trust or confidence. Those who do not accept such a view differ more in nuance than in

substance.” Cf. also Gerstenberger (1988:113). Vogt (1953), however, considers the Psalm as a

thanksgiving psalm, and Merrill (1965) and Eaton see it as a royal psalm. With regard to the latter view

Craigie remarks that it is “not implausible, but the substance of the psalm is so general and so laden with

metaphor, that a specific interpretation in terms of royal psalmody is, of necessity, highly hypothetical.” 407 With regard to a possible royal interpretation of the Psalm Gerstenberger (1988:115) remarks that, “the

extremely personal tone of Psalm 23 excludes its royal and national use (against Eaton; Merrill). On the

other hand, personal experience here has not created a totally individualistic poem (against Mowinckel, W II, 127).” Gerstenberger sees the life situation of this Psalm primarily in terms of a worship service for an

individual person: “Taking seriously the confessional attitude of vv. 1-3, 6, and the prayer stance of vv. 4-5,

we may think of a worship service for an individual person held within the small circle of family or clan.

Defiant trust (vv. 1b, 4-5) belongs to such complaint and petition ceremonies …” 408 Kraus (1978:336).

141

the characterization of the Psalm as a song of trust or confidence seems to be the most

plausible interpretation.409

Different interpreters differ with regard to the question whether Psalm 23 is to be

classified as a non-cultic, private, spiritualized song or as a song for personal or

communal use in the context of the temple worship. An important question in this regard

is the question of who is intended by the “I” of the Psalm: Is this a personal “I”, a

collective “I”, or a royal “I”.410

Gunkel saw the Psalm as an expression of personal piety

that originated in a crisis situation. According to Gerstenberger, “on the whole, the psalm

is structured according to liturgical needs.” However, “most modern analysts, … (e.g.

Gunkel, Kohler, Beyerlin, Ridderbos, Kraus; Mittmann; etc.) unilaterally consider meter,

metaphors and ideas expressed in the psalm to be the decisive criteria.”411

Mowinckel interpreted the Psalm as a song of thanks offering, a song of its own kind.412

He saw the setting of the Psalm in terms a situation where the author has been rescued

from imminent death, caused by sickness. He interprets the enemies mentioned in verse 5

as sorcerers.413

Other exegetes interpreted the Psalm in the context of an ordeal (cf.

Numbers 5). The enemies were interpreted as the people who have a right to take revenge

and the people who have the right to ask the payment of debts. The good result of the

ordeal was celebrated during a festive meal. According to another interpretation, Psalm

23 had served as a protocol for an initiation ceremony for Levites.414

Other interpreters

see Psalm 23 as a song of confession of a pilgrim who after a visit to the temple, returns

home.415

Others have interpreted the psalm as a poetic reflection of a certain phase of the

jerusalemite crowning ritual.416

409 If Psalm 23 would be a prayer, one would expect that 3rd person references to God would be embedded

in 2nd person addresses to God. In this Psalm, however, the 2nd person address to God is embedded in 3rd person references to Him. 410 Smend (1888) tended to interpret the “I” of the Psalms as a collective “I”. Balla (1912) and others prefer

a personal interpretation of the “I”. With regard to Psalm 23 the most plausible interpretation of the “I”

seems to be a personal “I”. However, this does not exclude the possibility that the Psalm was originally

composed by a king, nor that the “I” of the Psalm was never understood in a collective sense. In the

historical context of the exile, for example, a collective reading of the Psalm (“I” = Judah/Israel in exile)

would make perfect sense. Van Hecke (2000:536) interprets the “I” of Psalm 23 as polyinterpretable

(“meerduidig”). 411 Gerstenberger (1988:115). 412 Mowinckel (1962 (I):127): “It is a significant fact that this psalm actually breaks all the patterns of

‘form history’. Being a pure psalm of confidence, it cannot immediately be classified under any of the

‘categories’ or ‘types’ of style history. A real poet using the traditional cultic forms of style has here created a poem which has its own type.” 413 Cf. Ridderbos (1955:201). 414 Cf. Schuman (2002:49-53) who summarizes various interpretations. 415 Cf. Maillot & Lelière (1961:150). This interpretation is closely linked with the interpretation of in verse 6 as “I will return” rather than as “I will dwell”. 416 Merrill (1965:354-360) reads Psalm 23 in the context of a procession during which the ark was taken

from the temple to a brook and then back to the temple, where the royal banquet and the anointing of the

king would take place. Cf. Van Uchelen (1971:159).

142

In some interpretations Psalm 23 has been viewed as a fable which portrays the

household of Jacob as a herd animal celebrating the virtues as its shepherd.417

Matthews

(1993:63-64) has put forward some good arguments against this interpretation.418

However, Matthews’ own interpretation of the speaker as a livestock owner “who

celebrates Yahweh as a herder who faithfully carries out his covenant [contract; DK]” is

equally unconvincing.419

Interpreting the Psalm as a psalm of trust or confidence in

YHWH – cast in metaphorical language – seems to be the most plausible interpretation.

This interpretation is also the one that is most commonly held in traditional Jewish and

Christian readings of the Psalm.

In terms of linguistic (discourse analytical) categories, the Psalm is to be classified as

expressive and descriptive rather than as a narrative, exhortation or exposition. According

to Weiser (1963:154), the past, present and future have been blended together in this

Psalm.420

In his opinion, this is closely related to the cultic representation of the

“Heilsgeschehen” expressed in this Psalm. However, a blending of past, present and

future is also very well possible in poetic texts that are not a cultic representation of the

actualization of salvation.

The main communicative intent of the Psalm is expressive: An individual expresses his

trust in YHWH using poetic language, which includes metaphors.421

The poet does not

explicitly thank YHWH for his provision, but the notion of thankfulness is certainly

implied. He also does not appeal to other people to praise YHWH. The language of this

Psalm is clearly a personal testimony (eulogy) of who YHWH is and has been for the

poet/singer.

417 Cf. Kraus (1978:306); Weiser (1962:228); Matthews (1993:63). 418 Matthews points out that “although fables were very popular in Egypt and Mesopotamia, only a few

appear in the Bible.” He refers to the Fable of Jotham (Judges 9:8-15) in this context. He points out that

“the fable technique is simply too rare in the Bible – and virtually unparalleled in the Psalms – to assume

that it appears in the hymn [Psalm 23; DK].” Furthermore, “the corroborating literary characteristics of

quarrel and satire are completely missing in the hymn.” 419 With a variation on Kraus’ criticism of Köhler’s view (See footnote 333 above), the question can be

asked: Since when do shepherds make livestock owners lie down in green pastures and lead them beside

quite waters? And since when do livestock owners dwell in the house of the shepherd they have contracted? 420 König (1927:175), however, sees the content of Psalm 23 primarily in terms of the future. “Das

Imperfektum ist in der Hauptsache futurisch gemeint. Denn in einem Gebete des Vertrauens richtet sich der

Blick am meisten in die Zukunft.” Dahood (1966:145-146), who sees Psalm 23:2-3 as a description of the “Elysian Fields”, translates the verses 2-4 and 6 in the future tense. Only the verses 1 (“YHWH is my

shepherd”) and 5 (“You prepare my table before me …”) are rendered in the present tense. 421 Gerstenberger (1988:116), however, sees the intention of psalm 23 as follows: “The prayer aims at

reestablishing the personal relationship with God, probably within a ritual of petition for individual

sufferers who were perhaps persecuted or ostracized …”

143

6.2.5. Historical background

There have been various attempts to interpret Psalm 23 in the context of one particular

historical situation in the Old Testament.

a. 1 Samuel 22 and other chapters related to David’s running away from king Saul

and his men have been mentioned as a possible background of this Psalm. In 1

Samuel 22 David is still hiding and running from king Saul who seeks to kill him.

Saul has not been able to catch David. Doeg the Edomite finds out that the priest

Ahimelech has been hosting David, and he reports this to Saul. Saul calls the

priests and gives orders to kill them. Eighty-five priests of Nob are killed by the

hand of Doeg the Edomite. Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, escapes, and joins

David. David feels responsible for the death of the priests and he tells Abiathar

(verse 23): “Stay with me; don’t be afraid; the man who is seeking your life is

seeking mine also. You will be safe with me.” This verse has been interpreted as a

close parallel of Psalm 23:4. The provision of bread in 1 Samuel 21:4 is

interpreted as a parallel of Psalm 23:5 (“You prepare a table before me in the

presence of my enemies”). And 1 Samuel 16 (the anointing of David as a king) is

seen as the background of Psalm 23:5b (“You anoint my head with oil”).422

b. Delitzsch, König, Ridderbos and others place Psalm 23 in the situation of

Absalom’s conspiracy and rebellion against king David. During that time King

David and his men had to flee from Jerusalem. Psalm 23:5 would then be an

allusion to the provision of food that was given to David by Barzillai and others

(2 Samuel 17:27-29). Several other features from this story would also fit in with

Psalm 23: The mentioning of YHWH’s dwelling place. In 2 Samuel 15:25, king

David says to Zadok the priest: “Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find

favour in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his

dwelling place again.” (Cf. Psalm 23:6). The motif of weeping (2 Samuel 15:23,

30) seems to correspond with the motif of comforting (Cf. Psalm 23:4). In the

absence from the LORD’s house and from the ark of the covenant David is

comforted by the guiding and protective presence of the LORD himself. The

anointing of the head (as a symbol of joy) mentioned in Psalm 23:5 would then

contrast with the covered heads and the dust on the heads of the king and his men

(as a sign of mourning) in 2 Samuel 15:30 and 32.

c. Another interpretation views Psalm 23 primarily in the context of the Exodus

from Egypt. The quiet waters mentioned in Psalm 23:2 “indiquent une opposition

positive et intentionelle avec ‘les eaux de Mériba/Querelle’ de Nombres 20:13

(comparer Ps. 106:32).” And, “le propos fameux de Psaume 23:1, ‘je ne manque

rien’, reflète les mots de Moïse à Israël relatifs à la manne, Deuteronome 2:7: ‘ton

Dieu est avec toi, et tu n’ as manqué de rien’. And the table/banquet scene in

Psalm 23:5 is a convincing response to the sceptical question in Psalm 78:19:

422 Cf. Schuman (2001:181-191).

144

“Can God spread a table in the desert?”. The “leading” and the “guiding” in the

Song of Moses (Exodus 15:3) are found in Psalm 23:2 and 3.423

d. Another interpretation views Psalm 23 against the background of the Exile: “Ce

Psaume se prête aussi à une interprétation collective exilique. Le Seigneur, berger

du peuple, ramènera celui-ci au travers du désert. Cette traversée se fera sans mal,

sans famine. Le Seigneur lui-même dressera la table (Ps. 78:19). Et Israël

reviendra pour de longs jours (ou demeurera) dans la maison du Seigneur.”424

The

shepherd theme and the comfort (consolation) theme of Psalm 23 are also found

in Isaiah 40:1-11. And the reassuring expressions like “Fear not” and “I will be

with you” are close parallels to what the poet of Psalm 23 expresses as indicatives

rather than as prohibitives and promises.

e. Hunziker-Rodewald (2001) sees Psalm 23 as a compilation of various shepherd

texts from the Old Testament425

, which originates from the postexilic time.

f. Other exegetes have emphasized that the historical context of Psalm 23 is

indeterminate and that many interpretations are possible. Mowinckel (1962

(II):41), for example, says the following about the Psalm: “One would like to be

able to say some thing about the occasion for this pearl among the psalms; but

perhaps, what gives it a priceless value to all ages may be the fact that is stands

there as a pure expression of confidence in God, unhindered by all special

historical circumstances, an adequate expression of the confidence of faith by all

sorts of people, and at all times.” Schuman (2002:52) also sees the meaning of the

psalm as indeterminate. Many different readings and rereadings are possible. He

views the polyinterpretability of the psalm not as a weakness but as a strength:

“Dat is naar mijn mening niet een zwakte van de psalm, maar juist zijn kracht. Ik

stel dit met nadruk tegenover de verzuchting van een theoloog die vele

interpretaties van Psalm 23 de revue heeft laten passeren, om dan tenslotte vast te

stellen: al ben ik vanouds met de woorden van Psalm 23 vertrouwd geraakt, ik

kan er niets meer mee beginnen. Bij mij gaat het precies de andere kant op. Juist

de meerduidigheid van psalm 23 heeft de woorden van dit lied de eeuwen doen

verduren. Nog weer anders gezegd: het blijft een geloofsgedicht met

archetypische zeggingskracht. We kunnen dat al in het oudtestamentische tijdvak

zelf traceren. Sindsdien is het onverminderd zo verder gegaan.” 426

423 Cf. Schuman (2001:185). 424 Maillot & Lelièvre (1961:150). 425 Hunziker-Rodewald (2001:184): “Dem an der alttestamentlichen Hirtenmetaphorik geschulten Auge

erweist sich Psalm 23 als eine Anthologie verschiedenster Elemente u.a. aus Texten, in denen Jhwh

genannt (Ps 80,2), sein Tun mit demjenigen eines verglichen (Jes 40,11; Jer 31,10-14) und/oder

mit dem Verbum bezeichnet wird (Mi 7,14; Ez 34,11-15).” 426 Cf. ook Schuman (2002:51-52): “De ogenschijnlijk zo ‘simpele’ Psalm 23 blijkt in werkelijkheid op

verschillende wijzen opgevat te kunnen worden. Dat geldt al voor de diverse vermoedens inzake zijn

‘eerste’ betekenis. Het blijft gelden voor alle typen nieuwe betekenis die men bij herlezing aan de psalm

heeft toegekend en zal blijven toekennen. De verschillen hangen onmiskenbaar samen met de vraag welk

onderdeel van de psalm, welk woord, of welke beeldspraak daarin, bij de uitleg speciale belichting krijgt.

145

6.2.6. Verse-by-verse exegesis of Psalm 23

The diversity of interpretations related to Psalm 23 makes it a risky business to make

another attempt to exegete the Psalm. The comments below are not intended as another

attempt to exegete the Psalm, but rather as an account of how I read the Psalm in the light

of what I have learned about the Psalm and its imagery. In this reading of the psalm the

indeterminacies of meaning are preserved as much as possible. But, like in any other

exegesis or reading of a text, certain exegetical choices have been made.

Verse 1:

A psalm of David. The Hebrew expression ( ) is ambiguous. It could be an

indication that king David authored the Psalm ( auctoris) or that the Psalm was

dedicated to him. The imagery of shepherd and sheep and the special relationship

between the shepherd and the individual sheep expressed in this Psalm would fit very

well with David’s life experiences as a shepherd of sheep, as a shepherd of the people of

Israel and as a man according to YHWH’s own heart. Moreover, there are at least two

situations in David’s life where Psalm 23 would fit. However, the content of the Psalm is

more important than who the author was or what exactly the historical context was in

which this Psalm was first sung.

YHWH is my shepherd. Since the Psalm does not contain any overt polemical notions

against other deities who might claim a role as the poet’s shepherd, an emphatic reading

of these words in which the divine name is read as the predicate rather than as the subject

of this nominal sentence (“My shepherd is YHWH”) does not seem to be necessary. This

opening sentence expresses the main topic of the Psalm.

The personal tone of these words (“my shepherd”) is very similar to the way Jacob/Israel

spoke about God when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:15) and Joseph

(Genesis 49:24). A difference is, however, that Jacob/Israel acknowledged God as the

One shepherding him, when he was about to die and looked back on his life. But the poet

of Psalm 23 expresses this confession not just in retrospect, but as an expression of his

life experiences with YHWH in the past and present as well as an expression of his

expectation for his future life on earth (and beyond).

I shall lack nothing. The expression can be translated as a future tense or as a

present tense (while implying continuation of the present condition). These words

indicate that the meaning of the shepherd metaphor expressed in the first part of the verse

is focused on the notions of care and provision. The negative wording can be read as an

understatement, implying that the poet will experience abundant provision, as this is

clearly suggested in the following verse (2) and in verse 5 and 6a. The poet expresses his

trust in YHWH that he will take care of all of his needs. The fact that YHWH is his

shepherd guarantees that he will lack nothing. The expression “I shall lack nothing” can

En dat hangt weer samen met de eigen instelling, traditie, persoonlijke en culturele achtergrond van de

uitlegger zelf.”

146

be viewed as an indication that in this first verse the meaning of the term “shepherd” as

“the one who provides pasture to the sheep” is primarily active.

In terms of intertextuality, the expression “I shall lack nothing” remind us of YHWH’s

provision for the people of Israel during their journey through the wilderness. The

expression used here is very similar to the one used in Deuteronomy 2:7: “The LORD

your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He has watched over your

journey through this vast desert. These forty years the LORD your God has been with

you ( ), and you have not lacked anything ( ).”

Verse 2:

He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters. The imagery

expressed in this verse gives a more detailed picture of YHWH’s care and provision for

the poet. Both utterances expressed in this verse form a parallelism. YHWH guarantees

the provision of abundant food (grass) and water. The notions of “lying down” and

“waters of rest” also suggest the provision of rest. YHWH gives the poet rest in a blissful

place where he feels totally at home.

The Psalm does not give any indication as to what the green pastures and the quiet waters

actually refer to. Do they refer to the land of Canaan that YHWH had given to the people

of Israel (cf. Exodus 15:13)? Or to the provision of food and drink during the time that

the poet had to flee from his enemies? Or, do they perhaps refer to the study of the Torah,

or something else? But, whatever the exact reference of these terms are, it is very likely

that they are to be understood in a physical sense, but with a thoroughly spiritual

dimension.

The use of the verb , “lead” introduces another important notion (in addition to

care/provision) related to the imagery of the shepherd. In order to take care of the needs

of the sheep, the shepherd leads it to waters of rest. The theme of leading will be further

developed in verse 3b.

Verse 3:

He restores my soul. These words (3a) can be seen as the closure of the verses 1-2, which

express the notion of YHWH’s provision/care for his sheep. The eating, drinking and

resting that are suggested in the previous verses result in refreshment and restoration. The

interpretation that “he makes my soul return” is an idiomatic expression for refreshment

and restoration (cf. Ruth 4:15) seems to be more plausible than the interpretation that

YHWH leads the poet as a straying sheep back to the right path (cf. 23:3b; 119:).

He guides me in paths of righteousness. Here the theme of guidance, which was first

mentioned in 2b, is further developed. Instead of , “lead” , “lead” is used here.

This term has a wider application than the domain of pastoralism. It is also used for

leading people. But, since this term is used in the middle of shepherd terminology (verses

1-2, 4), it is best to interpret this as a further development of the shepherd metaphor.

147

Paths of righteousness. The term occurs frequently in Proverbs (2:9, 15, 18; 4:11, 26; 5:6,

21) and also in Psalm 17:5. Paths of righteousness are courses of action that are good,

which comply with YHWH’s will. YHWH’s leading is not restricted to leading to blissful

places, but also to guidance in terms of proper religious and moral actions. Obedience to

YHWH’s will and the experiencing of YHWH’s blessing are two sides of the same coin.

For his name’s sake. Craigie points out that the expression “for his name’s sake” is also

related to the Exodus tradition (Psalm 106:7-8): “When our fathers were in Egypt, they

gave no thought to your miracles; they did not remember your many kindnesses, and they

rebelled by the sea, Yet he saved them for his name's sake ( ), to make his

mighty power known.”

Verse 4:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death … This verse shows that

the poet’s trust in YHWH is not just active in blissful situations, like the one described in

the verses 1-3, but also in crisis situations, when his life path leads him through areas of

doom, gloom and danger. The imagery of shepherd and sheep is presupposed in this

verse. The shepherd and his sheep are going from one pasture land to another, or from a

pasture land back to the village (sheep pen), when they cross a valley of the shadow of

death. The expression “the valley of the shadow of death” evokes a wilderness scene

which takes the place of the green pasture scene of verse 2.

The exact nature of the danger that the sheep experiences is not made explicit. Predators,

robbers and/or dangerous terrain could be implied here.

I will fear no evil. For you are with me. But even in a difficult situation like this the sheep

trusts the shepherd. The protective presence of the shepherd makes that the poet does not

fear. Many exegetes see the expression “for you are with me” as the center of the Psalm.

Here the poet no longer speaks about YHWH in the 3rd

person, but he directly addresses

him in the 2nd

person.

Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. This utterance is thematically parallel with “for

you are with me.” The rod is an image of protection and the staff an image of guidance.

The expression “they comfort me” has been translated by some exegetes as “they

reassure me”.

Verse 5:

You prepare a table before me. This verse introduces a new image, the image of a meal,

where YHWH is pictured as the host who invites a traveler to be his guest, or rather as a

special banquet where YHWH treats the poet as an honored guest. The topic of this new

imagery is very much in line with the topic expressed in the verses 1-4 (abundant

provision). Here again, the abundant provision is pictured as one that related to food (“

you prepare a table”) and drink (“my cup overflows”; see below). But, in addition to the

148

notion of abundant provision, the notions of fellowship and protection are also important.

The fact that YHWH prepares a table for the poet presupposes that there is a special

relationship between them.

The motif of the table is also linked to the wilderness scene (exodus tradition; cf. Psalm

78:19: , “Is God able to spread a table in the desert?”).

In the presence of my enemies. The enemies of the poet look on, while the poet is the host

of YHWH. They are clearly not invited, and do not pose a threat to the poet. It could be

that the implication is that the enemies have been subjugated or that they have been made

captives.

You anoint my head with oil. This is a symbolic act which expresses hospitality and

friendship. It could be an allusion to the anointing of the king.

My cup overflows. The cup is an image of abundant provision, just like the table

mentioned in the first part of the verse. The table and the cup form an inclusio (concentric

construction) around the anointing of the guest’s head.

Verse 6:

Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life. Verse 6 forms the

conclusion of the Psalm. The use of the term reminds us of the enemies who might

follow the poet. But instead, YHWH’s “goodness”427

and “steadfast love” follow the poet

all the days of his life. The Psalm started with YHWH the shepherd who leads and guides

(go before) the poet. But here, at the end of the Psalm we read about two servants of

YHWH who follow the poet all the days of his life. YHWH’s blessing is not restricted to

the poet’s being in a certain place (the temple or the cult tent in Shiloh), but it follows

him wherever he goes.

And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. This verse is thematically parallel with

the previous one. But, it views the poet’s life from a different perspective. Verse 6a

pictures the poet’s life as a life on the road (movement); verse 6b pictures it as dwelling

in the house of the LORD (rest). Verse 6 forms a chiastic structure with verse 2:

A: Lie down in green pastures (2a; rest);

B: Lead beside quiet waters (2b; movement);

B’: Goodness and love will follow me (6a; movement)

A’: I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever (6b; rest)

The life of the believer, as it is pictured in this Psalm, is viewed both as a journey and as

a dwelling. In other Psalms the latter notion is sometimes expressed by the image of

“being planted in the house of the LORD”.

427

Ridderbos has pointed out the contrast between the “good” in verse 6 and the “bad” in verse 4.

149

The “house of the LORD” mentioned in this Psalm could be a reference to the temple, or

to the tent of worship in Shiloh, or to the land of Canaan in general.428

6.3. Analysis and interpretation of the imagery found in Psalm 23

6.3.1. Classification of the various metaphors found in Psalm 23

“The LORD is my shepherd” (1) belongs to the “Topic [is] Image” type of metaphor.429

This metaphorical expression introduces the theme of the Psalm.

Other metaphors in this Psalm are expressed by verbs, expressions of location, and

objects. The following verbs express metaphorical meaning: hi., “make lie

down”(2); pi., “lead” (2), hi., “guide”; qal + preposition , “go

in/through” (4); , pi., “comfort” (4); , “prepare (table)” (5); pi., “make fat,

anoint” (5); qal, “follow” (6); qal, “dwell” (6).

The following expressions of location – most of them preceded by the preposition –

express metaphorical (or: symbolic) meaning: , “in green pastures” (2);

, “beside quiet waters” (2); , “in paths of righteousness” (3);

, “through the valley of shadow of death” (4); , “in the house of

the LORD” (6).430

The following objects express metaphorical meaning: , “table” (5); , “with

oil” (5); , “my cup” (5). The expressions “table” and “cup” stand in a metonymic

relationship to “food [in abundance]” and “drink [in abundance]”. The expressions

“table” and “cup” together with the implied notions of abundant food and drink are

metaphors for YHWH’s blessing, provision and friendship.

Some figurative expressions in the Psalm are metonymic personifications rather than

metaphors in the strict sense of the word. The expressions , “your rod” and

, “and your staff” (4) are metonymical expressions that signal the comforting

presence of the shepherd himself. In a similar way, the expressions (“goodness”)

(“and steadfast love”) are personifications that represent the goodness and love

bestowed by YHWH on the poet.

428 König (1927:179). 429 The only other metaphor of a “Topic [is] Image” type is found in 23:5: , “My cup [is]

abundance”. 430 Note that the expressions of location that are found in the verses 1-4 are in the plural and the ones found

in the verses 4 and 6 are in the singular. The use of the plural in the verses 1-2 help to express the notion of

abundance (abundant care).

150

The expression , “He restores my soul” (literally: “he causes my soul to

return”) is interpreted as an idiomatic expression that expresses the notion of refreshment

that is the result of the eating, drinking and resting.431

In addition to the above metaphors – which are all more or less clearly expressed in the

text – there are a number of more general, underlying (implied) metaphors active in this

Psalm.

1. EXPERIENCING YHWH’S BLESSING IS BEING IN A BLISSFUL PLACE

(Psalm 23:2-3; 6b);

2. EXPERIENCING YHWH’S BLESSING IS BEING IN A RESTFUL PLACE

(Psalm 23:2)

3. EXPERIENCING YHWH’S BLESSING IS EATING AND DRINKING (Psalm

23:2-3; 5);

4. EXPERIENCING YHWH’S BLESSING AND PROTECTION IS BEING IN HIS

PRESENCE (Psalm 23:1-6, the verses 4 and 6b in particular);

5. EXPERIENCING YHWH’S BLESSING IS BEING FOLLOWED BY YHWH’S

SERVANTS (Psalm 23:6a);

6. EXPERIENCING VICTORY IS EATING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE

ENEMIES (Psalm 23:5a)

7. EXPERIENCING EXTREME DANGER IS WALKING THROUGH THE

VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH (Psalm 23:4a).

8. YHWH’S GUIDANCE, PROTECTION AND BLESSING ARE TRAVEL

COMPANIONS (Psalm 23:4c, 6a);

9. LIFE IS A JOURNEY (Psalm 23:1-6, verse 6a in particular);

10. DOING YHWH’S WILL IS WALKING ON PATHS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

(Psalm 23:3b);

6.3.2. The relationships between the various images

The interaction between the various kinds of imagery in Psalm 23 can be summarized as

follows:

a. Some kinds of imagery are in a generic-specific relationship

b. Some kinds of imagery are in a parallel relationship

c. Some kinds of imagery are in an inclusio relationship

d. Other kinds of imagery are in a serial, intensifying relationship

e. Other kinds of imagery are in a relationship of inversion

Generic-specific relationships between forms of imagery are found between the shepherd

metaphor (“the LORD is my shepherd”) and the more specific metaphors of the shepherd

431 Some exegetes link this expression with “he leads me in paths of rigtheousness” and translate “He

makes my soul return [from her paths of going astray]” (Tromp 1992) or “he protects my soul from going

astray” (Ida Gerhardt).

151

making the sheep lie down in green pastures (2a), leading it beside quiet waters (2b), and

guiding it in paths of righteousness (3b).432

Parallel relationships between forms of imagery are found between the metaphor of the

shepherd making the sheep lie down in green pastures (2a) and the metaphor of the

shepherd leading the sheep beside quiet waters (2b), and guiding it in paths of

righteousness (3b). Parallel relationships are also found between the metaphor of the

table being prepared by the host for the guest (verse 5a), the host anointing the head of

the guest with oil (5b) and the overflowing cup (5c). Parallel relationships between forms

of imagery are also found between the metaphor of goodness and love following the

author all the days of his life (6a) and the author’s dwelling in the house of the LORD

forever (6b).433

An inclusio relationship between forms of imagery is found between the parallel

metaphors of the table/banquet (eating; 5a) and the cup (drinking; 5c) as the “embracing”

elements and the anointing of the head (5b) as the “embraced” element.

A serial, intensifying relationship between forms of imagery is found between the

metaphor of the shepherd (1-4), the metaphor of the table/banquet (5) and the house of

the LORD (6) understood in a symbolic sense.434

An inverted relationship between forms of imagery is found between the shepherd

metaphor in verse 1-4 (the shepherd goes before the sheep) and the metaphor of goodness

and love following the author.

In addition to the figurative elements, the Psalm also contains literal expressions which

anchor the metaphors to the non-figurative world: YHWH (1a); I shall not be in want

(1b); he restores my soul (3a); paths of righteousness (3b), for his name’s sake (3c); I will

fear no evil, for you are with me (4b); in the presence of my enemies (5a); all the days of

my life (6a); the house of the LORD (6b); forever (6b).

It should be noted that the expression “house of the LORD” figures as a symbol that has

both literal and figurative aspects. In its literal sense it refers to the temple in Jerusalem

or the cult tent in Shiloh. In its figurative sense it refers to the aspect of house fellowship

between YHWH and the author.

432 It should be noted that Psalm 23 does not contain an explicit host metaphor (“The LORD is my host”) –

comparable to the shepherd metaphor – which would be more generic than the specific metaphors of the

table/banquet, the anointing and the cup. 433

Parallel relationships are also found at a lower level between the rod and the staff in verse 4 and between

goodness and love in verse 6a. 434 The intensification can be described from several different perspectives. In terms of the role of the

author there is progress from a sheep to a guest to a member of the household. In terms of spatial

orientation one could see progress from being outside (in green pastures, etc.) to being inside in the house

of the LORD. In terms of temporal extension there is progress from transitory fellowship (banquet

metaphor) to continuous fellowship (house of the LORD).

152

6.3.3. Thematic coherence of the imagery in Psalm 23

In the previous sections we have seen that Psalm 23 forms a unity in which three main

images have been woven together: a. the shepherd metaphor (1-4); b. the host/banquet

metaphor (5); and c. the house of the LORD metaphor.

Psalm 23 is not just a patchwork of metaphors. There is a strong thematic unity that

connects all the metaphors. This thematic unity can be summarized as ‘being together

with YHWH’. This is explicitly expressed in verse 4b: ‘for you are with

me,’ in the context of the shepherd metaphor. But, this element of being together with

YHWH is also present in the table metaphor and in the house of the LORD metaphor.

The shepherd metaphor forms the largest section of Psalm 23 (1-4) and has the widest

application in terms of its grounds (intended meanings). The metaphor expresses the

notions of provision (1-2), guidance (3) and protection (4).

The other two main metaphors that are found in the Psalm are less developed and have a

more limited scope in terms of their intended meanings. The host/banquet metaphor in

verse 5 seems to primarily express the notion of abundant provision and table fellowship.

The notion of protection (or: victory) is also present, but more or less backgrounded

( , “in the presence of my enemies”).

The house of the LORD metaphor is even more limited in scope, at least in terms of what

is expressed explicitly in the Psalm. The aspects of abundant provision, guidance and

protection are not expressed overtly in verse 6b, even though these might be implied.

However, the expression of “dwelling in the house of the LORD” seems to primarily

refer to the continued house fellowship between the poet and YHWH. In this sense, the

imagery of the house of the LORD is more limited in scope than the imagery of the

shepherd and of the host/banquet.

The shepherd metaphor can be viewed as the matrix metaphor which has the widest scope

of expressed grounds. The other two metaphors – which have one or more overlapping

grounds with the shepherd metaphor – are amplifiers: they intensify certain grounds that

had already been expressed by the shepherd metaphor.

The host and guest metaphor is structurally important since it connects the shepherd and

sheep metaphor (provision outside) via the table concept435

(provision and fellowship)

with the house of the LORD metaphor (fellowship inside forever). The house of the

LORD metaphor forms, in fact, the climax of Psalm 23: In the context of the shepherd

and sheep metaphor, there is still the threat of the valley of the shadow of death (verse 4),

and in the context of the host metaphor, the enemies are still mentioned, although they

have been made harmless (verse 5b); but, in the context of the temple metaphors, there

are no threats mentioned anymore.

435 Lexically, the word “table” belongs to the domain of house. The other, more important, link between

“table” and “shepherd” and “house” is the connotation of fellowship.

153

Verse Image Ground

1-4 Shepherd Abundant provision (food, water, rest)

Guidance

Protective presence

5 Host Abundant provision (food, wine)

Table fellowship

Honoring as guest (anointing)

6a Companions Continued provision/love

6b House of the LORD Continued house fellowship

In summary, it can be said that the notions of protective presence/fellowship (cf. Psalm

23:4) and abundant provision form the main threads that give unity to this Psalm. The

notion of guidance is only made explicit in the context of the imagery of the shepherd.

However, if it is valid to interpret the notion of “following” in verse 6a as an inversion of

the “leading” and “guiding” in the first part of the Psalm, this would constitute an

additional element of thematic coherence (inclusio: YHWH goes before the poet as his

shepherd and his goodness and love follow him always).

6.3.4. Towards a frame analysis of the imagery found in Psalm 23

Even though Psalm 23 consists of different metaphors from a variety of source domains,

it is definitely not a patchwork of metaphors randomly put together. The various

metaphors have been woven together carefully by a skilled poet. Comparison of the

metaphors of shepherd and host shows the existence of structural similarity between the

frames (scripts) related to these metaphors. Both frames overlap in four respects: Travel

– Provision/care – Protection – Arrive at destination.

Text

unit

Similarity

Shepherd frame

Host frame

1-3a Provide food/water/

rest

Shepherd grazes flock in green

pastures etc.

FEED/REST-animal

--

3b-4 Travel Shepherd leads his flock and

protects them during the journey

LEAD/PROTECT-animal

[Guest travels through uninhabited

area]

5 Provide food/wine -- Host prepares a meal for guest

Host protects guest

FEED/PROTECT-guest

6a Continual care [Help-shepherds follow the

flock?]

[FOLLOW-animal]

[Guest blesses host upon

departure?436]

[HOST BLESSES GUEST]

436 Normally, a guest would bless the host before he departed. However, in the context of Psalm 23, this

pattern is reversed: The host is the one who blesses the guest. YHWH is portrayed not only as the one who

provides a meal for the guest, but also as the one who guarantees the continued blessing of the guest during

the rest of his journey.

154

6b Arrive at destination Shepherd(s) lead/follow the

flock to SHEEPFOLD

ARRIVE-animal

Guest arrives at DESTINATION

(HOME)

ARRIVE-guest

The imagery of the house of the LORD, as it is found in verse 6b, fits in very well both

with the imagery of a sheep returning to the sheepfold and with the imagery of a

traveler/guest arriving at his destination. But, at this point the imagery has shifted to the

more transcendent imagery of the house of the LORD, which forms the culmination point

of the Psalm. The imagery of the house of the LORD contrasts with the imagery of the

shepherd and the host in that it is not transient anymore, but lasts forever. It is also free

from the threats and dangers mentioned in relation to the other metaphors. The valley of

the shadow of death (verse 4) and the enemies (verse 5) do not pose a threat anymore as

the poet has entered the safe haven of the house of the LORD.

In addition to the three main frames active in this Psalm (shepherd, host, house of the

LORD), it is possible that a fourth frame is active: the frame of kingship (royalty). The

meal prepared in verse 5 could be a royal banquet, in which YHWH provides his honored

guest with abundant food and drinks. The mentioning of the enemies in this context could

even mean that the imagery of a banquet after a victory is intended in which the

victorious king and a faithful vassal participate, while the subjugated enemies look on.

However, it is difficult to ascertain what kind of imagery is primarily intended. The exact

nature of the imagery is indeterminate. The anointing of the head, mentioned in verse 5,

is another example of indeterminate imagery: It could be intended as a symbolic action

that expresses hospitality and the honoring of guests, but it could also allude to the act of

anointing the king. If the latter is the case, then the Psalm would be about YHWH and his

anointed one (David). The third indication that the kingship frame might be active in

Psalm 23 is the expression that goodness and love will follow all the days of the poet’s

life (verse 6). This could be interpreted in the sense of two messengers who accompany a

royal person.

Several exegetes have pointed out that the meaning and the historical background of

Psalm 23 is to a large degree indeterminate. As a result, there are several ways of reading

the Psalm and several historical, situational or textual contexts against which the Psalm

can be interpreted. Several frames are possible here: 1. Reading the Psalm as a reflection

of king David’s life (particularly those situations where he was on the run and away from

the house of the LORD); 2. Reading the Psalm as a reflection of the history of the people

of Israel (Exodus from Egypt437

, or the Second Exodus from the Exile); 3. Reading the

Psalm as a reflection of the life of individual believers in the context of the Old

Testament (temple); 4. Reading the Psalm in the light of the Wisdom tradition and as an

expression of the importance of the Torah; 5. Reading the Psalm in the light of Jesus as

the Good Shepherd who takes care of the believers; 6. Reading the Psalm as a Psalm of

trust, particularly in situations where believers face death; 7. Reading the Psalm in the

context of The Lord’s supper. 8. Reading the Psalm in the context of the first Psalm

437 It should be noted that there are several thematic overlaps between Psalm 23 and the Exodus account,

particularly Israel’s journey through the wilderness. YHWH gave his people Manna and water in the

wilderness; He led them and protected them; He also led his people to the holy mountain, his dwelling

place.

155

bundle, more particularly in the context of the group of Psalms 15-24 or Psalms 19-29.

9. Contextualized readings of Psalm 23.

6.4. Conclusion

In this chapter, an overview was given of some important aspects related to the exegesis

of Psalm 23. Psalm 23 was interpreted as consisting of three main imageries (shepherd;

host; house of the LORD) which have been woven together by a skillful poet. The

imagery of the shepherd, as it is found in this Psalm, expresses the grounds of

care/provision, guidance and protection. These grounds overlap with the grounds that are

implied by the parallel imagery of the host (care/provision and protection). The imagery

of the house of the LORD forms the climax of the Psalm.

Even though the general meaning and intention of the Psalm is clear (expression of

unshakeable confidence in YHWH), the details of the imagery and the realities to which

the imagery refers are to a large degree indeterminate. This relative indeterminacy of the

Psalm has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations.

156

7. The Imagery of Shepherd and Sheep in the New Testament

7.1. Introduction

In this chapter an overview will be given of the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the

New Testament. The focus will be on sketching the main line of the imagery of shepherd

and sheep in the New Testament, and on analyzing those aspects of the imagery that are

most relevant to translation. A detailed discussion of the exegesis and the exegetical

literature falls outside the scope of this chapter.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep needs to be distinguished from the imagery of

guidance, where a human person is pictured as leading another human person rather than

as leading a flock of animals.438

In terms of its meaning (grounds), the imagery of

shepherd and sheep is also much broader than the imagery of guidance: it may also

convey notions of dominion, care/provision, protection, deliverance.

The imagery of shepherd and sheep in the New Testament is firmly rooted in the imagery

of shepherd and sheep in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 34, Zechariah 13:7-9 and Psalm 2:9

are key texts from the Old Testament that play a significant role in the New Testament

use of the imagery of shepherd and sheep. An important difference between the Old and

the New Testament is that in the Old Testament the image of shepherd is primarily

applied to YHWH, the God of Israel; in the New Testament the image of shepherd is

primarily applied to Jesus as the shepherd of Israel (Synoptic Gospels), but who takes

care of the “other sheep,” the Gentiles, as well (Gospel of John) .

Several researchers have argued that there is a contrast between the positive use of the

shepherd metaphor in the New Testament in the religious domain and the negative

evaluation of shepherds in the socio-economic domain in Palestine during the time of the

New Testament.439

According to these researchers, shepherds were even considered

“ritually unclean”.

However, according to Green (1997:573-574), “the positive image of sheep and

shepherds in Israel’s Scriptures, together with Philo’s positive mention of the Jewish

people as graziers, stock-breeders, and shepherds (Spec. Leg. 1.133, 136), casts doubt on

a general, negative valuation of shepherds on grounds of impurity in first-century

Palestine.”

438 Cf. the metaphorical use of , “guide” (Noun) in Matthew 15:14; 23:16, 24; John 16:13; Romans

2:19. and of “guide” (Verb) Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39; John 16:13; Acts 8:31; Revelation 7:17.

In Acts 1:16 the term is used in its literal sense (it refers to Judas who served as a guide for those

who arrested Jesus). The expression ,“blind guides” is used more than once to refer to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (Matthew 23:16, 24; cf. also Matthew 15:14 and Romans 2:19). In the

New Testament the religious leaders of Israel are nowhere referred to as “false shepherds” or “bad

shepherds”. However, the terms “thieves,” “robbers,” “stranger,” and “hired hand,” in John 10 might apply

to those leaders of Israel who did not take care of the flock of Israel. 439 For example Jeremias, Donahue, and Bailey (1976:147).

157

In addition, it can be argued that any negative associations with regard to shepherds

would have applied to hired hands who were taking advantage of their job and who were

cheating the owners of the flocks. However, several key passages in the New Testament

contain shepherd and sheep imagery are not about shepherds who are hired hands, but

about shepherds who were also the owners of the flock.440

Whatever the socio-economic or socio-religious status of the shepherds was, this does not

seem to have had a negative bearing on the use of the shepherd imagery for YHWH in

the Old Testament and for Jesus in the New Testament. God and Jesus exemplify the

ideal shepherd who really cares for his flock. In both the Old and the New Testament

there is an awareness of the difference between good and bad shepherds, at least in the

religious domain, and presumably in the socio-economic domain as well.441

But, even if

there would be a contrast between the literary status (positive) of shepherds and their

social status (negative) in the community, this should not be a problem, since literary

(religious) traditions do not necessarily reflect the values of a community at a given point

in time.442

In the light of the strong intertextuality between the writings of the New Testament and

the Old Testament Scriptures the positive use of shepherd imagery in the New Testament

should not come as a surprise at all. As far as the shepherd imagery was applied to Jesus,

it showed that his work on earth and his death, as well as his present and future work are

a fulfillment of what had already been promised in the Old Testament. The shepherd

imagery links Jesus’ salvation work not only to God’s promises of salvation in the

context of the Babylonian exile and of the coming Messiah, but also, further back and

more indirectly, to the exodus that followed the deliverance from Egypt. And, as far as

the imagery of sheep and flock pertained to the New Testament church, it implied that

this new community of followers of Jesus, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, was the new

Israel, the new people of God.

440 In this context, it is also good to remember that the image of the shepherd in the Old Testament is not

undividedly positive either. The Old Testament stories about Abraham, Jacob, Laban and David show that

deception (shepherds as “tricksters”) was a common personality trait among these shepherd forebears of the

people of Israel. But in terms of shepherding their flock, these Old Testament shepherds were indeed taking

good care of their sheep and goats. 441

It should also be noted that the figurative meanings of a word do not necessarily have the same kind of

connotations as their literal meanings have. In Una, for example, people place a high value on domesticated pigs and dogs, but the same people use the words bisam (‘pig’) and kam (‘dog’) as terms of abuse. 442 Literary traditions may vary on a scale ranging from being very conservative to being very progressive

in relation to the culture in which they occur. We must also bear in mind that cultures, including literary

and religious traditions are not unified entities, but they are usually more or less diversified even to the

degree that they contradict each other or are in conflict with each other.

158

7.2. Words for ‘shepherd,’ ‘sheep,’ and ‘flock’ in the New Testament

In this section an overview is given of the most frequently occurring words related to the

domain of sheep and shepherd. Frequency counts are given with regard to the literal and

figurative uses of the words in the books of the New Testament. Shepherd and sheep

imagery occurs predominantly in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of John, and in 1

Peter and Revelation. The imagery of shepherd and sheep is hardly found in the Corpus

Paulinum.

It is remarkable that most of the terms related to the domain of shepherd and sheep are

used in a figurative sense.443

The word , ‘shepherd’, for example, occurs 18 times

in the New Testament, 14 times of which it is used in a figurative sense. The verb

, ‘to shepherd’, is found 11 times, always in a figurative sense. The two words

for flock, and , occur five and four times respectively, and are used

most frequently in a figurative sense. The word for sheep, occurs 39 times,

mostly in the plural form, and mostly in a figurative sense. The words for “lamb”

(occurring 38 times) and for “wolf” (occurring five times) are always used in a figurative

sense. The words for “goat” (occurring five times), on the other hand, are most frequently

used in a literal sense.

A. Terminology for “shepherd” (Noun) and “shepherding” (Verb)

(Noun): “shepherd”

a. SingularMatthew 9:36; 25:32; 26:31; Mark 6:34; 14:27; John 10:2, 11 (2x), 12,

14, 16; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25.

b. Plural: Luke 2:8, 15, 18, 20; Ephesians 4:11.

(Noun): “Chief shepherd”

a. Singular: 1 Peter 5:4.

b. Plural: .

(Verb): “to shepherd” Matthew 2:6; Luke 17:7; John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Peter 5:2; Jude

1:12; Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15.

Figurative collocations:

a. (Matthew 2:6).

b. (Acts 20:28).

c. (1 Peter 5:2).

443 This is in contrast with the Old Testament where the corresponding Hebrew words are used extensively, both in their literal and figurative senses. Exceptions: shepherd and sheep related terminology in Luke 2:8-

20. 444 Object of “shepherding” = “people”. 445 Object of “shepherding” = “church”. 446 Object of “shepherding” = “the flock of God”

159

d. (Jude 1:12).

e. .448

(Revelation 12:5; cf. 2:17 and 19:15).

f. (Revelation 7:17).

The following table summarizes the occurrences of “shepherd” and “shepherding” in the

New Testament450

:

‘shepherd’, Noun

‘chief shepherd’,

Noun m. sing.

‘to shepherd’,

Verb

Total

m. sing. m. plur.

Matthew 3x -- -- 1x 4x

Mark 2x -- -- -- 2x

Luke -- 4x -- 1x 5x

John 6x -- -- 1x 7x

Acts -- -- -- 1x 1x

Romans -- -- -- -- --

1 Corinthians -- -- -- 1x 1x

Ephesians -- 1x -- -- 1x

Hebrews 1x -- -- -- 1x

1 Peter 1x -- 1x 1x 3x

Jude -- -- -- 1x 1x

Revelation -- -- -- 4x 4x

Total 13x 5x 1x 11x 30x 100 %

Literal 0x 4x 0x 0x 4x 13.3 %

Figurative 13x 1x 1x 11x 26x 86.7 %

B. Terminology for “flock” and “sheep”

Noun): “flock” a. SingularLuke 12:32; Acts 20:28, 29; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

b. Plural: .

(Noun): “flock”a. Matthew 26:31; Luke 2:8; John 10:16; 1 Corinthians 9:7.

b. Plural : .

(Noun): “sheep”

a. Singular: Matthew 12:11, 12; Luke 15:6; Acts 8:32.

b. Plural: Matthew 7:15; 9:36; 10:6, 16; 15:24; 18:12; 25:32, 33; 26:31; Mark 6:34;

14:27; Luke 15:4; John 2:14, 15; 10:1, 2, 3 (2x), 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 (2x), 13, 15, 16,

26, 27; 21:16, 17; Romans 8:36; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; Revelation 18:13.

447 Object of “shepherding” = reflexive (“feed themselves”). 448 Object of “shepherding” = “all the nations.” 449 Subject of “shepherding” = “the lamb.” 450 Books in which shepherd and sheep terminology does not occur at all are not listed in the table.

160

Figurative collocations: a. (1 Peter 5:2)

b. (Matthew 7:15)

c. (Matthew 10:6; 15:24)

d. (John 10:7)

e. (Romans 8:36)

f. (1 Peter 2:25)

Other (potentially) marked collocation: (Matthew

26:31).

The following table summarizes the occurrences of “flock” and “sheep” in the New

Testament:

‘flock’, N

f. sing

‘flock’, N

n.sing

‘sheep’, Noun

Total

n. sing n. plur

Matthew 1x -- 2x 9x 12x

Mark -- -- -- 2x 2x

Luke 1x 1x 1x 1x 4x

John 1x -- -- 19x 20x

Acts -- 2x 1x -- 3x

Romans -- -- -- 1x 1x

1 Corinthians 1x -- -- -- 1x

Ephesians -- -- -- -- --

Hebrews -- -- -- 1x 1x

1 Peter -- 2x -- 1x 3x

Jude -- -- -- -- --

Revelation -- -- -- 1x 1x

Total 4x 5x 4x 35x 48x 100 %

Literal 1x 0x 0x 3x 4x 8.3 %

Figurative 3x 5x 4x 31x 44x 91.7 %

C. Terminology for “lamb”

, (Noun): “lamb”:

a. Singular: .

b. Plural: Luke 10:3.

(Noun): “lamb”:

a. Singular: John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19.

b. Plural: .

(Noun): “lamb”

451 The expression “the sheep of the flock” seems redundant, or is perhaps a marked expression

(prominence).

161

a. Singular: Revelation 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1,

4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3.b. Plural: John 21:15.

Figurative collocations:

a. (John 1:29, 36).

b. (Revelation 5:6)

c. (Revelation 6:1)

d. (Revelation 6:16)

e. (Revelation 7:14)

f. (Revelation 7:17)452

g. (Revelation 13:8; 21:27;

cf. 6:1)

h. (Revelation 17:14)

i. (Revelation 19:7)

j. (Revelation 19:9)

k. (Revelation 21:9)

l. (Revelation 21:14)

m. (Revelation 21:23)

The following table summarizes the occurrences of “lamb” in the New Testament:

“lamb”

“lamb”

“lamb”

Total

m. sing. m. plur. m. sing m. plur m.sing m. plur

Matthew -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mark -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Luke -- 1x -- -- -- -- 1x

John -- -- 2x -- -- 1x 3x

Acts -- -- 1x -- -- -- 1x

Romans -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Corinthians -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Ephesians -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Hebrews -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Peter -- -- 1x -- -- -- 1x

Jude -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Revelation -- -- -- -- 27x -- 27x

Total 0x 1x 4x 0x 27x 1x 33x 100 %

Literal 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0 %

Figurative 0x 1x 4x 0x 27x 1x 33x 100 %

452 Cf. also the expression in Revelation 14:4.

162

D. Terminology for “goat”

(Noun): “goat”.

a. Singular: Luke 15:29;

b. Plural: Matthew 25:32.

(Noun): “goat”.

a. Singular: .

b. Plural: Hebrew 9:12, 13, 19; 10:4.453

Figurative collocations: none

The following table summarizes the occurrences of “goat” in the New Testament:

“goat” “goat”

Total

m. sing. m. plur. m. sing m. plur

Matthew -- 1x -- -- 1x

Mark -- -- -- -- --

Luke 1x -- -- -- 1x

John -- -- -- -- --

Acts -- -- -- -- --

Romans -- -- -- -- --

1 Corinthians -- -- -- -- --

Ephesians -- -- -- -- --

Hebrews -- -- -- 4x 4x

1 Peter -- -- -- -- --

Jude -- -- -- -- --

Revelation -- -- -- -- --

Total 1x 1x 0x 4x 6x 100 %

Literal 1x 0x 0x 4x 5x 83.3 %

Figurative 0x 1x 0x 0x 1x 16.7 %

E. Terminology for predators of sheep

(Noun): “wolf”:

a. Singular: John 10:12 (); b. Plural: Matthew 7:15 (; 10:16 );

Luke 10:3 (); Acts 20:29 ().

(Noun): “lion”: Singular: 1 Peter 5:8.454

453 Note that the term “goat” is used in the context of sacrifices. The term ”goat” is used in other contexts, either in a literal sense (Luke 15:29)or in a figurative sense (Matthew 25:32). 454 Only texts where the lion occurs as a predator of sheep are included here. Cf. note 19 below.

163

The following table summarizes the occurrences of “wolf” and “lion” (as a predator of

sheep) in the New Testament:

“wolf”

“lion”455 Total

m.sing m. plur m. sing m. plur

Matthew -- 2x -- -- 2x

Mark -- -- -- -- --

Luke -- 1x -- -- 1x

John 1x -- -- -- --

Acts -- 1x -- -- 1x

Romans -- -- -- -- --

1 Corinthians -- -- -- -- --

Ephesians -- -- -- -- --

Hebrews -- -- -- -- --

1 Peter -- -- 1x -- 1x

Jude -- -- -- -- --

Revelation -- -- -- -- --

Total 1x 4x 1x 0x 5x 100 %

Literal 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0 %

Figurative 1x 4x 1x 0x 5x 100 %

F. Other terminology related to the domain of shepherd and sheep

This term has a variety of related meanings: “enclosed courtyard,” “court of

temple,” “palace,” “house”, “sheepfold.” It is used in the sense of “sheepfold” in the

following passages: John 10:1 (), 10:16.

This term means “hired hand”. In Mark 1:20 it is used for hired hands

helping fishermen. In John 10:12, 13 it is used for people that have been hired to take

care of sheep.

: This term means “doorkeeper”. In Mark 13:34 and in John 18:16, 17 it is used

for a doorkeeper of a house. In John 10:3 it is used for the doorkeeper of a sheepfold.

’to tend, graze, feed’.

455 This table only counts cases where the term “lion” refers to the lion as a predator of sheep. The lion is mentioned in eight other New Testament passages, but not necessarily as a predator in relation to the

imagery of shepherd and sheep: 2 Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33; Revelation 4:7; 5:5; 9:8,17; 10:3; 13:2.

In some of these passages the lion is used as figurative language for threatening, dangerous situations (2

Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33); in the other passages it is an image of power and royalty.

164

7.3. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in the Gospels

7.3.1. Introduction

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in all the four Gospels, but predominantly in

Matthew and John.

7.3.2. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Matthew

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: Matthew 2:6;

7:15; 9:36; 10:6; 10:16; 15:24; 18:12; 25:32; 26:31. Shepherd-focused passages: 2:6;

18:12-14; 25;32; Sheep-focused passages: 9:36; 10:6; 10:16; 15:24; Shepherd and sheep-

focused passages: 26:31-32; Predator-focused passage: 7:15.

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Matthew 2:6 Metaphor Shepherd (verb) Messiah Rule (Israel)

Matthew 7:15 Metaphor Sheep’s clothing False teachers [Pretend to be

harmless believers]

Matthew 9:36 Simile Sheep without a

shepherd

The crowds Harassed and

helpless

Matthew 10:6 Metaphor Lost sheep of the

house of Israel

People of Israel [Lost spiritually;

need salvation]

Matthew 10:16 Simile Sheep among

wolves

Apostles/ Disciples

Sent on mission

[Threatened; at

risk]

Matthew 15:24 Metaphor Lost sheep of the

house of Israel

People of Israel [Spiritually lost;

need salvation]

Matthew 18:12-14 Similitude Shepherd/owner

seeks lost sheep

God/Jesus Does not want to

lose a little one

Matthew 25:32 Simile Shepherd

separating flock

The glorious Son

of Man

Separate/judge

mankind

Matthew 26:31 Metaphor The slain shepherd

& the scattered

sheep

Messiah & his

followers

(disciples)

Slain / fleeing &

being scattered

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Matthew includes five metaphors, three similes and

one similitude. In two of the passages the imagery was found in an Old Testament quote:

Matthew 2:6 (Micah 5:2-4) and Matthew 26:31 (Zechariah 13:7). In four cases the

shepherd and sheep imagery was accompanied by imagery from another image domain

that referred to the same topic: Matthew 7:15 (sheep’s clothing; fruits); Matthew 9:36

(sheep without a shepherd; harvest); Matthew 10:16 (sheep among the wolves; snakes

and doves); Matthew 15:24 (lost sheep of the house of Israel; children). In the following

passages shepherd and sheep imagery is found in statements or commissioning words

related to “mission” (verb ): Matthew 10:6 and 10:16 (Jesus sends his

disciples); Matthew 15:24 (Jesus talks about his own mission).

165

A. Jesus is the promised Ruler-shepherd (Matthew 2:6)

Matthew 2:6 contains a summarized and somewhat adapted456

quote from Micah 5:2-4.

This Old Testament prophecy was mentioned by the chief priests and the teachers of the

law in reply to king Herod’s question as to where the Messiah would be born. The quote

is introduced by a quote formula: It contains the verb form “he will shepherd,” which refers metaphorically to the

activities of the promised ruler () over Israel.

Topic: The topic of the imagery in Matthew 2:6 is the promised Messiah (Jesus). He is

portrayed as the one who will “shepherd my [God’s] people of Israel.” This expression

corresponds with , “the newborn king of the Jews”

(mentioned by the Magi in verse 2) and with , “Messiah” (mentioned by

King Herod in verse 4).

Image: In Matthew 2:6 the Messiah (Jesus) is portrayed as a shepherd-servant: he will

shepherd my (God’s) people Israel. (Not: his people Israel). In Micah 5:3, however, the

imagery is more ambiguous (“his flock”). It could involve either shepherd-servant or

shepherd-owner imagery. Compared to Micah 5:2-4 (“he will shepherd his flock”), the

wording in Matthew 2:6 is somewhat demetaphorized: “He will shepherd his people”.

Grounds: strong leadership, and giving security to his people.

The full text of Micah 5:2-4 (5:1-3 LXX) reads like this:

456 A full discussion of the relation between Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2-5 (1-3) falls outside the scope of

this research. The most important changes are: 1. the positive statement “though you are small” (Micah 5:2)

has been changed into a negative one: “you are by no means least”; 2. the name “Ephrathah” (“house of

Ephrathah” in the LXX) has been changed to “land of Judah”; 3. “his flock” / “the sons of Israel” has been

changed into “my people Israel”. 4. Several parts of the OT prophecy have been omitted: “whose origins are from old from ancient times” (verse 2), “therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who

is in labour gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites” (verse 3), the part about

shepherding his flock “in the strength of the LORD and in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God”

(verse 4) as well as “And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth,

and he will be their peace.” (verse 4-5).

166

B. False prophets come in sheep’s clothing, but are ferocious wolves (Matthew 7:15)

Topic: In this passage the disciples are warned against false prophets who pretend that

they are harmless believers (“sheep”), but who are in fact bent on doing harm (“ferocious

wolves”) to the followers of Jesus. The topic of “sheep” is: harmless believers. The topic

of “ferocious wolves” is “false prophets”. The imagery of clothes is added to express the

idea of pretense and outward appearance: The false teachers pretend that they are

harmless and that they belong to the community of believers.

Image: The expression , “in sheep’s clothing,” seems to be a

mixed metaphor, since sheep normally don’t wear clothing.457

The clothing metaphor

expresses the notion of pretense, and contrasts with what the false prophets really are in

their hearts (, ‘from the inside’).

In the following verses (16-20) the metaphor is even further mixed by the expression

, “you will recognize them by their

fruits”. The sheep metaphor originating from the image domain of animal husbandry is

further developed by a well-known metaphor derived from the image domain of trees

(arboculture).458

The intended ground of the predator metaphor in this context seems to be primarily a

matter of doing spiritual harm (lead astray) rather than physical harm (oppress,

persecute). This is supported by the fact that they do their work “under (sheep) cover”

(verse 15).459

457

Ezekiel 34:3 could be behind this mixed metaphor: “You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool

and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock.” 458 Shifts in imagery like this (from fauna to agriculture) occur more often. Compare Matthew 9:36-38,

where the imagery of shepherd and sheep is followed by imagery of the harvest. 459 Cf. also Hagner (1993:183): “Despite their outward appearance and profession, these persons are in fact

the mortal enemies of those who belong to the flock. As the wolf, known for its ferocity … is the natural

enemy of the sheep … so these deceivers are natural enemies of the truth and the true people of God.”

167

C. Sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36)

This passage recounts how Jesus has compassion on the crowds who follow him, because

they were “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (simile). The passage

does not explicitly say that Jesus himself is the good shepherd who takes care of those

sheep without a shepherd, but this is clearly implied, especially in the light of the

preceding verse (35). The “sheep without a shepherd” simile is mentioned in a context of

a summary statement: Jesus is teaching () in the synagogues, and announcing

the Gospel of the kingdom of God () and

healing sick people ().

The simile of the sheep without a shepherd is followed by the metaphor of the harvest,

the harvest field and the harvest workers. The metaphor refers to the same topic as the

simile: the crowds who are in spiritual need.

3

Topic: The crowds who follow Jesus form the topic of the sheep imagery. The topic of

the shepherd term is indeterminate: There is nobody who shepherds the crowds. The term

could refer to the religious leaders of the people of Israel: they do not take care of the

spiritual needs of the crowds. However, in the light of Jesus’ teaching, preaching and

healing in the preceding context (9:35), his compassion on the people (9:36), and the

prophecy of Micah 5:2 at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew (2:6), there can be no

doubt that in this passage Jesus himself is indirectly portrayed as the shepherd who takes

care of the flock.

Image: The picture of the “sheep without shepherd” simile is clear.460

If there is no

shepherd to take care of the sheep, the flock becomes unruly and the stronger animals

may harass the weaker animals. It could very well be that Ezekiel 34:17-24 forms the

immediate background of this passage.461

In that passage the LORD announces that He

460 The use of the sheep simile for the crowds of people who were following Jesus makes a lot of sense in

and of itself. The gathering together of many people in one place is similar to a flock of sheep. The

expression “sheep without shepherd” is also used in the Old Testament. In Numbers 27:17, the expression

is used by Moses, when he saw the need for a someone who would succeed him as a leader and who would

lead the people of Israel to the land of Canaan, “so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a

shepherd.” In 2 Chronicles 18:16, the expression “sheep without a shepherd” is used by the prophet Micaiah in his prophecy that the people of Israel who would be scattered in battle by their enemies, “like

sheep without a shepherd,” because they had no master/leader. However, Ezekiel 34:4-5 is probably the

most relevant parallel from the Old Testament. 461 Cf. Ezekiel 34:20-21: “Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will

judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the

168

will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats, and that he will

place his servant David over them as their shepherd. However, it should be noted that in

the particular context of Matthew 9:36 Jesus does not explicitly identify himself as the

promised shepherd of Israel. The focus of his response in the verses 37 and 38 is not on

what he himself is doing or will be doing to help the crowds, but on what the disciples

should be doing: “Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his

harvest field.”

If sheep are without a shepherd, they will also be scattered. The imagery of “sheep

without a shepherd” and the subsequent scattering of the flock is explicitly mentioned in

Ezekiel 34:1-5. “You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have

ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd,

and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals.” But, whereas

Ezekiel 34 is polemical against the false shepherds of Israel, Matthew 9:36 is primarily

an expression of compassion with regard to the sheep without shepherd. If this passage

intends to be polemical against the religious leaders of Israel, it is implied.

The mentioning of Jesus “healing” () people in the immediate context of the

“sheep without a shepherd” simile (verse 35) also brings to mind Ezekiel 34, especially

the parts where the healing task of the shepherd is highlighted (verses 4 and 16)462

. If

sheep are harassed by other sheep, or butted with their horns, they could be wounded.

One wonders, if the notion of the sheep being wounded could have been an implicature of

the expression “harassed” in Matthew 9:36. There does not seem to be a conclusive proof

of a direct and intentional link between the healing of the sick people in Matthew 9:35,

the mentioning of the harassed and helpless “sheep without a shepherd” in verse 36, and

the bandaging of the (metaphorical) sheep, as mentioned in these passages from

Ezekiel.463

However, a link like this would fit in very well with other contexts where

healing is mentioned in the immediate context of shepherd and sheep imagery.464

Another thematic link is the one between the figurative shepherding in verse 36 and the

teaching and the announcing of the kingdom of God in verse 35 on the other. In the

parallel passage from Mark 6:34, the “sheep without shepherd” simile is related even

more directly with the notion of teaching: “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he

had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began

weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away.” The strong flock animals were also

trampling the good pasture with their feet and muddying the drinking waters (verses 17-19). 462 Verse 4: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not

brought back the strays or searched for the lost.” Verse 16: “I will search for the lost and bring back the

strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will

shepherd the flock with justice.” 463 If a direct link had been intended, one would have expected a higher degree of lexical similarity

between the Gospel passage and the LXX renderings of Ezekiel 34. In Ezekiel 34:4 LXX the medical help

that was not given by the shepherd to the sheep is referred to and

(cf. also Ezekiel 34:16). In Matthew 9:35, however, the expression

is used. 464 Cf. Matthew 10:1-10, particularly the verses 1 and 7, which surround the commission in 10:6 (“Go

rather to the lost sheep of Israel”), and Matthew 15:24 in its contexts (healing of the daughter of the

Canaanite woman).

169

teaching them many things.” (). If this is valid,

then the shepherd task is primarily seen as teaching the truth to the crowds who do not

know the truth.465

The following metaphor of the harvest, the harvest field and the harvest workers is

directly related to the preceding simile of the shepherd without sheep. Flocks of sheep

usually grazed on the fields after these had been harvested, and from this perspective it is

not a big jump to switch the imagery from the sheep to the harvest. However, more

importantly, the topic of the metaphor of the harvest is the same, or at least very similar

to the topic of the imagery of the sheep without a shepherd.466

According to Ryken (1998:366), “Jesus, a master of harvest metaphors, sees harvest time

in two ways – as a time of opportunity in the here and now and as a time of final

judgment. The idea of harvest as opportunity is presented in Matthew 9:37-38 and its

parallels in Luke 10:2 and John 4:35, where Jesus sees sinners in need of salvation as a

field of grain needed to be harvested.” In the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:8, 23) the

seed that is sown is identified as the word of God.

Hagner (1993:260) points out that “in the light of the great need of the people and just

prior to the sending out of the twelve, Jesus refers to the harvest and the need of

workers.” The term “harvest” has eschatological associations and is related to the theme

of the Kingdom of God (cf. 9:35). “… the eschatological tone of the word has an

unquestionable urgency about it. There are many yet to be reached with the gospel of the

kingdom, and the mission of Jesus must be carried on by his disciples (cf. 10:1), yet few

in number, and other workers.”

D. The apostles are sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6)

In Matthew 10:6 the metaphor of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” is used by Jesus,

when he sends out (commissions) his twelve apostles. The metaphor contrasts with “the

Gentiles” and the “town(s) of the Samaritans”. Jesus told his disciples “Do not go among

the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”

465

Cf. also Hagner’s (1993:260) comment on Matthew 9:36: “What causes Jesus’ deep compassion at this

point is not the abundance of sickness he has seen but rather the great spiritual need of the people, whose lives have no center, whose existence seems aimless, whose experience is one of futility. The whole Gospel

is a response to this universal human need.” It should be noted, though, that sickness is often an image of

spiritual need, and that the healing of sickness is often an image of salvation. 466 Note that in Luke 10:1-3 the imagery of sheep (lambs) also occurs in the immediate context of the image

of the harvest.

170

Topic: According to Hagner (1993:270), “the expression “lost sheep” here refers not to a

portion of Israel (thus Stendahl, who unnecessarily identifies the phrase with the ‘amme

ha’arets, “the people of the land”) but to all of Israel (hence the genitive is

epexegetical).” Hagner also points out that Jesus refers to “the lost sheep of Israel”, when

he characterizes his own mission in Matthew 15:24.

Image: The expression “the lost sheep of Israel” seems to be very similar to the

expression “sheep without a shepherd” in Matthew 9:36. Sheep without a shepherd will

soon be lost. However, the expression “the lost sheep of Israel” sounds more radical than

“sheep without a shepherd”. In other contexts, only one sheep is portrayed as being lost

(and found), but here in 10:6 the whole flock is pictured as being lost.

Like in Matthew 9:36, the metaphor of “shepherd without sheep” in 10:6 is mentioned in

the context of preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and of healing people. The twelve

apostles (symbolizing the totality of the people of Israel, which originally consisted of

twelve tribes) are to preach the message that the kingdom of God is near. They are also

commissioned to “heal the sick, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.”

(10:7; cf. also 10:1).

E. I send you like sheep among wolves (Matthew 10:16)

In Matthew 10:16, there is another commissioning statement expressed by Jesus which

contains sheep imagery (simile). But here the sheep imagery does not refer to the

receivers of the Gospel message – as in Matthew 10:6 – but to the apostles who bring the

Gospel message to other people. Bringing the Gospel to other people is risky work. The

apostles will be like [harmless] sheep among [ferocious] wolves. In Luke (10:3), the

imagery is even more dramatic: “like lambs among the wolves”.

Topic: The sheep imagery is applied to the apostles, the disciples whom Jesus sent out

before his death and resurrection. The imagery of wolves is applied to people who are

hostile to the Gospel and those who bring the Gospel message.

Image: The imagery of sheep primarily expresses the notion of helplessness of the

apostles while they fulfill their mission. This helplessness is in sharp contrast with the

authority that Jesus has given them to preach the kingdom of heaven, to heal the sick, to

raise the dead, to cleans those who have leprosy, and to drive out demons (verse 10:7).

The imagery of sheep and wolves is followed by another kind of animal imagery: the

imagery of snakes and doves (both similes). Given the situation that the apostles will be

171

like sheep among the wolves, they need to be “as shrewd as snakes” and “as innocent as

doves”. (verse 16b). In other places in the New Testament, the imagery of snakes is

negative (Matthew 3:7; 23:33; Luke 3:7), but here the image is positive. The imagery of

doves is positive.

F. Jesus has only been sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24)

In Matthew 15:24 Jesus answered the request of the Canaanite woman to heal her

daughter by telling her “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. This answer came

after an initial silence on the part of Jesus, repeated cries for help from the woman, and

after the disciples had urged Jesus to send her away. Taken at face value, Jesus response

was an indirect refusal to heal the woman’s daughter. The fact that she addressed him

with the messianic title ”Lord, Son of David”) did not seem to

impress Jesus. In his response he also uses messianic language (shepherd imagery467

; and

“I was sent” a divine passive implying that God was the one who sent him),

but he points out that his mission is limited: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Topic: The image of “the lost sheep of Israel” is the same as in Matthew 10:6. The

expression can be best interpreted as referring to the people of Israel in its totality, and

not to a specific group within the people of Israel.

Image: Like in 10:6 and 10:16, the sheep imagery is used here in connection with the

verb “sending”. And, like in 10:6, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” metaphor

contrasts with the notion of Gentiles, expressed in terms of a dog metaphor (,

“house dogs”.). Another metaphor that is used for the people of Israel is the “children”

metaphor: The people of Israel are children, who belong to God’s household (), and

who receive “the bread of the children” (), which should not be

thrown to the dogs (the Gentiles).

And here again – coincidentally or not – a sheep metaphor occurs in the context of

healing (cf. verse 28: ). The

467 Cf. for example Micah 5:1-5,

172

metaphorical expression “the bread of the children” (verse 26), as it is used in this

context, seems to directly refer to the request of the woman to heal her daughter (verse

22). However, Hagner (1995:442) points out that “the bread of the children, here is a

symbol of the messianic fulfillment … promised to and now in some way made actual to

Israel (cf. the symbolism of the feeding of the five thousand in 14:15-21).” In other

words, the expression “the bread of the children” refers to much more than just the

healing of people. It has everything to do with participating in the salvation of the

kingdom of God.468

The aspect of “feeding” fits also very well with the image of the

shepherd.

G. The lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14)

The similitude of the lost sheep is another case where Matthew uses the imagery of

sheep. The expression “a man owns a hundred sheep” indicates that the person who seeks

the lost sheep is the owner of the sheep. However, the fact that he leaves the ninety-nine

sheep on the hills, while he looks for the sheep that wandered off indicates that he was

also the shepherd of the sheep, who was actually watching the flock.

Topic: Lapsed believers seem to form the topic of the imagery of the lost sheep. The

similitude is expressed in a context where Jesus talks about “the little ones” (cf. verse 10

and verse 14 which seem to form an inclusio that “embraces” the similitude). According

to Hagner (1995:527), “Here the parable concerns members of the community (“little

ones”) [v 14] who go astray, i.e., lapse, and are brought back (unlike the use of the

imagery in 9:36; 10:6; 15:24, where the scattered “lost []” sheep are

Israelites who have not received the gospel).”

The topic of the shepherd/owner who seeks the lost sheep is not explicitly expressed. It

should be noted that the similitude does not explicitly say that the Father in heaven is like

the human owners/shepherd in that he actually goes to look for the sheep that had strayed

away. It only states that it is the Father’s will that none of those “little ones” will be lost.

According to Hagner (1995:527), “very probably Matthew and his original readers think

of Jesus as the shepherd who goes in search of the stray (see 26:31; cf. 9:36; 15:24;

elsewhere in the NT, John 10:11-30).”

Image: The behavior of human owners/shepherds towards a single sheep that has

wandered off pictures the will of the Father in heaven that none of “the little ones” will

468 Cf. Luke 14:15, where the participation is expressed as “eat at the feast in the Kingdom of God.”

173

be lost. According to Hagner (1995:527), “such is the value of each individual sheep that

the shepherd “will leave” … the ninety-nine “on the hills” …” “The security of the

remaining ninety nine while the shepherd is absent is not a matter of concern in the

parable.”469

Marshall (1978:601) argues that “it is obviously presupposed that the sheep

are left in the care of a helper (cf. John 10:3).”

In this particular context, the focus of the imagery of the lost sheep is no longer on “the

lost sheep of the house of Israel” as a collective group, but rather on the individual sheep

that has wandered off. God is happier about the sheep that had strayed away but that was

found again than about the ninety-nine sheep that did not wander off.

H. Separating the flock (Matthew 25:32)

In Matthew 25:32 a shepherd simile is used to refer to the separation of the righteous

people from the unrighteous. Just like shepherds of mixed flocks separate the sheep from

the goats, the Son of man will separate the righteous from the unrighteous, when he will

come in his glory, and all of his angels will be with him, and he will sit on his throne in

heavenly glory.

Topic: The topic of the shepherd imagery is the glorious Son of Man (Jesus as judge).

The mixed flock that is mentioned here is a congregation of all the nations (not just

Israel). They will be “gathered” () before the Son of Man470

, before they

are separated () into two groups.

469 Hagner (1995:527) sees the expression , “on the hills” as a possible allusion to Ezekiel 34:6. However, if this were a deliberate allusion, it would only make sense if it was intended as a subtle hint that

the ninety-nine sheep that were left “on the hills” were in fact the sheep that were lost, since that is the way

the expression is used in the context of Ezekiel 34:6. An interpretation like this does not seem to fit with the

description in Matthew that the shepherd/owner “is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. It might in fact fit better with Luke 15:1-7 (where there the expression “on the

hills” is not found), where the similitude concludes with a polemical tone: “I tell you that in the same way

there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not

need to repent.” It is very well possible that the language of Matthew 18:12 was influenced by the language

of Ezekiel 34:6, but viewing this as a deliberate allusion does not seem to make sense in the particular

context of Matthew 18:10-14. 470 Hagner (1995:742) interprets the passive form “gathered” as a divine passive (“by God”). However, the question can be asked whether this interpretation is really necessary. Not every

passive in the New Testament that could be interpreted as a divine passive is necessarily a divine passive.

174

Image: Metaphors of gathering and separation are commonly used to refer to judgment.

In Matthew 3:12, for example, the metaphor of the threshing floor and the winnowing

fork is used to refer to the notion of judgment. The wheat is separated from the chaff, and

then gathered into the barn, while the chaff is burnt with unquenchable fire. In this

particular context the notion of judgment is cast in terms of the gathering and separation

of a flock.

I. The slain shepherd and the scattered sheep (Mt 26:31-32)

In Matthew 26:31 Jesus warns his disciples that they will all fall away on account of him

during the coming night. He motivates this prediction by quoting Zechariah 13:7. God

will strike the shepherd, and as a result the sheep will be scattered. However, Jesus also

promises that after he will have risen from the dead, he will go ahead of them into

Galilee. The expression could be interpreted in the sense that “like a

shepherd leading his sheep [emphasis mine; DK], he will go before them into Galilee”.471

Topic: The quotation from Zechariah 13:7 is applied in the sense that the shepherd

metaphor refers to Jesus, while the sheep metaphor refer to Jesus’ disciples.472

In

Zecharaiah 13:7 the good shepherd is slain, while in Zechariah 11:17 the worthless

shepherd is slain.

Image: The imagery of the slain shepherd in the context of Zechariah 13:7 is pictured as

a striking with the sword. In the Gospel passage this aspect is not made explicit.

The mentioning of the angels in verse 31 could be an indication that they are the ones who gather all the

nations together. 471

Hagner (1995:777). However, Lane (1974:510), in his discussion of the parallel text in Mark 14:27-28,

points out that “Gr[eek] can denote a literal walking in front of someone, as in Ch. 10:32, but it is better to understand it in the temporal sense of going somewhere earlier than someone else, as in Ch. 6:45.” 472 Note that only the middle part of Zechariah 13:7 is quoted here. The first and the last part are not

included in this quote. The first part reads: ““Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who

is close to me!” declares the LORD Almighty.” The final part reads: “And I will turn my hand against the

little ones.”

175

7.3.3. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Mark

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: Mark 6:34

(sheep-focused; parallel of Matthew 9:36) and Mark 14:27 (shepherd-focused; parallel of

Matthew 26:31-32).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Mark 6:34 Simile Sheep without a

shepherd

The crowds Lost spiritually;

need salvation

Mark 14:27 Metaphor The slain shepherd

& the scattered

sheep

Messiah & his

followers

(disciples)

Slain / fleeing &

scattered

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Mark includes one simile and one metaphor. Both of

these are found in Matthew too. In one of the passages the imagery was found in an Old

Testament quote: Mark 14:27 (Zechariah 13:7). In none of these cases the shepherd and

sheep imagery was accompanied by imagery from another image domain that referred to

the same topic. In none of these passages the shepherd and sheep imagery was found in

statements or commissioning words related to “mission” (verb ).

A. Sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34)

In Mark 6:34 it is reported that Jesus had compassion on the large crowd, who followed

him on foot, when he and his disciples went away in a boat to a solitary place. Jesus had

compassion on them, because they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (simile), and he

began to teach them many things.

176

Topic: Like in Matthew 9:36, Jesus is not explicitly identified as the shepherd of Israel

who takes care of these “sheep without a shepherd”. However, Jesus’ actions speak

louder than his words. His teaching of the crowds and his subsequent feeding of the five

thousand could be interpreted in the sense that as the shepherd of Israel, he feeds his

people.473

Image: The imagery of “sheep without a shepherd” is identical with the imagery in

Matthew 9:36.

According to Lane (1974:226), “the comparison of the people to “sheep not having a

shepherd” is an allusion to Num. 27:17 and Ezek. 34:5.” He also points out that “in the

context of both of these passages, Mark’s statement belongs to the wilderness theme.” In

Ezekiel 34:25 it says that the people of Israel will “dwell securely in the wilderness”.

B. The slain shepherd and the scattered sheep (Mark 14:27)

The metaphor of the slain shepherd and the scattered sheep, as it occurs in Mark, is very

similar to the use of the metaphor in Matthew 26:31-32. The same part of Zechariah 13:7

is quoted. Only the order of the words differs in the second part of the summarized quote:

in Mark the subject “sheep” precedes the verb “will be scattered”, while in Matthew the

verb precedes the subject. Also, Mark has “the sheep” as the subject, while Matthew has

“the sheep of the flock”.

473 Cf. Grundmann (1980:180): “Im Erbarmen Jesu erscheint das göttliche Erbarmen, das dem hirtenlosen

Volk in ihm den eschatologischen Hirten gibt. Er ist der zweite Mose (Deut. 18,15), er ist “mein Knecht

David” (Hes 34,23), bestimmt sie zu weiden und ihr zu Hirte zu sein. Der Hirt ist der Führer und Helfer des

Volkes. Jesu Erbarmen gegenüber dem hirtenlosen Volk äußert sich zuerst in der Lehre; er beginnt das

Volk vieles zu lehren. Der Hirt führt durch seine Lehre das Volk zur Erkenntnis.” Grundmann (1980:181): “Jesus gibt den Befehl, die Jünger sollen dafür sorgen, daß sich die Leute niederlassen. Er ist also

entschlossen, als gastgebender Hausvater der großen Menge zu walten. Die helfende und fürsorgende Seite

seines Hirtenamts wird sichtbar. Er gibt ihnen nicht allein die Klarheit der Erkenntnis durch seine Lehre,

sondern auch Hilfe durch seine Fürsorge. Wiederum liegen Lehren und Tun eng beieinander; sein Tun

erweist sein Lehren als “neue Lehre in Vollmacht”.”

177

Topic: The reference of the shepherd and sheep imagery is also the same as in Matthew:

“shepherd” refers to Jesus, and “sheep” refers to Jesus’ disciples. The “striking of the

shepherd’ refers to Jesus’ death.

The implied agent who strikes the shepherd is God. He is also the implied agent (divine

passive) who raises Jesus from the dead again.

Image: The imagery of the slain shepherd and the scattered sheep is the same as in

Matthew 26:31-32.

7.3.4. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Luke

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: Luke 12:32

(flock-focused) and Luke 15:1-7 (shepherd-focused).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Luke 10:1-3 Simile Lambs among the wolves

The seventy apostles

Helpless

Luke 12:32 Metaphor Little flock Disciples Worried, anxious

Luke 15:1-7 Similitude Lost sheep Sinners; tax

collectors

Lost spiritually

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Luke includes one metaphor, one simile and one

similitude. None of these is found in an Old Testament quote. In two cases the shepherd

and sheep imagery was accompanied by imagery from two other image domains: Luke

10:1-3 (lambs among the wolves imagery is preceded by harvest imagery). Luke 15:1-7

(the lost sheep; the lost coin; the lost son). In one passage sheep (lamb) imagery is found

in the context of commissioning words related to “mission” (verb ; cf. 10:1).

A. I send you like lambs among the wolves

The imagery of “lambs among the wolves” is found in Luke 10:3, where it is used in the

context of Jesus commissioning the seventy to go in groups of two to every city and place

in the country to proclaim the Gospel. The imagery is even more dramatic than in

Matthew 10:16, where Jesus commissions the twelve, saying, “I send you like sheep

among the wolves.”

Topic: The topic of the lambs simile are the seventy apostles whom Jesus sends out in

groups of two. The topic of the wolves metaphor is probably the enemies of the Gospel.

178

Image: Sheep among wolves are already pretty helpless, but little lambs are even an

easier prey for wolves. Unlike the parallel saying in Matthew 10:16, the warning is not

followed by the advice to be “shrewd as serpents” and “innocent as doves”. Instead, the

sheep imagery is preceded by harvest imagery. Luke 10:1-3 parallels Matthew 9:36-38 in

that sheep imagery is related to the harvest imagery. However, while in Matthew the

sheep imagery precedes the harvest imagery, in Luke it follows the harvest imagery. And,

while in Matthew the harvest imagery is directly linked to the “sheep without a shepherd”

imagery (referring to the crowds), in Luke it is directly related to the “lambs among the

wolves” imagery (referring to the seventy who were sent out by Jesus).

B. Do not be afraid, little flock (Luke 12:32)

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in Luke 12:32, where Jesus reassures the

little flock, and tells them that it is the Father’s pleasure to give them the kingdom. The

passage occurs in a context where Jesus tells his disciples not to worry (12:22-30). All the

things they need will be given to them as well, if they seek God’s kingdom (12:31).

Topic: The topic of the sheep imagery are the followers of Jesus (cf. 12:22). Green

(1997:495) comments: “In spite of their diminutive presence (“little flock”), the disciples

are nonetheless the recipients of God’s dominion.” The meaning of the term “kingdom”

in this context seems to be on the blessings of the kingdom (as opposed to earthly

possessions). The notion of the little flock (sheep) becoming rulers (shepherds) who will

dominate the other people seems to be absent here.

Image: The use of the term “flock” (singular) rather than the term “sheep” (plural) seems

to focus on the unity of the sheep.

This is the only place in the New Testament where Jesus addresses his followers directly

in the vocative as a flock of sheep. It almost sounds like a term of endearment.

C. The lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

The similitude of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7 runs parallel to the one in Matthew 18:12-

14. Jesus tells this similitude in response to the muttering of the Pharisees and the

teachers of the law, who complained that Jesus, referred to as (“this one”)

“welcomes sinners and eats with them”. Interestingly enough, the host motif is connected

to the shepherd motif in this context (like it is in Psalm 23.).474

474 The host motif is absent from the parallel passage Matthew 18:12-14.

179

The shepherd motif and the host motif are also connected by the theme of joy: The

shepherd is rejoicing that the lost sheep has been found, and invites his friends for a meal

to celebrate this. In the same way the heavenly Father rejoices when one sinner repents.

Topic: The topic of the sheep imagery seems to be a lapsed believer. The topic of the

image of shepherd/owner could be Jesus, or refer to both God and Jesus (“Jesus as

fulfilling the role of Yahweh in caring for the lost sheep”; cf. Green 1997:575.)

Image: The shepherd is not a hired worker, but the owner of the sheep, or a member of

the family that owns them.475

According to Jeremias (1963:133), a hundred sheep would

be a fairly normal size for a farmer. However, according to Green (1997:574), “if an

average family has between five and fifteen animals, this one is cast as relatively wealthy

…”

According to Perrin (1967:99-101), the shepherd leaves the flock untended in the

wilderness, while he goes after the lost sheep. Marshall (1978:601), however, suggests

that “it is obviously presupposed that the sheep are left in the care of a helper (cf. John

10:3).” He also points out a subtle difference between Luke and Matthew: In Luke “the

search is carries on until it is successful (, [“until”])”, while Matthew leaves the result

uncertain (, [“if”]).

The similitude of the lost sheep is followed by the similitude of the lost coin (15:8-10)

and the similitude of the lost son (15:11-31). The theme of joy over something (a sheep,

coin, son) that was lost and found again is the connecting theme. Green (1997:573) points

out the “escalation from one parable to the next”: “A shepherd suffers the loss of one

sheep from a flock of one hundred, whereas the woman suffers the loss of one coin out of

ten; this escalation will continue in the next parable (vv 11-32), with the loss of one of

only two sons.”

475 Green (1997:574).

180

7.3.5. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in the Gospel of John

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: John 1:29 (Lamb-

focused); 10:1-16 (Gate & shepherd-focused); 21:15-17 (Shepherd-focused).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

John 1:29 Metaphor Lamb of God Jesus [Will be sacrificed] Takes away sin

John 10:1-16 Metaphor Gate Jesus Save, give pasture,

give life,

abundance

Metaphor The good shepherd Jesus Lays down his life

for the sheep;

bring other sheep,

unite flocks

John 21:15-17 Metaphor Feed/take care of

sheep/lambs

Simon (Peter) Teach/take care of

believers

The shepherd and sheep imagery in John is expressed in three metaphorical passages.

John 10:1-16 is an extended metaphor in which Jesus figures as the Gate and the Good

Shepherd. John 21:15-17 contains three parallel metaphorical utterances, all addressed to

Simon (Peter), and all related to the feeding or taking care of sheep. None of the

metaphorical passages were found in Old Testament quotes. In one case (John 21:15-17)

the imagery of shepherd and sheep was found in the context of commissioning (or rather:

reinstating) an apostle.

A. Jesus the lamb of God (John 1:29)

Strictly speaking the imagery of Jesus as “the lamb of God” belongs to the source domain

of sacrifice and not so much to the source domain of shepherd and sheep (animal

husbandry). However, in the context of discussing the imagery of shepherd and sheep in

the New Testament, it makes sense to include the imagery of Jesus as the lamb of God. In

the book of Revelation the shepherd motif is connected to the lamb motif: the lamb will

be the shepherd of his people. But even in the context of the Gospel of John, it makes

sense to include the lamb of God metaphor. The shepherd metaphor as expressed in John

10 contains the notion of the shepherd “laying down his life” for the flock. This comes

close to the notion of Jesus, as the lamb of God, taking away the sins of the world by

laying down his life .

The background of the expression “Lamb of God” is not exactly clear.476

However,

Carson (1991:150-151) suggests that Isaiah 53:7, 10 may form the background of the

476 Some exegetes think of Jeremiah 11:19 (“I had been like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter”) as the

background of this verse; others think of Genesis 22:8 (“God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt

181

expression. “… as a writer who holds that all (Old Testament) Scripture points to Jesus

(5:39-40), John might well see adequate warrant for the application of this title to Jesus,

sacrificially understood, in the lamb of Isaiah 53:7, 10. The word for ‘lamb’ in the LXX

in Isaiah 53:7 is , as here. Moreover, John appeals to Isaiah 53 elsewhere, and

certainly Isaiah is one of the books from which he most frequently quotes. John might

also have found warrant for this understanding of the expression in the Passover lamb,

and in other Old Testament imagery and institutions.”

Carson’s suggestion that Isaiah 53 forms the background of the expression “the lamb of

God” sounds very plausible. Verse 6 says that “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of

us all,” and verse 6 mentions that “he will justify many and bear their iniquities”, while

the end of verse 12 says that “he bore the sin of many”. This comes close to the concept

in John 1:29 that Jesus did away with the sins of the world. However, the concept of

“taking away” ( the sin of the world is not clearly

expressed in Isaiah 53. The notion of taking away the sin of the people is clearly

expressed in Leviticus 16:22, where it says that “the goat will carry on itself all their sins

to a solitary place.”477

If this interpretation is valid, the imagery of the lamb has blended

with the imagery of the scapegoat in this passage.

Particularly important in this passage is the fact that Jesus is recognized as the Lamb of

God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus’ work of salvation is not restricted to the

people of Israel, but it has universal significance. This is in line with other passages in

John, where the circle of salvation is drawn much broader than the people of Israel. John

3:16478

and John 10:16479

are some other verses where the universal significance of Jesus’

work is articulated.

B. The good shepherd (John 10:1-16)

The imagery of shepherd and sheep, as it is found in John 10:1-16, differs from the

imagery in the Synoptic Gospels in the sense that Jesus identifies himself explicitly as

“the good shepherd” in the verses 11 and 14. In the

Synoptic Gospels Jesus does not explicitly refer to himself as the good shepherd, even

though this is implied in statements like “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”

(Matthew 15:24). In John 10, however, Jesus clearly articulates that he is the good

shepherd.

offering, my son.”). Leviticus 16 (about the scapegoat that was banished to the desert, which was

symbolically carrying the sins of the people) and Leviticus 14 (Jesus as the guilt offering) have also been

mentioned as the background of this expression. Cf. Carson (1991:149) for a summary of the various

views. (Leviticus 16:22 LXX). 478 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not

perish but have eternal life” 479

“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my

voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

182

However, before Jesus identifies himself as the good shepherd, he reveals that he is “the

gate for the sheep”. (; verse 7). It seems like the gate

metaphor is even more prominent in the discourse than the shepherd metaphor is. Both in

verse 1 and verse 7 the gate metaphor is introduced by the very emphatic introduction

In verse 1 Jesus asserts that “the man who does not enter

the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.” And

in verse 7 he states equally emphatic that he himself is the gate. This is followed by verse

8, which says that “all who ever came before me were thieves and robbers”. As the gate,

Jesus is the pathway to salvation: “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be

saved; He will come in and go out, and find pasture.” (verse 9). Jesus’ benefactive

relationship to the sheep is contrasted with the destructive intentions of the thieves and

robbers. The thieves have come to kill and destroy the sheep, but Jesus has come that

they may have life, and have it to the full. (verse 10).

The theme of the good shepherd is already present in the beginning of the chapter: “The

man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate

for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them

out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow

him because they know his voice.” (verses 2-4). This behavior of the good shepherd is

contrasted with the thieves and robbers who climb in (verse 1), and with a stranger whom

the sheep will not follow, because they do not recognize his voice (verse 5). This first

part of the story is identified as a ‘figurative speech’, and the audience did not

understand it (verse 6).

Since the audience did not understand the figurative speech that Jesus had addressed to

them, Jesus explains the meaning of it in the following verses. In the verses 7-10 he

explains that he is the gate of the sheep, and in the verses 11-16 he explains that he is the

good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep. Jesus as the good shepherd is contrasted

with the hired hand, who is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. When the hired hand

sees the wolf coming he runs away and the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. Jesus,

however, is the good shepherd who does not run way, but who lays down his life for the

sheep (verse 15).

Comparison with the Synoptic Gospels reveals some interesting contrasts with the Gospel

of John in terms of the shepherd imagery. 1. In the Gospel of John Jesus makes it very

explicit that he is the good shepherd; in the Synoptic Gospels this is kept much more

implicit; 2. In the Gospel of John Jesus is portrayed as the shepherd who lays down his

life for the sheep voluntarily (10:18); In Matthew and Mark Jesus is portrayed as the

shepherd who was slain by God; 3. In the Gospel of John, the laying down of Jesus’ life

is connected to the unification of the flock (10:16); In Matthew and Mark the slaying of

the shepherd is connected to the scattering of the flock (the disciples); 4. In the Gospel of

John, the work of the shepherd is not restricted to lead the flock of “this sheep pen”

(Israel), but to also bring “the other sheep” that do not belong to this sheep pen (the

Gentiles), and to make them one flock under one shepherd. In Matthew and Mark, on the

other hand, the work of the shepherd is pretty much restricted to helping “the lost sheep

of the house of Israel”.

183

C. Take care of my sheep (John 21:15-17)

In this section Peter is reinstated as an apostle and commissioned as a pastor over the

followers of Jesus who are pictured as Jesus’ sheep and lambs. The background of this

story is that Peter had denied Jesus three times (John 18:17; 18:25-27). Jesus, after his

resurrection, reinstates Peter by giving him the same commission three times: “feed my

lambs” (21:15), “take care of my sheep” (21:16), and “feed my sheep” (21:17). The three

times repeated commission is introduced by a three times repeated question (‘do you love

me …’) and by a three times repeated positive response from Peter.

184

The three utterances with pastoral imagery are parallel, and have more or less the same

meaning.480

Carson (1991:667-668) remarks: “The emphasis is now on the pastoral rather than on the

evangelistic (cf. v. 11).”

Roman Catholic exegetes have interpreted this section in the sense that it establishes the

primacy of Peter as the first pontiff who represents the ruling of Christ on earth.

According to this interpretation, the imagery of the shepherd, as it is found in the Old

Testament, was often connected to the kingly rule (cf. 2 Samuel 5:2). This interpretation

is closely linked to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20.

However, Carson (1996:678) points out that ‘it is true that the figure of the shepherd can

be used to picture authority’, but that ‘this passage does not establish that Peter has

relatively more authority than other ‘shepherds’ of the flock of God.’ Comparison with

Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 4:1-4 shows that each shepherd of the flock of God (Jesus’ sheep)

‘is to mirror both authority and a certain brokenness that is utterly exemplary.’481

7.4. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Acts and the Epistles

7.4.1. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Acts

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: Acts 8:32 (sheep/

lamb-focused); 20:28-29 (shepherd-focused).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Acts 8:32 Simile Sheep led to slaughter / Lamb

being sheared

Servant of the LORD (Jesus)

Oppressed and Killed

Acts 20:28-29 Metaphor Be shepherds of

the flock, of the

church of God

Elders Guard, take care of

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Acts includes one passage with parallel similes and

one passage with a metaphor. In one passage the imagery was found in an Old Testament

quote (Acts 8:32). The parallel images in the simile belong to the same image domain

(animal husbandry), but the first image is about a sheep led to slaughter and the second

one about a lamb being sheared. In one passage (Acts 20:28-29), the words in which the

480 Carson (1996:677). ‘By now it has become clear that the Evangelist constantly uses minor variations for

stylistic reasons of his own … This is confirmed by the present passage. In addition to the two words for

‘love’, John resorts to three other pairs: bosko and poimaino … arnia and probata … and oida and ginosko

… 481 For a more detailed discussion of the various interpretations of this passage, see Carson (1996:678-679).

185

shepherd and sheep imagery occurs sound like a commissioning. However, in this

particular context (farewell address) Paul is not commissioning the elders, but he urges

them to be faithful in what they have already been doing, namely to be shepherds of the

church of God, and to keep watch over themselves and over all the flock.

A. Like a sheep led to slaughter (Acts 8:32)

In this passage about the Ethiopian eunuch Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted as a passage that the

eunuch was reading, while he was on his way back to his country, sitting in his chariot

and reading the prophet Isaiah. The Holy Spirit told Philip to run up to the chariot. Philip

asked the eunuch whether he understood what he was reading. “How can I,” he said,

“unless someone explains it to me?” And he invited Philip to come and sit with him.

(verse 31). The eunuch asked Philip to whom the passage referred. “Tell me, please, who

is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”482

(verse 34). Then Philip began

with that very passage and told him the good news about Jesus. (verse 35).

The passage contains parallel similes about a sheep led to slaughter and a lamb that is

silent before its shearer. This prophecy from Isaiah 53 is then interpreted as referring to

Jesus’ death.

The imagery in this section is different from the imagery in the Synoptic Gospels, where

Jesus’ death is primarily linked to Zechariah’s prophecy of the slain shepherd and the

scattered sheep. It is also different from the image of the Good Shepherd in John 10, who

voluntarily gives his life for the sheep. The imagery of Isaiah 53, as quoted in Acts 8, is

much closer to the lamb of God imagery in John 1:29. However, in John 1:29 the role of

the lamb of God seems to be much more active (it takes away the sin of the world), while

in Isaiah 53 the role of the lamb is much more passive as it is being led to slaughter.

B. Guard yourselves and the flock (Acts 20:28-29)

In Acts 20:17-36 Paul bids farewell to the elders of Ephesus. In his farewell address Paul

urges them to keep watch over themselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit had

made them overseers and to be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with the

blood of his dear own (verse 20). Paul also announces that he knows that after he leaves

savage wolves will come in among the Ephesians and will not spare the flock.

482 It is noteworthy that the eunuch does not ask “what is this all about?” but, “who is the prophet talking

about?”

186

The shepherd metaphor is applied here to the elders. The believers are the sheep. The

wolves are false teachers (cf. verse 30). The expression )

refers to the false teachers coming to the church community, but could perhaps also be

interpreted as wolves attacking the flock.

7.4.2. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Paul’s Epistles

Shepherd and sheep imagery does not occur very frequently in Paul’s letters. It only

occurs in Romans 8:36 (sheep-focused imagery) and in Ephesians 4:11 (shepherd-focused

imagery).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Romans 8:36 Simile Sheep led to

slaughter

believers Oppressed,

persecuted

Ephesians 4:11 Metaphor Shepherds and

teachers

Leaders/teachers in

the church

[give spiritual

guidance]

The shepherd and sheep imagery in the corpus Paulinum includes one simile and one

metaphor. In one of the two passages the imagery was found in an Old Testament quote:

Romans 8:36 (Psalm 44:22).

A. Like sheep to be slaughtered (Romans 8:36)

In Romans 8:36 the sheep metaphor occurs in a quotation from Psalm 44:22. It pictures

sheep led to slaughter, like in Isaiah 53:7, quoted in Acts 8. However, in this case, the

image is not applied to Jesus, but to believers who suffer persecution. The imagery is

similar to the imagery of sheep among the wolves (predators), but here the imagery

implies human agency rather than animal instinct.

187

B. Pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11)

In Ephesians 4:11 the term “pastors” () occurs in a list of apostles, prophets,

evangelists, pastors and teachers. The grammatical structure of verse 11 suggests that the

pastors are closely related to the teachers. It is even possible to interpret the expression

“pastors and teachers” as a doublet, and see them as one group. The term pastor seems to

be used here as a title, or at least as a specialized term for a certain type of ministry in the

church.

The close connection between the tasks of teaching and shepherding reminds us of the

Gospels, especially Mark 14. Some exegetes see pastoring as a matter of feeding the

flock with the word of God (‘Teaching is Feeding’ metaphor and ‘The Word of God is

Food’ metaphor).

7.4.3. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Hebrews

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Hebrews includes one metaphor: Hebrew 13:20

(shepherd-focused). It is not found in an Old Testament quote, and not accompanied by

imagery from another image domain that refers to the same topic.

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Hebrews 13:20 Metaphor The great shepherd

of the sheep

Jesus [Lead to salvation]

The great shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews 13:20)

In this benediction at the end of the epistle to the Hebrews, the expression “the great

shepherd of the sheep” is mentioned. It refers to Jesus, whom the God of peace brought

up from the dead. The benediction contains a paradox in that our Lord Jesus, the great

shepherd, is pictured as being led to life by God rather than leading his sheep to life. This

concept of the shepherd being brought to life again is also expressed in Matthew 26:32

and in Mark 14:28, where Zecharaiah 13:7 is quoted.

This seems to be the only reference to shepherd and sheep imagery in the epistle to the

Hebrews. The emphasis in Hebrews seems to be on depicting Jesus as the exalted king

and the high priest, but not so much as the shepherd. However, the importance of Psalm

188

95 (exodus motif; leading the people out of Egypt and into the rest) in the chapters 3 and

4 should be kept in mind. It is true that psalm 95:7 (“For he is our God and we are the

people of his pasture, the flock under his care”) is not quoted in Hebrews, but this does

not mean that the shepherd imagery is totally absent from Hebrews.

7.4.4. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in 1 Peter

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: 1 Peter 2:25

(sheep-focused passage); 5:2-4 (shepherd-focused passage); 5:8 (predator-focused

passage).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

1 Peter 2:25 Simile Sheep going astray Believers before their conversion

Be away from God; sinful,

disobedient

1 Peter 5:2-4 Metaphor Be shepherds Elders/leaders Care, guard, be

examples

1 Peter 5:8 Simile Prowling, roaring,

devouring lion

The devil Do spiritual harm,

physical harm

The shepherd and sheep imagery in 1 Peter includes one metaphor and two similes. In

none of the passages the imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in an Old Testament

quote, but the simile in 1 Peter 2:25 is a clear allusion to Isaiah 53:6 (Isaiah 53:9 is

quoted in 1 Peter 2:22). In one of the passages (1 Peter 5:2-4) the imagery of shepherd

and sheep is used to admonish the elders to be faithful in leading and guarding the

believers.

A. You were like sheep going astray (1 Peter 2:25)

In 1 Peter 2:25 the life of the believers before their conversion is likened (simile) to

straying sheep. But now they have returned to Christ, who is the shepherd () and

overseer () of their souls. The concepts of shepherding and overseeing,

watching, guarding are closely related. The term “overseer” seems to be a further

explication of the term “shepherd”. Isaiah 53 forms the Old Testament background of this

passage, both in relation to the suffering of Jesus (the Servant of the LORD) (Isaiah 53:4-

5; 7-12) and the straying away of the sheep (Isaiah 53:6).

189

B. Be shepherds of God’s flock; Jesus is the chief shepherd (1 Peter 5:2-4)

In 1 Peter 5:2-4 the shepherd metaphor is used again in close connection with the task of

overseeing the flock of God. But here the shepherd and overseer metaphor is used, not for

Christ like in 2:25, but for the elders () of the church. It is the task of the

elders to oversee the flock of God () without lording it over those

entrusted to them. The shepherds need to be examples () of the flock. While God is

the owner of the flock, Jesus is portrayed as the chief shepherd (). When he

will appear, he will give a crown of glory to the elders/shepherds who have served well.

(God is the owner of the flock).

The pastoral imagery is mixed at this point with the imagery that champions are given a

crown. In terms of shepherd terminology one would have expected the image of the chief

shepherd paying the undershepherds. It could very well be that this image is active in the

background. But it has been replaced by an image that is more powerful: shepherds who

serve well are not just laborers who will receive their wages, but they are champions who

have run the race or fought the good battle and who will receive the crown of glory.

Another interesting point is that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder ().

This expression suggests that there is no hierarchy between apostles and elders. Apostles

are simply fellow-elders.483

The expression “the flock that is under your care” is also

noteworthy: It implies that the flock of believers is one, and that the elders have been

entrusted to oversee part of the one flock.

C. The devil prowls around like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8)

Pastoral imagery is not restricted to the imagery of shepherd and sheep. It is also linked

to predator imagery. In the context of 1 Peter 5:2-4, it is very likely that the imagery of

the flock is active in 5:8. In this verse, the devil is portrayed (simile) as a roaring lion

who prowls around looking for someone to devour. Other predator imagery related to

shepherd and sheep usually mentions wolves (as an image of false teachers) as the

animals who threaten the flock; but here, an even more powerful enemy, the lion,

483 Terminology like this can, of course, easily be used to mask existing hierarchical relationships and as a rhetorical means of maintaining power over other people. People who say that they have no power

sometimes have more power than others who say they have power. However, there is no reason to believe

that Peter is masking hierarchical relationships by referring to himself by the term “fellow-elder”. In terms

of the shepherd and sheep imagery, there is only one chief shepherd (Jesus). Peter himself warns his fellow-

elders to “not lord it over those entrusted to you”.

190

threatens the flock. Peter encourages the believers to be self-controlled and alert and to

resist the devil, standing firm in faith.

Several suggestions have been made with regard to the interpretation of “devouring”.

Albernathy 1998:184 summarizes various related interpretations: “, “devour”

means annihilate [NIC], bring to spiritual ruin [TG], destroy faith [TH], cause believers

to apostasize [IVP, TH], to renounce their allegiance to Christ and so come to spiritual

death [NIBC, WBC], demoralize through persecution so that believers would deny the

faith [BNTC], provoke persecution [EGT, ICC].”

7.4.5. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Jude

Jude contains only one image related to shepherd and sheep: the false teachers are

feeding themselves (Jude 1:12; shepherd-focused imagery).

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Jude 1:12 Metaphor Shepherds who

feed only

themselves

False teachers Motivated by self-

interest; do not

take care of the

believers

The imagery found in this passage was not part of an Old Testament quote. However, it

may allude to Ezekiel 34:2-3. There are several parallel images from other image

domains that predicate the false teachers: These men are also called “blemishes at your

love feasts.” They are compared to “clouds without rain,” “autumn trees, without fruit

and uprooted, twice dead.” They are also referred to as “wild waves of the sea, foaming

up their shame,” and “wandering stars, for whom the blackest darkness has been reserved

forever.” (verses 12-13).

False teachers are feeding themselves (Jude 1:12)

In this passage, the false teachers (godless men) are said to be shepherding (feeding)

themselves. The implied meaning is that they do not shepherd (feed) the sheep. They

rather take advantage of the flock of believers.

191

7.5. The imagery of shepherd and sheep in Revelation

The imagery of shepherd and sheep is found in the following passages: Revelation 2:27;

5:5; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15. Shepherd-focused passages: 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:5; Lion-focused

passages (royalty image, not predator image): 5:5.

Verse Metaphor/Simile Image Topic Ground

Revelation 2:27 Metaphor Rule-shepherd

with iron scepter

Persistent believers Be victorious over

enemies

Revelation 5:5 Metaphor The Lion from the tribe of Judah

The Lamb (Jesus) Powerful person, royal person

Revelation 7:17 Metaphor Be shepherd, lead

to springs of living

water

The Lamb Give eternal life

Revelation 12:5 Metaphor Rule-shepherd

with iron scepter

The Son Be victorious over

enemies

Revelation 19:15 Metaphor Rule-shepherd

with iron scepter

The rider on the

white horse

Be victorious over

enemies

The shepherd and sheep imagery in Revelation includes five metaphors and no similes. In

two passages the imagery was found in an Old Testament quote: Revelation 2:27 and

19:15 (Psalm 2:9). In one case (7:17) no quote was given, but it contained a clear allusion

to Psalm 2:9.

A. Persisting believers will be Shepherd-rulers over the nations (Revelation 2:27)

In Revelation 2:27 the shepherd imagery seems to be based on Psalm 2:9. In this Psalm

the Son (the Anointed One) is pictured as ruling the nations with an iron scepter, and he

will dash them to pieces like pottery. The focus of the image seems to be on the Son’s

absolute superiority and power over the rebelling nations. In Revelation 2:27 this

authority is promised to the believers who overcome and do the will of the Son of God to

the end.

B. The lamb is the lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5)

Strictly speaking, the lion imagery, as it is used in this context, does not belong to

pastoral imagery (the lion as predator) but rather to royal imagery (the lion as king). But

this royal imagery – also expressed as “the Root of David” – is predicated of the Lamb

(verse 6). This creates a symbolism that is highly paradoxal: The Lamb, looking as if it

had been slain, is referred as “the lion of the tribe of Judah.”

192

The picture of the Lamb, as it is recorded in verse 6, is also highly paradoxal: it looks as

if it had been slain, but it also has seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits

of God sent out into all the earth. The seven horns are clearly an image of the power of

the Lamb, and the seven eyes could refer to his role as a judge. Compared to Isaiah 53

and the New Testament texts that speak about the lamb of God, the image has changed.

The Lamb is still pictured as the animal that was slain, but it is also portrayed as a very

powerful person and as a victorious military leader (cf. Revelation 17:14).

C. The Lamb will be their shepherd (Revelation 7:17)

A similar paradox is also found in Revelation 7:17, where the lamb is said to the

shepherd of the people who have come out of the great tribulation, and who have washed

their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (7:14).

Those who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

(another paradox!) are pictured as priests who serve before the throne of God day and

night in his temple (verse 15a). Images of protection and provision are found in the

following verses: he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them (15b;

protection), never again will they hunger or thirst (16a; provision), the sun will not beat

upon them, nor any scorching heat484

(16b; protection), for the Lamb at the center of the

throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to the springs of living water (17ab;

provision), and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes (17c; consolation).

484 The imagery of shade/shadow is active here, even though it is not expressed explicitly.

193

D. The Son will rule-shepherd the nations with an iron scepter (Revelation 12:5)

In Revelation 12:5 the imagery (based on Psalm 2:9) is the same as in 2:27. Here it is

applied to the Son (the Messiah) to whom the woman gave birth.

E. The rider on the white horse will rule-shepherd the nations with an iron scepter

(Revelation 19:15)

The imagery in Revelation 19:15 is the same as in 2:27 and 12:5. Here it is applied to the

rider on the white horse. The rider on the white horse is pictured as a king warrior who

punishes the nations. The name of the rider is Faithful and True (19:11) and the Word of

God (19:13). He judges with justice and makes war. Out of his mouth comes a sharp

sword with which he strikes down the nations. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood

(verse 13), and he is also the one who treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of

God Almighty (verse 15). Cf. Isaiah 63:1-6.

194

7.6. Conclusions

7.6.1. Metaphors and similes

In the New Testament shepherd and sheep metaphors occur more frequently than

shepherd and sheep similes. Shepherd and sheep imagery occurs most frequently in

Matthew and Revelation. Shepherd and sheep imagery is developed most extensively in

John 10.

Category Mt Mk Lk Jn Act Paul Hb 1 Pt Rev TOTAL

Metaphor 6x 1x 1x 3x 1x 1x 1x 1x 5x 20x

Simile 2x 1x 1x -- 1x 1x -- 1x -- 7x

Simile and metaphor 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x -- 2x

Other 1x -- 1x -- -- 1x -- -- -- 3x

TOTAL 10x 2x 3x 3x 2x 3x 1x 3x 5x 32x

7.6.2. Shepherd and sheep imagery occurs in a wide variety of genres

Genre Texts

Prophecy/Vision Matthew 2:6; 26:31-32; Mark 14:27; Luke 12:32; Acts 8:32;

Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15

Warning Matthew 7:15; 10:16; 1 Peter 5:8

Observation Matthew 9:36; Mark 6:34;

Commission Matthew 10:6; John 21:15-17

Indirect refusal Matthew 15:24

Teaching Matthew 18:12-14; 25:32; John 10:1-16; Ephesians 4:11

Announcement John 1:29

Appeal Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:2-4

Lamentation Romans 8:36

Benediction Hebrews 13:20

Motivation 1 Peter 2:25

Criticism Jude 1:12

Encouragement Revelation 5:5

7.6.3. Classification of the texts

With regard to the New Testament texts where shepherd and sheep imagery is found a

distinction can be made between sheep-focused passages, shepherd-focused passages,

predator-focused passages, false shepherd-focused passages, lamb-focused passages.

Shepherd-focused imagery is found in the following passages: Matthew 2:6; 25:32;

26:31; Mark 14:27; John 10:1-16; John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28-29; Ephesians 4:11;

Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 5:2-4; Revelation 2:27; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 12:5;

Revelation 19:15

Sheep-focused imagery is found in the following passages: Matthew 9:36; 10:6; 10:16;

15:24; 18:12; Mark 6:34; Luke 12:32; 15:1-7; Acts 8:32; Romans 8:36; 1 Peter 2:25

195

Lamb-focused imagery is found in the following passages: John 1:29; Revelation 5:5;

Predator-focused imagery is found in the following passages: Matthew 7:15; 1 Peter 5:8

False shepherd-focused: Jude 1:12 (?)

7.6.4. Classifications based on Image, Topic and Ground

Image-based classification of texts:

Image Figurative

Shepherd-owner Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:1-7; John 10:11-16;

Shepherd-servant Matthew 2:6; John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28-29; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2-4

Indeterminate Matthew 9:36; 10:6; 25:32; 26:31-32; Mark 6:34; Mark 14:27; Hebrews

13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15

Topic-based classification of texts:

Image Topic Text

Shepherd Messiah (Jesus) Matthew 2:6; 9:36; 26:31-32; Mark 14:27

Son of Man Matthew 25:32

God/Jesus Luke 15:1-7 (Matthew 18:12-14?)

Sheep Believers (harmless) Matthew 7:15

The crowds (helpless) Matthew 9:36; Mark 6:34

People of Israel (lost) Matthew 10:6; 15:24

Apostles (helpless) Matthew 10:16; Luke 10:3

Believer (lapsed) Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:1-7

Followers Luke 12:32;

Wolves False prophets Matthew 7:15

Enemies of the Gospel,

people who persecute the

apostles (believers)

Matthew 10:16

Grounds-based classification of texts:

Shepherd: Grounds Texts

Dominion Matthew 2:6; Revelation 2:27; 5:5; 12:5; 19:15

Care/Provision/Blessing John 10:1-16 (Gate); Revelation 7:17;

Guidance John 21:15-17; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2-4

Power/protection/deliverance John 10:1-16 (Shepherd); Acts 20:28-29; Hebrews 13:20

Restoration John 10:16 (one flock): restoration motif.

Judgment and vindication Matthew 25:32

Seeking own profit / neglect Jude 1:12

Sheep/lambs: Grounds Texts

Harassed/helpless/lost Matthew 7:15; 9:36; 10:6; 15:24; 18:12-14; Mark 6:34; Luke 15:1-7

Threatened/oppressed/killed Matthew 10:16; Acts 8:32; Romans 8:36; 1 Peter 5:8

Scattered Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27

Anxious Luke 12:32

196

Wandered off/lost 1 Peter 2:25

Sacrifice/take away sins John 1:29

7.6.5. Overview of most important concepts

Category Mt Mk Lk Jn Act Paul Hb 1 Pt Jd Rev Tot

Shepherd of Israel 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

Shepherd of the nations -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3x 3x

Separating the flock 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

Gathering the flocks -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

The slain shepherd 1x 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2x

The good shepherd -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

The great shepherd -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- 1x

The chief shepherd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x -- -- 1x

Lamb of God -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

Lamb as shepherd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x 1x

Lamb as lion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x 1x

Sheep without shepherd 1x 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2x

Lost sheep of Israel 2x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2x

Lost / straying sheep 1x -- 1x -- -- -- -- 1x -- 3x

Sheep among wolves 2x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2x

Little flock -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

Sheep led to slaughter -- -- -- -- 1x 1x -- -- -- -- 2x

The devil as a roaring

lion

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x -- 1x

Apostles as shepherds -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- -- -- 1x

Elders as shepherds -- -- -- -- 1x 1x -- 1x -- 3x

Other -- -- -- -- -- 1x -- -- -- -- 1x

TOTAL 9x 2x 2x 4x 2x 3x 1x 4x -- 5x 32x

7.6.6. Summary

In Matthew and Mark Jesus does not identify himself explicitly as the promised shepherd,

even though his words and actions strongly suggest that he is the promised shepherd. In

John (10:11), however, Jesus articulates very clearly that he is the good shepherd.

In Matthew (26:31) and Mark (14:27) Jesus is portrayed as the shepherd who is slain

(Undergoer) by God, and who is also raised to life again by God (divine passive); In John

(10:14-18), however, Jesus is pictured as the good shepherd who actively and voluntarily

(Agent) lays down his life for the sheep, and who takes his life up again.485

In Matthew and Mark the death of the slain shepherd results in the scattering of the flock

of disciples. The expression “but after I have been raised to life, I will go ahead of you”

485 Cf. John 10:18: “No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it

down and authority to take it up. This command I received from my Father.”

197

may imply the reunification of the scattered flock486

, but this is not explicitly expressed.

In John the voluntary death of the good shepherd results in the unification of the sheep

from the sheepfold (Israel) and the other sheep that do not belong to the sheepfold

(Gentiles).

In Matthew and Mark Jesus is recognized as the shepherd of Israel, who also delivers

Gentiles who believe in him. In John, Jesus is recognized as the good shepherd, without

any restrictions with regard to the people whom he shepherds. He is also the shepherd of

the “other sheep”, the believers from the Gentiles. The universal significance of Jesus is

also made explicit in John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus is the lamb of God that takes

away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Jesus as the promised shepherd is not only concerned about the flock as a group but also

about its individual members. According to John (10:3), he calls his own sheep by name,

and they follow him. According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus as the good shepherd goes

to rescue the one sheep that got lost or wandered off.

The imagery of shepherd is not restricted to Jesus. When Jesus commissions (reinstates)

Simon (Peter), he commissions him with a threefold command that contains shepherd and

sheep imagery: “Feed my lambs” (John 21:15), “Take care of my sheep” (John 21:16),

and “Feed my sheep” (John 21:16). In Matthew (10:6), the commissioning of the apostles

(before Jesus’ death) is also clothed in sheep and shepherd imagery: “Don’t go among the

Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” In this

passage the role of the apostles as shepherds who seek the lost sheep of Israel is probably

implied. But, in Matthew 10:16, the imagery related to the commission of the apostles is

reversed: they are no longer pictures as shepherds who go to the lost sheep of Israel, but

they themselves are like sheep among the wolves. Luke even speaks about lambs among

the wolves. Jesus sent his apostles on a mission that was dangerous and potentially life-

threatening.

The notion that elders are shepherds is also found in Acts, Ephesians, and 1 Peter. Elders

are to guard the flock. The dangers that threaten the flock come from two sides. Both are

described in John 10: thieves and robbers threaten the flock (10:1), and wolves (10:12) do

as well. The imagery of wolves threatening the flock occurs in several places in the New

Testament. This is mainly an image of the false teachers. Another image that is used for

false teachers is shepherds who feed themselves. In 1 Peter the lion (an image of the

devil) figures as the major threat to the believers.

According to 1 Peter, elders need to protect the believers. But they must not rule it over

the believers. Elders must be examples of the flock.

In Revelation the image of the shepherd is pretty much shaped by Psalm 2:9. Here the

image of the shepherd is different from the compassionate and benefactive savior

portrayed in the Gospels. Here the shepherd is the victorious and punitive king who rules

486 The Greek verb form () can be interpreted as a shepherd term (‘go before’). It implies that the disciples will follow.

198

over the nations with an iron scepter. This image is predicated not only of the royal Son

who was birthed by the woman and of the royal rider on the white horse who punishes

the nations, but also of the believers who are persistent in obeying Jesus’ commands.

In Revelation the imagery of the shepherd and the imagery of the lamb are blended and

culminate in the paradoxal confession that the lamb will be the shepherd of the people

who have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb.

The lamb imagery portrays the defenselessness of Jesus and of his followers when they

faced death and persecution. It also portrays the element of sacrifice that is pleasing to

God. But in Revelation the image of the lamb changes: It still has the marks of the lamb

that was slain, but its description in terms of seven horns and eyes is more consistent with

the image of a powerful ram than with a helpless lamb. The image of the lamb has

become an image of power, royalty and victory.

199

8. Theoretical and Methodological Contributions to the Study

of Translation

8.1. Introduction

In the previous chapters (4-7) I have explored the meanings and contexts of the biblical

imagery of shepherd and sheep. The current group of chapters (8-12) forms an

introduction to the chapters 13-15, which will focus on the translation and testing of

biblical imagery in the Una language and other vernacular languages of Eastern

Indonesia. The present chapter gives an overview of methodological and theoretical

contributions to translation in general. Chapter 10 will be devoted to a discussion of the

translation of metaphor. Chapter 11 contains a brief sketch of the Una language and

culture, while chapter 12 gives a rather comprehensive description of Una metaphors.

The term “methodological contributions”, as it occurs in this chapter and in the rest of the

dissertation, is used for translation related publications that offer a systematic reflection

on how metaphors and other linguistic and pragmatic features of a source text can be best

translated into a target language. Methodological contributions focus on guidelines and

principles that help translators to solve translations problems. These contributions usually

have a significant prescriptive component. “Methodological contributions” differ from

“theoretical contributions”, which are predominantly descriptive and explanatory.

Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:25) has rightly observed that a lot of publications on translation

have been presented as “theories”, even though they focused heavily on guidelines and

methodologies. Nida and Taber’s landmark study “The Theory and Practice of

Translation” (1969) is a case in point. Their study is an instructional manual for

translators rather than a descriptive and explanatory study that sheds light on the practice

of translating.

Methodological contributions play an important role in translation didactics and in

translation criticism. Translation practice and reviewing would be seriously crippled, if

translators, reviewers and translation critics would not be aware of translation principles

and guidelines. The knowledge of translation problems and possible solutions is an

important tool for translators as it helps them to avoid certain pitfalls and to find solutions

that have worked before in other situations. It may also save time as it prevents the

translator from spending a lot of time reinventing the wheel. Last but not least,

methodological contributions are also instrumental in shedding more light on translation

problems and in exploring the range of possible translation variants as well as exploring

the contextual factors that play a role in deciding which option is to be preferred, and

which options are less preferable or need to be rejected.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a deep rift between translation theorists on the one hand

and between translators on the other. Translation theorists tend to focus on the

descriptive and explanatory aspects of translation, while translators tend to focus on

methodological issues. Translators sometimes feel that translation theorists are out of

200

touch with the practicalities of translation.487

Translation theorists, on the other hand,

sometimes feel that translators ignore important theoretical issues.

The view taken in this dissertation is that both theory and methodology are very

important for the practice of translating. Theory (description) without methodology

(prescription) results easily in an academic discipline with a low degree of practical

relevance. Methodology (prescription) without theory (description, explanation), on the

other hand, results easily in a rigid practice that fails to re-examine its own assumptions

in the light of newer developments in translation studies and related disciplines.

8.2. Major trends in translation theory

Our discussion of major trends in translation theory will include translation theory in

general and Bible translation theory and methodology in particular. The theory and

methodology of Bible translation is not principally different from the theory and

methodology of translation in general. But the fact that these have developed as two

different fields of research with only marginal overlap and interaction justifies a separate

discussion of these two fields. An important distinctive of Bible translation methodology

is that it pays due attention to the cross-cultural factors that are involved in translating

texts between cultures that share little common ground. Another interesting feature of

Bible translation theory and methodology is that, despite differences in translation

strategies, it is far less diversified than translation theory in general. The practical focus

on translation and translation principles may have kept it from theoretical diversification.

In terms of the interaction between Bible translation research and general translation

research, Nida’s work stands out as the most influential contribution. Nida’s (and other’s)

contributions to Bible translation research (dynamic equivalence; later renamed

functional equivalence) have given an important impulse, not only to Bible translation

theory and methodology, but also to translation theory in general. Gutt’s relevance-

theoretical approach to translation in general was developed in the context of issues

related to Bible translation. His work is of importance for Bible translators as well as

translators in general.488

De Vries’s skopos approach to Bible translation is a good example of applying a key

concept developed in the field of general translation theory (Vermeer, Nord, Robinson) to

the more specific field of Bible translation. His skopos approach has a lot of potential for

overcoming the often unfruitful debate between proponents of literal translations and

advocates of free, meaning-based translations. Translations need to be described and

evaluated in terms of what they intend to accomplish (skopos; function) rather than in

487 See, for example, Peter Verstegen. (1993). Vertaalkunde versus vertaalwetenschap. Amsterdam: Thesis

Publishers. 488 Gutt’s approach to translation has gained influence in circles of Bible translators, even though it has also

received ardent criticism from translators who are in the “meaning-based” camp.

201

terms of a context-independent and function-independent notion of what constitutes the

one and only ideal translation.489

Wilt’s (and others’) frame approach to Bible translation is an excellent synthesis of

insights from general translation theory, cognitive linguistics, culture studies, literary

analysis, and insights gained in Bible translation. Like De Vries, Wilt and his co-writers

pay due attention to the sociocultural aspects of translation. Their textbook is a worthy

successor of Nida’s “The Theory and Practice of Translation” (1969) as a leading manual

for translators as well as translation consultants.

Studies like these bridge the gap between general translation studies and Bible translation

studies. They also help to strengthen the theoretical component of Bible translation

studies, which have traditionally focused on methodology more than on description and

theory.490

8.2.1. Translation theory in general

8.2.1.1. The origin of translation studies as an autonomous academic discipline

Translation practice has a long history that goes back to the translation of a Vorlage of

the Hebrew Bible into the Greek of the Septuagint (3rd

century B.C.).491

Translators of

literature have always reflected on the nature and method of translation, and their

observations and reflections are highly relevant to translation theory. But, in terms of

modern conceptions about what constitutes a theory, they do not qualify as theoretical

contributions. Translation theory, in other words, is relatively new on the scene.

Translation practice led to reflection and methodology in matters related to translation;

and methodology, in turn, gave birth to translation theory.

Translation studies – in the sense of a coherent and autonomous academic discipline – is

also fairly new. Holmes’ article on “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” (1970)

is often recognized as the beginning of translation studies as an academic discipline in its

own right. Holmes laid the foundation for translation studies as an empirical discipline.

489 Koole (1996:95) distinguishes between ‘internal criteria’ and ‘external criteria’ for evaluating Bible

translations. ‘Internal criteria’ for evaluation are based on the goals and methods which the translators had

set at the beginning of their translation work. ‘External criteria’ are based on the insights of current insights

from the field of Bible translation and related disciplines. He uses this distinction in the context of an

equivalence-based description and evaluation of translations, but it can also be applied in the context of, for

example, a skopos-based description of translations. 490 Nida’s work contains a lot of theory-like components, like his model of four basic semantic categories

that underly the surface forms of language. But theory-like components like those are primarily related to

language, culture, communication and meaning rather than to translation itself. Nida’s use of the term

‘science’ with regard to what is actually a model of language and communication provides his model with

an appearance of objectivity. Descriptive linguists have voiced objections against this kind of ‘essentialism’ or ‘Platonism’ (Foley). De Vries (personal communication) refers to Nida’s four categories as ‘English

words written in capital letters’, which do not have an objective and universalist status as underlying forms

of language in general. 491 According to Bayard Quincy Morgan, cited in Brower (1966:271), the earliest literary translation was

made by Livius Andronicus, who translated Homer’s Odyssey into Latin about 250 B.C.

202

He distinguished between translation research that is “illuminating” and between

translation research that is “useful”. The first category includes descriptive translation

studies492

and theoretical translation studies.493

The second category includes translation

didactics, translation criticism, and translation aids.

Holmes emphasized the need for interaction between theoretical translation studies and

descriptive translation studies. If these two sub-disciplines are not wedded, the link

between translation theory and practice is completely lost, and theory formation becomes

“armchair rumination in splendid isolation”.494

He also pointed out that there is a close

connection between translation didactics and translation criticism.

Interaction between these various sub-disciplines is an important concept in Holmes’

model of translation studies:

‘[…] descriptive, theoretical and applied translation studies have been

presented as three fairly distinct branches of the entire discipline, and the

order of presentation might be taken to suggest that their import for another

is unidirectional […] In reality, of course, the relation is a dialectical one,

with each of the three branches supplying materials for the other two, and in

making use of the findings which they in turn provide it […] In view of this

dialectical relationship, it follows that […] attention to all three branches is

required if the discipline is to grow and flourish.’495

Van Leuven-Zwart points out that Holmes approach to translation bridges the gap

between three dichotomies that had existed earlier: 1. The gap between product-oriented

translation research (as exemplified in literary studies-oriented research) and between

process-oriented research (as exemplified in linguistics-oriented research); 2. the gap

between descriptive translation research and prescriptive translation research; 3. The gap

between translation theory and translation practice.

8.2.1.2. Translation research before Holmes

Before Holmes launched his program, translation studies did not exist as an autonomous

discipline. Translation related research and/or reflection had been done long before this

time, but back then it was either embedded in literary studies496

or in applied

linguistics.497

492 Descriptive translation studies are further divided into three major parts: 1. product-oriented research; 2.

function-oriented research; and 3. process-oriented research. See Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:60-61). 493 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:60). In this chapter I have made extensive use of Van Leuven-Zwart’s

excellent overview of the theory and the history of translation in general. Other important sources are:

Venuti (2002), Gentzler (2001), Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997) and Baker & Malmkjaer (2000, [1998]).

Verstegen (1993) and Hulst (1995) also give important insights. Vermeer (2000), Nord (2001; 1997) and Robinson (1997) give a good introduction to skopos theory. 494 Holmes (1970:110). See also: Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:63). 495 Holmes (1970:78-79). 496 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:39-50). 497 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:51-58).

203

A. Literary studies-oriented research

Literary studies-oriented translation research has known a long tradition. It dates back to

Cicero and Hieronymus during classical antiquity and to Martin Luther in the sixteenth

century. During the nineteenth century it was practiced by Schleiermacher, Von

Humboldt, and others. In the twentieth century it was exemplified in structuralism

(Levy), neo-hermeneutics (Apel), polysystem theory (Evan-Zohar; Hermans) and

transfer-oriented approach (Frank; Göttingen school).498

Steiner499

distinguishes three periods in the tradition of literary studies-oriented

translation research: a. the period from Cicero to the end of the eighteenth century; b. the

period that begins with Schleiermacher’s essay (1813) ‘Über die verschiedenen

Methoden des Übersetzens’ and which ends in 1946; c. the period after the Second World

War. He distinguishes two traditions during the latter period: linguistic research that is

focused on computerized translation, and literary research that can be classified as neo-

hermeneutics.

During the first period, the translator’s toolbox consisted of the so-called trivium:

grammar (recte dicere; ‘say it right’), rhetorics (bene dicere; ‘say it well’) and the arts

(ars). Translation was seen first and foremost as “interpretatio”500

, and the goal of

translating was to transfer and explain the “meaning” (res). The “words” (verba) were

seen as instruments that serve this goal.501

There was a clear distinction between

“meaning” and “words”. The “meaning” of the words was seen as the same across

languages (universalistic view on meaning), while the “words” that were used were

viewed as different.502

During the second period the relationship between “meaning” and “words” changes. The

universalism of the first period is exchanged for relativism. Von Humboldt’s vision on

language is in fact a precursor of the Sapir-Whorf thesis. Language is seen as an

instrument that helps people to organize and understand the world. Words are no longer

seen as instruments that express meaning, but as instruments that shape meaning.

Translations are no longer seen as an expression of the original text, but as a subjective

and time-bound interpretation of the original text.503

498 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:50). 499 Steiner (1977 [1975]:236-238). 500 Note that the Latin term “interpretatio” does not have the subjective connotations that are often

associated with the English term “interpretation”. English terms like “explanation” and “explication” are in

fact a much better translation for the Latin term “interpretatio” than “interpretation” is. 501 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:40-41). 502 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:42) points out that Rener’s study (1989) has shown that Nida’s perception

regarding the translation practice during this first period was wrong. Nida (1964:12) had stated that “…

there was no systematic study of principles and procedures … they simply translated.” Rener has shown convincingly that translators during this period used a solid theoretical basis for translating. Even though

this regulated system of norms of principles was not written, it was known and applied by every translator. 503 Schleiermacher related this new vision on language only to ‘Übersetzen’, i.e., the translation of texts

from the domain of arts and sciences. He sees ‘Dolmetschen’, i.e., the translation of texts from the domain

of business as “a mechanical practice.”

204

Schleiermacher distinguishes two different types of translation. “The translator either

leaves the author in peace and moves the reader towards the author. Or, he leaves the

reader in peace and moves the author towards the reader.” According to Schleiermacher,

the first method is the correct one, and the only one that can be successful. He prefers a

“foreignizing” type of translation, which is used to enrich the receiving language.

According to Von Humboldt, the task of a translator consists primarily in helping the

reader to experience the foreignness (“das Fremde:) of a translation. Von Humboldt’s and

Schleiermacher’s perspective on translation was heavily influenced by the Romanticism

of their days.

During the third period, there is a diversification of perspectives on translation.

Polysystem theory is one of the four main traditions during this period.504

According to

this theory, literature is to be viewed as a “system” consisting of various subsystems that

are continuously changing. There is a constant battle between modern and traditional

elements. In this battle, translations play an important role.505

The structuralist Levy has

also made a significant contribution to translation theory. In his view, translators of

literary works do not only reproduce elements of the original text, but they also produce

new elements to create the “illusion” that the translation is a real literary work in its own

right. In order to do this, translators need to make use of the principles of structuralism.

Translators need to research what the communicative function is of individual elements

in the original text, and what linguistic means are available in the target language to

express these functions.506

Several leading researchers have pointed out that the literary studies-oriented translation

research has been characterized by an unfortunate lack of consistency.507

According to

Holmes, the researchers in this tradition “… all too often erred in mistaking their

personal, national, or period norms for general translation laws. And they all too

frequently substituted impressionism for methodology.”508

Nevertheless, the history of

translation and translation research is very fascinating, as it reveals a strong correlation

between translation theory and methodology on the one hand and between the

philosophical assumptions of translators and audiences on the other.

B. Linguistics-oriented research

Linguistics-oriented research is relatively new, as it was not developed until after the

Second World War. Van Leuven-Zwart distinguishes two major traditions in this second

type of research: equivalence research (Kade, Jäger, Neubert, Wilss, Reiss, Koller, Nida,

Catford, Mounin) and the so-called Neuorientierung (“New Orientation”), which was

advocated by Vermeer, Snell-Hornby, Holz-Mänttäri, and others.

504

Structuralism, neo-hermeneutics and transfer-oriented approach also play an important role. 505 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:49) characterizes the polysystem approach by mentioning three important

methodological consequences: a. it is target language oriented; b. it is pragmatic; and c. it is descriptive. 506 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:47-48). 507 Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:39). 508 Holmes (1988:100) (as quoted in: Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:39).

205

Linguistics-oriented research focused on the translation process rather than on translation

products. It was also based on the so-called “standard model” of modern sciences, which

is based on logical positivism. It did not take into consideration Popper’s insight that

every observation is “theory-laden”, and that the human mind is a search light rather than

a container. It was also based on the principle of verification rather than on the principle

of falsification. Despite the fact that the epistemological assumptions of this linguistics-

oriented research are outdated, a lot of it is still well worth reading and relevant to

present-day translators.

According to Toury, “one of the main achievements of the theory of translation in the last

decades” has been the insight that translation is typically a matter of ‘parole’ (‘language

in use’) rather than of ‘langue’ (‘language structure’).509

As a result, translation

researchers developed an interest in non-linguistic aspects of translation too. But, the

main focus of translation research remained on purely linguistic aspects of translation.

Van Leuven-Zwart (1992:52) points out that this was probably due to the high prestige

that formal linguistic theories had gained in circles of translation researchers. Linguistics

was viewed as a model for translation research, and this research was in fact a form of

applied linguistics.

A major concept in this linguistically oriented research was the concept of

“equivalence”. This concept was developed in the context of computerized (computer-

assisted) translation. It was understood in the strict scientific (mathematical) sense of

absolute symmetry and absolute interchangeability. Translation researchers attempted to

define the concept of “equivalence”, which led to an “explosive proliferation of

equivalence types” (Snell-Hornby 1988:19). Kade, for example, distinguished four types

of equivalence: total equivalence, facultative equivalence, approximative equivalence and

zero-equivalence. Koller (1987:186) applied the concept of equivalence to both

denotative and connotative aspects of meaning. He distinguishes the following five types:

denotative equivalence, connotative equivalence, text-normative equivalence, pragmatic

equivalence, and formal equivalence. And Nida distinguished between formal

equivalence and dynamic equivalence. The latter term was defined as “the closest natural

equivalent”. This kind of a translation was intended to give the reader the impression of

naturalness and to cause the same effect on him as the original expression would have

had on the original audience.

During the beginning phase the focus of equivalence research was on cross-linguistic

equivalence of isolated words and phrases. But later, the attention moved to equivalence

at the sentence level and at the text level. Wills focuses exclusively on equivalence at the

text level. According to him, translation is equivalent to the processing of a source text

into a target text. House sees equivalence primarily as functional equivalence.

Since the mid seventies translation researchers have expressed their growing uneasiness

with the concept of equivalence. Wills (1977:157) pointed out that the definitions of the

various equivalence types were generally too vague. Newmark called it a “dead duck”,

509 This Saussurean distinction has also been very influential and fruitful in the field of linguistics in

general.

206

and Snell-Hornby stated that it is “unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory”. He

contended that “… the term equivalence, apart from being imprecise and ill defined (even

after a heated debate of over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry between

languages which hardly exists beyond the level of vague approximations and which

distorts the basic problems of translation.” (Snell-Hornby 1988:22).

Van Leuven-Zwart agrees with Snell-Hornby’s evaluation of the term equivalence. The

fact that the concept is ill-defined and prescriptive rather than descriptive makes it

unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory. She does not discuss the question of

whether or not it can still play an important role in translation methodology and didactics,

nor does she deal with the question of whether or not the term “correspondence” would

be a better alternative instead of “equivalence”.

The discussions related to the equivalence problem have sharpened our eyes to the fact

that translation is not an exact science, but that it is at best approximative. This is

consistent with translators’ perceptions that translating is a skill or even an art.

Translation is not regulated by laws of nature and it is impossible to describe in general

propositions.

Linguistics-oriented research was not confined to equivalence focused research, but it

also includes the work that has been done by advocates of the Neuorientierung (“New

Orientation”). This new orientation in translation studies has been called a “pragmatic

turning point” (Snell-Hornby 1988:67). It was in fact a reaction against Chomsky’s

transformational-generative approach to translation, which focused on the structural

aspects of language. Advocates of the Neuorientierung, on the other hand, began more

and more to focus on the functional and sociocultural aspects of language and translation.

Texts are no longer seen as isolated expressions of language, but they are seen as an

integral part of the socioculture to which they belong. Translation is no longer seen as a

linguistic process of transferring words and sentences from one linguistic code into

another, but it is viewed as an act of communication.510

Vermeer was one of the leading figures of the Neuorientierung. In the context of his

skopos theory, he defines translation as an “information offer” which is “imitated” in the

target language in a way that does justice to its “function”. Translation is not the

transcoding of words and sentences from one language into another. Translation is rather

a complex action in which someone in a new situation and under new functional, cultural

and linguistic conditions informs people about a source text, which he also tries to imitate

in formal aspects, as much as this is possible.

Holz-Mänttäri is another important representative of the Neuorientierung. She even

rejects the term “translation” (“Übersetzen”) and uses the term “translational action”

(“translatorisches Handeln”) instead. She also uses the term “message bearer”

(“Botschaftsträger”) instead of “text”. According to Holz-Mänttäri, the focus of

translation should not be on the source text, but on the function that the translated text

510 It should be noted here that the notion of translation as an act of communication also played an

important role in Nida’s approach to translation.

207

will fulfill in the receiving culture. Hönig and Kussmaul (1982:17) are in the same camp.

They too relativized the importance of the original text for translation, as they ironically

referred to it as “the holy original”. Vermeer (1986:42) speaks of the “dethronement” of

the source text: There is no longer one objective original text. But, the translation is based

one particular interpretation of the original text. According to the representatives of the

Neuorientierung, a translated text cannot be called a translation in the proper sense of the

word before it starts to function as a text in the target culture.

Van Leuven-Zwart points out that, despite the differences between the equivalence

oriented research and the target text oriented research, they have several things in

common. Both traditions are focused on the production of better translation products and

on the improved training of translators. In relation to that, the focus is on methodology

and prescription rather than on theory and description.

Despite these shortcomings, and despite the reductionistic approach of the equivalence

oriented research in particular, Van Leuven-Zwart credits the linguistics oriented research

of translation for its systematic approach, which contrasted with the subjectivity and

unconnectedness of the literary studies oriented approach to translation before and after

the Second World War. The reductionism also had its positive side. It allowed the

researchers to gradually expand the scope of their research in a systematic way. Based on

this, Van Leuven-Zwart sees the Neuorientierung as a continuation of the equivalence

related research rather than as a turning point. The systematic approach followed in the

linguistics oriented research on translation paved the way for the development of

translation studies as an academic discipline in its own right.

8.2.1.3. Translation research after Holmes

Translation studies have really blossomed during the recent past, as translation studies

emerged as a new academic discipline. Venuti (2002:1) mentions that recent surveys

indicate that worldwide over 250 new translator training programs have been started,

which offer a variety of certificates and degrees, both undergraduate and graduate.

Despite Holmes’ attempts to unify the field of translation from an encyclopaedic

perspective, the field is still fragmented into sub-specialties. According to Venuti

(2002:2), “some [studies are] empirically oriented, some hermeneutic and literary, and

some [are] influenced by various forms of linguistics and cultural studies which have

resulted in productive syntheses.” He also points out (2000:3) that “the increasingly

interdisciplinary [my emphasis; DK] nature of translation studies has multiplied theories

of translation.”

A number of recent publications have given significant impulses to the field of

translation. Mona Baker’s (1992) study on corpus-based translation research needs to be

mentioned here. Venuti’s (2002; 1995) book on “the translator’s invisibility” is another

landmark study. Gentzler’s (2001) overview of “contemporary translation studies” is

another important study. Other significant studies include Christiane Nord’s (2001; 1997)

208

“Translating as a Purposeful Activity” and the translation of Katharina Reiss’s work into

English under the title “Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations” (2000).

In terms of descriptive studies, Van Leuven-Zwart’s (1984) study is very interesting. In

this study she develops a rather complicated model for comparative description of

integral translations, and applies it to translations of Spanish narrative texts into Dutch.

The concepts of “transeme” and “architranseme” play an important role in this model,

which has a comparative and a descriptive component. The model is used to identify

translation shifts, such as modulations, modifications, and other changes. Hulst (1995)

developed a much simpler model of comparative description. Her study is primarily

focused on coherence and cohesion relationships in target texts and source texts. She

argues convincingly that translations need to be analyzed both as texts in their own right

and as texts in relation to the original text.

Versteeg’s (1993) study is a critical review of modern translation theory (Van den Broeck

and Lefevere; Van Leuven-Zwart; Holmes) and of Holmes’ work as a translator of

poetry. His norm-oriented translation criticism is much more practically oriented than the

description-oriented criticism that is offered by Van Leuven-Zwart and Hulst.

Newmark’s (1988) “A textbook of translation” is another contribution from a practical

rather than a theoretical perspective. The book is a translation manual for translators. The

book reminded me of Nida’s work, but it is less “theoretical” and more practical and

pedagogical in nature.

The publication of Shuttleworth & Cowrie’s “Dictionary of Translation Studies”511

and

of Baker’s (2001; 1998) “Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies” shows that

translation studies is a growing field of scholarly interest. Venuti’s (2002, [2000]) “The

Translation Studies Reader” is an applauded attempt to make important articles on

translation studies available to students and researchers.

Venuti’s introductions to the various articles also contain important theoretical insights

and observations. The “relative autonomy of translation” is a key concept in Venuti’s

perspective on the history of translation theory. According to Venuti, “the history of

translation can in fact be imagined as a set of changing relationships between the

autonymy of the translated text, or the translator’s actions, and two other concepts:

equivalence and function. Equivalence […] is a variable notion of how the translation is

connected to the foreign text. […] Function is a variable notion of how the translated text

is connected to the receiving language and culture.”512

Venuti also points out that “a translation theory always rests on particular assumptions

about language use, even if they are no more than fragmentary hypotheses that remain

implicit or unacknowledged.” Venuti distinguishes between assumptions that have fallen

into the category of instrumental assumptions and those that are hermeneutic in nature:

“Some translation theories have assumed an instrumental concept of language as

511 Shuttleworth, Mark & Moira Cowie. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St.

Jerome Publishing. 512 Venuti (2002:5).

209

communication, expressive of thought and meaning, where meanings are either based on

reference to an empirical reality or derived from a context that is primarily linguistic, but

may also encompass a pragmatic situation. Other theories have assumed a hermeneutic

concept of language as interpretation, constitutive of thought and meanings, where

meanings shape reality and are inscribed according to changing cultural and social

situations.”

According to Venuti, there is a clear correlation between assumptions about language use

and the translation theories that we adhere to. “An instrumental concept of language leads

to translation theories that privilege the communication of objective information and

formulate typologies of equivalence, minimizing and sometimes excluding altogether any

question of function beyond communication. A hermeneutic concept of language leads to

translation theories that privilege the interpretation of creative values and therefore

describe the target-language inscription in the foreign text, often explaining it on the basis

of social functions and effects.”513

8.2.1.4. Skopos theory

Skopos theory was first formulated by Vermeer, who was a student of Reiss, and then

further developed by Nord. The term skopos is a Greek word for ‘purpose’. Nord

summarizes the skopos theory of translation as follows: “… the prime principle

determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos514

) of the overall translational

action.”515

Vermeer considers translation (including interpreting) as a type of transfer where

communicative verbal and non-verbal signs are transferred from one language into

another.516

Following action theory, he views human action as intentional, purposeful

behavior that takes place in a given situation.517

Translation is part of the situation, but it

also modifies the situation. Situations are embedded in cultures, and therefore “any

evaluation of a particular situation, of its verbalized and non-verbalized elements,

depends on the status it has in a particular culture system.”518

Within the framework of a comprehensive theory of communication, a translation theory

“cannot draw on a linguistic theory alone, however complex it may be.” “What is needed

513 Venuti (2002:6). 514 Nord (2001:27-28) clarifies the notion of skopos by stating that “we can distinguish between three

possible kinds of purpose in the field of translation: the general purpose aimed at by the translator in the

translation process (perhaps ‘to earn a living’), the communicative purpose aimed at by the target text

(perhaps to ‘instruct the reader’) and the purpose aimed at by a particular translation strategy or procedure

(for example, ‘to translate literally in order to show the structural particularities of the source language’)

(cf. Vermeer (1989a:100). Nevertheless, the term Skopos usually refers to the purpose of the target text.” 515

Nord (2001:27). 516 Nord (2001:11). 517 Cf. Nord (2001:16-26), who views translation from six different angles: 1. Translating is a form of

translational interaction; 2. Translating is a form of intentional interaction; 3. Translating is a form of

interpersonal interaction; 4. Translating is communicative action; 5. Translating is intercultural interaction;

and 6. Translating is text-processing action. 518 Nord (2001:11).

210

is a theory of culture to explain the specificity of communicative situations and the

relationship between verbalized and non-verbalized situational elements.”519

Vermeer contends that even the creation of literature involves purposeful action. “Even

the well-known “l’art pour l’art” movement (“art for art’s sake”) must be understood as

implying an intention: namely, the intention to create art that exists for its own sake and

thereby differs from other art. Intentionality in this sense is already apparent in the

expression itself.”520

He states that “the present theory of translational action has a much

wider conception of the translator’s task, including matters of ethics and the translator’s

accountability.”521

According to skopos theory, “the top-ranking rule for any translation is thus the ‘Skopos

rule’, which says that a translational action is determined by its Skopos; that is, ‘the end

justifies the means’ (Reiss and Vermeer 1984:101).”522

Vermeer explains the skopos rule

as follows: “Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The

skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables

your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people

who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.”523

Nord points out that “most translational actions allow a variety of Skopoi, which may be

related to each other in a hierarchical order.” It is up to the translator “to justify

(begründen) their choice of a particular Skopos in a given translational situation.”524

According to Nord, the skopos rule “is intended to solve the eternal dilemmas of free vs.

faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish

translators, and so on.” This means “that the Skopos of a particular translation task may

require a ‘free’ or a ‘faithful’ translation, or anything between these two extremes,

depending on the purpose for which the translation is needed.”

Skopos theory is often misunderstood in the sense that it would imply that the translation

is adapted to the expectations of the target audience. However, Nord makes it very clear

that this is not intended. ‘What it does not mean is that a good translation should ipso

facto conform or adapt to target-culture behavior or expectations, although the concept is

often misunderstood in this way.”525

Vermeer’s perspective on this is consistent with

Nord’s: “What the Skopos states is that one must translate, consciously and consistently,

in accordance with some principle respecting the target text. The theory does not state

what the principle is: this must be decided separately in each case.”526

Skopos theory takes very seriously the idea that translation is normally done “by

assignment”. This means that “a client needs a text for a particular purpose and calls upon

519 Nord (2001:11). 520

Vermeer (2000:225). 521 Vermeer (2000:226). 522 Nord (2001:29). 523 Vermeer (1989a:20), as translated by Nord (2001:29). 524 Nord (2001:29). 525 Nord (2001:29). 526 Vermeer (1989b:182), as quoted in Nord (2001:30)

211

the translator for a translation, thus acting as the initiator of the translation process.”

Ideally, the client would give “as many details as possible about the purpose, explaining

the addressees, time, place, occasion and medium of the intended communication and the

function of the text is intended to have.” Information like this would be an explicit

translation brief (Übersetzungsauftrag).527

According to Nord, “evidently, the Skopos often has to be negotiated between the client

and the translator, especially when the client has only a vague or even incorrect idea of

what kind of text is needed for the situation in question.” She also observes that “clients

do not normally bother to give the translator an explicit translation brief; not being

experts in intercultural communication, they often do not know that a good brief spells a

better translation.”528

Nord makes it very explicit that the translation brief does not tell the translator how to do

their translating job, what translation strategy to use, or what translation type to choose.

“These decisions depend entirely on the translator’s responsibility and competence.”

There may be situations where the client and the translator disagree as to what kind of

target text would serve the intended purpose best. If that is the case, “the translator may

either refuse the assignment (and starve) or refuse any responsibility for the function of

the target text and simply do what the client asks for.”529

In many cases experienced translators are able to infer the Skopos from the translation

situation itself. Vermeer (1989b:183) puts it this way: “Unless otherwise indicated, it will

be assumed in our culture that for instance a technical article about some astronomical

discovery is to be translated as a technical article for astronomers […] or if a company

wants a business letter translated, the natural assumption is that the letter will be used by

the company in question (and in most cases the translator will already be sufficiently

familiar with the company’s own in-house style etc.).”

Nord refers to this kind of a situation as a ‘conventional assignment’. It is based on “the

general assumption that, in a particular culture community at a given time, certain types

of text are normally translated by certain types of translation.” She also points out that

“Katharina Reiss’s correlation between text type and translation method (1971, 1976) is

based precisely on this assumption.”530

According to the Skopos theory, the viability of the brief depends on the circumstances of

the target culture, not on the source culture. “In terms of action theory […] the agents

(sender, receiver, initiator, translator) play the most important parts.” According to Nord,

it is problematic to speak of ‘the source text’ unless we really only mean source-language

527 The English term “brief” was first proposed by Janet Fraser (1995). Vermeer translates the German term

as “commission”; Pöchhacker and Kussmaul use the term “assignment”; Nord (1988) uses the expression

“translation instructions”. The term “brief” “implicitly compares the translator with a barrister who has received the basic information and instructions but is then free (as the responsible expert) to carry out those

instructions as they see fit.” Cf. Nord (2001:30). 528 Nord (2001:30). 529 Nord (2001:30-31). 530 Nord (2001:31).

212

words or sentence structures. “The meaning or function of a text is not something

inherent in the linguistic signs; it cannot simply be extracted by anyone who knows the

code. A text is made meaningful by its receiver and for its receiver. Different receivers

(or even the same receiver at different times) find different meanings in the same

linguistic material offered by the text. We might even say that a ‘text’ is as many texts as

there are receivers (cf. Nord 1992b:91).’531

Skopos theory states that “what the translator can do, and should do, is to produce a text

that is at least likely to be meaningful to target-culture receivers.” Or, in Vermeer’s

terms, the target text should conform to the standard of “intratextual coherence”. (Reiss

and Vermeer 1984:109ff). “This means the receiver should be able to understand it; it

should make sense in the communicative situation and culture in which it is received.”532

In addition to this “coherence rule” which states that a translation should be acceptable,

i.e., coherent with the receivers’ situation, there is another rule, the “fidelity rule” or the

“intertextual rule”. This rule states that, since a translation is an offer of information

about a preceding offer of information, the translated text should bear some kind of

relationship with the corresponding source text.

The three rules of skopos theory are hierarchically ordered. “Intertextual coherence is

considered subordinate to intratextual coherence, and both are subordinate to the Skopos

rule. If the Skopos requires a change of function, the standard will no longer be

intertextual coherence with the source text but adequacy or appropriateness with regard to

the Skopos (Reiss and Vermeer 1984:139). And if the Skopos demands intratextual

incoherence (as in the theatre of the absurd), the standard of intratextual coherence is no

longer valid.”533

“In Skopostheorie, equivalence means adequacy to a Skopos that requires that the target

text serves the same communicative function or functions as the source text, thus

preserving ‘invariance of function between source and target text’.”534

Nord makes a distinction between “intention” and “function”. “‘Intention’ is defined

from the viewpoint of the sender, who wants to achieve a certain purpose with the text.

Yet the best intentions do not guarantee a perfect result, particularly in cases where the

situations of the sender and the receiver differ considerably.” She acknowledges that “this

531 This relativist (or: dynamic) concept of text meaning and function is very common in modern theories of

literary reception. It should be noted, however, that skopos theory is also compatible with positions that are

less relativist. Proponents of the classical view that texts have objective meaning will acknowledge that this

objective meaning is often not the same as the meaning of the text as it is subjectively understood.

Objective meaning and subjective interpretation do not completely overlap. The way people interpret texts

cannot always be characterized as careful ‘exegesis’; it is often mixed with ‘eisegesis’. But, even if people

consistently attempted to understand texts on their own terms and in their original contexts, then there

would still be a discrepancy between the objective meaning of the text and the subjective interpretation. Historical, spatial, linguistic, cultural and psychological barriers as well as inherent indeterminacy of texts,

literary texts in particular, guarantee that a text is always more than its interpretation. 532 Nord (2001:32). 533 Nord (2001:32-33). 534 Nord (2001:36).

213

distinction is particularly useful in translation, where the sender and receiver by

definition belong to different cultural and situational settings.”535

Nord links her view of skopos theory with a text typology which is reminiscent of

Bühler’s organon model and of Reiss’s classification of texts. She distinguishes the

following functions in translation: referential, expressive, appellative, phatic.536

Skopos theory can be summarized by a number of quotes from Nord (1988).537

1. “Being culture-bound linguistic signs, both the source text and the target text are

determined by the communicative situation in which they serve to convey a

message.”538

2. “The function of the target text is not arrived at automatically from an analysis of

the source text, but is pragmatically defined by the purpose of the intercultural

communication.”539

3. “The translator is not the sender of the ST [source-text] message but a text

producer in the target culture who adopts somebody else’s intention in order to

produce a communicative instrument for the target culture, or a target-culture

document of a source-culture communication.”540

4. “The reception of a text depends on the individual expectations of the recipient,

which are determined by the situation in which he receives the text as well as by

his social background, his world knowledge, and/or his communicative needs.”541

5. “By means of a comprehensive model of text analysis which takes into account

intratextual as well as extratextual factors the translator can establish the “function-

in-culture” of a source text. He then compares this with the (prospective) function-

in-culture of the target text required by the initiator, identifying and isolating those

ST elements which have to be preserved or adapted in translation.”542

6. “Functional equivalence between source text and target text is not the “normal”

skopos (purpose) of a translation, but an exceptional case in which the factor

“change of functions” is assigned zero.”543

7. “Translation is the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship

with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded

function of the target text (translation skopos). Translation allows a communicative

act to take place which because of existing linguistic and cultural barriers would

not have been possible without it.”544

535 Nord (2001:28). 536 Nord (2001:40-44). 537 See Robinson (1997:207-212), who brought these quotes together, and commented on them. 538 Nord (1991:7). 539 Nord (1991:9). 540

Nord (1991:11). Note that Pym (1998) has criticized the idea that a translator is a text producer in the

target culture. He views translators as people who work in intercultural spaces (overlap between the source culture and the target culture) and who mediate between the source culture and the target culture. 541 Nord (1991:16). 542 Nord (1991:21). 543 Nord (1991:23). 544 Nord (1991:28).

214

Skopos theory seems to be a valuable theory of translation, as it recognizes the social

function(s) of translations and the important role that translators, commissioners and

audiences play in the process of translating.

8.2.2. The theory of Bible translation545

8.2.2.1. Nida and Taber (1969)

The theory and methodology of Bible translating has a long history. It goes back to

Jerome (347-419 A.D.) and Augustine (354-430 A.D.)546

in the early church and to

Martin Luther (1483-1546) during the Reformation time of the sixteenth century. Since

then it has occupied the minds of translators, exegetes and theologians for a long time.

However, the first in-depth systematic studies on how the Scriptures can be best

translated did not appear until the sixties of the twentieth century, when Nida and his

associates started to spell out the methods of Bible translating in the context of

missionary translation and linguistic theory.

Nida and Taber’s landmark study on “The Theory and Practice of Translating” (1969)

was highly influential and set the stage for a new understanding of translation. This new

approach to translation, which was initially named the “dynamic equivalence” method,

was formulated in terms of a system of priorities: 1. Contextual consistency has priority

over verbal consistency (or word-for-word concordance); 2. Dynamic equivalence has

priority over formal correspondence; 3. The aural (heard) form of translation has priority

over the written form; 4. Forms that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which

a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more

prestigious.547

The linguistic framework that Nida and Taber were working from was Chomsky’s

transformational-generative grammar. Chomsky’s distinction between the deep structure

and the surface forms of language was adopted (and adapted) by Nida, and applied to the

language and translation. Nida’s method of analyzing messages helped translators to

discover the underlying meanings, which were then expressed in kernel sentences. The

translation process was described as a transfer from language A to B. It involved three

steps: 1. Analysis (grammatical and semantic) of the surface structures of a message in

545 Several overviews have been written about the development of Bible translation theory. Nida, Eugene

A. “Trends in Bible Translating within the United Bible Societies: An Historical Perspective.” In: TBT 42,

no. 2a (April 1991), p. 2-5. Larson, Mildred L. “The Summer Institute of Linguistics and Translation.” In:

TBT 42, no. 2a (April 1991), p. 27-34. Hope, Edward R. “Redefining a Functional Theory of Translation.”

In: Basil Rebera et al. (1997). Current Trends in Scripture Translation. UBS Bulletin 182/183. P. 7-19. De

Blois, Kees F., “Functional Equivalence in the Nineties: Tendencies in the Application of Functional

Equivalence Principles in Different Parts of the World.” In: Basil Rebera (1997) P. 21-29. Naudé, J.A., “An

Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implications for

Bible Translation” in: Naudé, J.A. & C.H.J. Van der Merwe (Eds.). (2002). Contemporary Translation

Studies and Bible Translation. A South African Perspective. Bloemfontein: UFS, p. 44-69. 546 Cf. Kelly (1979:8-9). 547

Nida and Taber (1969:14).

215

language A; 2. Transfer of the analyzed material in the translator’s mind into language B;

3. Restructuring of the analyzed material in a form that is fully acceptable in the receptor

language.

Nida’s “grammatical” analysis548

was in fact some type of semantic (logical) analysis of

sentences, based on four basic categories: Objects (O), Events (E), Abstractions (A), and

Relations (R). These categories helped translators to discover the underlying meanings of

the surface forms of language. Expressions like “the will of God” and “the foundation of

the world” were analyzed as Events, and were accordingly re-expressed in kernel

sentences as “God wills” and “[God] created the world”.549

This transformation into

kernel sentences formed the bridge between the message of the source text and the

translation into the target language.550

In the process of transformation and translation implied information was usually

incorporated into the kernel sentences. Ephesians 1:7 (KJV)551

, for example, was

analyzed into five kernel sentences, which added implied information: 1. [God] redeems

us; 2. [Christ dies] (sheds his blood); 3. [God] forgives; 4. [We] sin; 5. [God] shows grace

richly.552

The logical relationships between these kernels were then identified, and based

on this a near-kernel statement was formulated. The near-kernel statement for Ephesians

1:7, as formulated by Nida and Taber, reads as follows: “God redeemed us through

548 Another important part of Nida’s analytical approach to text interpretation and translation was his model

of componential analysis, which was used as a tool to analyze and define the meanings of key words in

relation to related words. 549 Nida & Taber (1969:43). 550 It should be noted that Nida did not claim that these kernel sentences form a universal deep structure

that underlies every language. He only claimed that transfer from kernel sentences in one language into

kernel sentences of another language is much easier than transferring the surface forms from one language

into the surface forms of another language. Cf. Nida & Taber (1969:39): “From the standpoint of the

translator (…) what is even more important is than the existence of kernels in all languages is the fact that

languages agree far more on the level of the kernels than on the level of the more elaborate structures. This

means that if one can reduce grammatical structures to the kernel level, they can be transferred more readily and with a minimum of distortion.” Nida & Taber’s footnote 9 on the same page shows how they

view the relationship between kernel sentences and Chomsky’s concept of deep structure: “For this book on

the theory and practice of translation we are not advocating that the translator go below the level of the

kernels to the underlying bases, the “deep structure.” There are certain theoretical interests in such an

approach, but practically, the bases are neither useful nor advisable, since these bases cannot be readily

manipulated. When the message is transferred, it is not, however, on precisely the kernel level, for if this

were the case, the connections between the kernel elements would be lost or obscured. Therefore, the

transfer is made at a near-kernel level, in which the relevant connections between the kernels are explicitly

marked.” This footnote makes it clear that the kernel sentences are not identical with Nida’s understanding

of the concept of “deep structure”, but that they form an intermediate level between this deep structure and

the surface forms of language. The actual transfer from one language into an other takes place not at the

level of kernel sentences, but at the level of near-kernel sentences which apparently are one step further removed from the deep structure and closer to the surface structure, or “the more elaborate structures” as

Nida and Taber call them. 551 Ephesians 1:7 (KJV): “in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

according to the riches of his grace”. 552 Nida & Taber (1969:53).

216

Christ’s shedding of his blood, and God forgave our sins. All this indicates how richly

God showed his grace.”553

Analyses like these were helpful to translators who were struggling to express

complicated messages from the New Testament (especially from the Pauline epistles)

into languages that had structures that were completely different from Greek and which

often lacked corresponding terminology. At the same time, Nida’s approach was heavily

criticized by theologians and exegetes, who rightly pointed out that transformations like

these often involved a change of meaning that was not necessarily supported by the

source text. Nida’s critics did not always take into account that his model was intended as

an analytical tool, and that the kernel sentences were not supposed to be the final

translation product.554

But, they had a point when they expressed concerns that this kind

of translation method can easily lead to interpretative translations that do not faithfully

reflect the meaning of the source text.

Nida’s intention, however, was to communicate the message, not to adapt it. His

intention was primarily missionary. In a sense, he is like Martin Luther, who made a case

for clear and idiomatic translations in the vernacular languages: “We do not have to

inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German … Rather we must inquire about

this of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the market

place. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translation

accordingly. That way they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German

to them.”555

8.2.2.2. Later developments

Nida & Taber were not the only scholars who advocated the new dynamic equivalence

approach to translation. Wonderly and Smalley were some others who supported this

approach. Wonderly (1968) wrote a book on “Bible translations for popular use”, in

which he advocated the use of popular language versions and common language versions.

Smalley also wrote various publications, including “Translation as Mission” (1991).

Support for the dynamic equivalence approach did not remain within the boundaries of

the American Bible Societies and the United Bible Societies. The new approach was also

advocated by leading scholars who worked in the context of the Summer Institute of

Linguistics. Beekman & Callow published their “Translating the Word of God” in 1974.

The translation principles that were explained and illustrated in this textbook are pretty

much the same as the ones proposed by Nida & Taber. Beekman & Callow’s book is less

theoretical and more practical. It also devotes more attention to metaphors and rhetorical

questions than Nida & Taber do.

553 Nida & Taber (1969:53). 554

Ephesians 1:7 in Today’s English Version, for example, stays much closer to the forms of the source

text than the near-kernel statement seems to suggest: “For by the blood of Christ we are set free, that is,

our sins are forgiven. How great is the grace of God, which he gave to us in such large measure!” 555 Martin Luther (1960 [1530]). On Translating: An Open Letter.

217

Beekman & Callow’s textbook was soon followed by the publication of two companion

volumes: “Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God” (1974), written by

Kathleen Callow, and “A Manual for Problem Solving in Translating the Word of God”

(1975), written by Mildred Larson. Other important publications were written by

Katharine Barnwell (1980) and Mildred Larson (1984). Since Larson’s publication, the

term “meaning-based translation” has become the more or less official cover term for

the translation philosophy and translation principles advocated by SIL.

The translation research that was done by researchers working in the context of UBS, SIL

and other Bible translation agencies was not limited to linguistics and semantics. The

communicative view of translation, which dominated translation method and translation

practice, fostered a multi-disciplinary approach to translation. This multi-disciplinary

approach included cultural studies and literary studies. Nida’s own work included some

studies on translation and culture.556

Wendland’s (1987) study on “The Cultural Factor in

Bible Translation” was a significant contribution to our understanding of how cultural

factors can affect translation. Wendland has also contributed a study on the literary

analysis of Old Testament poetry557

and a study on vernacular poetry in African

languages.

A number of studies placed the work of Bible translation in a missiological context.

Nida’s “Message and Mission” (1960) is to be mentioned here as a foundational study.

Dye (1980) studied the spiritual impact of the Bible translation strategy as a missionary

strategy on the people who were using these vernacular translations. Shaw (1988) wrote a

textbook on missiology from the perspective of transcultural communication. In this

textbook communicative Bible translation is used as a model for other communication

tasks in the context of cross-cultural mission work.558

Klem’s (1982) study on the oral communication of the Scripture in the context of African

oral art is also very significant. Box (1992) did a similar study, which highlighted the

importance of oral-aural communication.

Two other important studies that need to be mentioned in this context are Renck’s (1990)

study on the contextualization of Christianity and the Christianization of language559

and

Sanneh’s (1998) study on the missionary impact of translated Scriptures on the culture of

the audiences that use those Scriptures.560

556 Nida, Eugene A. & William D. Reyburn. (1981). Meaning Across Cultures. American Society of

Missiology Series, no. 4. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. 557 Wendland, Ernst R. (1998). Analyzing The Psalms – With Exercises for Bible Students and Translators.

Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 558 Shaw, R. Daniel. (1988). Transculturation. The Cultural Factor in Translation and Other Communication Tasks. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library. 559 Renck, Günther. (1990). Contextualization of Christianity and Christianization of Language: A Case

Study from the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Erlangen: Verlag der Evangelisch-Lutherische Mission. 560 Sanneh, Lamin. (1998). Translating the Message. The Missionary Impact on Culture. New York:

Maryknoll (Orbis Books).

218

In 1986 De Waard and Nida wrote another textbook on translation methodology under

the title “From One Language to Another”.561

In this textbook the authors abandon the

term “dynamic equivalence” and replace it by “functional equivalence”. The approach to

translation is more conservative than in the earlier publications.562

The forms of language

are explicitly recognized as being important to the meanings of words, sentences and

texts. The authors caution translators that they should not misuse the theory of translation

by taking unwarranted liberties with the text.

De Waard and Nida’s (1986) marks an important shift of focus in the theory and

methodology of translation as it was advocated in circles of the United Bible Societies.

Matters related to form, style and pragmatics became increasingly important, as these

were more and more recognized as being important contributing factors to meaning. This

changing focus in UBS circles was not paralleled by a similar shift in SIL circles. SIL

translators who were academically active focused on the grammatical and lexical

description of vernacular languages or on the development of exegetical aids such as

Semantic Structure Analyses, Translator’s Notes and Exegetical Summaries. But very

little work was done to further develop translation theory and methodology, as it had

been formulated by Beekman and Callow, Larson and Barnwell, or to reflect on the

changes that had taken place in UBS circles. Theoretical work that was done remained

largely within a semantic framework.563

The development of exegetical and translation aids has been an important part of the

work of both UBS and SIL. UBS developed a whole series of Translation Handbooks, in

which relevant exegetical and translational issues are presented to translators in a

pericope-by-pericope presentation. Other helps for translators include a monography on

the flora and fauna of the Bible and a manual on orthography. Articles on exegetical

problems and translation problems and solutions are regularly published in The Bible

Translator. SIL’s major contributions to the development of translation aids have already

been mentioned in the previous paragraph. Deibler’s Index of Implicit Information564

and

Carlton’s Translator’s Reference Tool are two other important contributions. Exegetical

561 de Waard, Jan & Eugene A. Nida. (1986). From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in

Bible Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 562 The main reasons for this shift are the increasing awareness that form is constitutive for meaning and the

fact that the authors felt that some translators had gone too far in applying the principles of dynamic

equivalence. The critical reception of dynamic equivalence by some leading exegetes, biblical scholars and

church leaders does not seem to have been an important factor here. For a critical evaluation of dynamic

equivalence theory by biblical scholars, see Van Bruggen (1975; 1978) and Carson (1987). 563 For example, Beekman, John, John C. Callow & M. Kopesec. (1981). The Semantic Structure of Written

Communication. 5th edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Callow, Kathleen. (1998). Man and

Message. A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of

America. Callow (1998) does include pragmatic aspects of meaning in her cognitive theory of meaning, but

semantic coding is still the dominating framework in her theory. 564

Deibler’s work on implicit is an in-house tool for SIL translators, and has not been released for review.

Deibler has sometimes been criticized for making too much information explicit in his presentation of the Biblical source text and for being too interpretative. Critics should bear in mind, however, that Deibler

himself cautions users of the Index to use it with discernment, and to not be more explicative in the

translation than is strictly necessary. Even though I personally do not always agree with the author’s

analyses, I’d like to express my appreciation for his contribution to our understanding of implied

information in the New Testament.

219

problems and translation problems used to be discussed in articles appearing in Notes on

Translation, but the publication of this journal has recently been discontinued.565

The development of computer tools for translators is perhaps the biggest contribution to

translators. Translator’s Workplace (developed by SIL) and Paratext (developed by

UBS) are the two major contributions that are directly related to translation. Shoebox and

Lingualinks are other computer tools that have made life so much easier for translators

and consultants.

Another major shift that has been taking place since the seventies and eighties of the

twentieth century is the fact that Bible translation is more and more being done by

national translators who speak the target language as a mother tongue rather than by

missionary translators from the Western world who are assisted by native speakers. The

United Bible Societies no longer work with expatriate translators. National translators do

the translation work, while expatriate consultants and a growing number of national

consultants are responsible for the checking of the translated Scriptures. In SIL there is a

growing focus on the training and mentoring of national translators and on transferring

responsibilities to them, but there remain situations where expatriate translators are still

primarily responsible for the translation work.

The shifting focus from expatriate translators to national translators as the people who are

primarily responsible for the translation work has important consequences for the work of

expatriate translation experts. Training and mentoring of national translators as well as

the development of training curriculum and training materials in the national language

has become more and more important. Katy Barnwell’s training manual for mother

tongue translators and Jerry Allen’s (1986) Handbook for Mother Tongue Translator

Programs are foundational works in this respect.

The new focus on translation done by national translators and the increased training

needs have stimulated expatriate consultants to become more and more involved in the

development of training programs for national translators at institutions of higher

education. This kind of formal training is usually complemented by informal training in

workshops and seminars.

The increasing participation of non-Western translators and consultants in translation

programs has stimulated some interest in theoretical issues related to quality assurance

and checking procedures. To what degree are program planning and evaluation and

checking procedures helpful to non-Western translators, and to what degree do they need

to be contextualized? And, to what degree does a change of procedures affect the quality

of the translation product? A lot of theoretical and descriptive work remains to be done is

565

Another important source of theoretical and methodological contributions to translation studies are new

Bible translation project in national languages, like, for example, the Dutch New Bible Translation Project. This project started in 1993 and is scheduled to be completed in 2004. This translation intends to fulfill a

liturgical and literary function. Its underlying translation philosophy is summarized as being ‘faithful to the

source text’ (‘brontekstgetrouw’) as well as being ‘oriented towards the target language’

(‘doeltaalgericht’). An important methodological distinction that is used in this project is the one between

‘language properties’ (‘taalkenmerken’) and ‘text properties’.

220

this area. Shelden’s (1999) master’s thesis on “Training Southeast Asians to Test

Translation for Comprehension” is a pioneering study that explores ways of training

national translators to perform checking procedures in a way that is consistent with their

culture. Rountree’s (2001) doctoral dissertation on “Testing Scripture Testing for

Comprehension” focuses on theoretical and methodological issues related to Scripture

checking in general.

8.2.2.3. Relevance theory and translation

A. Some basic concepts and tenets of relevance theory

The functional equivalence and meaning-based approaches to translation, as developed in

leading circles of UBS and SIL respectively, were seriously challenged, when Ernst-

August Gutt, an SIL translator, started to publish books and articles in which he applied

the principles of relevance theory to translation. Even though Gutt claims that it is his

aim to be “neither descriptive nor prescriptive … but explanatory”, his contributions to

translation theory have often been understood as posing a serious challenge to the

foundations of meaning-based translation.

Gutt formulated his account of communication and translation in the context of relevance

theory. Relevance theory is a theory of human communication that was developed by

Sperber and Wilson (2001, [1986]). A basic tenet of this theory is that a lot of our

communication is based on inferencing (drawing conclusions) rather than on meaning

that is encoded in utterances. When we communicate, we do not always say what we

mean, but this does not prevent the hearer from understanding what we mean. The hearer

is able to do so, based on the context-dependent principle of relevance.

If Mary, for example, said, “The back door is open,” the implied message (intended

implicature) might be, “We need to close the back door.”566

However, the same utterance

might also be used with the implied message, “Please enter through the back door.” In the

first context, the speaker is perhaps concerned that thieves might come into the house,

while in the second context, he invites someone to enter through the back door. The

cognitive context of speakers and hearers (shared knowledge, assumptions) and the

understanding of the actual situation will help to recognize which interpretation is

relevant in a certain situation.

The distinction between saying (utterance) and meaning (implicating) has been common

in pragmatic approaches to language and communication, ever since Grice (1957)

introduced this distinction. However, a major difference between relevance theory and

between other pragmatic approaches is that relevance theory bases communication on

only one communicative principle (relevance), while the other theories usually recognize

four or more communicative maxims that guide speakers and hearers in their

communication.567

566 Cf. Gutt (2000:44-45) for this example. 567

Grice (1975), for example, distinguishes four different maxims which together form the cooperative

principle of communication. These four maxims are: 1. the maxim of quantity (give the right amount of

221

In relevance theory, communication is seen as a modification of the cognitive

environment of the hearer. These context modifications are called contextual effects.

Contextual effects “can be of three kinds: they can consist in the derivation of contextual

implications, in the strengthening, or confirmation, of assumptions already held, or in the

elimination of assumptions due to a contradiction.”568

Relevance is “dependent on the interplay of two factors: contextual efforts and processing

effort.” Both of these factors are context-dependent, and as a result the principle of

relevance itself is context-dependent too.569

Sperber and Wilson (1986:158) formulated

the principle of relevance as follows: “Every act of ostensive communication

communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance.” Gutt explains this as

follows: “Thus whenever someone shows that he wishes to communicate, he implicitly

and automatically conveys the assumption that the hearer can expect to derive adequate

contextual effects without spending unnecessary effort.”570

“Interpretive resemblance” is a key concept in relevance theory. Gutt defines this concept

as follows: “Considering (…) that the main purpose of utterances is to convey the set of

assumptions which the communicator intends to convey, it seems reasonable to define

interpretive resemblance between utterances in terms of assumptions shared between the

intended interpretations of these utterances.”571

He than concludes that “… we can say

that two utterances, or even more generally, two ostensive stimuli, interpretively

resemble one another to the extent that they share their explicatures and/or

implicatures.”572

B. Relevance theory and translation

Relevance theory makes a distinction between descriptive use and interpretive use of

language. In the specialized jargon of relevance theory the difference between these

concepts is explained as follows: “Human beings have two different ways of entertaining

thoughts – they can entertain them descriptively, in virtue of their being true of some

state of affairs, and they can entertain them interpretively, in virtue of the interpretive

resemblance they bear to some other thoughts, and this difference makes itself felt in

communication as well.”573

information; i.e., a. make your contribution as informative as is required; and b. do not make your

contribution more informative than is required.); 2. the maxim of quality (try to make your contribution one

that is true, i.e., a. do not say what you believe to be false; and b. do not say that for which you lack

adequate evidence.); 3. the maxim of relation (be relevant); 4. the maxim of manner (be perspicuous, i.e., a.

avoid obscurity of expression; b. avoid ambiguity; c. be brief; d. be orderly.). Leech (1983:16) adds a

principle of politeness (with maxims of tact, generosity, approbation and modesty) and a principle of irony

as principles of interpersonal rhetoric. In terms of textual rhetoric he distinguishes four additional

principles: processibility, clarity, economy and expressivity. 568 Gutt (2000:29). 569 Gutt (2000:31). 570 Gutt (2000:32). 571 Gutt (2000:46). 572 Gutt (2000:46). 573 Gutt (2000:58-59).

222

Gutt applies this distinction of descriptive use and interpretive use of language not only to

intralingual use but also to interlingual use, when translating from one language to

another.574

In his competence-based approach to translation, he does not see a need to

develop a specific theory of translation. Different ways of translating can be accounted

for in terms of communication, as understood by relevance theory, as different forms of

language use.

Gutt sees translation as interlingual interpretive language use. The notion of

“faithfulness” plays an important role in this. The notion is defined as “resemblance with

the original in relevant aspects”.575

The concept of “translation principle” is defined as

“do what is consistent with the search for optimal relevance.”576

An important distinction in Gutt’s relevance theoretical account of translation is the

difference between direct translations and indirect translations.577

Both types of

translation are seen as instances of interpretive language use.578

This distinction is based

on the opposition between direct speech and indirect speech. According to Gutt, “direct

quotations are of special interest for interpretive use; since they preserve all the linguistic

properties of the original, they give the audience the possibility of reconstructing for itself

the meaning intended by the original communicator, provided it uses the contextual

assumptions envisaged for the original act of communication.”579

Gutt’s account of translation is, in his own words, “…neither descriptive nor prescriptive

in its thrust, but explanatory.” He goes on to say that, “its aim is not to give a systematic

account of what people do in translation nor to tell them what they ought to do. It rather

tries to understand what causal interdependencies are at work in translation, and hence to

bring out what its conditions for success are.”580

His relevance-theoretical account “may

be seen to throw new light on the century-old debate of literal versus free translation: it is

possible that the notions of direct and indirect translation spell out the intuitions

underlying these two traditional notions.” Gutt makes it clear, however, that “the main

contribution of this study is not to arbitrate in the debate by coming down on one side or

the other …”581

C. Gutt’s criticism of meaning-based translation

The major criticism of Gutt against functional equivalent and meaning-based approaches

to translation is the fact that it is based on the code model of communication rather than

on an inferential model of communication.

574 Gutt (2000:61). 575

Gutt (2000:118). 576 Gutt (2000:124). 577 Gutt (2000:168). 578 Gutt (2000:171). 579 Gutt (2000:169). 580 Gutt (2000:200). 581 Gutt (2000:201).

223

Another criticism is that meaning-based translation does not do justice to the fact that

texts are multi-layered and open-ended.582

He points out that explication of implied

information, as is often done in meaning-based translation, may limit the interpretation.583

Listing all the intended implicatures is not really an option, in his opinion, because

“where does one stop listing”?584

He also contends that, “there is little reason to believe

that wrong implicatures can generally be remedied by explication.”585

He also mentions

that Bible translations may not be acceptable to audiences, if too much information is

made explicit.586

Gutt also points out the inconsistency of the concepts of “linguistic translation” on the

one hand and “dynamic equivalence” on the other.587

Another criticism is that meaning-

based translation is prescriptive rather than descriptive.

D. Evaluation of Gutt’s contribution to translation theory

Gutt’s contribution to translation theory is significant as it stimulates translators and

researchers to re-think the basic tenets of translation methods and practices. His emphasis

on the inferential nature of communication is valuable, even though it should be noted

that language communication also contains a significant amount of coding.588

Gutt’s observation that explication of implicit meaning may limit the scope of

interpretation is very important. Also, the relevance-theoretical distinction between

strong and weak implicatures is particularly helpful, especially with regard to the

translation of metaphor. Gutt’s recognition of the communicational difficulties when

translating for secondary audiences who do not share the same background knowledge as

the original audiences is also a positive element. It is unfortunate, however, that he does

582 Gutt (2000:75). 583 Gutt (2000:91). 584 Gutt (2000:91). 585

Gutt (2000:94). 586 Gutt (2000:93). 587 Gutt (2000:80). 588 It should be noted that Sperber and Wilson (2001:12) do recognize the importance of both inferencing

and coding in communication: ‘While still assuming that the code model provides the framework for a

general theory of communication, and hence for a theory of verbal communication, most pragmatists have

described comprehension as an inferential process.’ They (2001:14) acknowledge that inferencing can be

integrated into a code model of interpretation. However, in their own view (2001:27), inferencing is much

more significant than coding: ‘We maintain … that there are at least two different modes of

communication: the coding-decoding mode and the inferential mode. If we are right, from the fact that a

particular communication involves the use of a code, it does not follow that the whole process must be

accounted for in terms of the code model.’ Sperber and Wilson (2001:27) see verbal communication as ‘a

complex form of communication.’ ‘Linguistic coding and decoding is involved, but the linguistic meaning

of an uttered sentence falls short of encoding what the speaker means: it merely helps the audience infer

what she means. The output of decoding is correctly treated by the audience as a piece of evidence about the communicator’s intentions. In other words, a coding-decoding process is subservient to a Gricean

inferential process.’ However, Gutt (1992:14) seems to go one step further in downplaying the role of

coding in communication: ‘The stimulus used to convey the communicator’s intentions can, of course,

make use of a code. The use of language does this. However, coding as such is neither a necessary nor a

sufficient condition to take place.’

224

not seem to give much theoretical weight to the distinction between intralingual and

interlingual communication.589

Gutt’s observation that translations will never be able to communicate all the intended

implicatures is also valuable. But, this observation cannot be used to make a case for

avoiding the explication of intended implicatures in cases where this is crucial for a

correct understanding of the text by secondary audiences. Gutt’s emphasis on the

importance of audience expectations related to the form and use of Scriptures and on the

implications this may have for the way the Scriptures are being translated is valuable.

But, this notion needs further clarification, since audiences can be highly diversified and

have conflicting expectations. This means that audiences, translators, consultants and

publishers also have to deal with the question of what kind of expectations are more valid

than others or should receive higher priority than others.590

Another positive contribution of relevance theory is that – like other pragmatic

approaches591

– it views context not as a given, but as a construal.592

And, as a construal,

context is ambiguous by its nature. Both Sperber and Wilson (2001:16) and Gutt

(2000:76) recognize that the context envisaged by the speaker and the one actually used

by the hearer are not necessarily the same, and may result in misunderstanding. Gutt’s

distinction between primary communication situations and secondary communication

situations is in fact based on respectively the matching and mismatching of those contexts

envisaged by speakers and hearers. Context is indeed a more or less ambiguous

psychological construct, which is determined by various factors, which include a

common framework of shared experiences, teachings and views, as well as highly

idiosyncratic interpretations of individuals and ‘differences in life story’ which

589 Most of the examples of language use – provided by Gutt (1992) to show the validity of his relevance

theoretical approach to translation – are taken from the domain of intralingual language use between

speakers who share a considerable amount of background knowledge and who are in direct (oral)

interaction with one another. Intralingual communication is then used as a model for any type of

communication, including interlingual and cross-cultural communication. Unfortunately, this giant leap from intralingual communication to interlingual and cross-cultural communication is not supported by clear

reasoning. 590 Larsen (2001), for example, states that “we need to make a careful distinction between an initial,

uninformed acceptability (or lack of it) and a long-term, well-informed acceptability.” 591 Cf., for example, Koole, in: Janssen, Theo. (Red.). (2002:137). Taal in gebruik. Een inleiding in de

taalwetenschap. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers). ‘We hebben gezien dat de context geen vaststaand gegeven is.

Het is niet bij voorbaat duidelijk welke niet-talige informatie we moeten gebruiken om een taaluiting te

interpreteren. De context van de taaluiting is net zozeer een constructie als de betekenis van de taaluiting.

Succesvol communiceren betekent dan ook dat de communicatie-deelnemers overeenstemming moeten

bereiken zowel over wat als context geldt, als over de uiteindelijke betekenis van de uiting. Immers, niet

alle kenmerken van de situatie waarin een taaluiting wordt gebruikt zijn automatisch relevant voor de

interpretatie van de taaluiting.’ 592 Cf. Sperber and Wilson (2001:15): ‘A context is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s

assumptions about the world. It is these assumptions, of course, rather than the actual state of the world,

that affect the interpretation of an utterance.’ Cf. also Sperber and Wilson (1986:230f), as quoted in Gutt

(2000:212-213): ‘Thus, what the audience comes up with is not a ‘reproduction’, but an ‘interpretive

assumption about the speaker’s [or writer’s; EAG] informative intention’.

225

‘necessarily lead to differences in memorised information.’ Different hearers may focus

in on different aspects of context, and consequently arrive at different conclusions.593

Despite the good insights that relevance theory brings to the discussion on translation

issues, some of its basic tenets are problematic. The concept of “relevance” is less self-

evident than advocates of relevance theory seem to take for granted. The principle of

relevance in itself is too general to guide the hearer in discovering intended implicatures

in any situation. “Relevance” may be a rather unproblematic concept in situations of

conventional intralingual language use, but it is also shaped by highly diverse (sub-)

cultural and personal factors, which tend to take precedence, whenever speakers go

outside the boundaries of conventional intralingual language use. What seems relevant to

one person is not necessarily relevant to another person who speaks the same language.

In situations of interlingual and cross-cultural communication, the differences between

what is perceived by communication participants as being relevant are usually even

greater.594

Relevance theory acknowledges the problem of failing communication,

especially in translations for secondary audiences595

, but this is primarily seen as a

problem of communication and not as a problem of translation.

593 Cf., for example, John 2:18-21 (NIV): “18 Then the Jews demanded of him [Jesus], “What miraculous

sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,

and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this

temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.”

This conversation between Jesus and the Jews took place in the temple courts (cf. John 2:14-17). This example shows clearly that the concept of context is not without ambiguity. How does a hearer know which

aspect of the context is the most crucial? Is the fact that the utterance is pronounced in the temple courts

(physical context) decisive for what the most relevant interpretation is (literal interpretation)? Or, is the

speaker’s identity as a rabbi who used to speak in parables and metaphors decisive here? Or, is perhaps the

text genre, or clues from the immediately preceding co-text, most decisive here? 594 Wendland (1996) acknowledged the importance of relevance theory for translation theory, but he also

pointed out some significant limitations. He pointed out that, the concept of ‘relevance’ is problematic,

since it is relative and context-bound, and there is no objective criterion for assessing it. The notion of

‘contextual effects’ is also rather subjective. Furthermore, relevance theory ignores the importance of

connotative meaning in communication. Its concept of meaning is much more limited than the concept of

meaning in the functional equivalence approach to translation. Wendland sees the cost-benefit principle as an oversimplification, which may even distort our understanding of the communication process. He also

criticizes the concepts of ‘direct translation’ versus ‘indirect translation’, and the idea that "a direct

quotation frees us from someone else's interpretation". He agrees with K. Malmkjaer, who observed that “it

is obvious that what one gains from the principle of relevance in terms of generality of application must be

balanced against what one would lose in terms of specificity if nothing but this principle were made

available to translators.” Wendland concludes that “therefore, RT [relevance theory] can, and probably

should, be incorporated into some existing, tried and tested, meaning-based translator training program, but

it must not be allowed to replace, or even dominate, the curriculum. One further reason for such caution is

the possibility that its controversial, and to my mind quite misleading, distinction between "direct" and

"indirect" translation might initiate a general retreat back to a more literal method of Bible translation

(which is far easier to perform), coupled with an over-reliance upon extratextual aids to make up for the

difference, i.e., in the overall meaning that is conveyed to most receptors. While I do not think that this was either the explicit recommendation or the intention of Gutt's works, this is how his application of RT to

translation is often being interpreted, as indicated in the following citation from a recent proposal for

"training tomorrow's Bible translators." 595 Cf. Gutt (2000:64, 92, 118, 180-190, 196). Cf. Gutt (2000:64) in particular: “… the more relevant the

sociocultural differences are to the communication act, the less successful translation will turn out to be.”

226

An important assumption that seems to underlie relevance theory is the assumption that

inferencing is something that is always (or at least primarily) done consciously.596

Speakers’ intuitions about the intended meaning, and cultural schema’s that might play a

role in the interpretation process seem to play a minor role.597

But, if conscious

inferencing would indeed play such an important role in communication, the inferencing

capacity of the interpreter’s mind would soon become ‘overheated’ and perhaps shut

down after a few exchanges in communication. Relevance theory does not seem to give

enough weight to the underlying cultural schema’s that form the basis of interpretation,

and which steer the hearer’s intuitions as to which (possible) interpretation is (most)

relevant in a certain communication situation.598

Gutt’s distinction between translation problems on the one hand and communication

problems on the other is not theoretically founded, and has supposedly more to do with

his own assumptions about communication and translation than with the realities of

translation.599

This distinction seems to be primarily based on the pragmatically relevant

distinction between explicatures and implicatures and on the questionable use of

intralingual direct quotation as a model for translation as a form of interlingual

communication. Gutt makes a giant leap from intralingual pragmatics to interlingual

communication (translation) theory without providing a sound theoretical foundation for

this. The distinction between translation problems and communication problems seems to

significantly reduce the translator’s responsibility for the communicability of the

translation.600

Gutt’s statement that ‘linguistic problems should be solved by linguistic means, and

contextual problems should be solved by helping the receptors build up the necessary

596 The logical-deductive presentation of inferencing (cf. Gutt 1992:9, 16-17, 22-23) and the emphasis on

efficient information processing as a characteristic of humans (cost-benefit principle) (cf. Sperber and

Wilson 2001:46; Gutt 1992:24-27; Gutt 2000:32-35) also suggest that inferencing is always, or at least

primarily, a conscious non-automated activity. 597

Sperber and Wilson (2001:49) do in fact acknowledge “… that all human beings automatically aim at

the most efficient information processing possible” and that “this is so whether they are conscious of it or

not.” They also mention the concepts of “schema,” “frame,” “scenario,” and “prototype,” (2001:138), but these do not play a major role in their theory. 598 According to relevance theory the principle of “relevance” precedes the choosing of a context (Sperber

& Wilson 2001:142). However, relevance, in turn, is also preceded by the psychological context of

speakers and hearers. When a wood cutter and a botanist walk through the same forest, they will notice

different things as being relevant. Relevance is, at least partially, shaped by habits and predispositions in

people. 599 A translation that fails to communicate its intended meaning seems to be self-contradictory. It is true

that a translation can never communicate its meaning in the same way as the original text, but there is a

considerable degree of overlap between translation and communication. 600 Gutt claims that relevance theory is neutral with regard to the question what approach to translation

should be taken. However, his critical comments regarding the basic tenets of meaning-based translation

and his classification of literal translations as ‘direct translations’ as opposed to meaning-based translations as ‘indirect translations’ send a subtle message that literal translations constitute the ideal situation, and

meaning-based translations form some kind of compromise. Farrell and Hoyle (1995) have a point,

however, when they state that the principle of relevance can be used to support meaning-based translation

and the explication of implied information (explicatures and strong implicatures, but not the weak

implicatures).

227

contextual knowledge’601

seems to reflect a highly literal (form-based) notion of

faithfulness. There is nothing wrong with having a form-based notion of faithfulness, but

pre-theoretical assumptions like this should preferably not be clothed in ‘objectivist’

expressions like the above.

Some of Gutt’s statements related to translation are particularly problematic. A statement

like, “there is little reason to believe that wrong implicatures can generally be remedied

by explication,” for example, is not supported by the experience of many translators and

consultants who have seen that explication can often avoid misunderstandings in

translations. There are indeed extreme cases where explication in the translation cannot

help, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. Gutt (1992:72) also does not

substantiate his claim that ‘the inclusion or explication of contextual information in the

text has always a distorting influence, sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller.’602

Relevance theory offers a theoretical approach, based on the competence of idealized and

undifferentiated audiences. It does not deal with the particulars of the communicative

performance in actual situations of communication and translation. Gutt’s relevance

theoretical contribution to translation has primarily value as a paradigm-breaking tool

which helps to discover some significant weaknesses in meaning-based approaches to

translation.603

However, its reductionist tendencies604

, its highly specialized jargon, and

601 Gutt (1992:73). The question can be asked whether it is valid to dichotomize between linguistic and

contextual problems in translation. 602 On page 73, Gutt is much more careful, when he states that ‘the translator must be aware that

explication of implicit meaning – however big or small the explication – always has the potential for

distorting the original meaning. And on page 74, he writes that ‘implicated meaning cannot usually be

communicated explicitly without some distortion, for explication often narrows the range of information

conveyed and misrepresents the strength with which it was intended to be communicated.’ It is true that

even the little additions like ‘people called Pharisees’ and ‘river Jordan’ could communicate to the reader

that the people and places were probably unknown to the original readers, since the writer explains it to

them. But, problems like these can be easily fixed by making the information explicit in the narrative parts

of the text (narrator-level) rather than in the reported speech parts (participant-level). Also, it should be

noted that hearers can also draw the wrong conclusions from explicatures. Readers of vernacular Scriptures

in Irian Jaya (Papua), for example, could easily think that Jesus and his disciples were speaking a Papuan language, when they read the Gospel in their own language. Translators will never be able to avoid every

potential misunderstanding. 603 It should be noted that Stephen C. Levinson (2000), a leading theorist in pragmatic theory, has voiced

serious concerns about relevance theory. Relevance theory as well as other cognitive theories have, in his

view, a ‘holistic temperament’ and do not consider the heterogeneous nature of meaning. He sees Sperber

and Wilson’s theory of relevance as being ‘presumptive’ (2000:52) and ‘reductionist’ (2000:55), as it

“attempts to reduce all kinds of pragmatic inference to one mega-principle.” (2000:21, 22). “… the theory

holds that implicature is a side effect, as it were, of a mental automatism, a tendency to extract the maximal

inferences for the minimal psychic effort. There are no maxims, no heuristics, no special modes of

reasoning involved in implicature derivation.” (2000:55). Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance theory is

intended to replace the whole Gricean apparatus, but Levinson has strong doubts about this. He points out

that in relevance theory implicature derivation is portrayed as being ‘deductive’ and that hence the inferences must be ‘monotonic’ (non-defeasible), but that inferences made in communication are in fact

‘nonmonotonic’ (defeasible). (2000:56). Levinson (2000:57) also contends that, “if [Relevance Theory]

makes any clear predictions, [it] probably makes the wrong ones.” Relevance theory has nothing relevant to

say in terms of a theory of preferred interpretations. Sperber and Wilson (1987:748) contend that their

theory makes no such predictions and specifically it “does not predict that the most relevant interpretation

228

its lack of empirical and theoretical grounding of matters related to translation make it

inadequate to serve as a new paradigm for translation studies.605

8.2.2.4. Skopos theory and Bible translation

L.J. de Vries has applied Vermeer’s and Nord’s skopos theory to the field of Bible

translation.606

He explains that “a new consensus has emerged in translation studies that

the function of translations in target communities necessarily differs from the function

that source texts had in their original settings and that the function of the translation “…

is not necessarily arrived at automatically from an analysis of the source text, but is

pragmatically defined by the purpose of the communication” (Christiane Nord 1991,

9).”607

He quotes Robinson (1997:208) who formulated the implications of the skopos approach

as follows: “Implications: (1) that translations are intended to serve some social function

or functions; (2) that these functions are not textual abstractions like ‘the rhetorical

function’ or ‘the informative function,’ but extratextual actions designed to shape how

people behave in a social context; (3) that these functions cannot be determined in stable

or permanent ways but must be renegotiated ‘pragmatically’ in every new communicative

context; and (4) that the guiding factor in these negotiations is the purpose (skopos) of the

conceivable is the right one.” Levinson’s theory of generalized conversational implicature seems to be in a

much better position to make such predictions. 604 In this context, Venuti’s (2000:4) comment deserves special attention: “Even with modern approaches that are based on linguistics and tend to assume a scientific or value-free treatment of language, the

emphasis on one theoretical component might be linked to prescription.” In terms of translator training and

consultant training it is important that the trainees are made aware of the strengths as well as the

weaknesses of relevance theory. The promotion of relevance theory at the expense of other approaches to

translation (meaning-based approach, cognitive approaches, frame-referential approach, skopos approach,

etc.) could have serious negative consequences for the quality of translation work in the future. Theories

are just like translators, consultants, translation agencies, etc.: they have their strengths and their

weaknesses. 605

For a more positive evaluation of relevance theory and its application to translation, see Hill (2001).

Following Gutt, Hill calls attention to the importance of Scripture Use (Bible stories) in addition to

providing the Scriptures in order to bridge the contextual gaps between the world of the original text and the assumptions of secondary audiences. This kind of teaching and contextualizing is indeed very important

in missionary situations, but it should be noted that this kind of mediation does not free the audience from

the mediators’ perspective and interpretation of the Scriptures. 606 L.J. de Vries, “Bible Translations: Forms and Functions,” in: The Bible Translator 52:3 (July 2001), p.

306-319. It should be noted that De Vries’s work in Bible translation theory is broader than just a skopos

approach. Genre, primary orality, paratext and inferential aspects of translation are some other important

themes in his work. Cf. L.J. de Vries, “The Notion of Genre and the Nature of Bible Translations,” in:

Notes on Translation vol. 13 (1999), nr. 2:26-42. L.J. de Vries, “Bible Translation and Primary Orality,” in

The Bible Translator 51:1 (January 2000), p. 101-114. L.J. de Vries, “Paratext and Skopos of Bible

Translations,” in: Den Hollander, A.A., U.B. Schmid & W.F. Smelik. (2003). Paratext and Megatext as

Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual Markers of Contextualization. Leiden, Boston:

Brill, p. 176-193. L.J. de Vries, “Van Dordrecht naar Nieuw-Guinea: bijbelvertalingen als tekstsoort. In: Gillaerts, Paul (Ed.). (2002). Talita koem. Genres in Bijbel en vertaling. Leuven / Leusden: Acco, p. 195-

210. Lourens de Vries, “Theology, spirituality and the skopos of Bible translations: the case of the Dutch

Statenvertaling.” (Unpublished paper). Lourens de Vries. “Het vertalen van contekstuele implicaties als

oplossing en als probleem.” (Unpublished paper). 607 De Vries (2001:307).

229

intercultural communication, what the various people hope to achieve in and through

it.”608

De Vries states that “a single translation can never reflect all aspects of the source text.

Translations always select certain aspects of the source text and it is the social function,

the skopos, of the translation that determines the nature of the translational filter.”

Pioneering translations in missionary situations, for example, may give higher priority to

a clear communication of the basic messages of the source text than to conveying the

literary and rhetorical aspects of the source text.609

The definition of the skopos of a Bible translation is a matter of negotiation between

translation agencies like the United Bible Societies and the Summer Institute of

Linguistics and the audiences they serve. “Translation audiences bring in their rich

traditions and expertise of translating Scriptures but should also carefully listen to the

needs of the communities.”610

De Vries identifies a “missionary function” of translations that have been produced in

New Guinea, where he serves as a translation consultant for the United Bible Societies.

An important characteristic of translations with a missionary function is that they “are

part of an effort to establish and build a church.”611

These translations usually serve a

communicative goal, since “getting the message across with minimal misunderstandings

is of prime importance.”612

These translations are usually the first translation in the

vernacular languages, and they form “a new genre functioning within a new institutional

context: the emerging Christian church.” (emphases are mine; DK)613

De Vries acknowledges that the functional framework for New Guinea translation

projects is relatively straightforward, but he warns that this situation may be a very

temporary one, since “within a few generations almost all of these communities will be

bilingual and many people will have access to Bible translations in Indonesian, English or

Tok Pisin, often to several translations in those languages.”614

The functional framework

will become more complicated when these national language versions get a place in the

life of those communities. In those situations it is likely that some form of function

specialization will take place: “A new vernacular translation will have to define its

function in relation to other versions used by the community.”

Translations in New Guinea will more and more be produced by national translators who

translate for their own churches. According to De Vries, “it will be interesting to see what

kind of skopos or translator’s brief these churches will formulate and how national

language versions interact of perhaps interfere with the formulation of that brief.”615

608 De Vries (2001:307-308). 609

De Vries (2001:308). 610 De Vries (2001:308). 611 De Vries (2001:306). 612 De Vries (2001:306). 613 De Vries (2001:306). 614 De Vries (2001:306). 615 De Vries (2001:306).

230

The functional framework of Bible translations in countries like The Netherlands is much

more complex, as “Bible translations are an old genre of texts and there are dozens of

translations.” In The Netherlands there are two kinds of function specialization of Bible

translations. On the one hand, there is denominational function specialization (Roman

Catholic vs. Protestant translations), and on the other hand there is some kind of user-

defined616

specialization. “For example, many Protestants use the Groot Nieuws Bijbel (a

common language translation) at home for private reading, but in many Protestant

churches the Nieuwe Vertaling (1951, a rather literal translation) is used in the

liturgy.”617

De Vries identifies five major functions that may be distinguished for Bible translations

in The Netherlands: 1. liturgical and church functions; 2. study function; 3. common

language function; 4. secular literary-cultural functions; and 5. private reading/home

function.618

Some of these functions overlap and various groups of readers fill in these

functions in various ways. For example, some church communities use more than one

translation in the liturgy. And communities with a strong missionary tradition may use a

common language version in their liturgy.

In situations “where Bible translations are an old genre of texts, like in Dutch- or Malay-

speaking communities, with many translations to choose from, every new translation

project has to face the complex issue of defining its skopos, the functions it intends to

have, the audiences it wants to serve and the functional relations it has with existing

translations.” Based on a “functional profile”, the translation team “has to choose

language forms in such a way that those functions indeed can be filled by the

translation.”619

After De Vries has laid out the basic framework of skopos theory, he discusses two

important notions: 1. the division of interpretative labor between the translator and the

audience; and 2. the degree of interference from the source text in translations.

With regard to the first concept, De Vries acknowledges that meaning-based

translations620

that leave a lot of interpretative work to the readers or listeners, are harder

to understand and less accessible. But, “such translations suffer less from interpretative

inference from the translators’ theological and cultural context that is unavoidable in

616 De Vries does not use this term. 617 De Vries (2001:307). 618 De Vries (2001:307). 619 De Vries (2001:307). 620 De Vries (2001:310-311) discusses three types of translation in relation to the expression en prauteti

sophias in James 3:13. (1) The literal translation of this is “with humility/gentleness of wisdom”; (2) a

meaning-based translation that leaves it up to the reader to “infer the precise ways in which wisdom qualifies the humility would be: “with wise gentleness/humility”; and finally (3) a meaning-based

translation that explicates the relation between humility and wisdom as one of source would be: “with

gentleness that comes from wisdom.” There is, in fact, a fourth possibility, which is more idiomatic and

explicit than (2) and less interpretative than (3) and which still leaves it up to the reader/listener to work out

some of the implicatures: “with gentleness that is related to (or: comes with) wisdom”.

231

interpretation-oriented translations that explicate contextual implications of complex texts

of antiquity for which the primary contexts have become inaccessible.”621

But, form-

oriented translations are even harder to understand, as they “not only leave a lot of

interpretative work to the reader but also suffer from lexical and morphosyntactic

interference from the source language.”622

According to De Vries, “in the near future we will see that there will be an increasing

demand for translations leaving more interpretative work to the reader in communities

that have only one vernacular translation with a missionary skopos. Such a demand is a

healthy sign: the situation in which one type of translation has the monopoly should only

be temporary.”623

The reason for this is that “translations always highlight certain aspects

of the source at the expense of other.” One type of translation is simply not enough for

the various things that people want to do with the Bible.624

As people become more and

more bilingual, Bible-switching will be just as normal for people as code-switching.625

With regard to the degrees of interference from the source text in the translation, De

Vries distinguishes three levels of interference: (a) interference at the level of the lexico-

semantic and grammatical patterns of a language; (b) interference at the literary, the

stylistic and the rhetorical patterns; and (c) interference at the pragmatic level, including

the patterns known as the ethnography of speaking (cf. Foley 1997), or any other level

that linguistic models and theories may wish to distinguish.

In communities with a long tradition of translating sacred texts like the Bible, some

audiences may have developed a high tolerance for lexical interference such as

translating the Greek term sarx as “flesh”. De Vries refers to this kind of traditions as

mimetic traditions. Retaining Hebrew parallelism in translations is an example of

interference at the rhetorical level. “Communities like the Dutch community that have a

tradition of speaking foreign languages and of reading and translating literature of other

language communities including Far Eastern communities have a rich store of mimetic

traditions at the rhetorical and pragmatic levels, not only deriving from the Bible but also

from other works of Antiquity and of the cultures of India and Indonesia.”626

De Vries

contends that “such mimetic traditions create a potential for mimicking pragmatic and

rhetorical aspects of source texts without creating major misunderstandings.” He closes

his article with a discussion of translating sociocentric expressions (kinship terminology)

in the book of Ruth for Western audiences, which are primarily egocentric.

621 De Vries (2001:311). 622 De Vries (2001:311). 623 De Vries (2001:312). 624 From a theological perspective, one might add that one translation is not adequate to convey the full

riches of God’s revelation in the Scriptures. 625 This kind of reasoning seems to be based on the assumption that vernacular translations in New Guinea

usually precede national language versions in the various communities. However, there are many

situations, where a vernacular language version arrives on the scene after a national language translation has been used in the liturgy for many years (even though the majority of the population may not understand

Indonesian). If a monopoly position of one type of translation should indeed be avoided, this would be a

strong argument for producing meaning-based translations in the vernacular in addition to the more rather

literal translation in the national language (Terjemahan Baru), which is often used in liturgical settings. 626 De Vries (2001:313).

232

In summary, it can be said that De Vries’s application of skopos theory to Bible

translation is very appropriate. His approach is descriptive rather than prescriptive. His

concepts of underdetermination of the source text and function specialization of

translated texts help to give both literal and meaning-based translations the place they

deserve, according to their specific functions. Different types of translation almost

function like different sub-genres that function in different social/religious contexts.

De Vries rightly links the skopos of a translation to the theological and hermeneutic

assumptions of the audience and the translators. He even calls those the core of the

skopos concept. The close connection between these assumptions related to the Bible and

translations and between the social function of these translations is very much to the

point.627

However, his identification of an explicit skopos of a translation with theological

and hermeneutic assumptions is somewhat problematic.

With regard to De Vries’s use of the term “meaning-based” translation it should be noted

that the meaning of this term is much broader than it is normally used in SIL circles.

“Meaning-based” translation, in his perspective, includes translations that are not literal

renderings, but which still leave a lot of interpretative work to the reader or listener. De

Vries’s definition of ‘meaning-based’ translation needs to be understood in the context of

a threefold distinction between form, meaning and intention (implicature), rather than in

the context of a twofold distinction between form and meaning, in which intentions and

implicatures are included under the general heading of ‘meaning’.

De Vries’s statement that “utterances do not express what people want to communicate

but rather they mediate speaker’s intentions within a given context shared between

speaker/writer and audience”628

may need some further qualification. There is not always

a gap between what is said and what is meant. If, for example, my wife tells my sons,

“Wash the dishes, please!”, there is no gap whatsoever between what she says and what

she means.629

But, despite the fact that coding still occupies an important role in language

use, the point that pragmatic theories of language make about the importance of

inferencing in language communication is very valid and useful not only for language

communication in general, but also for translation as a form of interlingual language use.

8.2.2.5. Frames of reference approach to Bible translation

A. A new paradigm related to Bible translating

Wilt and a number of his colleagues who serve as translation consultants for the United

Bible Societies wrote a new textbook on translation theory for translation consultants-in-

627 The identification of an explicit skopos of a translation with theological and hermeneutic assumptions is somewhat problematic, since these assumptions are often implicit and they may vary from one person to

another. The skopos of a translation is something that is explicit, goal-oriented, and negotiable.

Assumptions, on the other hand, are implicit, foundational, and they are usually not negotiated. 628 De Vries (2001:318). 629 The examples could be multiplied here.

233

training. This book, published under the title Bible Translation. Frames of Reference,

appeared in 2003. The book can be seen as containing a paradigm shift with regard to the

theory of translation, and in a sense it is a farewell to Nida’s theory on Bible translating.

The authors are well-versed in translation theory, cognitive linguistics, cultural studies

and literary criticism. A major contribution of this work is that it places the work of Bible

translation in the context of the various social and cultural settings of translators,

commissioners and audiences. The cognitive linguistic notion of “frame” serves as a

unifying concept that ties the various aspects of translation together.

In the Introduction to the book, the major contribution of this textbook is described as

follows:

“A key theme of this book is the importance of a holistic approach to translation:

viewing the translation project in terms of its community,

organizational and sociocultural settings;

viewing the translation product as part of a larger communicative

process;

viewing translation as an interdisciplinary subject;

viewing textual parts in terms of textual wholes;

viewing form and content, structure and function, as together

contributing to the meaning of texts;

viewing informative and imperative functions of texts in relation to

other functions, especially the aesthetic and ritual functions of

scriptural texts.”630

B. A critical evaluation of Nida’s approach to translation

In the first chapter Mojola and Wendland give a summary and critical evaluation of Nida

and Taber’s (1969) approach to translation. They point out the missiological agenda

which was crucially linked to the translation approach that was advocated by Nida and

his companions, and which found wide acceptance in both UBS and SIL.631

They also

mention Robinson’s (1991) evaluation of Nida’s work as being “subversive”. Nida’s

approach was “subversive” in the sense “that he set out to dethrone the popularity of

Bible versions which made little sense to the ordinary person.” Nida’s subversive act

“consisted in opening the word to new audiences, as well as to some in the old and

familiar audience, in empowering new groups to have direct access to the Scriptures

without mediation from the religious elite, the clergy, theologians or the biblical

scholar.”632

Nida was in fact “as subversive as Jerome and Luther, who similarly burst

upon a scene dominated by rigidly fixed expectations and smashed them.”633

Mojola and Wendland point out that “ironically, in the course of time fixed expectations

and convictions were built around the so-called common language translations.” The fact

630 Wilt (2003:xii). 631 Mojola and Wendland, in: Wilt (2003:4). 632 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:5). 633 Robinson (1991:225), quoted by Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:4).

234

that “these new translations exemplified by the TEV created a new orthodoxy and

standard, to be imitated and produced elsewhere” was something that was “counter to the

subversive spirit set in motion by the Nida revolution, if we can call it that.”634

The authors list a number of limitations of the TAPOT635

presentation: 1. it focuses on

sentence-level-and-below linguistics without taking into consideration the higher level

‘discourse structure’ of language636

; 2. it seemed to identify translation with – limit it to –

linguistic structures, even though an overview of Nida’s work shows that he was certainly

not locked into a ‘linguistic approach to translation’ but that he advocated a multi-

disciplinary approach to translation637

; 3. it portrays translation in terms of an

unwarranted dichotomy of formal correspondence versus dynamic equivalence638

; 4. it

was based on a communication model that assumed the conduit metaphor, which Reddy

(1979) identified as fallacious639

; 5. it was based on the assumption that texts have a

clear, unchanging and unifying meaning; 6. its use of the term “dynamic equivalence” as

well as its “prescriptivism” were problematic.640

Most of these criticisms are very much to the point. However, Mojola and Wendland’s

comment about Nida and Taber’s use of a communication theory that was based on the

fallacious conduit metaphor needs to be further qualified. It cannot be denied that Nida’s

approach to translation was based on a theory in which the conduit metaphor played an

important role. But, the fact that the conduit metaphor played an important role, does not

necessarily mean that the underlying communication theory itself is fallacious641

, nor that

it was applied in a way that was fallacious. Nida’s emphasis on the necessity that

translation products need to be checked with native speakers shows very clearly that he

was not fooled by the conduit metaphor. Fallacies related to the conduit metaphor assume

that communication is unproblematic, as information flows from one person to another.

Nida, on the other hand, has made it very clear that communication, cross-cultural

communication in particular, is often problematic. This is exactly the reason why

translators sometimes need to make implied meaning explicit, so that the reader can

indeed understand it.

634 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:5). 635 TAPOT is an acronym for the title of Nida & Taber’s (1969) textbook on translation: The Theory and

Practice of Translation. Similarly, Nida & De Waard’s (1986) book is sometimes referred to by the

acronym FOLTA (From One Language To Another). And Beekman and Callow’s (1974) textbook is

sometimes referred to by the acronym TWOG (Translating the Word of God). 636 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:5). 637 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:6). 638 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:6). 639 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:7). Johnson (1987:59) describes the conduit metaphor as follows:

“1. Ideas or thoughts are objects. 2. Words and sentences are containers for these objects. 3.

Communication consists in finding the right word-container for your idea-object, sending this filled

container along a conduit or through space to the hearer, who must then take the idea-object out of the

word-container.” 640 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:9). 641 It should be noted that the notions of “communication barriers,” “noise,” and “feedback” play an

important role in communication theories which seem to be primarily based on the conduit metaphor.

These notions show that communication theorists did not take for granted that communication is always

clear and accurate. Cf. for example Schramm, “How Communication Works” in: Civikly (1977:4-10).

235

When describing the contemporary situation of translation approaches, Mojola and

Wendland identify seven major approaches: 1. the functionalist approach (skopos-theory;

Vermeer, Nord, De Vries); 2. the descriptive approach (Hermans; Toury); 3. the text-

linguistic approach (Hatim and Mason); 4. the relevance theory approach (Gutt); 5. post-

colonial approaches, which are primarily concerned with political aspects of translation,

i.e., the relation between translation and empire (power); and 6. the foreignization versus

domestication approach (Venuti 1995).

The authors point out that despite the fact that translation studies have emerged as an

autonomous discipline, it is very diverse, consisting of a wide variety of voices, without

one clear theoretical unification. “This multi-disciplinary field has not produced its

Newton or Einstein with a widely accepted, overarching, global translation theory, and

perhaps never will.”642

However, it can be said that Wilt and his co-authors by making

this study available have made a significant step forward towards the unification of

translation theory as applied to the field of Bible translation in particular.

C. Translation and Communication

Wilt’s contribution (chapter two on “Translation and Communication”) lays out the

theoretical framework of the post-Nida approach to Bible translation. But, despite the

differences with Nida, Wilt’s focus on translation as communication is very much in line

with the basic tenets of Nida’s theory of translation.

While speaking about communication, Wilt observes that “the most readily observable

aspect of human communication is that it involves people with something in common.”

He goes on to say that “just how much these participants have in common will influence

how they communicate and the results.” He also contends that “the minimal link between

participants in a communicative event is a text, presented through a particular

medium.”643

Wilt distinguishes three key notions in communicative events: participants, text and

medium. With regard to participants, he notes that “the participants in a communication

process differ in their relationships to each other and in their relationships to the text.”

These differences can be social, cultural, linguistic, organizational and/or political. In

terms of the participants’ different relationships to a text, he makes a distinction between

unmediated (face-to-face) communication and mediated communication.

In mediated communication “someone apart from the originator of the text is involved in

enabling an audience to attend to it.” Wilt observes that “mediators may be acting

primarily on behalf of the originator of the text, on behalf of the intended audience or on

behalf of a third party.” These mediators “may be viewed as having varying degrees of

rights and obligations with regard to their handling of the text.”644

Wilt distinguishes

642 Mojola and Wendland, in Wilt (2003:25). 643 Wilt (2003:28). 644 Wilt (2003:28).

236

between messengers, spokespersons, representatives of the addressee, overhearers, and

reporters commissioned by someone other than the source of the text, and gives biblical

examples of each of these cases.645

The interesting question is, of course, where Bible translators fit in this picture. Are they

“messengers with no rights concerning the text and obligated to say no more than what

the source text does”? Or, are they “spokespersons, or at least reporters whose

representation of the source text is accompanied by implicit sociocultural, political and

theological commentary”? According to Wilt, translation studies “are making it

increasingly clear” that the latter is the case. For example, the translation of masculine

forms in the source text as gender-inclusive forms in the target language “is an implicit

commentary that sociolinguistic norms of the source text are not universally

applicable.”646

Wilt makes it clear that translation does not start in the translator’s office, but in the

community for whom the translation is intended. The starting point for Bible translation

is, of course, the source text. But, “the translator, as well as the translator’s audience

hears the source text’s voices via and amidst the voices of a host of intermediaries.”

“Many of these intermediary voices belong to the faith community: scribes, rabbis,

priests, pastors, theologians, laity, family members, among others. But voices from

outside the faith community also influence how the text is heard.”647

Translators who

belong to a particular faith sub-community interpret and translate the sacred text in view

of the interpretations of various faith and academic communities and in view of the goals

of the target audience for whom the translation is intended.648

But in the social networks in which translations are produced translators and communities

for whom the translation is intended are not the only stakeholders. Publishers, marketing

managers and translation consultants play an important role too. Situations where the

translators hear from community representatives but not from translation consultants (as

the publisher’s representatives) can be just as problematic as situations where translators

listen to the publisher’s representatives but not to the community representatives. Wilt

states that “communication between the participants in the translation-publication process

and with potential users of the product can be as crucial to the success of a project as

translators’ understanding and representation of the texts to be translated: in a translation

project, the voices of the contemporary community must be heard as well as those of the

ancient texts.”649

With regard to text – the second important notion in Wilt’s presentation of

communication theory – Wilt makes it clear that he prefers to use this notion instead of

the term ‘message’ (which plays an important role in Nida’s theory). The reason for

abandoning the term ‘message’ is that in Bible translation literature it is “strongly

645 Wilt (2003:29). 646 Wilt (2003:30). 647 Wilt (2003:31). 648 Wilt (2003:31-32). 649 Wilt (2003:3).

237

associated with the limited conduit/transport model of communication …’650

The term

‘text’ is also preferred by Hatim and Mason (1997) and Katan (1999).

Wilt describes texts in term of a semiotics model, which sees texts as being composed of

signs. Following Pierce’s well-known typology, he distinguishes between icons (“the sign

resembles what it is referring to in some way”), indices (“there is a ‘real relation’

between the sign and what it refers to”) and symbols (“the relationship between the sign

and to that to which it refers is logically and perceptually arbitrary”).651

Examples of

these three types of signs are: a picture reflecting something in the real world, dark clouds

spelling rain, and linguistic signs, respectively.

In addition, Wilt makes four important comments: 1. signs are interpreted in terms of

other signs; 2. signs are pointers, not containers; 3. what a speaker perceives as a sign

may not be perceived as such by others and what others perceive as signs in a text may

not have been intended as such (at least not consciously) by the one to whom the text is

attributed; and 4. all may agree that a sign is a sign, but differ in their interpretation of

it.652

With regard to the communication of texts, Wilt contends that “a person never sends a

meaning, let alone the meaning, to another person; rather she653

sends an arrangement of

signs that she intends to be understood in certain ways.” “Meaning depends on the

hearer’s interpretation as well as the speaker’s intentions, and the hearer’s interpretations

and shaped in terms of other’s interpretations.”

As a result, the communication of a text is not a matter of unidirectional sending of a

message to the hearer. But, it is a bidirectional process in which both the speaker and the

hearer are actively involved. The speaker is involved in sending an arrangement of signs

that she intends to be understood in certain ways, and the hearer is involved in

“perceiving, selecting and interpreting text signs.”654

The relation between source texts and translated texts can be viewed from different

perspectives. The king-servant metaphor, expressed by Martin Luther, sees the source

text as king, and the translation as a humble and faithful servant. In modern approaches,

however, the source text has been dethroned, and has become the servant that serves the

audience. In addition to this ‘vertical dimension’, there is also a ‘horizontal dimension of

social distance’, which sees the translated text in terms of ‘foreignizing” versus

“domesticating’.655

650 Wilt (2003:34). 651 Wilt (2003:36-37). 652

Wilt (2003:37). 653 In certain studies on linguistic pragmatics it has become custom to refer to a speaker by using feminine personal pronoun (she, her) and to refer to a hearer by using the masculine personal pronoun (he, him). It

may be assumed that this convention is completely arbitrary, and not intended to postulate any iconic

relationship between gender and a certain propensity for either speaking or hearing. 654 Wilt (2003:40). 655 Wilt (2003:41).

238

With regard to medium – the third important notion in Wilt’s presentation of

communication theory – the distinction is made between translated texts as print

translations and as a form of an oral-written medium.656

D. A frames of reference approach to translation

In the second part of his article Wilt uses the concept of “frame” to link various aspects

of the translation process together. Wilt observes that “the metaphor of a frame has been

exploited to facilitate discussion of a wide variety of phenomena related to translation,

including: sentence structure, social interactions, the structure of literary texts, the literary

context within which a portion of a text is to be interpreted, the cognitive processing of

information and multimedia presentations.”657

He distinguishes between cognitive,

textual, situational, organizational and sociocultural frames. In the graphic presentation

of his model he makes explicit four sets of frames influencing communicative exchanges:

1. sociocultural frames; 2. organizational frames; 3. communication-situation frames;

and 4. textual frames.

D.1. Cognitive and sociocultural frames

Following Barsalou (1992:276), Wilt defines ‘cognitive frames’ as structured mental

associations developed through experience and reflection which enable us to “understand,

integrate, and contextualize the information currently under consideration.”658

Such

frames are represented and evoked by communicative signs, such as gestures, words,

expressions, and pictures. The concept of “frame”, as used by Wilt, is closely related to

the terms ‘schemata’, ‘scripts’ and ‘mental models’.

‘Sociocultural frames’ refer to ‘both external sociocultural practices and relationships and

our internalized conceptions of them’. For example, “the way we are cared for as children

… both frames our early experience of family and contributes to our initial development

of a ‘family’ cognitive frame.” Wilt contends that “our cultural studies need to be

supplemented by intercultural and cocultural communication studies.” He states that

“much of the Bible translation literature produced in the 1950’s through the 1980’s

treated cultures as independent entities, with the working assumption that the influence of

neighboring, national or global languages, attitudes, practices, resources, etc. was

minimal. The tremendous differences between that era and the present one, especially

with regard to communicational resources and cross-cultural interaction, necessitate quite

different working assumptions.”659

With regard to the sociocultural frames of translators, he has a point, when he states that

“it is important that a basic irony be recognized: while there is much Bible translation

literature concerning sociocultural influences on audiences’ interpretation of texts, there

is relatively little with regard to sociocultural influences on those formulating the

656 Wilt (2003:42). 657 Wilt (2003:43). 658 Wilt (2003:43-44). 659 Wilt (2003:45).

239

translation theory and practice, as well as providing model interpretations and translations

of biblical texts.”660

D.2. Organizational frames

‘Organizational frames’ refer to both “the external influences (e.g. financial resources,

social pressure and prestige, policy statements) that an organization or organizations have

on the perceptions, attitudes and behavior of individuals and communities associated with

them” and “the translators’ (among others’) perception and understanding of the

organizational aspects of their task.” Wilt notes that “it is increasingly common for Bible

translation projects to involve several different organizations”661

and that “such a

complex situation offers considerable challenges to maintaining satisfactory

communication between the various parties involved, in order to assure adequate material

and technical support for the team, ongoing or increased community interest, and

satisfactory decisions concerning translation options.”

In the context of multiple organizational frames, it is important to recognize that different

organizations may have different perceptions of which organization has the most

resources to support a translation project and of who should give most material support

for the project. “On the one hand, members of a community, or even national

organizations associated with international ones, wonder why they should give financial

support to a translation project when the associated international organizations seemingly

have so much wealth and the community and national organizations struggle financially.

On the other hand, the international organizations’ involvement in hundreds of projects

throughout the world can stretch their resources, and there is usually a belief that the

more a local community is involved in the support of a project, the more likely the

success of the project will be.”662

In the context of frames of a particular organization, Wilt discusses key notions such as

structure, culture, gatekeeping, power, and training. Stewardship is also mentioned as a

key notion: “limited resources should be allocated in view of the likelihood of them being

efficiently used in keeping with the organization’s goals.”663

When speaking about the

organizational culture’s values and norms, Wilt signals a tension or even conflict between

“national cultural values and norms shaping a national branch of an international

organization.” He quotes Robbins (2000:248), who wrote that “research indicates that

national culture has a greater impact on employees than does their organization’s

culture.” But, according to Hodgetts and Luthans (2000:168), “regardless of the external

environment or their national culture, managers and employees must understand and

follow their organization’s culture to be successful.”

This kind of tension is especially notable in the area of the administration and evaluation

of translation projects. The term gatekeeping is used in media studies “to refer to the

660 Wilt (2003:45-46). 661 Wilt (2003:46). 662 Wilt (2003:47). 663 Wilt (2003:48).

240

basic organizational need to control the content and quality of a product.” It is usually

exercised at various stages of the production. Wilt quotes McQuail (1994:225-226),

according to whom, “the general aim … is to produce something which meets

professional or craft standards of quality and has a good chance of success with the

audience.”

McQuail also point out that, “the organizational processes involved are typically very

hierarchical.” This is also true for quality control in translation work. Wilt lists the

following roles that are part of the gatekeeping hierarchy in translation: 1. translators

who do a general review of each other’s work; 2. the team’s exegete(s) who checks for

faithfulness to the source text; 3. reviewers from the community check dialect use, style,

and translation approach; 4. a translation consultant checks the exegesis, translation

approach, content and presentation of supplements (introductions, footnotes, maps, etc.),

and manuscript presentation; 5. a manuscript examiner checks for quality of manuscript

presentation (spelling consistency, punctuation, accuracy of chapter and verse numbering,

etc.); 6. Translators check the camera-ready copy before it is sent to a printer.”664

Gatekeeping hierarchies also range from consultants-in-training via senior consultants to

various levels of translation coordinators. The efficiency of quality control depends on a

variety of factors, including the clarity of responsibilities and procedures involved for the

various parties concerned, the availability of resources (and the knowledge and

willingness) to carry out gatekeeping activities and to track the movement of a product

through the gatekeeping process and to deal with blockage, and the motivation and

capabilities of the various gatekeepers.

Wilt states that “ideally, gatekeeping will not conflict with creativity or flexibility in

developing products in keeping with an organization’s mission. However, the dynamic of

judging the unknown in terms of the unknown is as present in this area of activity as in

others.” He suggests that gatekeepers need to be receptive to suggestions for modifying

gatekeeping standards or procedures.665

Wilt closes his discussion of organizational frames with a section on the political (power

related) aspects of translation. He agrees with Bassnett and Lefevere (1998:136-137),

who state that “translation … is a primary method of imposing meaning while concealing

the power relations that lie behind the production of that meaning … Translation is …

always enmeshed in a set of power relations that exist in both the source and target

contexts.”666

The identification of power dynamics in the interpretation of biblical texts

is, accordingly, a concern of ideological criticism. And, since “probably the most

important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependence” (Robbins 2000:154),

translation agencies should try to avoid this kind of relations. However, Wilt is quick to

point out that “increased independence does not necessarily imply greater power with

664 It is interesting to note that one important component of translation checking is not mentioned at all

here. This is the notion of comprehension checking with representatives of the target audience. 665 Wilt (2003:52). 666 Wilt (2003:52).

241

regard to meeting original mission goals, especially if the resources for meeting them

become increasingly reduced.”667

Organizational research has shown that “teaching organizations” are usually more

relevant than “learning organizations”. This is particularly relevant to the training of

translators. As a result, “throughout the world, there is increasing cooperation between

Bible translation organizations and national institutions for higher learning to develop

undergraduate and graduate-level training programs.”668

D.3. Communication-situation frame

The prototypical ‘communication situation’ is identified as the ‘speech situation’.

According to Wilt, “the communication situation is identifiable in terms of the physical

and temporal setting, the medium and codes employed for communication, and the roles

and goals of the participants.”669

Hymes’ acronym (SPEAKING) for representing elements of the communication situation

continues to be useful as a pedagogical tool: Situation, Participants, End, Act sequence,

Key, Instrumentality, Norms of interaction and interpretation, and Genre.670

Identification of the communication situations underlying biblical texts is a basic

exegetical concern. The perception of the communication situation and rules of

interaction will depend on the frames of reference of the participants. The basic

communication situation may change, or at least seem to change, during the course of

interaction.

Wilt points out that dramatic changes have taken place in the communication situations

of Bible translation. When Nida and Taber published TAPOT, there was extensive

missionary domination in terms of church leadership; today churches have national

leadership. Back then, a lot of translation work was done by non-mother tongue

translators; today only mother tongue speakers can be translators in UBS projects. Back

then, Bible translation was primarily seen as an end in itself, or as a tool for

evangelization; today it is seen as part of a publication process and as a tool for the

church. Back then, the focus was on the translation of the New Testament; today there are

many more Old Testament projects. Increased use of computers, higher education of

translators, faster ways of communication (e-mail) are some other important factors that

have changed.671

With regard to the various goals that are relevant to the communication of texts, Wilt

distinguished between text goals and organizational goals. Hymes’ list of communication

goals is still very useful for analyzing and discussing various levels of text: 1. expressive

667 Wilt (2003:53). 668 Wilt (2003:54-55). 669 Wilt (2003:55). 670 Wilt (2003:55). 671 Wilt (2003:57-58).

242

(to portray the speaker’s emotions, degree of commitment, etc.); 2. directive (to attempt

to cause the hearer to act in a desired way); 3. contact (phatic) (to establish or maintain

interaction); 4. metalinguistic (to talk about language use); 5. contextual (to establish

links between what is said and what has been (or will be) said or with the situation in

which it is being said); 6. poetic (to enhance aesthetic appreciation of language usage); 7.

referential (to make truth claims about the world); and 8. metacommunicative (to speak

about the communicative situation).

Goals of various communication situations are shaped by basic sociocultural levels.

Organizational goals are also very important. Participative decision making is important,

especially in cases where there is potential of conflicting goals.

D.4. The concept of ritual communication

An important concept in the domain of the communication-situation frame is the one of

“ritual communication”. James Carey’s presentation of a ritual model of communication

has been influential in communication studies, but has received little attention in Bible

translation literature. Wilt quotes Carey (1988/1975:18), who said:

“In a ritual definition, communication is linked to terms such as ‘sharing’,

‘participation’, ‘association’, ‘fellowship’, and ‘the possession of a common

faith’. This definition exploits the ancient identity and common roots of the

terms ‘commonness’, ‘communion’, ‘community’, and ‘communication’. A

ritual view of communication is directed not toward the extension of messages in

space but toward the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting

information but the representation of shared beliefs.’

Wilt contends that “for many communities, a Bible translation is both an affirmation of

the ‘link’ between its users and a ‘representation of shared beliefs’.” This linkage of

shared beliefs “is often viewed in terms of diachronic as well as synchronic continuity.

The diachronic linkage may be reflected in the preferred version’s use of lexical items

and linguistic patterns that are not commonly found in daily speech, in keeping with “the

remarkable disjunction between sacred and profane language … [that] exists as a general

fact” (Tambiah 1985:27) in cultures throughout the world, in both world and local

religions.”672

The degree of this disjunction will vary, just as rituals vary in degree of formality. In

some church communities, like the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which consciously

value and preserve rituals developed over the centuries, this disjunction is clearly evident.

In other translations, the disjunction may be less extreme but still, often purposefully,

evident. This is, for example the case with the New International version, where its

maintenance of linkage with widely used earlier versions contributed to its great

success.673

672 Wilt (2003:65). 673 Wilt (2003:65).

243

E. Summary of the Communication model

Wilt makes a distinction between ‘easy communication’ and ‘difficult communication’

which are at the extreme ends of a scale. In an easy communication situation, “a speaker,

with certain goals formed in view of the immediate speech situation, as understood in

terms of sociocultural and organizational frames of reference, selects a certain array of

signs and sends it as a text composed of signs. A hearer, participating in the same speech

situation and sharing the same goals, perceives the text, selects which aspects of it to

respond to, based on the same rules of interpretation, and continues the communication

process by sending texts (verbal or nonverbal) to the first speaker, who becomes hearer

and/or doer, and to another hearer/doer(s).”674

Wilt lists seven differences between the proposed communication model and earlier

models of communication: 1. the frames of reference influencing interpretation and

formulation of goals are explicitly represented as fundamental to the communication

process; 2. the organizational context is identified as having a crucial role; 3.

communication is not monodirectional, but bidirectional; the arrow extending from the

speaker towards the hearer does not arrive at the hearer; 4. the hearer’s goals for

participating in the speech event are represented as being as important as the speaker’s;

5. the centrality of exchange in communication is represented; 6. ‘TEXT signs’, that is, a

text composed of verbal and/or nonverbal signs, replaces ‘message’; 7. the notions of

‘message’ and ‘noise’ are not represented because of their ambiguous, if not misleading,

uses in translation literature.

Wilt notes that “what has been referred to as psychological noise is much better treated in

terms of differing frames of reference.” He proposes that “if the notion of noise is to be

kept at all, it should refer only to physical interference with transmission of a text, an

interference that would be readily recognized by all parties involved as unintentional and

undesirable …”675

At the other end of the extreme we find ‘difficult communication’. In cases like this, “the

hearer perceives and responds to signs sent by the speaker but there are only minimal

links with regard to the communication situation and vast differences in the frames of

reference for formulating and interpreting the text and deciding how to respond to

them.”676

“The degree of difficulty in communicating by translation will depend in part on the

degree to which the frames of the translator and of the target audience overlap with those

of the biblical texts. Little overlap is some areas may be offset by a great overlap in other

areas. For example, extreme differences in linguistic systems might be offset by

similarities in other important cultural practices and values. Initial difficulty in

understanding biblical customs and means of expression might be offset by a high

motivation to learn about them.”

674 Wilt (2003:74-75). 675 Wilt (2003:76). 676 Wilt (2003:76-77).

244

Wilt theorizes that “the extreme of difficult communication via translation would be in

the increasingly rare situation of an outsider trying to represent a text to members of a

socioculturally isolated group having little sociocultural and no organizational links with

the producers of the text to be translated.” But, “much more typical … are those

situations in which the Bible translator is a member of the target audience, sharing

organizational (especially church) ties with the producers of texts.” “The communication

situation becomes easier because the translator has mother-tongue mastery of the

language of translation and an understanding of how the language is used that outsiders

rarely achieve.”677

In a concluding section, Wilt portrays Bible translators as intermediaries between several

communities and sub-communities, such as faith communities, communities of Scripture

producers, parachurch organizations working for the publication and use of Scriptures,

secular communities, academic and/or political communities influencing matters such as

orthography and literacy.”678

8.2.2.6. Descriptive studies in Bible translation

This overview of translation theory and methodology in general would not be complete

without a summary of descriptive studies related to Bible translation. Three fields of

research have been particularly fruitful in this area: 1. descriptive research that has

different versions of the Bible in English as its object; 2. descriptive research of Bible

translations in Dutch; and 3. descriptive research that has focused on the Septuagint as a

translation of a Vorlage of the Hebrew Bible.

With regard to the descriptive study of the English Bible, the following publications are

to be mentioned among many others: Kubo & Specht’s (1983, 1975) So Many Versions?

20th

century English versions of the Bible. Lewis’ (1982, 1981) The English Bible from

KJV to NIV. A History and Evaluation. Bailey’s (1982) The Word of God. A Guide to

English Versions of the Bible. Levi’s (1974) The English Bible from Wycliffe to William

Barnes. In most of these studies, the description is followed by an evaluation.

Descriptive translation studies of Dutch Bible translations have been carried out by C.C.

de Bruin and F.G.M. Broeyer (1993) with regard to the Dutch Statenvertaling679

; by C.

Houtman (1980) with regard to Dutch translations of the Old Testament; by Anneke de

Vries (1994) with regard to the Petrus Canisius translation; by J.A. Koole (1996) with

regard to the New Dutch Translation-1951. J.N. Bakhuizen van den Brink (1953) wrote

about lexical choices in six New Testament translations; Other important surveys of

translations were written by M.P. van der Marel (1980), J. van Bruggen (1981) and H.W.

Hollander (1994). A. Bergsma (1966) is rather polemical as it rejects the New Dutch

Translation-1951, while defending the continued use of the Statenvertaling (1637).

677 Wilt (2003:77-78). 678 Wilt (2003:80). 679 C.C. de Bruin and F.G.M. Broeyer. (1993) De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers. Haarlem. Cf. also De

Vries (2002).

245

Various publications were written related to the Dutch Groot Nieuws Bijbel and the New

Bible Translation.

With regard to the descriptive translation studies of the Septuagint, the following works

need to be mentioned: Olofsson (1990)680

, Olofsson (1992)681

, Aejmelaeus & Quast

(2000)682

and Sollamo & Sipilä (2001).

8.3. Insights from related disciplines

Before we conclude this chapter on methodological and theoretical contributions to the

study of Bible translation, a short overview of important insights from related disciplines

seems to be in order. Cognitive theory and communication theory and are most relevant

in this respect. Insights from the first two disciplines will be summarized in this section.

8.3.1. Insights from cognitive theory (schema theory)

Schema theory is a well-known theory of human cognition that has been applied to a

variety of disciplines, including reading theory. ‘According to the theory, a reader’s

schema, or organized knowledge of the world, provides much of the basis for

comprehending, learning, and remembering the ideas in stories and texts.’683

The concept

of ‘schema’ is closely related to the concept of ‘frame’ as it is used by Wilt and others in

the previous section. It is also closely connected to the concepts of ‘script’ and ‘scenario’.

Anderson (1985), Schank & Abelson (1977), Schank (1984, [1982]), Barsalou, and others

have done ground-breaking work in exploring this kind of human knowledge structures

(memory and learning in particular).

A schema can be defined as ‘an organized packet of knowledge that enables us to make

sense of new knowledge.’684

The schema gives knowledge-organizing activation that

means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Schema’s can be applied to concepts, events685

, texts, prototypical categories and even

lexical domains. The schema gives coherence to the knowledge that is presented in it. It

is hierarchically structured and consists of a number of slots that can be filled by

680 Olofsson (1990). The LXX Version. A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Stockholm:

Almqvist & Wiksell International. 681 Olofsson (1992). God is My Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the

Septuagint. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. 682 Aejmelaeus, Ameli & Udo Quast (Hgs.). (2000). Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine

Tochterübersetzungen: Symposium in Göttingen 1997, (Abhandelungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften

in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 230, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-

Unternehmens, Bd. 24), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 683 Richard C. Anderson. (1985). “The Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension, Learning, and

Memory.” In: Singer, Harry & Robert B. Ruddell. (1976?) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading.

(Third Edition), p. 372. 684 Harley (2001:329). 685 Including speech events and pragmatic principles related to speech situations.

246

particular slots. The schema of a narrative text, for example, may consist of the following

slots: setting, theme, plot and resolution. The schema (‘script’) of a going to a restaurant

event may consist of the following scenes: entering, ordering, eating, paying the bill,

exiting. The schema (‘frame’) of a concept may consist of the following slots:

superordinate category, parts, materials, function, shape, size.

Anderson (1985) has applied to concept of ‘schema’ to reading theory and text

interpretation. He recognizes six different functions of schemata686

:

(1) A schema provides ideational scaffolding for assimilating text information

(2) A schema facilitates selective allocation of attention

(3) A schema enables inferential elaboration

(4) A schema allows orderly searches of memory

(5) A schema facilitates editing and summarizing

(6) A schema permits inferential reconstruction

The notion of schema is particularly helpful for explaining the nature of inferential

elaboration. Inferential elaboration is not usually done at random or at an ad hoc basis,

but it has a more or less systematic (cohesive) character. This systematic (cohesive)

character of inferential elaboration is made possible by the underlying schema.

Schema theory does not treat meaning as a property of texts, sentences and words, but as

something that is formed in the interaction between the text (data) and the reader

(hypothesis). “A fundamental assumption of schema-theoretic approaches to language

comprehension is that spoken or written text does not in itself carry meaning. Rather, a

text only provides directions for the listener or reader as to how he should retrieve or

construct the intended meaning from his own, previously acquired knowledge. The words

of a text evoke in the reader associated concepts, their past interrelationships, and their

potential interrelationships. The organization of the text helps him to select among these

conceptual complexes. The goal of schema theory is to specify the interface between the

reader and the text – to specify how the reader’s knowledge interacts and shapes the

information on the page and to specify how that knowledge must be organized to support

the interaction.’687

In the context of reading theory, schema plays an important role in the understanding of a

text. “According to schema theory, reading involves more or less simultaneous analysis at

many different levels. (…) Reading is conceived to be an interactive process. This means

that analysis does not proceed in a strict order from the visual information in letters to the

overall interpretation of a text.’ Reading and interpretation involves basically an

interactive process that is simultaneously “bottom-up” or “data-driven” and “top-

down” and “hypothesis driven.” (Bobrow and Norman 1975).

The notion of schema is helpful, because it has a lot of predictive power. The reader’s

expectations and counter-expectations are to a large degree generated by the schema’s

686 Anderson (1985:376). 687 Marilyn Jager Adams & Allan Collins (1985:406).

247

that are operative. These schema’s reflect the hearer’s worldview, beliefs and

experiences. Textual clues help the reader to activate certain schema’s. However,

schema’s are a mixed blessing, since they may either help or hinder the reader to

understand the text.

In the context of schema theory, differences in interpretation are basically caused by

differing underlying schema’s that are activated during reading, listening and

interpretation. Different people have different preferential schema’s, depending on their

culture, race, sex, religion, work, hobby’s, interests, etc.

Schema’s may operate at either a global (macroscopic) or a local (microscopic) level.

And they can be activated in different degrees: partial vs. full activation.

Applied to interlingual and cross-cultural communication, the concept of schema is very

powerful, as it helps us to understand problems related to misunderstanding of texts by

secondary audiences who do not share the basic assumptions (share the schema’s) of the

original text and its primarily intended audience.

Understood in the light of schema theory, misunderstandings can be viewed as a result of

cultural interference rather than as an anomaly. They are to a large degree predictable

and conditioned by the cultural frames that are ingrained in the minds of the audience.

Cultural interference is the result of a cross-cultural clash between the meanings

expressed in the text and between the cultural frames which are evoked in the minds of

the audience.

These cultural schema’s (or: text-cognitive frames)688

, which mainly seem to operate

mainly at a subconscious level, are very powerful (strong context689

), even to the degree

that they tend to generate meaning that is not expressed or implied in the text and that

they filter out meaning that is overtly expressed in the linguistic co-text (weak context).

In other words, these cultural frames seem to share some important properties with

models and metaphors: 1. they highlight certain features, while they hide other features;

and 2. they are inferential.

688 The term ‘text-cognitive frame’ is mine. This concept is very close to Anderson’s concept of ‘schema,’

as it is applied in the context of reading theory and text interpretation. It is different from terms like ‘script’

and ‘scenario’, used by Schank & Abelson (1977), Schank (1984, [1982]), and others, who usually do not

apply these concepts to reading and text interpretation, but rather to events and situations in the real world

and to the cognitive structuring of these situations, events and of concepts in general. The term ‘text-

cognitive’ frame is also different from Wilt’s textual frames, which seem to be more closely linked to the structure of texts at various levels than with the reader’s / interpreter’s interpretation (selection and

reconstruction) of information supplied in the text. 689 The distinction between strong context and weak context is mine. Further validation of this distinction

will be given in the chapters 13 and 14 where I discuss the comprehension testing of translated metaphors

with a selected group of Una people.

248

8.3.2. Insights from communication theory

We have seen that most of the approaches to Bible translation discussed so far treat

translation in the broader context of a theory of communication. In most of these

approaches, the communicative difficulties of translating texts for secondary audiences

which do not share the cultural assumptions of the original audiences are recognized as a

(potential) problem. This was most clearly articulated in Nida’s work and in Wilt’s (and

others’) work. Gutt also recognizes the problem, and his distinction of ‘direct

translations’ versus ‘indirect translations’ is directly related to the fact that some types of

communication face more difficulties in terms of mutual understanding than others. De

Vries also recognizes the problem, but he contends that certain cultures may develop a

tolerance for various types of interference from the source text and culture.

What is interesting, though, is the fact that – despite the recognition that translation is to

be dealt with in the broader context of communication – none of the newer approaches to

Bible translation seems to make use of recent communication theory as a leading

paradigm for translation. Cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, and social functions of Bible

translations seem to form the newer paradigms for translation. But, communication

theory as a discipline, and cross-cultural communication more in particular, does not

seem to be a major contributor to modern translation theory.

In this section, I will point out some insights from communication theory which may be

helpful for translation theory.

A. Hall & Hall

Hall’s distinction between low-context and high-context seems to be important for

translation studies. In low-context communication, people communicate in a way that is

very explicit; in high-context communication, however, the communication is usually

very implicit. Hall describes the differences between these two types of communication

as follows:

“A high context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the

information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit,

transmitted part of the message. A low context (LC) communication is just the

opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who

have grown up together can and do communicate more economically (HC) than

two lawyers in a courtroom during a trial (LC), a mathematician programming a

computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators writing a

regulation.”690

Hall & Hall’s distinction of low-context versus high-context is helpful as it points out that

there are different styles of communication. However, it should also be noted that his

distinction between low-context (western) cultures and high-context cultures (non-

western) easily leads to an oversimplified view of the differences between cultures.

690 Hall (1976) quoted in Hall & Hall (1990:6).

249

Another distinction made by Hall & Hall is the one between fast and slow messages.

Prose, headlines, cartoons, Television, TV commercials, etc. are examples of fast

messages. Poetry, books, print in general, and TV documentaries are examples of slow

messages. Hall recognizes a continuum of fast and slow messages. Persons and cultures

are in fact slow messages too, since it takes time to get to know them well.691

The distinction between fast and slow messages seems to be particularly important for

Bible translation in the context of audiences where literacy is low and slow. Oral and

visual presentations of the messages may help to synchronize these messages to a speed

at which people normally communicate. The development of easy reading books and

comics may thus contribute to the perceived relevance of the messages contained in these

books. And, of course, literacy programs focusing on accurate, fluent, intelligent reading

of messages may play a major role in the successful communication of the Scriptures.

Cultural interfacing is another important concept in Hall & Hall’s description of cross-

cultural communication. They illustrate the concept of interfacing with the following

example: “it is impossible to interface an American appliance with a European outlet

without and adaptor and a transformer. Not only are the voltages different, but the

contacts on one are round; on the other, thin and flat.” A similar problem occurs when

people from one culture communicate with people from another culture.692

Hall & Hall distinguish five basic principles related to cultural interfacing:

1. The higher the context of either the culture or the industry, the more difficult the

interface;

2. The greater the complexity of the elements, the more difficult the interface;

3. The greater the cultural distance, the more difficult the interface;

4. The greater the number of levels in the system, the more difficult the interface;

5. Very simple, low-context, highly evolved, mechanical systems, tend to produce

fewer interface problems than multiple-level systems of great complexity that

depend on human talent for their success.693

Hall & Hall recognize that publishing, for example, is a difficult-to-interface

enterprise.694

Translating would be another example of a difficult-to-interface exercise,

especially for translators who come from a high context culture. The existence of training

materials for translators in itself does not solve the interfacing problem, since people

691 Hall & Hall (1990:5). 692 Hall & Hall (1990:26). 693 Hall & Hall (1990:27). 694 Hall & Hall (1990:27).

250

from high context cultures seem to primarily learn in personal interactions (mentoring)

rather than by working through a translation manual.

According to Hall & Hall, “the key to being an effective communicator is in knowing the

degree of information (contexting) that must be supplied.”695

They also state that “within

all cultures there are important unstated differences as to what constitutes a proper

releaser.” The report that their “research over the years in the correct releaser has

indicated that people cluster around preferences for “words,” “numbers,” and

“pictures”.” “Using the wrong format (sending numbers when words are wanted, words

when the recipient only feels comfortable with numbers, or words and/or numbers to the

visually-oriented person) can only release a negative, frustrated response.”696

B. Spoler-van den Hombergh

Spoler-van den Hombergh697

gives a helpful description of various conditions which

together form the basis of effective communication. According to the author, “we speak

of effective communication when people speak with one another in such a way that they

understand one another and that the message is understood. In order to reach effective

communication four conditions need to be fulfilled: 1. Technical condition; 2. Cognitive

condition; 3. Interpretative condition; 4. Affective condition.”

1. Technical condition: Speaker and hearer speak and understand the same language;

there is no language barrier.

2. Cognitive condition: Speaker and hearer share a common ground of knowledge.

3. Interpretative condition: Speaker and hearer assign the same meaning to words and

expressions.

4. Affective condition: Words and expressions evoke the same kind of feelings in

speakers and hearers (positive or negative).

This description of effective communication is very helpful as it mentions several

conditions that communicators, including cross-cultural communicators, often take for

granted, but which are not always fulfilled.

C. Elmer

Elmer (1993:18)698

gives some good examples of cross-cultural miscommunications. He

concludes that ‘the mind naturally seeks to understand conflict situations, even minor

ones. When facts are not immediately forthcoming to explain ambiguous situations, the

mind tends to fill in the blanks. That is, we supply our own data to explain the situation.

695 Hall & Hall (1990:29). 696

Hall & Hall (1990:30). 697 Spoler-van den Hombergh (Ed.). (2000). Communicatie en sociale vaardigheden. Baarn, The Netherlands. ‘We spreken van effectieve communicatie als je zo met elkaar praat dat je elkaar begrijpt en

dat de boodschap overkomt. Om dit te bereiken moet aan vier voorwaarden worden voldaan: 1. Technische

voorwaarde; 2. Cognitieve voorwaarde; 3. Interpretatieve voorwaarde; 4. Affective voorwaarde.’ 698 Elmer, Duane. (1993). Cross-cultural Conflict. Building Relationships for Effective Ministry. Downers

Grove (IL): Intervarsity Press.

251

The fatal flaw is that we provide the understanding from our cultural frame of reference,

not from the cultural frame of reference of the other person, or the situation in which the

conflict exists.’

“Social scientists have discovered an interesting behavior that tends to arise in situations

of ambiguity or conflict. As I have already mentioned, when someone does something

that we do not understand, and an explanation is not quickly forthcoming, we actually

provide our own explanation. We fill in the blanks, so to speak.”699

He mentions four mistakes that often occur in cross-cultural communications: 1. facts are

confused with interpretation; 2. Once a judgment is made, the human mind closes, and

does not look for alternative interpretations; 3. The interpretation of facts is usually

heavily biased by our own cultural values; and 4. Once we feel justified in our

conclusion, we unconsciously look for further data to support it. At the same time, we fail

to take note of data that could have contradicted or modified our conclusion.700

This ‘hermeneutic spiral’ of misunderstanding, as described by Elmer, can in fact be

extended and applied to the understanding of foreign translated texts in cross-cultural

contexts. As a translator and translation consultant in Indonesia I have observed a similar

process over and over again. When unconditioned native speakers are presented with

information that is ambiguous, they tend to interpret this in a way that is most consistent

with their own worldview and culture. And, once they have found an interpretation that

makes sense to them, their mind closes, and no further attempt is made to think of

alternative interpretations.701

The checking session described in Appendix G (‘God is a

sun and shield’) is illustrative of a process like this.

8.4. Conclusions

In this chapter an overview was given of a number of current trends in the theory and

methodology of translation theory in general and of Bible translation more in particular.

In addition, a number of relevant insights from related disciplines such as cognitive

theory (schema theory) and communication theory were presented.

With regard to the theory and methodology of translation the following general trends

were discovered:

1. There has been a shift from a prescriptive approach to translation to a more

descriptive approach.

699 Elmer (1993:19). 700

Elmer (1993:20). 701 In terms of translation strategy it seems to be crucial that the reader is presented with an unambiguous rendering of the meaning of the text before he has made the wrong conclusions and his mind has closed.

Another strategy would, of course, be to leave the meaning ambiguous in the text, and to rely on preachers,

teachers and/or paratextual aids to explain the meaning. But, this may not be a good option in situations

where there is not a strong tradition of teaching and explanation or where readers are not trained to use

paratextual aids such as introductions, sections headings and footnotes.

252

2. There has been a shift from a more practical approach to translation to more

theoretical approaches.

3. There has been a shift from seeing translation as an academic exercise governed by

‘scientifically’ valid (equivalence-based) rules and guidelines to viewing

translation as fulfilling certain social functions that can be negotiated between

audiences, translators and publishers (skopos approach).

4. There has been a paradigm shift from a model of translation that was dominated by

linguistics (Transformational-Generative Grammar) to models that stem from

sociosemiotics, pragmatic theory, action theory, cognitive linguistics and

sociocultural studies.

5. Despite attempts to unify the field of translation theory in general, there is still a

high degree of diversification.

6. The ‘dethronement’ of the source text in general translation studies has led to a

broadening of the concept of translation, as it may also include skopos-based

adaptations of texts.

7. The ‘dethronement’ of the source text in general translation studies has alienated

translators from translation theorists.

8. The field of Bible translation studies is in the process of undergoing an important

paradigm shift: dynamic equivalence and other meaning-based theories have been

challenged by relevance theory (antithesis); the recent frames of reference

approach to Bible translation may prove to be a reasonable synthesis.

9. The (at least partial) ‘dethronement’ of dynamic-equivalence and functional

equivalence approaches in Bible translation studies has favored a translation

practice that keeps closer to the forms of the source text than was customary in the

heydays of dynamic-equivalence.

10. There is a growing awareness, at least in the field of Bible translation studies, that

translations are shaped to a considerable degree by the theological and hermeneutic

assumptions of translators and audiences.

11. Despite the more descriptive (in the sense of less normative) approach to

translation, translation theory and methodology are still a far cry from being solidly

grounded in descriptive translation studies.

12. Descriptive translation studies are lacking, particularly in the area of vernacular

Bible translations.

In summary, it can be said that translators and translation theorists have become more

aware of the different perspectives that audiences may have on the translated text.

Audiences may see the translated text as a document (or: container), an instrument (or:

bridge), or a sacrament (or: icon)702

. They may also see the text as a stimulus that triggers

interpretative and moral (including religious-spiritual) responses from the hearers.703

702

Cf. S. Crisp, 'Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its Implications for Bible

Translation'. Paper for the Triennial Translation Workshop of the United Bible Societies, Malaga 2000. 703 Note that Kelly (1979) classifies the functions of translation as symbol, symptom and signal. According

to Kelly (1979:68), “symbol entails transfer of information without anything but intellectual commitment.”

Symptom, on the other hand, “transcends this by depending on personal commitment.” (1979:79). Kelly’s

(1979:99) concept of signal refers to the persuasive function of translations. Kelly (1979:108) summarizes

his view of functions of translation in relation to translation techniques as follows: “In general, translation

253

The relationship between the source text and the translated text may be seen in a variety

of ways: some people see the translated text as the servant of the source text. Others see

the translated text as a servant too, but as servant of the intended audience, not of the

source text. Still others see the translated text as an intermediary between the source text

and the intended audience. The relationship between the source text and the translated

text can also be primarily viewed either in terms of iconicity (the translation is a mirror of

the source text) or in terms of selectivity (the translation is a window on the source text).

These kind of views have, of course, implications for people’s tolerance or support for

multiple translations of the same source text.704

However, probably the most significant insight in current translation theory is the

observation that translated texts usually function in the context of social (including

religious and educational) institutions. This means that the responsibility for

communicating the translated text in a meaningful way does not fall solely on the

translator, but also on the institutions in the context of which a translation is produced.

The division of interpretative labor (De Vries) between the translator, the reader, and

representatives of the institution is a key issue in deciding what kind of translation is

needed in a particular situation.

as symbol demands a literal technique; an attempt at objective reporting of what was said. Signal

translation usually demands oblique translation, and the risk of misunderstanding by the public is high, not to speak of the risk of inaccuracy. Symptom is in an ambiguous position, owing to the differences in

relationship the translator sets up with his author.” 704 Generally speaking, a mirror metaphor of translation will usually foster an exclusive position, favoring

one particular translation. A window metaphor of translation will usually foster a more inclusive position,

which sees different types of translation as more or less complementary.

254

9. Theoretical and Methodological Contributions to the

Translation of Metaphor

9.1. Introduction

Translating metaphors from one language to another is one of the most challenging tasks

that translators face. This is especially the case, when the culture from which the source

text originated differs widely from the culture(s) to which the prospective readers of the

translated text belong. Due to fundamental differences in shared knowledge, cultural

assumptions, worldview and value orientation, the readers of the translated text may not

be able to grasp the meaning and impact of the metaphors of the source text. Or, they

may even interpret the metaphors in a way that is diametrically opposed to what the

author of the source text had intended to come across.

Beekman and Callow705

give several examples of metaphors that are readily

misunderstood, when translated literally into languages that are linguistically and

culturally very different from the source text. For example, when Jesus calls king Herod a

‘fox’ in Luke 13:32, the Zapotecs of Villa Alta think that Herod is a person who cries a

lot. The Otomi of the State of Mexico, however, conclude that Herod is a thief. People

from other language groups think that Herod must be a good hunter or that he is a

heartless killer of domesticated animals. However interesting these different

interpretations of the ‘fox’ metaphor are, it is very unlikely that any of these character

traits were intended by the original speaker (author) to come across in this particular

passage.

Translation problems like this are very common. Translators who translate for audiences

whose language and culture differ widely from the source text deal with this kind of

problems on a daily basis. The translation of metaphors may also pose a problem to

translators who are translating between languages that are much more closely related.

Translators will always need to ask the question whether or not a metaphor of the source

text is semantically and pragmatically equivalent to a similar metaphor in the target

language, or whether it needs to be rendered in some other way that carries the same load

in terms of denotations, connotations and implicatures (inferential meanings).

The translation of metaphors has been recognized as one of the most important issues that

translators have to deal with. Peter Newmark706

, for example, states that, ‘whilst the

central problem of translation is the overall choice of a translation method for a text, the

most particular problem is the translation of metaphor.’ And Marge Crofts707

, who has

been an International Translation Consultant with SIL for many years, makes the

following comment in her (unpublished) master’s thesis on metaphor: ‘It has been

striking that both as a translator and as a translation consultant more time is spent solving

interpretation and translation problems of metaphors than any other area of translation.’

705 Beekman and Callow. (1978:138-139). 706 Newmark (1995:104). 707 Crofts. (n.d.a). The Interpretation and Translation of Metaphors. p. 7 (Ms.)

255

In this chapter, I will survey the most significant contributions from translation theorists

to the theory and methodology of translating metaphors.708

The majority of these

contributions come from the field of Bible translation, where the translation of metaphor

is one of the most challenging problems.

9.2. The translation of metaphor

9.2.1. Metaphor and the problem of translatability

The question of translatability is critical both in translation theory and practice: To what

extent can words (concepts), sentences and messages be translated from one language

into another without a significant loss of meaning or a shift in meaning?709

Descriptive

language studies have shown that every language has its own ‘unique configurations of

grammar, vocabulary and metaphor’. Despite these differences between languages,

“translation between languages still occurs, often with an ostensibly high degree of

success.”710

Pym and Turk distinguish three basic positions with regard to the question of

translatability: (a) “For the rationalist, meanings (‘ideas’ or sometimes ‘structures’) are

universal and are thus generally translatable into their various language-specific

representations. The relation between thinking (meaning as ideas) and speaking (the

representation of meanings) is thus held to be loose.711

(b) For the relativist712

, thinking

and speaking are more tightly bound together. Wilhelm von Humboldt, for example, saw

each language as embodying a way of thinking; all translating thus seemed to be ‘an

attempt at solving an impossible task’; translators would always have to ‘run aground on

one of two rocks, either clinging too closely to the original at the expense of the taste and

language of their nation, or clinging too closely to the specificity of their nation at the

expense of the original’ (Humboldt 1796/1868; vi; cf. 1816/1963: 80ff.). (c) a third

approach is to acknowledge that although all languages have a claim to individuality,

texts should still be translatable out of them. Schleiermacher (and the German Romantics

in general) posited a mediation between thinking and speaking, meaning and expression

… Meaning is neither indifferent to expression nor insurmountably tied to it; meaning is

708 A discussion of the contributions of ‘secular’ translators to the theory of metaphor and its translation

will require a separate paper. 709 Cf. Pym and Turk, in: Baker & Malmkjaer (2001:273): “Translatability is mostly understood as the

capacity for some kind of meaning to be transferred from one language to another without undergoing

radical change.” 710 Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997:180). 711

Chomsky and Wierzbicka are influential modern linguists who stand in the universalist tradition. 712 The Sapir-Whorf maxim of linguistic relativity has, of course, played an important role in the relativist tradition of language and culture. Whorf (1956:221) defines this principle as follows: “The “linguistic

relativity principle” … means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by

the grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of

observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the

world.” Cf. Foley (1997:201-202).

256

accessible with the help of modes of understanding that we might call ‘sense’.”713

According to Pym and Turk, “few theories claim that all meanings are always

translatable.”714

Rationalists and universalists sometimes have a tendency to deny, ignore or

underestimate the problem of translatability; relativists, on the other hand, are sometimes

accused of overstating the problem.715

Pym and Turk acknowledge that translatability is a

‘complex field’ that can be approached from different angles (analytical approach and

hermeneutic approach).716

In the context of this chapter, we will primarily approach the

problem of translatability from an anthropological and linguistic angle.

According to Jakobson (1959:264), “languages differ essentially in what they must

convey and not in what they can convey.” Hjelmslev and Katz basically agree with this

position. It can be said that every act of translation assumes that the meanings of the

source text can be successfully rendered into the target language. However, the question

still needs to be asked to what degree foreign concepts can be translated. To what degree

can concepts like “camel” and “cheese”, for example, be translated, if the target audience

has never seen a camel or tasted ‘coagulated milk curds’? And, if knowledge is primarily

experience-based, how can we translate truths and practices that fall outside the

experience of the secondary target audience?

Furthermore, the mere possibility of rendering words and sentences of a source text into a

different target language does not guarantee that this rendering in the target language has

not undergone any significant shifts in meaning, nor that the target audience understands

these translated words and sentences in the sense they were intended in the original text.

When concepts and texts are translated from one language into another, they are

simultaneously transferred from one cultural context to another. The network of meaning

in which concepts, utterances and texts function in the target language may be quite

different from the network of meaning in which they function in the source language.717

713 Pym and Turk, in: Baker & Malmkjaer (2001:273-274). 714 Pym and Turk, in: Baker & Malmkjaer (2001:273). 715 Stienstra (1993:197), for example, states that “in fact, it could be said that the question as to the

possibility or impossibility of translation is a fake problem. Communication across cultures and languages

takes place, it has been taking place for thousands of years.” However, the big question related to

translatability is not whether or not communication has been taking place, but whether or not this

communication has been taking place without significant shifts in the meanings and associations of words

and concepts and in the conceptual frameworks in which they function in the source text. 716 Pym and Turk, in: Baker & Malmkjaer (2001:273). 717

The biblical notion of ‘covenant’ (berith) is a case in point. This notion functioned differently in the

various contexts of the Old Testament than it did in the theologies of seventeenth century (Reformed) ‘covenant theologians’, where its meaning had been shaped by notions from Roman law, and than it did in

modern theology, where it is primarily associated with the notion of ‘partnership’. Biblical concepts like

‘the righteousness of God’ and ‘the kingdom of God’ are some other concepts that may have been

translated very similarly, but which have functioned in diverse networks of meanings, which gave it a

different meaning.

257

The problem of translatability, as it is experienced by translators718

, is primarily linked to

the differences in culture and worldview in various languages.719

The problem occurs not

only when a certain concept is missing in a particular culture, but also when a certain

concept is found in the target culture but has denotations and connotations that are

different from those in the source text. In other words: translatability is not primarily a

matter of the presence or absence of certain words in the target culture, but it is a matter

of whether or not the words and expressions that are available in the target language have

the same meanings and associations as their correlates in the source language.

The problem of translatability (or: untranslatability or incommensurability) is primarily

rooted in conceptual diversity between different cultures. According to Foley, “we will

have to understand some other theory in terms of our own, i.e. translate it into the terms

of our own … Because translation requires moving the categories of the alien system into

those of our own, this imposes constraints on how radically different the alien system can

be. If completely incompatible, even partial translation should be impossible. The fact

that a fair degree of translation between conceptual schemes across languages and

cultures does seem possible indicates that at least some minimal communalities do exist.

But this should not blind us to the wide gulf between them.”720

He refers to Quine, who “emphasizes that languages are systems; we are not trying to

match the meanings of words across systems, but the conceptual schemes these belong to

– a much taller order, as this implies aligning the systems as wholes.”721

According to

Quine, “the meaning of a word is underdetermined and so is the task of translation. The

latter always requires the translator to make underdetermined guesses about matches

between systems which cannot be completely resolved. And inevitably the kinds of

guesses she is likely to make are those embedded in the categories and practices, the

conceptual systems, of her Native language.”722

Quine’s description of translation as being ‘underdetermined’ implies that translation

between languages is possible, but that translation is at best approximative. This applies

718 With regard to the problem of translatability, we need to distinguish between translatability at the level of linguistic representation and between translatability at the level of philosophical and anthropological

understanding. Both aspects of translatability are closely related, but they are not identical. The problem of

translatability in terms of linguistic representation is in fact more complicated than translatability in terms

of philosophical and anthropological understanding, since in the former case there are additional constraints

such as preservation of expressivity, preservation of conciseness, preservation of genre, etc.

Anthropologists who seek to provide a ‘thick’ description (Geertz) of the foreign concepts and the cultural

and linguistic contexts they occur are usually not constrained by factors like these. But translators of texts

are definitely constrained by them. 719 Another important reason for the problem of translatability – even at the sentence level and the text level

– is the fact that meaning is not a monodimensional entity. Meaning is rather a whole package of

denotational and connotational meanings that are embedded in cultural practices and which have inferential

aspects that are related to these cultural practices. The hybrid nature of meaning makes it difficult to translate it into another language without any loss of meaning or without making the translation sound like

a mini-commentary. 720 Foley (1997:171). 721 Foley (1997:171). 722 Foley (1997:171).

258

not only to cases of ‘radical translation’723

, where there is a huge cultural gap between the

source text and the secondary audience, but also to cases where this cultural gap is far

less dramatic.

With regard to the question of linguistic translatability, we need to distinguish between

translatability at the word level on the one hand and translatability at a sentence level and

a text level on the other. Translatability at the word level is difficult to attain, since every

language has lexical gaps (as well as lexical specialization), when compared to other

languages. In Una, for example, there is no single word for ‘shepherd’, like in English,

and a descriptive phrase (‘caretaker of sheep’) is needed to express this concept.724

Translatability (or: translational equivalence) at a sentence level and at a text level is

much easier to attain, but even at this level translatability is not absolute, but at best

approximative.725

The problem of translatability is to a large degree determined by the cultural and

linguistic distance between languages. It is usually more difficult to translate a text

between languages that are linguistically remote than between languages that are

linguistically closely related. And it is more difficult to translate a text for an audience

that is culturally remote than for an audience that shares more or less the same cultural

background as the primary audience of the original text.

The problem of translatability is also related to the degree of complexity of the source text

that is to be translated. Poetry is, for example, much more difficult to translate than

narrative texts. And metaphor, as it occurs in poetic and non-poetic genres, is usually

more difficult to translate than plain literal language. When translating poetry or

metaphors, translators face an extra challenge in finding a good balance in expressing the

informative, expressive, appellative and aesthetic aspects of the text.

Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997:180) mention ‘explicitation’ (or: ‘paraphrasing) and

‘compensation’ as important strategies to circumvent untranslatability.726

Explicitation is

used in order to “ensure that all the semantic features of ST [the Source Text] are

retained.” Hervey and Higgins define compensation as “the technique of making up for

723 Quine uses the term ‘radical translation’ to denote “the translation of the language of a hitherto

untouched people” (1960:28). Cf. Quine, in Venuti (2002:94). Cf. also Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997:136). 724 But even the descriptive phrase ‘caretaker of sheep’ is strictly speaking not an adequate rendering of the

term ‘shepherd’, since Una people tend to interpret this concept from the concept of ‘pig breeder’ and

‘person who ties pigs with a rope’, which are the closest cultural equivalents. The concept of flock (a group

of freely roaming animals herded by one or more people) is absent in Una. People who let their pigs roam

freely, don’t take good care of them. Since God takes good care of his people, portrayed as sheep, He is

often pictures as tying his sheep with a rope. 725 The problem of translatability can be approached from a ‘parole’ (language in use) perspective and from

a ‘langue’ (language as system) perspective. When approached from a ‘parole’ perspective, translatability

may be less of a problem than when it is approached from a ‘langue’ perspective, because linguistic and situational contexts usually limit the range of meanings of words and concepts. 726 The use of loan words is another strategy, especially in languages that are in transition from a

monolingual situation to a bilingual situation. Translators should not assume that the meaning of the loan

word as it is used in the context of a vernacular language has necessarily the same meaning as the same

word in the original donor language. Semantic shifts can easily occur.

259

the translation loss of important ST [Source Text] features by approximating their effects

in the TT [Target Text] through means other than used in the ST [Source Text].”727

The translation of metaphor epitomizes the problem of translatability as it is faced by

translators who translate for audiences who do not share the same cultural background as

the original audiences of the source text. Many metaphors are culture-bound, either

because the images themselves are unknown in other cultures or because the meanings

(connotations and inferences) associated with these images are different from the ones

associated to them in other cultures.

Hayakawa728

characterizes the difficulty as follows:

“This (..) is the reason literature is so difficult to translate from one language to

another: a translation that follows informative connotations will often falsify the

affective connotations, and vice versa, so that readers who know both the language

of the original and the language of the translation are almost sure to be dissatisfied,

feeling either that “the spirit of the original has been sacrificed” or else that the

translation is “full of inaccuracies.”

“In translations, a further problem is presented by the fact that a well-understood

metaphor in one culture may have entirely different meanings in another part of the

world. The United Nations once made a short movie in which an owl was shown, to

indicate wisdom. It completely misfired in certain Asiatic countries where the movie

was shown, and the footage had to be reshot. Why? Because in those countries it

was found that the owl was a traditional image of stupidity and an object of

amusement.”

Misunderstandings of metaphors will probably mainly occur with metaphors that are

based on arbitrary mapping. Metaphors that are based on physical correspondence or

functional correspondence may be less problematic, as far as the images of these

metaphors are easily understood or even actually used by the secondary audience in a

similar sense.

727 Cf. Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997:25). 728 Hayakawa, S.I. (1972 [1941]). Language in Thought and Action. New York etc.: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, Inc, p. 105.

260

9.2.2. Insights from the field of Bible translation

In this section I will give an overview of various methodological contributions to the

translation of metaphor from the field of Bible translation.

9.2.2.1. Nida and Taber (1969)

Nida and Taber (1969) do not give a full-blown discussion of how to translate metaphors.

The main thrust of their ‘pedagogically oriented’ book can be characterized by the key

words ‘analysis of kernel sentences,’ ‘componential analysis,’ ‘transformation’ and

‘restructuring.’ Given their focus on these more general aspects of translation

methodology, it is not surprising that the authors only briefly discuss the more specific

topic of translating figurative expressions. Their discussion of this topic is found in two

different sections of their book, which deal with respectively ‘referential meaning’

(chapter 4) and ‘transfer’ (chapter 6).729

A. The problem of figurative meanings

Nida and Taber deal with ‘the problem of figurative meanings’ in one of the final

sections of their chapter on ‘referential meaning’ (chapter 4)730

. In this section, where the

terms ‘metaphor’ and ‘simile’ do not occur731

, the authors briefly discuss the differences

between ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ meaning from a more general point of view. They

acknowledge that it does not seem possible to define the term ‘literal’ with great rigor,

but they give a general characterization of the notion.

According to the authors, the ‘literal’ meanings of a term are relatively close to the

primary or central meaning of that term through the sharing of important semantic

components.732

Where the link between the primary meaning of a term and other

meanings of that same term is not through essential components, such meanings are

called ‘figurative.’ The distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ meaning often

729 It is interesting to note that Nida and Taber do not refer to figurative expressions in their chapter on

‘connotative meaning’ (chapter 5). 730 Nida and Taber (1969:87-90). 731 Although Nida and Taber do not use the terms ‘metaphor’ and ‘simile’ here, these terms are included in

the Glossary at the end of the book. They define the term ‘metaphor’ as ‘a figurative expression used

instead of another to make an implicit comparison between the items referred to by the two expressions,

often based upon supplementary components.’ By contrast, ‘simile’ is defined as ‘an expression in

everyway similar except that the comparison is explicit.’ Nida and Taber (1969:205). 732 Nida and Taber’s discussion of the notions of ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ meaning can not be separated

from their explanation of componential analysis of different words that have related meanings. They

distinguish three basic types of semantic components: 1. Common components, 2. diagnostic

components, and 3. supplementary (or optional) components. The differences between these three basic

types of semantic components are described as follows: Common components are ‘shared by all the

meanings of a word’, and they ‘therefore contribute to our feeling that it is one word rather than a set of homonyms.’ Diagnostic components are ‘distinctive of one or more meanings, but not of all.’ These

components are ‘distinctive of a particular subset of meanings’, and they ‘contribute to our intuition that

some meanings of a word are ‘closer’ than others.’ And finally, supplementary components ‘give rise to

expectations of greater or lesser probability but can be specifically negated without altering the sense of the

word. Nida and Taber (1969:77).

261

becomes ‘blurred at the margins’, but ‘it provides the basis for our intuition that some

meanings are actually closer and some more remote.’

In terms of semantic domains and of the hierarchical arrangement of generic and specific

terms, Nida and Taber state that, ‘it can be said that the higher one has to go in the

hierarchy to find a covering generic term for the two senses under consideration, the

more figurative the extended sense is.’ However, if the two meanings are close in the

hierarchical structure, so that a rather low-level term covers them both, they are probably

literal.

Figurative meanings do, in a sense, not belong in the same domain as the literal meaning

of the same term. Nida and Taber illustrate this with different meanings of the term ‘fox’,

which have practically no shared components in the following sentences: (a) ‘It is a fox’

and (b) ‘He is a fox.’ In the first sentence, ‘fox’ has the semantic components of animal,

canine, and genus Vulpes, whereas in the second sentence, ‘fox’ has the semantic

components of human being and cleverly deceptive. Although the senses of both words

share the generic component animate being, Nida and Taber state that, ‘this is so broad

that it has little significance’.

Nida and Taber point out that these different senses of the word ‘fox’ are not linked by

their shared property of animate being, but rather ‘through a supplementary – and purely

conventional – component which claims that the fox is particularly deceptive and clever.’

And, according to them, ‘it is precisely this supplementary component which becomes

crucial to the extension of meaning into the psychological area.’

Figurative extensions, then, ‘are based upon some supplementary component in the

primary meaning which becomes essential in the extended meaning.’ Figurative

extensions are often arbitrary and conventional, and therefore ‘almost always specific to a

particular culture and language.’ In Western European culture the component deceptively

clever is assigned to the ‘fox’ (note the Reynard stories), but ‘in other cultures the same

trait is, just as arbitrarily, assigned to the rabbit, or to the spider, or to some other animal.’

As further evidence of the arbitrariness of such extensions, the authors mention the words

‘snow’ and ‘ice’: ‘Both are equally cold, but the figurative extensions of ‘snow’ have to

do with whiteness (white as snow, snowy laundry), while those of ‘ice’ have to do with

coldness (cold as ice, icy hands).’733

Nida and Taber conclude that, ‘the figurative sense of any term rests on the fact that it has

an almost entirely distinct set of components, but that it also has a link to the primary

sense through some one component, usually a supplementary one. This supplementary

733 This is, in fact, a rather unconvincing example of the arbitrariness of figurative extensions. Whiteness is an essential property of (pure) snow, and coldness is an essential property of both ice and snow. None of

the figurative expressions related to these words are based on supplementary properties. The fact, that the

figurative extensions of ‘snow’ are based on the notion of whiteness rather than coldness, may have to do

with the (culturally defined?) perception that whiteness (visual category) is a more prominent feature of

snow than coldness (sensory category) is.

262

component can be actually relevant to the referent of the primary sense, or only

conventionally assigned, but in either case it is not one of the essential, distinctive

features by which the primary sense is distinguished from others.’

After they have given some examples of phrases in which figurative language

complicates the analysis of certain phrases, Nida and Taber briefly mention idioms as

another example of figurative language use. In idioms, entire phrases are used in some

extended sense, so that it becomes impossible by adding up the meanings of the

individual words to determine the meaning of the entire expression. Idioms are not

‘endocentric’, which means that they do not derive their meaning from the sum total of

the meanings of the parts. They must be treated as a semantic unit. The Semitic

expression ‘to close one’s bowels,’ for example, must be analyzed as ‘lacking in

compassion.’

B. Semantic adjustments made in transferring idioms and other figurative

expressions

In chapter 6 on ‘Transfer’734

, Nida and Taber once again discuss idioms and figurative

meanings of individual words. According to them, idioms are ‘some of the most obvious

candidates’ for making semantic adjustments during the transfer stage of the translation

process. ‘The very fact that they are idioms means it is unlikely that the same type of

distinctive form will have the same meaning in another language.’ Nida and Taber

distinguish three types of adjustments: (a) from idioms to nonidioms, (b) from idioms to

idioms, and (c) from nonidioms to idioms. In the process of transfer, idioms are

frequently shifted to nonidioms. In certain instances it is also possible to match an idiom

in the source text by another idiom in the translation, or to translate a nonidiom in the

source text by an idiom in the translation.

The authors note that many people who readily agree to the addition of idioms in the

translation are reluctant to permit any changes from idioms to nonidioms. Nida and Taber

do not agree with this, because ‘one cannot have his cake and eat it too.’ Instead, they

suggest that, ‘what one must give up in order to communicate effectively can (…) be

compensated for, at least in part, by the introduction of fitting idioms.’ However, ‘one of

the difficulties is that too often translators are not sufficiently sensitive to the possibilities

of idiomatic expressions, and hence the result is a weakening of the figurative force of the

translation, since they do not compensate for loss of certain idioms by the introduction of

others.’

Parallel to the three types of semantic adjustments to idioms, Nida and Taber distinguish

three types of adjustments related to the transfer of figurative expressions of individual

words: (a) shifts from figurative to nonfigurative usage, (b) shifts from one type of

figurative expression to another figurative expression, and (c) shifts from nonfigurative

expressions to figurative expressions.

734 Nida and Taber (1969:106-107).

263

C. The theoretical basis for semantic adjustments

The theoretical basis for semantic adjustments like the ones proposed for idioms and

figurative expressions, ‘lies in the essential distinction which must be made throughout

between the form of a message and its content.’ Nida and Taber state that, ‘if we assume

that language is a device for communicating messages, then it follows that language and

linguistic forms are means to an end rather than an end in themselves.’ With regard to the

content of the message they make clear that this ‘is the conceptual intent of the message,

together with the connotative values the source wishes to communicate.’ The form,

however, ‘is the external shape the message takes to effect its passage from the source’s

mind to the receptor’s mind.’ According to the authors, ‘it is almost invariably true that

for any given content, a language makes available numerous forms which could equally

well convey the message.’

This means that, ‘in transferring the message from one language to another, it is the

content which must be preserved at any cost; the form, except in special cases, such as

poetry, is largely secondary, since within each language the rules for relating content to

form are highly complex, arbitrary, and variable.’ Nida and Taber draw a parallel with

packing clothing into two different pieces of luggage: ‘The clothes remain the same, but

the shape of the suitcases may vary greatly, and hence the way in which the clothes are

packed must be different.’

However, ‘if by coincidence it is possible to convey the same content in the receptor

language in a form which closely resembles that of the course, so much the better; we

preserve the form when we can, but more often the form has to be transformed precisely

in order to preserve the content. An excessive effort to preserve the form inevitably

results in a serious loss or distortion of the message.’ Nida and Taber acknowledge that in

any translation there will be a type of ‘loss’ of semantic content, ‘but the process should

be so designed as to keep this to a minimum.’735

D. Summary

In their discussion of figurative meanings, Nida and Taber basically deal with the

following two questions: 1. How are figurative meanings of a word related to the primary

(literal) meaning of that word? And 2. How can figurative meanings of a word or phrase

be best translated into another language?

While dealing with the first question, Nida and Taber state that the figurative extensions

of a word are related to its primary meaning through what they call ‘supplementary’ or

‘optional’ components of meaning. These ‘supplementary’ or ‘optional’ components of

meaning, which are often arbitrary and conventional, become essential to the meaning of

the figurative extension of the word. As a result, the figurative meanings of a word

usually belong to a semantic domain that is different from the one that its literal

meaning(s) belong to.

735 Nida and Taber (1969:106).

264

With regard to the translation of figurative meanings, Nida and Taber mention three kinds

of semantic adjustments: (a) shifts from figurative to nonfigurative usage, (b) shifts from

one type of figurative expression to another figurative expression, and (c) shifts from

nonfigurative expressions to figurative expressions.

Speaking about the translation of idioms, which more or less parallels the translation of

figurative expressions, Nida and Taber acknowledge, that in the process of translation

many idioms are inevitably lost. However, one may also gain a number of idioms in the

translation process. In this context, Nida and Taber introduce the concept of

‘compensation’, which means that translators can try to – at least partially – compensate

for the loss of idiomatic expressions in the translated text by translating nonidiomatic

expressions in an idiomatic way, whenever this is appropriate. Nida and Taber do not

make explicit, to what extent this also applies to figurative expressions.

The theoretical basis for the semantic adjustments that Nida and Taber propose ‘lies in

the essential distinction which must be made throughout between the form of a message

and its content.’ This essential distinction is based on the assumption that ‘language is a

device for communicating messages’, and that ‘language and linguistic forms are means

to an end rather than an end in themselves.’

In terms of their theoretical orientation towards figurative language, Nida and Taber can

be called adherents of the so called ‘substitution view’, which holds that figurative

language can be substituted by non-figurative language. In cases like this, translators can

try to compensate for this loss of figurative language, for example by rendering non-

figurative language, occurring in the same context, as figurative language.

The focus of Nida and Taber’s discussion of figurative language is on idiomatic language

rather than on “live” metaphors and similes. The term “metaphor” does not occur in the

main text of the book, but it occurs in the glossary. The definition given in the glossary

shows that Nida and Taber held a combined substitution-comparison view of

metaphor.736

But no explicit discussion is offered regarding the translation of “live”

metaphors and similes. There is no mention whatsoever of a set of hierarchically ordered

guidelines that may help translators to decide how to translate a particular metaphor. But,

based on Nida and Taber’s polemical comments directed against formal equivalence,

readers could easily draw the conclusion that substitution of idioms and other forms of

figurative language, like metaphor and simile, is a rule rather than an exception in

dynamic equivalence translation.

736 Nida and Taber (1969:205): “Metaphor: a figurative expression used instead of another to make an implicit comparison between the items referred to by the two expressions, often based upon supplementary

components. An expression in every way similar except that the comparison is explicit is a simile.” (Italics

are mine; DK). Note that Nida and Taber do not label the ‘two expressions’ of the metaphor, nor the

supplementary components on which they are based. Cf. Beekman and Callow who label these two

elements ‘topic’ and ‘image’, and who refer to the basis of the comparison as the ‘point of similarity’.

265

Nida and Taber follow a paradigmatic approach, where they treat figurative language as

lexical extensions of the image word rather than analyzing them in terms of units of

discourse that have their own underlying semantic structure. Instead of comparing the

shared components of the topic and the image, they compare the shared components of

the literal and figurative meanings of the image words.

9.2.2.2. De Waard (1974)

A. Introduction

In 1974, an article appeared in The Bible Translator under the title ‘Biblical Metaphors

and their Translation’.737

Jan de Waard, who at that time was a UBS translations

consultant in Europe, wrote this article.

De Waard remarks that ‘it has been generally felt that the problems related to the

translation of non-literal meanings of Biblical expressions have been insufficiently dealt

with.’738

He goes on to say that even ‘in the otherwise remarkable study by Nida and

Taber on the theory and practice of translation, only a few pages are devoted to the

problem of figurative meanings in the context of the chapter on referential meaning.’

And, according to De Waard, ‘still less attention has been paid to the problems of their

transfer from the source to the target language.’

De Waard feels that ‘this is certainly in disproportion to the importance of the problem,

for the thesis can be defended that the judgment of any translation in general will be

determined to a large extent by the particular evaluation of the efficiency or lack of

efficiency with which nonliteral meanings have been handled.’ De Waard remarks that

‘because of this void in the existing translation theory, study of the problems involved in

the translation of figurative meanings has become a top priority in more recent

research.739

De Waard’s article focuses on one particular figure, namely metaphor. He does not give

an exhaustive treatment of metaphors, but he gives general attention to their identification

and function as well as to the problems they present to translators and the principles and

procedures, which should be applied to their translation.

737 TBT Vol. 25 No. 1 (January 1974): 107-116. 738 De Waard’s article was published in January 1974, before Beekman and Callow’s Translating the Word

of God was published. De Waard’s contribution parallels Beekman and Callow’s treatment of metaphors in

many ways. 739

The author expresses that he is particularly indebted to Dr. J.A. Loewen, who wrote a series of

preliminary papers on non-literal meanings, and who prepared a workbook which contained drills for

translator training in which much attention is given to the identification and translation of different figures

of speech. He also mentions M.B. Dagut’s doctoral thesis, as an example of a study that gives renewed

attention to figurative usage of language from a general linguistic point of view.

266

B. Metaphors: identification and function

De Waard calls attention to the fact that Classical Greek authors in the 5th or 4

th century

B.C. already used the Greek word metaphora in a rhetorical sense for the transference of

a word to a new meaning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines metaphor as a

‘figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term is transferred to some object to

which it is not properly applicable.’

De Waard remarks that, ‘in spite of their imperfection, both definitions make it perfectly

clear that metaphors are in no way static elements, but are involved in a dynamic

linguistic process.’ Also, these definitions make it clear that metaphors have to do with

what might be called ‘polysemy’. According to De Waard, ‘it is partly this dynamic

character of metaphors which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give

precise definitions, even with the help of modern linguistic theory.’ We need to recognize

that ‘there are simply no clear-cut boundaries between metaphor and polysemy on the

one hand, and metaphor and idiom on the other.’

For translation purposes, especially in terms of possibilities of translation, De Waard

finds it useful to adopt Dagut’s distinction between ‘simplex’ and ‘complex’ metaphors.

In simplex metaphors only one polysemic form is involved, for example, ‘to be in the

soup’, or, to quote a Biblical example, ‘prepare the way of the Lord’ (Mark 1:3), whereas

a complex metaphor would contain two or more polysemic terms, for example, ‘dirty

swine,’ or, in Biblical language again, ‘my beloved is to me a bag of myrrh, that lies

between my breasts’ (Song of Solomon 1:13).

But, even then, the border line between simplex metaphor and polysemy on the one hand

and complex metaphor and idiom on the other is fluid, because metaphors are subject to

the drift of language. At the moment in which they are created ad hoc by an author, or

quoted as particularly striking, they are fresh and alive. And they may even be still alive

when widely used, but they will certainly not create the same impact. Then they get worn

out, and finally become dead metaphors. Through this process of metaphoric usage,

simplex metaphors can be gradually turned into polysemy and, complex metaphors, on

the other hand, can be turned into those simplex signs, which are usually called idioms.

This process is by no means one-directional, as worn-out metaphors can be restored to

life.

De Waard concludes that it is very often impossible to decide at which point of the

continuum between ‘alive’ and ‘dead’ the metaphor presents itself, and that it is

sometimes hard to distinguish a dead metaphor from an idiom.

C. Metaphors as compressed similes

According to De Waard, it is important for the translator to know how to distinguish

between different degrees of complexity in metaphors. Considering the fact that Biblical

metaphors involve specific problems and that most Bible translators are not linguistically

sophisticated, he states that a more useful and practical approach may be possible and

267

necessary. Such a different approach is largely based upon two important insights

provided by Nida and Taber’s definition of metaphor 740

: 1. Metaphors are often based on

supplementary components, which means that they are often cultural particulars; and 2.

Metaphors are functionally very similar to similes, except that in metaphors the signal of

the comparison (in English ‘as’, ‘like’) remains implicit.

By virtue of Nida and Taber’s definition, a metaphor can be considered as some form of a

compressed simile, and this means that it should be possible to analyze it in an analogous

way. De Waard then makes the distinction between full and abbreviated metaphors. Full

metaphors show explicitly all three of their constituents: (1) the object of comparison, (2)

the image of the comparison, and (3) the ground of the comparison.

An example of a full metaphor in the Bible would be ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf’

(Gen. 49:27), where ‘Benjamin’ is the object, ‘wolf’ is the image, and ‘ravenous’ is the

ground of the comparison.

In abbreviated metaphors, however, one or sometimes even two of the three constituents

remain implicit. For example, in ‘the mouth of a loose woman is a deep pit’ (Prov.

22:14), where the ground of the comparison – analyzed by De Waard as ‘ruinous’ – is left

implicit. In other cases, the object of the comparison is left implicit, for example in ‘Tend

my sheep’, where the implicit object is ‘my followers.’ In Matthew 16:6 (‘Beware of the

leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’) both the object (‘teaching’) and the ground

(‘corrupting’) of the comparison are left implicit.

D. Metaphors: problems of transfer

Metaphors pose significant problems of transfer for translators. De Waard illustrates this

point by referring to Dagut’s analysis of English translations of a total of 23 uses of

modern Hebrew metaphors. Dagut comes to the conclusion that only three times has a

similar metaphor been used in the target language. And in twelve instances the source

metaphor has been translated by a non-metaphor. On closer evaluation one learns,

however, that two of the three cases of similar metaphors are mistranslations and that the

remaining one is not satisfactory. This means that in Dagut’s list of analyzed data no real

case of translation by a similar metaphor can be found.741

Almost the same conclusions are drawn after the translational analysis of what Dagut

calls ‘primary’ Hebrew metaphors, such as leb, ayin, panim, da’at, ruach and nefesh,

which belong to a large extent to the Biblical Hebrew stratum of the language. This does

not mean, of course, that English is not as rich as (modern) Hebrew with regard to

metaphoric usages of the word ‘heart’, for example. But, it simply means that there is

almost complete incongruity between the two sets of figurative extensions in Hebrew and

English.

740

Nida and Taber (1969:205): “A figurative expression used instead of another to make an implicit

comparison between the items referred to by the two expressions, often based upon supplementary

components. An expression in every way similar except that the comparison is explicit is a simile.” 741 TBT Vol. 25 No. 1:111.

268

A similar incongruity is found between languages that are more related, for example,

between French and American English. This simply illustrates the fact that metaphors,

like many other figures of speech, are largely based on supplementary or conventional

components. As a result, it will only rarely happen that another language will attach them

to the same word.

De Waard admits that there is some congruence between Hebrew and Greek and other

European languages, like in the case of ‘fox’ which has the supplementary component of

‘cleverness’ attached to it, but historically the possibility that one has to do with a so-

called loan-metaphor is not to be excluded. In African contexts, however, this particular

component is assigned to a variety of animals or insects, such as tortoises, hares, spiders,

etc. De Waard concludes that, very frequently, the translation of metaphors as such, with

the exception of loan-metaphors, appears to be impossible.

A literal translation, especially of dead metaphors or idioms, can give rise to a semantic

distortion. For the figurative expression does sometimes allow literalizations which give a

perfect sense in the receptor language, but a wrong one. For example, the ‘children of the

bridechamber’ (Mark 2:19 KJV) still figure literally in translations, but in some

languages nobody thinks of ‘wedding guests’ (RSV) or ‘friends of the bridegroom’

(NEB), but of illegitimate children of the couple or the consummation of the marriage.

The distortion is even greater if the literal equivalent in the target language also happens

to have figurative extensions, but in a semantically quite different domain. For example,

the expression ‘Son of Man,’ translated literally into Zapotec, an Indian language of

Mexico, would suggest that the father is unknown due to the indiscretions of the mother.

On the other hand, the rendering the metaphor of the source text by a non-metaphor is

also a procedure that presents problems. For such a demetaphorization of the source text

in the translation necessarily implies a considerable loss of impact of the message. A

radical application of such a procedure would result in a flat and uninteresting translation

which would have to be judged as an ‘undertranslation’ unless some compensation were

made through the rendering of non-metaphors in the source text by metaphors in the

receptor language.

De Waard points out, that such a demetaphorization cannot be undertaken regardless of

the type of text in which the metaphor occurs. It makes a difference whether one has to

deal with prose or with poetry, in which many figurative expressions are frequently found

in a very condensed formal structure. De Waard agrees with Katharina Reiss, who makes

a distinction between ‘content-oriented’ (‘inhaltsbetonte’) and ‘form-oriented’

(‘formbetonte’) texts, and who states that when the metaphor occurs in the first type of

text, the rendering with a non-figure is adequate, whereas metaphors in the second type of

text need to be rendered with (different) metaphors. For example, in a French-German

translation, the metaphoric expression ‘quel bon vent vous amène’ (‘What good wind has

brought you here’) can be translated as ‘welch guter Stern hat Sie denn hergefuhrt’

(‘What good star has brought you here’).

269

According to De Waard, there are additional problems related to the difficulty of

identifying dead metaphors as such, or of defining the degree in which a metaphor has

lost its vitality. This is important from a translation point of view, since dead metaphors

should not be revived and thus ‘overtranslated’.

In order to get the right information in this respect, Dagut would like to rely upon the

intuitive semantic competence of the native speaker. In this respect, it is fortunate that

nearly all bible translators nowadays are native speakers of the target language, and such

a subjective criterion may be helpful for the selection of dynamic equivalents from the

figurative stock of the receptor language.742

This does not apply, however, to figurative expressions in the source languages of the

Bible. OT Hebrew and NT Greek are dead languages, with no native speakers whom the

translators can rely on. And so they depend completely on doubtful dictionary

codifications and on an analysis of the diachronic process of metaphors as far as the

available data in a restricted domain (only literature) permit such an analysis. The

importance of even such a doubtful dependence has to be particularly underlined, since

Bible translators are liable to what Dagut has rightly called a ‘hypnotization’ with regard

to metaphors. This means that Biblical metaphor with which they were not acquainted

before will have such vitality for them, that they cannot free themselves from its

domination. As a result metaphors are formally transferred and forced upon the receptor

language.743

E. Metaphors: principles and procedures of translation

A basic principle of Bible translation in general is that an effort should be made to give a

linguistic and not a cultural translation of the source text. This means that a translation

into language X should not read in such a way that the receptors of X take it to be the

original source.

This principle has immediately to be counterbalanced by a second basic principle, in fact

its opposite, which says that no translation into language X should read in such a way that

it is different from anything a native speaker of that language would spontaneously say or

write.

A translator has to go this dangerous and – alas! – often lonely way between the Scylla of

extreme cultural adjustment and the Charybdis of translationese. However, De Waard

admits that it is his conviction that it is safer to steer near the six-headed monster Scylla

than to approach too closely the whirlpool Charybdis!

These basic general principles, when applied specifically to the translation of metaphors,

give rise to the following procedures, which are given in order of priority.

742 The fact that native speakers know the figurative stock of their mother tongue does not mean that they

always use this knowledge when they are translating. It is crucially important that mother tongue translators

are trained to make generous and critical (!) use of their knowledge. 743 TBT Vol. 25 No.1:113.

270

1. First of all, an attempt should be made to retain the source form of the metaphor in

the translation. This is only possible, if there is a certain identity in form and meaning

between a metaphor in the source text and in the target language. For example, it was

possible to retain the metaphor of Ps. 23:1 ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ (poetry!) in all

modern English translations (TEV, NAB, NEB). Sometimes a formal translation of

full translation metaphors is possible because the explicitness of all three constituents,

especially that of the ground, which is a guarantee against semantic distortions. For

example, the full metaphor ‘I am the bread of life’ (John 6:48) has frequently been

retained in translations, though sometimes, and rightly so according to De Waard, the

ground has been made even more explicit. For example, in the new German

translation (Die Gute Nachricht) this is translated as ‘Ich bin das Brot das Leben

schenkt.’ (‘I am the bread that gives life’).

2. However, if the source form of the metaphor as such cannot be retained, and if the

metaphor belongs to the so-called abbreviated type, an effort should be made to make

the implicit constituents explicit and to render the metaphor as a full one. For

example Ps. 23:5 ‘Thou anointest my head with oil’ is translated in TEV as ‘you

welcome me by pouring ointment on my head.’

3. If these two procedures give no positive result – and this will often be the case – the

translator should try to keep the elements of the metaphor by expressing them in the

form of a simile. Very frequently simile is a very effective way of rendering a

metaphor. Linguistic signals such as ‘like’ and ‘as’ in English warn the reader

immediately that the semantically exocentric expression is not to be interpreted as

endocentric but to be understood in a very special sense. So it is not to be wondered

that this procedure has very often been applied in modern dynamic equivalence

translations. For example in TEV the metaphor in Jas. 3:6 ‘And the tongue is a fire’

has been rendered as a simile: ‘And the tongue is like a fire’. And in Acts 2:20 the

expression ‘the moon shall be turned into blood’ becomes ‘the moon will become red

as blood.’ In this latter case the ground of the comparison (‘become red’) is made

explicit.

4. If the metaphor cannot be retained, either with or without modifications, one should

try to replace it with a different metaphor from the figurative stock of the target

language, especially if the source metaphor is found in a poetic text. It can be said in

general that this procedure always has priority over the next one of replacing the

figure by a non-figure. Care should be taken, of course, that with the new metaphor

no semantic distortion in the form of negative or unwarranted components is

introduced. For example, the enigmatic figure ‘upon Edom I cast my shoe’ (Ps. 60:8

= Ps. 108:10) has been rendered in the Bamoun language of Cameroun as ‘I plant my

war-spear in the land of Edom.’

5. Sometimes, however, there will be no alternative but to apply the next procedure and

to replace the figure by a non-figure. For example ‘the cup in the Lord’s right hand’

(Hab. 2:16) has been reduced to a non-metaphor in Bamileke: ‘the anger of the Lord.’

271

Such a reduction becomes especially necessary in the case of metaphors based on

verbs. However, as already stated, a compensational procedure of occasionally

replacing non-metaphors in the source by metaphors in the receptor will be needed.

Dead metaphors, in so far as they can be identified, should not be resurrected in

translation, but rendered with equivalent dead metaphors of the receptor or with non-

figures. De Waard acknowledges that the border line between dead metaphor and

idiom is fluid and that the translational treatment of idiom sometimes becomes

virtually indistinguishable from that of dead metaphor, but he states that it seems

nevertheless wise to treat the translation of idioms separately.

In closing, De Waard reminds the reader of Aristotle’s words: ‘the greatest thing by far is

to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learned from others. It is the

mark of a genius.’

De Waard’s contribution to the methodology of translating metaphors and simile fills a

gap that was left by Nida & Taber. His list of hierarchically ordered guidelines is very

helpful for translators who need to decide how to translate a particular metaphor. It is

remarkable that ‘retaining the source form’ of the metaphor ranks first, while the

replacement of a figure by a non-figure is at the bottom of the list.

It almost looks like the basic tenets of Nida and Taber’s dynamic equivalence approach

are reversed here. Retaining the form of “live” metaphors is acknowledged as being an

important value. De Waard’s article on metaphor is one of the first acknowledgements in

dynamic equivalence translation theory that the preservation of forms is important in

translation.744

Nida and Taber (1969) were perhaps too involved in their polemics against

formal equivalence to discern this or to admit this. De Waard and Nida (1986) marks a

turning point, as it canonizes the significant contribution of form to meaning and as it

advises translators to preserve the forms as much as this is possible within the context of

‘functional equivalent’ translation.

9.2.2.3. Beekman and Callow (1974)

A. Introduction

Like Nida and Taber’s The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969), Beekman and

Callow’s Translating the Word of God is a handbook with ‘a pedagogical style of

presentation’.745

In their Introduction, the authors state that they make frequent use of

examples, and that an attempt is made to keep technical terms to a minimum.746

744 It can be said that the paradigm of dynamic equivalence, understood in its rigorous sense as promoting

the dichotomy of form and meaning, breaks down at the translation of metaphor. Theoretically, the

preservation of forms seems to be inconsistent with the basic tenets of dynamic equivalence. However, the

inconsistency is a fortunate one, and it is one of the first signs that form was recognized as being important to the meaning, even during the heydays of dynamic equivalence. 745 Larson’s (1984) Meaning Based Translation and her Manual for Bible Translation (1975) and

Barnwell’s (1984, [1974]) Introduction to Semantics and Translation also contain discussions of the

analysis and translation of metaphor and other forms of figurative language. However, since these studies

are very much in line with Beekman and Callow (1974) and do not offer anything substantially new with

272

In many ways Beekman and Callow seem to build on the foundations laid by Nida (1964)

and Nida and Taber (1969), but this is nowhere made explicit by the authors.

‘Componential analysis’ and the analysis of kernel sentences, which are corner stones of

Nida and Taber’s (1969) publication, for example, play an important role in Beekman

and Callow’s (1974) book. Beekman and Callow’s terminology sometimes differs from

the terminology used by Nida and Taber. Their term ‘Semantic Structure Analysis’, for

example is roughly correlate to Nida and Taber’s ‘grammatical analysis’ of kernel

sentences. But the underlying concepts and the basic translation methodology are pretty

much the same.

Generally speaking, Beekman and Callow go one step beyond Nida and Taber in that

they give a more in-depth and detailed discussion of a number of specific translation

issues that had received no more than cursory attention from Nida and Taber. Beekman

and Callow devote two whole chapters to the analysis and translation of metaphor and

simile. In addition, they also have chapters on ‘concordance,’ ‘collocational clashes,’

‘rhetorical questions.’ These are all topics that are not – or: hardly – addressed in Nida

and Taber.

On the other hand, it should be noted that topics like ‘connotation’, ‘style’ and the

pragmatic functions of language, which are important elements in Nida and Taber (1969),

are not addressed in Beekman and Callow (1974). Beekman and Callow’s approach to

language analysis and translation methodology is even more ‘structuralistic’ than Nida

and Taber’s approach: they almost exclusively focus on ‘semantic structure’ to the

exclusion of the more pragmatic aspects of language. It is probably due to this lack of

attention to the different functions of ‘language use’ that the process of translation is

primarily presented as a ‘transfer of information.’

B. The structure of metaphor and simile

Beekman and Callow define ‘metaphor’ as ‘an implicit comparison in which one item of

the comparison (‘the image’) carries a number of components of meaning of which

usually one is contextually relevant to and shared by the second item (‘the topic’).’ A

simile, by contrast, is defined as ‘an explicit comparison in which one item of the

comparison (‘the image’) carries a number of components of meaning of which usually

one is contextually relevant to and shared by the second item (‘the topic’).747

regard to this topic, they are not discussed in this chapter. However, Barnwell’s warning in her Bible

Translation (chapter 25, section 9) is noteworthy here. “A WARNING. It is not always best to make the

POINT OF SIMILARITY explicit. Sometimes to do so would lessen its impact and powerfulness. It may

also limit the meaning; often there are in fact several points of similarity and to make one explicit would communicate only part of the total meaning.” 746 Beekman and Callow (1978:15). Note that Beekman and Callow allow the possibility of metaphors

having more than one ground, but that, in their opinion, usually one ground (point of comparison) is

“contextually relevant.’ 747 Beekman ad Callow (1978:127).

273

In line with this definition, Beekman and Callow distinguish three parts of both

metaphors and similes: (1) the topic, that is, the item which is illustrated by the image;

(2) the image, that is, the ‘metaphoric’ part of the figure; and (3) the point of similarity,

which explains in what particular aspect the image and the topic are similar. Whereas the

topic and the point of similarity are often omitted or left implicit in metaphors and

similes, the image is the essential element of these figures.

If the topic and/or the point of similarity are not stated explicitly, they need to be inferred

from the context. This requires a careful study of the context since the same image may

be used with different points of similarity in different contexts. Any image carries a

number of components of meaning, and, in different contexts, different components of

the image may be relevant.

The difference between metaphor and simile is, that metaphors occur in the form of a

‘collocational clash’, i.e. a juxtaposition of two or more words that are incompatible

semantically, whereas similes do not. Beekman and Callow distinguish between ‘overt’

and covert’ collocational clashes. The presence of a ‘covert’ clash is only realized when

the sentence containing the metaphor is compared with the larger context. For example in

Matthew 16: 6, where it reads ‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,’ the disciples

understood it literally until Jesus went on to explain to them its figurative sense.

C. Different types of metaphors and similes

Beekman and Callow distinguish between full metaphors and similes on the one hand,

and between abbreviated metaphors and similes on the other. Full comparisons do not

usually cause serious difficulty to the readers, because all the essential parts of the

comparison are explicitly stated. However, one needs to be careful, because sometimes

the expressed point of similarity is presented in figurative form, like is the case in Isa.

56:10, where it reads, ‘His watchmen … are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.’748

The authors further distinguish four subcategories of abbreviated metaphors and similes:

In type (1) the point of similarity is not stated; in type (2) the topic is not stated; in type

(3) neither the topic nor the point of similarity is stated, and in type (4) the point of

similarity and part of the image are implicit. Type (1) occurs with either metaphor or

simile, whereas the other types are only found with metaphor. Type (4) appears to be a

combination of metaphor and metonymy inasmuch as the image, and the point of

similarity, are in an associative relation such as specific-generic or means-result.749

The following examples illustrate these different types of abbreviated figures:

Example of type (1), where the point of similarity is not stated: ‘And he is the head of the

body, the church’ (Col. 1:18). In this combined metaphor, ‘Christ’ and ‘the church’ are

identified as the topics, whereas ‘head’ and ‘body’ are the images. The points of

similarity are omitted here, but ‘it is clear that the point is that just as the head directs or

748 Beekman and Callow (1978:125). 749 Beekman and Callow (1978:129).

274

rules, so Christ rules; and just as the body is directed or ruled, so the church is ruled.’

Beekman and Callow conclude that, ‘stated nonmetaphorically, it says that Christ rules

the church.’

Example of type (2), where the topic is not stated: ‘The sheep will be scattered’ (Mark

14:27). In this metaphor ‘sheep’ is the image, ‘will be scattered’ is the point of similarity,

and ‘disciples’ is the implied topic. Beekman and Callow restate this abbreviated

metaphor as ‘As sheep would be scattered if the shepherd were killed, so the disciples

will be scattered.’

Example of type (3), where neither the point of similarity nor the topic is stated: ‘Beware

of the leaven of the Pharisees’ (Matt. 16:6, 11). In this statement by Jesus to his disciples,

only ‘leaven,’ the image is explicit. Leaven is compared to teaching, which is the topic

(Matt. 16:12). The implicit point of similarity between the topic and the image is the

‘permeating effect’.

Example of type (4), where both the point of similarity and part of the image are implicit:

‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks’ (Acts 9:5 and 26:14). This type of metaphor

is different from the preceding ones in that an Event rather than a Thing is central to the

metaphor. This means that the image needs to be filled out with the appropriate Thing

that underlies the comparison. The implied agent is an ox. Paul’s actions, then, are

compared to those of an ox. Beekman and Callow conclude that the abbreviated metaphor

may be restated as follows: ‘It is unpleasant for you when you rebel just like it is

unpleasant for an ox when he kicks against the pricks.’ Other metaphors in this same

category are: ‘Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness’ (Matt. 5:6)

and ‘Quench not the Spirit’ (1 Thess. 5:19).

D. Live and dead metaphor and simile

Beekman and Callow devote several pages to the distinction between live and dead

metaphors. According to them, ‘the distinction between ‘live’ and ‘dead’ metaphor is

basically a question of the role of the image – how focal, how central is it?’ Another

important difference between a live and a dead metaphor is, that ‘a live metaphor is

understood by a native speaker only after some attention has been given to the primary

meaning of the words being used metaphorically.’ A dead metaphor (like an idiom or any

dead figure), by contrast, ‘is understood directly without such attention being given to the

primary meaning of the words.’750

The process involved in understanding a live metaphor is more complicated than the

process involved in understanding a dead metaphor. ‘A live metaphor does not lead

directly to the intended meaning but is interrupted, however momentarily, by some

attention that is diverted to the primary meaning.’ In dead metaphors (like idioms or any

other dead figure) the primary senses of these metaphoric images are not called to mind

when such expressions are used.751

750 Beekman and Callow (1978:131). 751 Beekman and Callow (1978:132-133).

275

When discussing criteria for recognizing live metaphors, Beekman and Callow caution

the reader that although a native speaker of a living language can generally tell which are

live and which are dead metaphors, it is another matter when it comes to deciding about

the various examples of metaphor and simile occurring in ancient documents like the

Bible. ‘Since no native speakers are available, what may have been a dead metaphor for

an author will strike us as a life one if it is not current in our own language.’

Having said that, Beekman and Callow propose three ‘contextual factors’ that may help

to decide ‘with reasonable certainty’ whether a metaphor in the Scriptures is dead or

alive: (1) the number of figurative items, or images, used in the metaphor; (2) the order of

the figurative items; and (3) the nonfigurative items in the context which are closely

related to the metaphorical images.

With regard to the number of figurative items, Beekman and Callow state that ‘when a

metaphor consists of several interrelated images, this is a clear indication that the author

is using these images to convey his message in the form of a live figure.’ Secondly, if the

order of the images is clearly chronological or logical, then this indicates it is a live

figure. And thirdly, if, in a particular context, there are nonfigurative items that stand in a

close semantic relationship to the metaphorical image(s) being used, then this also

indicates that the figure is a live one. This is, for instance, the case in Mark 1:17, where

Jesus says, ‘I will make you to become fishers of men.’

Whenever one or more of these criteria apply, the figure may definitely be analyzed as

live. In the absence of all three of these criteria, it is best to regard the figure as dead.

Beekman and Callow then go on to establish a fourth criterion ‘which can help to confirm

the conclusion that a figure is dead.’ That is, ‘if the figure is used a number of times in

the New Testament by different authors and if none of these principal criteria apply to the

occurrences, then this strengthens the analysis as a dead figure.’752

Beekman and Callow briefly discuss the status of the term ‘fruit’, which is often used

metaphorically in the New Testament. One might conclude that it is always used as a

dead metaphor. However, in some contexts the principal three criteria would indicate it

otherwise. For example, in Matthew 7:16-20, ‘fruit’ or ‘fruits’ is clearly used

metaphorically, and the series of interrelated images (‘grapes,’ ‘figs,’ a ‘good tree,’ a

‘corrupt tree,’ cutting down trees and burning them’) in the following verses clearly

indicate that ‘fruit’ is being used as a live metaphor in this context.

Beekman and Callow further point out that proverbs are often used in a metaphorical

manner. If the proverb itself is in the form of a metaphor or simile, then it is analyzable in

terms of its topic, image and point of similarity. Proverbs not in the form of a metaphor

may nevertheless be used metaphorically in a suitable context. All such examples of the

metaphoric use of a proverb are considered dead. Luke 23:31 is an example of this. ‘For

if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’ The proverb in

752 Beekman and Callow (1978:135).

276

Luke 4:23, ‘Physician, heal thyself,’ is another example of a proverb used

metaphorically.

E. Thematic images and symbols

At the end of their chapter on ‘the nature of metaphor and simile’, Beekman and Callow

introduce the concepts of ‘thematic image’ and ‘symbol.’ Thematic images are metaphors

that are quite widely used in the Bible by a number of authors, and which have become

part of general Christian vocabulary. ‘Light’ and ‘the body of Christ’ are examples of

thematic images.

Closely connected with thematic images are symbols. A symbol is a word that in

isolation called to the mind of the original readers the figurative sense as strongly or more

strongly than the literal sense, and both the literal and figurative senses apply to the

context. Symbols are images used in figures which have become firmly entrenched in

Christian vocabulary, and which have important theological significance, and often carry

with it strong emotional overtones. ‘The cross,’ and ‘the blood’ are two such symbols,

and like thematic images, they should, if at all possible, be retained in the translation.

F. Translating metaphor and simile: potential misunderstandings

After they have explained ‘the nature of metaphor and simile’ in chapter 8, Beekman and

Callow go on to discuss the topic of ‘translating metaphor and simile’ in chapter 9. In the

first part of the chapter six reasons are discussed why metaphors of Scripture are often

misunderstood. The second half of the chapter deals with ‘choices in translating metaphor

and simile.’

The misunderstandings that arise can be related to the three parts of the figure – the

image, the topic, and the point of similarity: 1. The image of the source text may be

unknown in the receptor culture. ‘Hence, the meaning of the figure breaks down at its

very center – the image itself, since the image conveys no meaning at all to the readers of

the receptor language.’ 2. The topic is implicit. If this is the case, readers of the receptor

language version of the text may fail to recognize that this is a metaphorical statement. 3.

The point of similarity is implicit. If this is the case, readers of the receptor language

version of the text may interpret the metaphor in a way that was not intended by the

original author. 4. The items compared have no plausible resemblance in the receptor

language. To make such a metaphor plausible, it is usually necessary to find some word

or expression (‘pivot’ word) that collocates properly with both the image and the topic. 5.

The metaphorical meaning is excluded in the receptor language. 6. New metaphors are no

longer formed in the receptor language.

Beekman and Callow report that they have run some tests with translators and translation

helpers in order to assess objectively some of the factors that influence the deciphering of

metaphor. Based on these tests they conclude that, 1. Culturally relevant items lend

themselves to metaphorical usage more readily than items peripheral to the culture of the

277

speakers, and 2. If there is full context for a figure, there is less likelihood of

misunderstanding.

The main point of this section on misunderstandings related to metaphors is to show the

translator that this is an area that needs careful checking. The meaning conveyed to the

readers of the receptor language version needs to be ascertained from a cross section of

those readers so that the translator can find out whether the figure is properly

understood.753

G. Translating metaphor and simile: choices

In the second half of their chapter on ‘Translating Metaphor and Simile’ Beekman and

Callow discuss the choices in translating these figures of speech. The main question that

they deal with is: when is it appropriate to translate one of these figures in other than its

literal form? The authors answer this question as follows: ‘whenever such a literal

transfer communicates ambiguous meanings (one of which is wrong), obscure, or zero

meaning.’

However, Beekman and Callow warn the reader that care should be taken with metaphors

that were misunderstood by the original hearers. For example, when Jesus warns his

disciples to ‘beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,’ (Mark 8:15), the whole thrust of the

passage hinges on the fact that they misunderstood him and took him literally. In cases

like this, the translator cannot render this as a simile, with topic and point of similarity

explicit, because the readers will wonder how the disciples could have possibly

misunderstood. The Gospel of John contains several such figurative expressions not

understood by the original hearers, for example, when Jesus referred to his body under

the image of a ‘temple’ (John 2:19-21).

The choice as to how to translate depends first on whether the figure is live or dead and

whether it is considered to be a thematic image or a symbol. If the figure is dead, the

image is not the focus of attention, so it can be dropped, and only the topic and point of

similarity be expressed explicitly in the receptor language. But if the figure is live, or if it

is a thematic image or a symbol, the image should be retained if at all possible.

Beekman and Callow recognize ‘two principal modifications of the form’ which are

permissible for the translator. One is adjustment of the actual literary form of the

metaphor or the simile: A metaphor may be translated as a simile, and a simile may be

translated as a nonfigurative comparison. The other is making explicit some part of the

implicit information that is carried by the figure.754

Based on this, there are four possible shifts in form from a metaphor in the original: (a)

the metaphorical form may be retained in the receptor language; (b) the metaphor may be

shifted to a simile; (c) the metaphor may be handled in a nonfigurative way; (d) or

combinations of these three may be used.

753 Beekman and Callow (1978:137). 754 Beekman and Callow (1978:144).

278

Beekman and Callow point out that the first three possibilities can be regarded as

‘progressive’ in the sense that the translator is encouraged to try them in the above order

for live figures, until the receptor language form communicates the meaning of the

original. In other words, the first approach is to retain the form of a metaphor (possibly

with expansions of the parts). If this is inadequate, then the form of a simile is tried. If

this still fails to communicate the right meaning, then a nonfigurative form is used. The

literary form that will be used in the receptor language needs to be both natural and

meaningful.

In a footnote, the authors state that this discussion is a further illustration of the general

principle that while in an idiomatic translation meaning always takes precedence over

form, this does not mean that the form of the original is completely ignored. There are

circumstances, as is the case with translating metaphor and simile, when the special

literary form of the original is taken into account when deciding on the form of the

receptor language.755

A metaphor may also be rendered, retaining the metaphorical form, by filling out in more

detail one or more parts of the metaphor. It is more common, however, to make explicit

the topic of a metaphor that has been left completely implicit in the original. However, it

is often necessary, to make the point of similarity as well as the topic explicit, ‘for the

point of similarity provides the basic key to understanding the metaphor.’ For example, in

Matthew 23:24, ‘Ye blind guides,’ the point of similarity can be deduced to be ‘because

you yourselves are in error and you lead people into error.’ This can then be translated

explicitly in the receptor language.

When the metaphorical form does not represent a live metaphor, it can also be retained by

substituting a metaphor from the receptor language that has the same language as the

original metaphor. For example, the expression ‘your hearts are hard’ (Matthew 19:8,

etc.) is frequently replaced by an equivalent metaphorical expression in the receptor

language, such as ‘your ears are hard’ or ‘your stomach is hard’ (both used in African

languages). In these cases a dead metaphor in the receptor language substitutes for a dead

metaphor in the original.

Translating a metaphor as a simile is ‘one of the simplest adjustments that can be made to

the form of a metaphor. This helps to make explicit that a comparison is intended. For

example, in 2 Peter 2:17 it is said of false teachers that they ‘are wells without water.’

This can be expressed in the form of a simile: ‘these are like wells without water.’ This

can also be translated as ‘these are as useless as wells without water,’ thus making

explicit the point of similarity as well.756

Using a nonfigurative form is another option the translator has. If the original metaphor is

a live metaphor the image should be retained. However, this does not automatically mean

that the whole must be cast in a figurative form. In Mark 1:17, for example, Jesus says to

755 Beekman and Callow (1978:145). 756 Beekman and Callow (1978:147).

279

his disciples, ‘I will make you to become fishers of man.’ This may be cast in a

nonfigurative form: ‘You have been working catching fish, now I will give you a new

work making disciples for me.’

The fourth alternative is to combine any two of the three literary types – metaphor,

simile, nonfigurative. Thus, a metaphor may be combined with a metaphor, simile, or a

nonfigurative form; a simile may be combined with a nonfigurative form, or an

abbreviated simile may be combined with a full simile.

Beekman and Callow conclude their discussion of the translation of metaphor and simile

by saying that flexibility and sensitivity are needed by the translator in handling the many

cases of metaphor and simile in the New Testament. In each case, there are a number of

possible alternatives open to him, so he needs to be sensitive to the reactions and

difficulties of the receptor language readers on the one hand and flexible in his approach

to translating these figures on the other. Only in this way may he be assured that the

receptor language readers are receiving the same message as did the original readers.

H. Summary

Beekman and Callow’s major contribution to the translation of metaphors and simile is

perhaps the fact that they discuss this topic in a way that is both ‘analytical’ and

‘practical’.757

Their discussion of the topic is also much more detailed than Nida and

Taber’s.

Beekman and Callow go one step beyond Nida and Taber in that they call attention to the

structure of metaphor and simile. They analyze their underlying semantic structure in

terms of topic, image and point of similarity. The image is the only element that is always

present; the topic and the point of similarity may or may not be expressed in the surface

structure.

The authors discuss the differences between live and dead metaphors. They state that live

metaphors are not as easily processed as dead metaphors. Native speakers only

understand live metaphors after some attention has been given to the primary meaning of

the words being used metaphorically. Dead metaphors, by contrast, are understood

directly without such attention being given to the primary meanings of the words.

Beekman and Callow give three criteria for recognizing live metaphors.

The distinction between live and dead metaphors turns out to be an important criterion in

determining whether the image of the original metaphor must be retained or can be

dropped in the receptor language. Beekman and Callow state that the image of live

metaphors must be retained, whereas the image of dead metaphors can be dropped. They

also introduce the concepts of ‘thematic image’ and ‘symbol’, which represent cases were

the image must be retained as well.

757 Crofts has even said that ‘nothing truly analytical is found’ in relationship to the translation of metaphor

‘until Beekman and Callow (1974:144-150) devote two full chapters to the subject of metaphor and simile.’

Crofts (n.d.a.:28).

280

Beekman and Callow discuss six reasons why metaphors of Scripture are often

misunderstood. They emphasize that translated metaphors must be carefully checked with

native speakers.

In their discussion of choices in translating metaphors and similes, Beekman and Callow

distinguish four possible shifts in form from a metaphor in the original: (a) the

metaphorical form may be retained in the receptor language; (b) the metaphor may be

shifted to a simile; (c) the metaphor may be handled in a non-figurative way; (d) or

combinations of these three possibilities may be used.

It is interesting to note that they do not mention the possibility of translating

nonfigurative forms in the original to figurative forms in the receptor language, like Nida

and Taber (1969) and Loewen (1974?) do. The idea of compensation is also absent from

their discussion.

Beekman and Callow’s view that metaphors are implied similes is problematic, as it does

not do justice to the fact that not every metaphor can be viewed as an implied simile. It

also does not take into account that there are some important pragmatic-rhetorical

differences between metaphors and similes.758

9.2.2.4. Loewen (1975)

A. Introduction

Jakob A. Loewen is one of the first translation consultants who have published a paper on

the translation of metaphors and other figures of speech. Loewen, who was familiar with

Beekman’s 1969 article on Metaphor and Simile759

, wrote a series of preliminary papers

on non-literal meanings, which were eventually published in The Bible Translator in

1975760

. De Waard, in his 1974 article, acknowledges his indebtedness to the views

presented by Loewen.

Loewen’s first article on ‘Non-literal meanings’ has as subtitle: ‘How to recognize them

and use them effectively in translation.’ The second article has the subtitle: ‘What makes

them so difficult to translate?’

In his introduction to the first article, Loewen states that ‘figurative language ranges so

widely that many translators fail to see the many distinctions in this range of literal and

758 The same criticism applies to De Waard, Loewen, Wendland and Crofts, all of who adhere to a

comparison view of metaphor. However, the fact that retention of the metaphor receives higher priority

than rendering it as a simile functions as a safeguard. For a critical evaluation of the comparison view of metaphor, see chapter 2 (section 2.2.) of this dissertation. 759 NOT (1969) 31:1-22. Beekman’s (1969) paper on metaphor is foundational. Its content is very similar to

the chapters on metaphor in Beekman & Callow (1974), which was discussed in the previous section. The

insights of Beekman, Loewen and De Waard run very much parallel. 760 TBT (1975) Vol. 26 No. 2:223-234 and Vol. 26 No. 4:434-440.

281

non-literal language.’ Loewen’s study ‘aims to open a path through the forest of figures

of speech and other kinds of non-literal meanings.’

B. Literal meaning

Before Loewen discusses the various types and functions of non-literal meaning, he

points out that words often have more than one literal meaning. In English, for example,

the word stock has several literal meanings: 1. ‘Cattle’, 2. ‘Supplies on the shelf in a

store’, and 3. ‘Shares in a commercial enterprise’. These three meanings are equally

literal and function more or less at the same level in the hierarchy of meanings of words.

However, frequently we find that words with more than one literal meaning function at

several levels in the meaning hierarchy. The word cook, for example, may refer to a

specific kind of food preparation (as opposed to frying, baking, boiling, etc.), but it can

also be used as a generic term to describe several kinds of food preparation, including

frying, baking, boiling, etc.

According to Loewen, the translation of meaning, especially literal meaning, has been

made much easier with the development of the concept of components of meaning. By

applying this concept the seemingly unitary meaning of a word can be broken up into

component parts. This is a useful tool for translators to transfer both literal and non-literal

meanings across language boundaries. For example to repent can be rendered as to see

one’s badness and leave it, or to feel sorry for one’s former bad behavior and to change

one’s heart.

C. The use of extended meaning to describe new experience

After this general introduction, Loewen discusses several functions of extended

meanings, including those of figurative extensions. The first function that is discussed is

that of describing new experiences. People normally do not coin new words to describe

new experiences, but they either borrow both the trait and the word describing it from the

contributing culture (as English has done by taking patio from Spanish and sputnik from

Russian), or to extend the meaning of an existing word that shares some essential

component or components of meaning with the new experience to be described.

For example, when the Waunana of Columbia first saw an airplane they labeled it sky-in-

canoe, thereby not only extending the meaning of their dug-out canoe, but actually

making it a generic term for vehicle. This made it possible for them to label a car – when

roads and automobiles entered their experience – road-in-canoe, or more accurately

road-in-vehicle. And the Appaches in the United States, for example, have extended the

meanings of words referring to human body parts as labels for various parts of an

automobile: eyes (headlamps), shoulders (front fenders), buttocks (rear fenders) and anus

(exhaust pipe).

When such extensions of meaning first take place it most likely involves metonymy,

which means the replacement of one word with another. However, such new usages often

become generalized very quickly, and as a result the literal area of meaning of the word is

282

enlarged and the extension is no longer felt to be figurative. This also explains why

people often disagree on whether or not an expression is literal or figurative.

Such extensions of meaning to cover new experience can occur repeatedly even with the

same word. Some of these extensions may be considered to be literal, whereas others may

be non-literal. If a figure becomes frozen (idiom), it is no longer restricted to the domain

that it originates from, but it can be used to describe a wider variety of events or

properties. For example, the expression he’s on the ball is no longer restricted to the

description of a ball player’s behavior, but can be used to describe the behavior of any

person who is doing a good job.

Sometimes the extension of meaning of a single word can take place in various areas of

human experience. The word English ‘father’, for example, not only refers to the

biological domain (the father of Mary Smith), but also to the political (father of the

country), spiritual (Our Father in heaven) and ideational domain (father of the invention).

Extensions of meaning are common in the Scriptures. For example, ‘an unclean spirit’

(Mark 1:23), ‘I will pour out my Spirit’ (Acts 2:17) and ‘poisoned their minds’ (Acts

14:2). Wherever their ‘figurative’ nature is quite obvious, we are dealing with

metonymies. Otherwise it is easiest to consider them as extensions of the literal meaning

into new areas of experience.

In the Scriptures we find two kinds of ‘specialized biblical extensions’, which are

anthropomorphism (defined as the application of human characteristics or features to

God) and personification (application of human characteristics to non-human entities). In

addition, ‘ordinary’ or ‘secular’ vocabulary is often used in non-physical and spiritual

contexts, thereby creating a type of extension of meaning.

D. Non-literal meaning used to enrich expression

With frequent use words tend to become ordinary, and they lose their impact. In order to

increase the impact, colorful discourse often uses new words and new combinations of

words to describe ‘old’ or ‘ordinary’ experiences. In this way they become new and alive

again. Biblical discourse uses a wide variety of such non-literal meanings for the

enrichment of the text.

Metonymy involves the replacement of a ‘worn-out’ word, not with a word of similar

meaning, but with a word from an entirely different area of meaning, which has some

component or components of meaning in common with the word to be replaced. In Psalm

2:2, for example, the word chosen has been replaced by the word anointed: ‘the rulers

rise up against … his anointed.’ This replacement is probably based on the Hebrew

practice of anointing those who were chosen for special religious tasks. However, we

need to be aware of the fact that this supposedly shared component of meaning may not

be common to all people. In fact it may exist only in the mind of the original user. This

makes certain types of poetry so hard to understand.

283

Synecdoche, like metonymy, involves the replacement of one word with another, but in

synecdoche the replacing word stands either in a part-for-the-whole or a whole-for-the-

part relationship to the word replaced. Example: ‘My tongue was glad’ (Acts 2:26),

where ‘tongue’ stands for ‘I’. And: ‘All flesh shall see the salvation’ (Luke 3:6), where

‘flesh’ stands for ‘human beings only’.

The description of an object, person or event can also be enriched by means of a novel

comparison, such as a simile or a metaphor. Loewen remarks that great literature has

often been characterized by a wealth of new and striking metaphors.

Similes. In a simile one thing is said to be like something else, and the signal for the

comparison as, like or its equivalent is always present. This signal highlights the fact that

the two items compared share some quality that now serves as the basis for the

comparison. The quality may be a component of meaning that is recognized only in the

culture of the user.

A full simile has four parts: (1) the object of the comparison, or the thing spoken about,

(2) the image of the comparison, or the likeness with which it is compared, (3) the signal

of the comparison, as or like, and (4) the ground of the comparison, that is the

components of meaning which are felt to be shared by the object and the image of the

comparison and which form the basis on which the comparison is made.

Many similes appear with all four parts explicitly stated, for example ‘All we like sheep

have gone astray’ (Isa. 53:6). However, not all biblical similes occur in their full form;

the ground of the comparison may be left implicit, as is the case, for example, in 1 Pet.

1:24, where it reads, ‘All flesh is as grass.’

Metaphors. A metaphor can be called a compressed simile, in which the signal of the

comparison has been left out. As a result a full metaphor consists of only three parts: (1)

the object of the comparison, (2) the image of the comparison, and (3) the ground of the

comparison. The biblical text contains many examples of full metaphors, for example,

‘Issachar is a strong ass.’ In this metaphor, ‘Issachar’ is the object of the comparison,

‘ass’ is the image of the comparison, whereas ‘strong’ is the ground of the comparison.

As is the case with similes, the ground of comparison is often left implicit in metaphors.

This is, for example, the case in Psalm 18:31, where it says ‘Who is a rock save our

God?’ Sometimes even the object of the comparison is not explicitly stated. And

sometimes are both the object of the comparison and the ground of the comparison

missing. The latter is the case in Matthew 16:11, ‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.’

What makes some similes and most metaphors, whose ground of comparison is not

explicit, so difficult for the modern reader is that the component of meaning on which the

comparison is based is intimately bound up with the biblical culture. However, this

feature is not limited to the culture of the Bible. Following Nida, Loewen points to the

figurative usage of the words ice for coldness (but not for whiteness) and snow for

whiteness (but not for coldness), even though both of them are equally cold. The reason,

284

of course, is that the figurative usage is based not on the distinctive or essential

components of meaning of the words concerned, but on culture-bound supplementary

components. The same is true for the figurative meaning of ‘fox’ in the Indo-European

area. The supplementary component that ascribes cleverness or deceptive astuteness to

the fox is largely limited to Indo-European cultures. In Africa, this characteristic is

ascribed to the hyena or the jackal, in North America to the coyote or the raven, and in

American tales to Brer Rabbit.

Metaphors can lose their figurative function. When this happens they are referred to as

buried metaphors. The scholar, aware of their origin, recognizes their figurative force, but

users of the language in general treat them as ordinary literal meanings. For example, the

Greek word ekklesia ‘church’ or ‘assembly’ is derived historically from ek ‘out’ and

kaleo ‘to call’. People who attended the town assembly were ‘called out’, and in the New

Testament the word might mean ‘called out of the world’; but already by New testament

times its figurative meaning as largely lost and it had become a buried metaphor.

Idioms. Certain metaphors and other kinds of figurative expressions can become frozen

in a given form, and when this happens they are called idioms. Such frozen expressions

usually consist of one or more words that cannot be modified in form. For example, in the

English idiom ‘go jump in the lake’ the word lake cannot be made plural, nor can the

preposition in be substituted for by. Examples of biblical idioms: ‘Quench not the spirit’

(1 Thess. 5:19), ‘children of the bridechamber’ (Mark 2:19; wedding guests), ‘the fruit of

his loins’ (Acts 2:30; offspring), ‘heap coals of fire on his head’ (Rom. 12:20; make

ashamed). Because of their frozen or fixed nature idioms must be treated as single units.

Parables. Similes and metaphors can, of course, be extended to full discourse length,

when they are known as parables or allegories. As in the simile, the signal of comparison

is usually present. However, there are some very short parables where it has remained

implicit. For example, in Mark 2:21: ‘No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old

garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear

is made.’ Examples of allegories are found in the real-life object lesson of Hosea’s

marriage to a prostitute (Hos. 1:2ff.), and for many also in the Song of Solomon, which

they consider to be an allegory about the relationship between Christ and the church. In

the New Testament even allegories are usually labeled parables.

E. Non-literal meanings used for highlight

Closely related to new ways of describing old experience is the idea of highlighting.

Metonyms and synecdoches and striking similes and metaphors are often used as

emphatic or highlighting devices in discourse. Likewise and appropriate parable can be a

highly dramatic way of communicating a message. But besides these multiple purpose

kinds of figures there are some specific types of non-literal meaning usage that function

more or less exclusively for highlighting. They are irony and hyperbole.761

761

In the final sections of his first paper, Loewen discusses irony and hyperbole as well as examples of

word avoidance (avoidance of the name of God, euphemism, and secret language).

285

F. Difficulties involved in translating non-literal meanings

What makes non-literal meanings so difficult to translate? This is the topic of the second

part of Loewen’s article on ‘Non-literal meanings’.

Loewen starts off by telling a story about an expatriate and a national translator who

worked in one of the tribal languages of South America. They attended a translators’

institute and learned how to translate figures of speech more meaningfully. When they

started applying these principles, their indigenous translation helpers became quite

excited and one of them suddenly exclaimed, ‘Now God is finally beginning to talk to our

heart.’ The translators reported that this change from a literal translation to a more natural

translation not only increased the enthusiasm of the translation helpers, but that it was

also followed by a marked increase in the use of the Scriptures in the churches in the

area.

The experience of the translators mentioned above shows how important it is to

understand and translate non-literal meanings properly. Loewen confesses that he is

tempted to suggest ‘that the proper handling of figurative language and other non-

figurative meanings is possibly the most important element in making a good translation.’

He says that translators usually do their very best and make the very best translation

possible, but experience has shown that even the best intention has often not been enough

in understanding and translating the non-literal meanings contained in the Biblical text.

For the modern reader Biblical figures of speech are often hard to understand even when

he has considerable help, but they are even harder to translate meaningfully into another

language.

Loewen discusses the following topics in this article: 1. Figurative language is closely

tied to culture, 2. Figurative language is often restricted in use, 3. The native speaker

cannot always use figurative language well. In addition, he discusses special problems for

the expatriate translator as well as the question why we do not translate figurative

language literally. The final section of the article deals with ‘hints on translation from the

Bible itself’.

G. Figurative language is closely tied to culture

Language as a whole is an expression of culture as it faithfully reflects the values and

views of its cultural setting. Figurative language, however, is tied to culture in a special

way. With ordinary meanings the components, or parts, that make up the meanings of the

words are usually related to common things and events. Therefore, they often extend

beyond culture and language boundaries – a language in a different culture may use more

or less the same components. However, those components that provide the basis for so

many types of figurative language, especially for euphemisms and metaphors, are

286

completely tied to culture. A second language may attach the figurative meaning

component to a completely different word.

To complicate matters even more, where there is an extension of meaning based upon

certain components, even a native speaker may often find it difficult to state the

component on which a given extension of meaning depends. His feeling tells him that

this or that word is correctly used, but he often cannot explain why. In the Bible ‘white as

snow’ and ‘white as wool’ are used as similes with identical meanings (Isa. 1:18; Rev.

1:14). English speakers feel that the first figure is proper, whereas the second is really

meaningless because in their present-day culture whiteness is not a component of the

meaning of wool.

The association of special components with given words often depends on ‘accidents’ of

history or culture. For example, a society may develop a popular animal tale. If such a

story is told and retold among the people long enough, the names of the principal

characters in the tale will often pick up components of meaning that grow out of the parts

they play in such a story. For example, in Paraguay the word cientosiete ‘107’ became a

euphemistic replacement of the word homosexual. This developed several years ago

when the government launched a campaign against homosexuals. However, they found

out that before long they would be arresting people from high positions as well. Not

wanting to embarrass important government and church people, the police called off the

arrests with the 107th person.

H. Figurative language is often restricted in use

According to Loewen, the way special components attach to words is so arbitrary that a

non-literal meaning frequently does not even extend over the total area over which a

language is spoken. For example, the Spanish word coger ‘take’ or ‘grasp’ in southern

South America carries a supplementary component of sex. As a result it is being avoided

in normal conversations or replaced by the word recoger. However, in the northern

countries of South America coger is the normal word ‘to take’, and it is quite free of any

such sexual component.

This extends even to the different levels of the same language used in the same area.

Figures of speech found in standard language and standard literature may not be

appropriate to be used in the everyday speech of people. In the preparation of the Spanish

popular language translation (Version Popular) New Testament, it was discovered that

this was the case with figures of speech found in Spanish literature. A higher-level

translation using all the resources of the language would not have had this problem.

Non-literal meanings of this type may also be linked with (and restricted to) a particular

generation. When the author began primary school in Canada the figurative way of

sending away some undesirable person was to say twenty-three skidoo. This was soon

replaced by go jump in the lake, and the author often hears his own children telling each

other to get lost.

287

This temporary quality is still more marked in the case of euphemisms because they serve

as replacements of words that carry strong components of feeling that people want to

avoid. According to Loewen, euphemisms quickly pick up some of the negative qualities

of the expressions they are avoiding, and therefore they in turn must be replaced by new

euphemisms. For example, in Canada water closet has lost its euphemistic value for the

average speaker. But now even washroom and restroom are rapidly being replaced by

powder room, lounge, etc. For this reason, translators need to be careful not only to use

known expressions, but to use expressions that are either fairly stable or in the process of

gaining acceptance. The use of an outdated expression or one that is on the way out, will

limit the usefulness of a translation.

I. The native speaker cannot always use figurative language well

Figurative language is not easy for the expatriate translator to master. If the fine points of

meaning and structure take an expatriate twenty years or more to master, the ability to

create meaningful new figures of speech will require even more time. However, being a

mother-tongue speaker of a language is not a full guarantee for adequate handling of its

figurative usages either. A native speaker will usually recognize the commonly used

figures in his mother tongue, but not every speaker of a language will know, and much

less be able to use, the full range of figures the language can employ. Furthermore, good

literature and possibly also good translation should contain new figures; and knowing

which meanings can be effectively extended, and in which direction, requires rare skill.

According to Loewen, the educated speaker of a language that is not used for education

often has a further problem – one that grows out of his educational experience. If his

education was not carried on in his mother tongue, but in one of the ‘world languages’

like English or French, his problems may be multiplied. He may not have mastered the

figurative language of this second language, and as a result have become used to a kind

of ‘translationese’. The sad fact of this type of situation is that it not only affects the

second language, but it often also makes the person insensitive to the natural figurative

usage of his own mother tongue.

The problem of non-literal meanings in translation is made more difficult by the fact that

the translator actually needs to master figurative usage in at least three languages: (1) the

original source language – Greek or Hebrew, (2) the source language of the translation

where the original is not used as translation base – German, English, or French, and (3)

the language into which the translation is being made. Any exaggerated idea of the

importance of Greek or Hebrew or too much attachment to the language of his education

can become serious hindrances to the effectiveness of even a national translator.

J. Special problems for the expatriate translator

If the proper handling of figurative usage presents difficulties to the translator working in

his own language, such problems are much greater for the expatriate translator who is

working in a second language. In the first place, he may not be an artist in the use of

figurative language in his own language, and often he has wrong ideas about the original

288

language of the Bible. In fact, if he is a faithful Bible reader he may be so thoroughly

used to the translationese that is found in the old version of his own language that he

finds it almost impossible to let go of some of the meaningless forms.

In addition, the expatriate translator has to learn the figurative usage of the new language,

and this figurative language is not only difficult to learn to understand and to use

properly, it is even harder to discover. Finally, the expatriate translator’s feelings about

whether a given Biblical form can be used in the new language will not be trustworthy. It

is these difficulties with non-literal meanings, as well as other problems, that make a first

draft prepared by an expatriate such a serious problem. Such a draft will often have

reduced too many Biblical figures to non-figures, and the national revisers may not have

the courage or the skill to replace them. Or it may have introduced translationese figures

of speech, which the national revisers find hard to eliminate or correct.

K. Why not translate literally?

We cannot translate literally, because we are dealing with non-literal meaning. Because

so many figures are based on special components, there is little chance that another

language will attach those components to the same words. If the result were only the loss

of meaning, the problem might not even be too serious. The reader would simply just not

understand certain expressions. He might become discouraged, but with adequate

teaching he might eventually come to understand.

Usually, however, people are not content to leave a meaningless blank in the text, and for

that reason they make an attempt to attach at least some meaning to the problem

expression. For example, when rural speakers of Spanish in northern South America were

faced with the Biblical figure ‘children of the bridechamber’ (Mark 2:19), which had

been translated literally into Spanish, many of them decided that this expression referred

to the children who were legitimized by means of their parents’ wedding. This conclusion

was reached because many couples lived together and had children before they were

married, and marriages often took place only when children were grown up enough to

require legal birth certificates.

An equally great danger arises out of the fact that when a figure of speech from one

language is translated literally into another language where it is not used as a figure, the

reader will take it literally. Thus, for example, in many languages the expression Son of

Man becomes a direct denial of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ because people understand

that Jesus was literally the son of a man and thus not the Son of God.

A third problem arises from the fact that a word that functions figuratively in the Bible

may also have figurative function in the receptor language, but the local meaning is quite

different from the Biblical meaning. Loewen refers to John Beekman’s article on

metaphors and similes in which he quotes a number of local Mexican figurative usages of

words also used figuratively in the Bible but with different meanings. The word fox, for

example, means ‘homosexual’ in Tepeuxilla Cuicateco, and ‘one who cries very often or

very much’ in Villa Alta Zapotec, etc. And sheep in Pame means ‘one who does not

289

understand’, whereas in Teutla Cuicateco it means ‘a drunkard who doesn’t hit back

when he is hurt’ and in Villa Alta Zapotec it is ‘a young fellow who is often seen waiting

for or following a girl friend’.

If sheep were used in a translation into Zapotec in ‘Behold the Lamb of God’ (John 1:29)

the Zapotects would understand ‘Look at that fellow who is always hanging around his

girlfriend.’ In a similar way, for the Shipibo ‘sons of thunder’ translated literally would

suggest ‘people of evil spirit origin’.

Frequently this problem is made still more difficult by the fact that a word used

figuratively in the Bible is used with more than one non-literal meaning. In other words,

several special components can be associated with a given word, and each of these

components will produce a different figurative meaning. For example world can be a

metonymy referring to ‘the people of the world’ (John 3:16) or, it can be a metonymy

referring to ‘the things of the world’ (Mark 8:36). John Beekman reports that a Cuicateco

reader of the New Testament was very much puzzled when he read Mark 8:36. He could

not see why God would not be happy if a man would win all the world’s people for Christ

even if it should cost the man’s soul.

L. Hints on translation from the Bible itself

A good translator not only tries to avoid errors of information or language but he also

tries to prevent his reader or hearer from misunderstanding wherever possible. In regard

to the matter of avoiding misunderstanding we find some interesting hints in the text of

the Bible itself.

Loewen goes on to discuss Gen. 43:32, 46:34, 1 Sam. 9:9, Ruth 4:7, John 2:6-7, John 4:9,

John 19:31, Mark 7:2-4. In all these places the Bible expresses cultural information,

which the writer believed the reader or hearer needed for proper understanding.

In a similar way Hebrew and Aramaic names whose meaning would escape the non-

Hebrew readers of the New Testament are frequently explained. Mark 15:22, John 1:41,

John 9:7, John 20:16, Mark 7:11, Matt. 1:23, Deut. 7:8, and John 6:4.

Where a likely wrong interpretation needs to be prevented, sufficient information is

introduced in the context for the purpose. John 4:2, John 14:22.

Putting necessary information in words is also used in relation to figures of speech. Gen

35:18 (euphemism), Mark 7:2 (extension or metonym), Rev. 14:19 and 17:2 (both

metaphor) and Gen. 13:16 (simile).

In the case of figurative comparisons, similes and metaphors, we find a surprisingly large

number in which all the parts of the comparison are stated in the text. What is especially

surprising is the number of the occurrences in which the ground of the comparison is

clearly stated. For example, Isa 11:7, 53:6, Ex. 15:16 (all similes), and Deut. 33:29, Gen

16:12 and Rev. 17:2 (all metaphors).

290

Other signals of non-literal usage are humanly speaking … (1 Cor. 15:32) and let the

reader understand (Mark 13:14).

M. Conclusions

(1) Figurative language cannot be translated literally because its meaning is usually

completely tied to one culture.

(2) Figurative usages often seem very arbitrary, since they develop out of very specific

local experiences.

(3) Often a figurative usage will be quite regional; because one person uses it, that does

not mean that all people know it.

(4) Euphemisms and certain other such non-literal usages tend to change frequently.

(5) Second language speakers as a rule, and often even mother tongue speakers, have

difficulty in mastering the full range of figurative language.

(6) The model of the Bible itself suggests that a wide range of information that is carried

by the text but not in words needs to be expressed in words in a translation. The aim

is always full understanding by the reader.

One final note about the importance of keeping the same proportion of figures in the

translation as there were in the original text. Since we have to translate some figures by

non-figures, we will have to introduce new figures where the text has none, to replace

those that were lost in translation. Loewen suggests that if a translator wants a text that is

simple in sentence structure, and one that will speak ‘powerfully’ to the readers, he will

have to make sure that it contains many figures of speech. Studies of simplified literary

masterpieces show that frequently difficult structure can be exchanged for a larger

number of figures and other non-literal usages.

9.2.2.5. Wendland (1987)

A. Introduction

In his book The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, Ernst R. Wendland devotes a full

chapter to ‘Figurative Language and Culture’ (chapter 5).

B. Figurative language and culture

According to Wendland, ‘all languages, some perhaps to a greater extent than others, use

words in ways that are not literal. That is to say, the normal referent of a word (whether

an object, event, or abstraction) is not intended by the speaker/writer, when he uses it.

291

Rather, the word or phrase is employed in a certain context to convey a meaning, which it

does not normally carry. Figurative language comprises one major category of literary

devices which manifest such nonliteral speech.’

Wendland describes figures of speech as follows: ‘a figure of speech is based upon a

special semantic relationship which associates or links the figurative meaning of a term

with its literal sense (the latter being the meaning that people would usually give to the

word in isolation, i.e. when the linguistic and extralinguistic context is minimal).

Furthermore, speakers recognize, for the most parts unconsciously, that there is this

relationship between the two senses – the literal and the extended. … Where a

recognition of this underlying connection has for all practical purposes died out, then we

are not dealing with a figure of speech anymore, but some other type of nonliteral

language.’762

In terms of the various functions of figurative language, Wendland states that ‘figurative

language is employed by people to describe some new experience or insight, to lend

verbal color to their speech, to emphasize important ideas and feelings, or to avoid

speaking directly about certain topics of a personal, embarrassing, specially religious, or

highly emotional nature. These general functions of figurative language are more or less

universal. The various objects and events that serve as the literal basis for these figures,

however, are not so common between languages. Languages differ even more in the

specific associations of meaning, or semantic components, that relate the literal and

figurative senses, for such associations are very much culture-specific. For these reasons,

then, figures of speech rarely correspond between languages, and the translator is faced

with the task of somehow making the meaning of the biblical expression explicit in his

language.’

Wendland’s article surveys some of the main types of figurative language that are found

in the Scriptures. He notes in particular the nature of the meaning that each typically

conveys on an implicit level. And in connection with this, Wendland offers a few

suggestions as to how this information can be produced naturally in the receptor language

– together with a similar functional value, that is, with an aesthetic appeal and dramatic

impact which matches that of the source language text. Special attention is given to the

various ways in which the culture of the receptor group influences the search for a

dynamic equivalent rendering of the original.

C. Replacement figures and figures of comparison

Wendland distinguishes between figures of substitution and figures of comparison. Six

figures of substitution are metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, hypobole, idiom and

euphemism. In the case of the first five, an ordinary way of speaking is replaced by a

more graphic and/or less expected expression. Euphemism, on the other hand, involves

the substitution of an oblique reference to a topic that for one reason or another cannot be

762 Wendland (1987:83).

292

spoken about directly in normal discourse. Figurative actions are also discussed in the

section on figures of substitution, since they must be handled similarly in translation.763

The figures of comparison are simile, metaphor and personification. According to

Wendland, ‘strictly speaking, the two major figures discussed here, namely, simile and

metaphor, function almost the same semantically. They differ only in that the simile is

formally marked as a comparison in the text, whereas the metaphor is not. Thus there is a

certain degree of increased emphasis or impact in the use of metaphor, that is, when it is

recognized as such.’764

D. Simile

Wendland defines a simile as ‘an explicit figurative comparison in which an object (or,

less commonly, an event) – the ‘topic’ (T) – is described, defined, explained, or

highlighted through the use of another object – the ‘image’ (I) – which is likened to T. As

a rule T and I are quite different in nature, i.e. in the semantic field to which they belong

or the range of lexical items with which they collocate. But there is always at least one

quality or characteristic (normally a supplementary, nondiagnostic semantic component)

that the two are considered to share in a particular sociocultural and/or literary context.

A full simile consists of four parts: topic (T), image (I), ground (G), and marker (M). The

topic is the subject under discussion, specifically, the person or thing about which the

comparison is made, which the image is intended to describe, illustrate, elucidate, or

emphasize in some particular way. The image is the ‘picture’ word or representation to

which the topic is compared on the basis of some specific point of resemblance for the

purpose of illustration, highlighting, description, etc. The concept of ground forms the

basis of the comparison; it is that aspect or feature of meaning which functions as the

point of similarity between the topic and the image; it may be stated figuratively in terms

of the image, or literally in terms of the topic. The marker is a relational word such as

‘like’ or ‘as’ (in English) which explicitly signals in the text that a comparison between T

and I is being made; every language will have its own way of relating this relation.765

Fully explicit similes do not cause the translator a great deal of difficulty, except in

passages where the ground is stated figuratively, e.g. “For wickedness (T) burns (G) like

(M) a fire (I).” (Is. 9:18). Stated non-figuratively, the ground is: “destroys [people].”

And, “They (T) are like (M) a lion (I) eager to tear (G).’ (Ps. 17:12).

Wendland calls attention to the fact that “different images, i.e., fire and a lion, present a

similar basis for comparison. Different forms, in other words, have essentially the same

meaning here. The converse is also true: the same figurative form (image) may convey

different meanings. That is to say, the basis for comparing T and I may vary from one

context to another, as we see in a number of examples of ‘sheep’: Ps. 44:11, 49:14, 78:52,

Is. 13:14, 53:6.7.

763 Wendland (1987:84). 764 Wendland (1987:110). 765 Wendland (1987:111).

293

It is possible that any one of the many available supplementary components of the image

may serve as the ground – the reason for fusing the topic and the image into a conceptual

unit. This semantic open-endedness, coupled with the fact that the basis of comparison

itself is usually culturally specific, i.e. dependent on the perception of the people

involved, is a feature which often complicates the translation of similes (and metaphors).

E. Metaphor

A metaphor, like a simile, is a figurative comparison based on a supplementary

component of meaning (the ground) that links topic and image, but which, unlike the

simile, is not overtly signaled in the text (i.e. no marker is present). Thus the topic, or

subject under discussion, is directly said to be something else, namely the image, or

illustration, and this creates an overt collocational clash in the text, for the two are

obviously not the same thing. It is only when the receptor knows, or discovers, the ‘key’

feature (G) which relates the two unlike terms (T and I) that the metaphor is complete

conceptually, as far as he is concerned. The more novel, unexpected, dramatic, etc. the

linkage is, the greater the emotive impact, imperative force, and/or descriptive power that

this figure carries in the discourse.766

A full metaphor consists of three parts: topic, image and ground. But, more often than

not, the ground is left implicit in the text. Where images of a culturally more universal

nature are involved, the point of similarity is relatively easy to supply from the context.

However, the more culturally specific the image and associated grounds become, the

more difficult it is to interpret the passage if translated literally.767

Most troublesome are

those instances where the image and its related ground occasion a contradiction from the

perspective of the receptor language culture.768

When the unexpressed topic is someone (thing) other than the participants of a dialogue,

or the correspondents of a letter, then there is a greater chance for it to be missed by the

receptors, e.g. [Jesus] said to [Peter], “Feed my sheep (I).” (John 21:16).

Occasionally even the image, the indispensable constituent of any figure, may be partially

implicit, e.g. “You have taken away the key of knowledge.” (Lk. 11:52). In this example,

the complete image is ‘the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge.’

Not only do we have implicit elements to complicate the interpretation of these pictures,

but also frequently metaphors are extended, or combined, to form a complex series of

figures. According to Wendland, “the more complex the metaphor, structurally and/or

semantically, the greater the need to restructure the text, making explicit what is implicit

in the original, so that the translation will not be misinterpreted.769

766 Wendland (1987:118). 767 Wendland (1987:119). 768 Wendland (1987:121). 769 Wendland (1987:124).

294

9.2.2.6. Crofts (n.d.)

A. Introduction

Marjorie Crofts’ unpublished master’s thesis on The interpretation and translation of

metaphors (n.d.a.) is another interesting study which deals with the methodology of

translating metaphors. Crofts completed the translation of the New Testament into

Munduruku, a language spoken in the Amazon basin in Brazil, and she has been a

translation consultant with SIL for many years.

According to Crofts, ‘it has been striking that both as a translator and as a translation

consultant more time is spent solving interpretation and translation problems than any

other area of translation.770

As a result, the author became fascinated with metaphors, and

wrote her master’s thesis on this topic. In addition, she wrote New Testament Metaphors,

which is available to translators in a pre-publication version. In this study, all the

metaphors of the New Testament are catalogued according to the books and chapters

where they occur, and each of these metaphors is analyzed in terms of its topic, image

and ground constituents.

Crofts’ thesis deals more specifically with the methodology that is involved in

interpreting and translating metaphors. The book contains five chapters, which deal with

respectively a description of translation (Ch. 1), a description of idiomatic translation

(Ch. 2), the nature and structure of metaphor (Ch. 3), the classification and translation of

metaphors (Ch. 4), and the interpretation and translation of selected metaphors (Ch. 5).

Crofts is familiar with both older and newer studies on the subject of metaphor. Her

bibliography contains not only Ethelbert W. Bullinger’s Figures of Speech used in the

Bible, but also more recent publications on the subject, like the ones written by Caird,

Lakoff, Ortony, Soskice, and Van Noppen. She is also familiar with Ivor A. Richards’

important study on The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936), which is absent from Nida and

Taber (1969), De Waard (1974), Beekman and Callow (1974), and Loewen (1975).

B. Similes and metaphors are not self-interpreting: they need to be ‘defigurativized’

In the introduction of her thesis, Crofts states that ‘speakers of Indo-European languages

use metaphors so commonly that it is difficult to ‘defigurativize’ them to ascertain what

they mean non-figuratively.’ To speakers of these languages metaphors are necessary and

not just nice, and, as Ortony (1975:45) explains, ‘Metaphors are compact; they have great

‘expressibility’ and are vivid. Crofts notes that daily conversation would indeed be dull

and probably unbearable, if people would express explicitly every chunk of meaning

which is so succinctly stated in metaphor.771

770 Crofts (n.d.a.:7). 771

Here, she cites Ortony (1975:53) again, who says that ‘metaphors are necessary as a communicative

device because they allow the transfer of coherent chunks of characteristics – perceptual, cognitive,

emotional, and experiential – from a vehicle which is known to a topic which is less so. In so doing they

circumvent the problem of specifying one by one each of the often unnameable and innumerable

295

Crofts disagrees with Richards’ (1952:101) claims that we cannot and need not find the

actual grounds of all metaphors, and that ‘however stone dead such metaphors are, we

can easily wake them up.’ According to her, people who do not frequently use metaphors

cannot easily wake them up, and even people who use them extensively only half wake

them up. Most people have great difficulty in determining the intended ground of

comparison, and sometimes other parts of the metaphor as well.

Crofts mentions Lakoff and Turner’s ‘Grounding hypothesis’, in which metaphorical

understanding is grounded in non-metaphorical understanding. She notes that this theory

contrasts with the traditional ‘literal meaning theory’, which is about language, not

concepts. However, she does not discuss these linguistic-philosophical aspects of

metaphor, because her aims are ‘more pragmatic’. It is her purpose to discuss selected

metaphors from the point of view of problems encountered in their interpretation and

translation. Remarkably little has been written on metaphor other than from the point of

poetry or philosophy. Crofts expresses that hopefully her book will establish a few

fundamental principles for the interpretation and translation of metaphor.

According to Crofts similes and metaphors are not self-interpreting. The more

commentaries translators consult, the more suggested grounds of comparison he finds. As

one of the greatest needs in exegetical studies she mentions the need to spell out as to

what comprises the full comparison (topic, image and ground) of each metaphor in the

Scripture. This would be of untold help to translators around the world.

C. The nature and structure of metaphor

According to Crofts, metaphors are the most difficult items in Scripture to translate

idiomatically. Many translators spend more time on metaphors than on any other single

item in their attempts to make metaphors clear and meaningful to those for whom they

translate. This seems to be due to: (a) the translator’s failure to identify metaphors in

Scripture, (b) interpretation problems, (c) failure to realize that metaphors are not

employed in the same way in the receptor language as in the Scriptures, and (d) failure to

test proposed translations adequately for wrong meaning with speakers of the receptor

language.

The author notes that metaphors fill several functions, such as explaining the familiar

with the unfamiliar, bringing to mind a whole group of connotations, adding vividness

and ‘color’. She quotes Roland Barthes (1983:51) who says that ‘metaphors can be

effective even when their meaning is not perfectly clear.’ She agrees with John V. Taylor

(1972) who, speaking about ‘the explosive force of symbols and metaphors compared

with plain statement,’ says that the expression ‘No man is an island’ has fifty times the

voltage of ‘no one is self-sufficient.’

characteristics; they avoid discretizing the perceived continuity of experience and consequently [are] more

vivid and memorable.’

296

English speakers are hard put to speak for very long without using metaphor. We are so

used to them that we often do not recognize them as metaphorical. We frequently say

‘literally’, when the item in question is not literally, but figurative. For example, someone

may say, ‘she was literally crushed’ speaking of a friend who was emotionally distraught

by a turn of events. As I.A. Richards (1936:92) has observed ‘metaphor is the

omnipresent principle of language’, a truth that ‘can be shown by mere observation’: ‘We

cannot get through three sentences of ordinary fluid discourse without it.’ Even in the

rigid language of the settled sciences we do not eliminate or prevent it without great

difficulty (…) And this is the truer, the more severe and abstract the philosophy is. As it

grows more abstract we think increasingly by means of metaphors that we profess not to

be relying on.

Crofts quotes the Dictionary of World Literature (1943) to define her concept of

metaphor: Metaphor is ‘the substitution of one thing for another, or the identification of

two things from different ranges of thought. … Though often loosely defined as ‘an

implied comparison’ … metaphor is distinct logically and probably philologically the

prior symbol.’

While pursuing a ‘functional’ approach to metaphors, and with reference to translation

problems, Crofts remarks that the earlier works of Keach (1856) and Bullinger (1898) are

not particular helpful in terms of analyzing and categorizing metaphors in a way that

would help translators. In fact, ‘nothing truly analytical is found until Beekman and

Callow (1974) devote two full chapters to the subject of metaphor and simile.’

Crofts builds upon Beekman and Callow’s exposition, in which metaphors are viewed as

implicit comparisons, and similes are treated as explicit comparisons. She agrees with

their analysis that both forms of figurative language contain three parts, i.e. topic, image

and point of similarity (or: ground of comparison).

D. Analyzing and restating metaphors as analogies

Crofts, however, goes one step beyond Beekman and Callow. That is, building on

Barfield (1928) and Brown (1955), she analyzes metaphors in terms of analogies with six

legs. The formula, that, according to her, best represents metaphors, is the following: ‘As

a is x like b; so m is y to n.’

Crofts does, however, not spell out, how these six variables relate to the three elements of

topic, image and point of similarity. Nor does she identify these six elements in any of the

analytical renderings of metaphors that she proposes in the rest of her book. Another

complicating factor in her analysis is, that, contrary to what one would expect, the two

sub-statements of the analogy do not share a common variable. This analytical problem is

not even mentioned, let alone dealt with.

Although Crofts does not spell out what the six different variables of the metaphors are,

she does restate the metaphors in some form of analogy. The metaphor in Matt. 5:6, for

example, (‘Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness’) is restated as: ‘As

297

one who hungers for food and thirsts for drink becomes satisfied, so one who intensely

desires righteousness will be happy.’772

It should be noted that the six legs of the analogy are proposed as an analytical tool in

order to restate the metaphor in a way that is non-figurative. This does not mean, that the

author proposes that every metaphor should be spelled out this way in the translation.

However, she proposes, that, before the metaphor is translated, the expatriate translator

should discuss the six legs of the analyzed metaphor with the native speaker who serves

as his translation helper.773

E. The classification and translation of metaphors

Based upon the frequency of their occurrence in the New Testament, Crofts establishes

five classes of metaphors: 1. Incidental; 2. Repeated; 3. Extended; 4. Thematic; and

5. Symbolic metaphors.

Thematic metaphors occur in many New Testament books; repeated metaphors occur in

several books, but not as frequently or as widespread as the thematic. An extended

metaphor is one in which the biblical author uses several items based on one metaphor in

a single verse, in several verses, or even an entire chapter. Incidental metaphors occur

almost incidentally and sometimes do not appear to be metaphorical in English, but they

are seen to be metaphors when one studies the Greek word involved.

Symbolic metaphors are used not in the sense of symbols found in apocalyptic literature

nor in the general linguistic sense in which words are spoken of as symbols, but are used

of images common in Christian vocabulary which have some important theological

significance. These symbols often carry strong emotional overtones.

The possibilities for misunderstanding metaphors are multitudinous. For this reason, the

meaningful translation of metaphors is one of the greatest challenges there is. Translated

metaphors need to be carefully checked for meaning with more than one person,

preferably both sexes, and of various ages. The author cites Deibler (1971:14-15), who

says that ‘we need to establish what meaning is suggested to the hearers if we retain a

metaphor in translation.’

772

Crofts (n.d.a.:30). This restatement of the metaphor illustrates the point just made that there is no shared

variable between the two substatements of the analogy. The restatement is built on the assumption that to

hunger is recognized as a cognitive correlate of intensely desire, and that become satisfied is recognized as

a cognitive correlate of be happy. Even if this were true for the majority of intelligent native speakers of

most languages spoken around the world, the question still remains: Does the vernacular language allow

the form of an analogy, where the points of similarity in both sub-statements do not exactly match each

other? One could argue that in particular languages happy and satisfied with food belong to the same lexical (cognitive) domain, that they are readily associated with each other, and that analogies do not require exact

matching between points of similarity. However, this is by no means a language universal, and translators

need to check, whether or not a rendering like this would be natural in the target language that they are

translating in. 773 Crofts (n.d.a.:31).

298

When discussing the ‘principles for adjusting metaphors’, Crofts summarizes what

Beekman and Callow (1974), Blight (1972) and De Waard (1974) have written about this

topic. She finds De Waard’s five principles most explicit and helpful. She adopts De

Waard’s list of principles, but suggests that his principle # 3 (restate the metaphor as a

simile) be moved up to principle # 2, so that it can be applied before De Waard’s

principle # 2 (make explicit the implicit constituents of the metaphor). She also suggests

that De Waard’s principle # 4 (replace the metaphor of the source language with a

different metaphor from the figurative stock of the receptor language) be demoted, while

his principle # 5 be moved up one position (replace the figure by a nonfigure).

Crofts suggests that there is a scale along which a translator moves in applying these

principles of translating metaphors. While modifying the order of De Waard’s list of

principles, she comes up with the following procedure.

Step 1: The metaphor is rendered literally in the receptor language. No change from the

source language.

Step 2: If a literal rendering of the metaphor produces zero, wrong or skewed meaning,

the translator would adjust the metaphor to a simile.

Step 3: If a simile is still not understood clearly, the translator would begin to make

explicit the legs of the metaphor left implicit in the source language, one by one, until

several translation helpers could clearly understand it. Thus there are one to five steps

within step three.

Step 4: If with all the six legs of the metaphor rendered explicitly, the meaning is still not

clear, the translator would drop the metaphor and render it nonfiguratively.

Step 5: If there is a figure of speech in the receptor language that can substitute for one in

the source language, this can be done. But there are many potential problems in this

procedure, and therefore Crofts suggests this to be a last resort, done with great care and

checked with twice as many UNSes as any other.

9.2.2.7. Stienstra (1993)

A. Introduction

Stienstra wrote a doctoral dissertation on the biblical metaphor of “YHWH is the husband

of his people”. She analyzes this biblical metaphor along the lines of Lakoff and

Johnson’s cognitive approach in Metaphors We Live By (1980), while presenting it

explicitly in the context of Kittay and Lehrer’s semantic field theory. Stienstra does not

restrict herself to an analysis of the marriage (divine husband) metaphor, but she also

discusses the translation of this Old Testament metaphor.774

774 Stienstra’s dissertation consists of six chapters: 1. On metaphor; 2. On theological and biblical

metaphor; 3. On Israelite marriage; 4. The marriage metaphor in the book of Hosea; 5. The marriage

metaphor before and after Hosea; 6. Translating the marriage metaphor.

299

The purpose of this study is threefold: 1. “To develop an approach to metaphor which

may serve as a method to analyze and understand metaphors in a text as part of a

metaphorical concept or system, rather than as isolated figures of speech or idioms; 2. To

show that such an approach to metaphor can have very important consequences for the

interpretation of a text, especially in its cultural and historical context; 3. To show that

such an approach to metaphor opens up new perspectives with respect to the translation

of metaphor.”775

According to Stienstra, “the analysis of the marriage metaphor in the Old Testament

reveals a network of related metaphors, sometimes hardly perceptible to the uninitiated

twentieth century reader.” She contends that, “a modern cognitive theory of metaphor is

precisely the instrument we need to unravel this delicate network.” She expresses her

regrets that “to put it mildly … so many translators have shown themselves insensitive to

a number of manifestations of the marriage metaphor.” According to Stienstra, “this is

mainly due to the fact that they are not aware of the way these many manifestations are

all linked up into one large system.”776

Stienstra’s study shows the importance of analyzing metaphors as systems rather than as

isolated figures of speech. Semantic field theory helps to bring out the network of

meanings and relations related to a specific metaphor like the marriage metaphor. It helps

to discover cohesion, coherence, inferentiality and patterns of intertextuality.

In line with modern777

metaphor theory, Stienstra sees metaphor as a cognitive device

rather than as a rhetorical device.778

Speaking about metaphorical language about God,

she makes the helpful distinction between anthropomorphic language as such and

between anthropomorphic metaphors.779

She contends that the use of metaphor has

nothing to do with primitive culture. The use of metaphor is intrinsically linked to man’s

cognitive capacity: “Man’s cognitive capacity is intrinsically and necessarily

metaphorical with respect to metaphysical concepts.”780

B. The analysis of biblical metaphor

In her analysis of the biblical marriage metaphor, Stienstra focuses on the cognitive

aspects of metaphor. She acknowledges that “it is undeniable that biblical metaphor also

has certain rhetorical aspects,” like in Jeremiah 2:20 (“on every high hill and under every

green tree you have sprawled and played the whore”), where the marriage metaphor

(unfaithful wife) is used to denounce Israel’s idolatry and unfaithfulness to YHWH. The

use of this metaphor is rhetorically more effective than the paraphrase: “You have

775 Stienstra (1993:9). 776

Stienstra (1993:7). 777 The use of the term ‘modern’ is used here in contrast with ‘older’ views of metaphor. It is not intended to contrast with ‘post-modern’. It can be said that the study of metaphor has thrived in the context of

‘postmodernism’. 778 Stienstra (1993:9). 779 Stienstra (1993:10). 780 Stienstra (1993:10).

300

sacrificed to idols all over the country”. Jeremiah and many other Old Testament writers

made use of the marriage metaphor in order to drive home a number of truths that could

not be expressed in another way. Nevertheless, Stienstra refers to these rhetorical aspects

as “side-effects”, while contending that the cognitive aspects are most important.781

Stienstra’s analysis of the biblical marriage metaphor focuses on this metaphor as a

system of metaphorical propositions. The metaphorical concept YHWH IS THE

HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE is instantiated in many related and more specific

propositions such as YHWH’S WIFE COMMITS ADULTERY, IDOLATRY IS

ADULTERY, NAKEDNESS IS SHAME, YHWH WILL PROVIDE FOR HIS WIFE

AGAIN, YHWH WILL RESTORE THE VIRGINITY OF HIS WIFE782

, YHWH

ENDOWS HIS WIFE WITH BEAUTY, YHWH ENJOYS A HONEYMOON WITH

HIS WIFE783

, YHWH MAY DIVORCE HIS WIFE, YHWH MAY KILL HIS

ADULTEROUS WIFE, YHWH FORGIVES HIS WIFE784

, EXILE IS DIVORCE.785

According to Stienstra, the marriage metaphor is the one that, more than any other,

expresses the mutual relationship between God and his people. At the same time, “there

is no other metaphor so revealing of the broken relationship between God and man, as

well as the ideal that should be striven for” than this particular metaphor.786

C. The translation of metaphor

Stienstra expresses that she adheres to “a mild form of universalism”. She makes the

claim that “it is the surface realizations that are culture- (or language-) dependent, not the

conceptual metaphor itself.”787

This means that even metaphors like YHWH IS THE

HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE are to be seen as a language and culture independent

metaphor.

781 Stienstra (1993:21). Stienstra’s reasoning seems to be rather weak, even contradictory, here. She

acknowledges that writers use metaphor in order to ‘drive home certain truths’. But, if this is the case, how

can it be that the pragmatic or rhetorical aspects are just ‘side-effects’, as Stienstra claims? It would make

more sense, if the pragmatic and rhetorical aspects are viewed as being in focus, and central to the

speaker’s intentions. Moreover, Stienstra’s claim that metaphors express “truths that could not be expressed in another way” is problematic, since this would imply that the expression of the metaphor would defy any

paraphrasing that expresses the main point of the metaphor. But, in the immediately preceding context, the

author herself gives a literal paraphrase of the metaphor. The author rejected this paraphrase as an

inadequate representation of the metaphor, not because it was cognitively inadequate – at least this is not

made explicit – but because it was rhetorically less effective. It should be noted that Stienstra’s emphasis

on the cognitive aspects of metaphor cannot be separated from her polemical stance against Sally McFague

and other (post-) modern theologians who “break with the Bible” while exchanging Biblical metaphors like

“God is father” and “God is king” for metaphors that are more in line with their own theological

convictions (“God is mother,” “God is a lover,” and “God is a friend.”). Cf. Stienstra (1993:65-66). Giving

too much weight to the rhetorical aspects of metaphor would probably have weakened her anti-relativist

stance. 782 Stienstra (1993:124-125). 783 Stienstra (1993:137-138). 784 Stienstra (1993:155). 785 Stienstra (1993:167). 786 Stienstra (1993:15). 787 Stienstra (1993:40).

301

Stienstra acknowledges that metaphors “bear the stamp of the culture in which they

originated.” But, she rejects the viewpoint that metaphor is totally culture-dependent,

since this would imply that metaphors would be untranslatable.788

In her opinion, “it is

the notion of metaphorical concept or system that will turn out to be one of the most

important elements in any discussion of the translatability of metaphor.”789

She states

that, “the historical and cultural gap between the source culture and language on the one

hand and the target culture and language on the other, can often be effectively bridged,

even in the case of metaphorical concepts that cannot easily be equated in the two

cultures. If only we are prepared to make the effort of a detailed analysis, we can

understand what seems at first sight to be a foreign concept.”790

The solution to the gap

between the imagery of the Old Testament and modern western concepts “seems to lie in

a sound knowledge of biblical culture rather than in replacing the metaphors, the latter

being just no solution at all.”791

According to Stienstra, “a translator may occasionally decide to change a metaphor if he

thinks it is no longer understandable … but if he decides to change an important

metaphorical concept such as GOD IS KING, very drastically, he changes the meaning of

the message, if we agree that a metaphor expresses something that cannot be expressed in

another way.”792

Stienstra points out that even occasional changes made by translators

have their disadvantages.793

With regard to the interpretation (and translation) of the marriage metaphor (and other

metaphors as well), Stienstra mentions three options. The first option would be

elimination of the metaphor. If an interpreter (translator) “is convinced that the …

metaphor no longer works, he might decide to eliminate it altogether.” But, “this would

obviously result in a version of the Bible that no longer deserves the name,” and “it

would not be literature any more either.” It would also make the Bible very uninteresting

and not challenging anymore, because “just imagine the rendering of Hosea 1-3 without

making use of the marriage metaphor; the result would be half a page of dull religious

788 Stienstra (1993:11). 789 Stienstra (1993:11). 790 Stienstra (1993:16). 791 Stienstra (1993:190). 792 Stienstra (1993:66). I agree with Stienstra that metaphors should be retained in a translation whenever

this is possible. However, I am not convinced that this should be based on the argument that metaphors

cannot be expressed otherwise. The very existence of metaphorical parallelism shows that different

metaphors may express meanings and intentions that are very similar. Biblical metaphors like ‘shield,’

‘rock,’ and ‘fortress’ are very similar in meaning. However, this should not lead translators to the

conviction that metaphors can be exchanged at random or need to be substituted by a literal paraphrase. A

much stronger case for the retention of metaphors in translation can be made on the basis of the

acknowledgment that form and meaning are inextricably intertwined in live metaphors, and that loss of form easily leads to loss of meaning too. The pervasiveness, thematicity and intertextuality of metaphor are

other reasons for keeping biblical metaphors intact as much as possible in the translation. It can also be

argued that metaphorical substitutions as proposed by McFague and others are no longer a form of

translation, but rather a form of adaptation or contextualization. 793 Stienstra (1993:66).

302

history, which would not encourage anybody either to devote more time to the study of

the Bible, or make him (re)consider his relationship with God.”794

A second possibility would be to “try and replace the metaphor by one that is better

attuned to our present day ideas about relationships.”795

But, according to Stienstra, this is

in fact impossible for two reasons: “One is a reason of principle: every metaphorical

concept is unique, no two donor fields structure one and the same recipient field in

exactly the same way.” Stienstra goes on to say that, “this is precisely what cognitive

theories of interactive metaphor all about; one cannot replace a metaphor either by a

literal statement, or by another metaphor without effecting a major of meaning.” The

second reason is a practical one: “Even if an interpreter were prepared to sacrifice some

(or even a great deal) of the meaning of this metaphorical concept, in order to be able to

replace it by another one, he would soon find that in our modern Western society there is

no metaphorical concept available that could serve the purpose. If we have trouble using

the marriage metaphor to structure the relationship between God and man, there is no

other donor field that even remotely resembles marriage in ancient Israel.”796

The interpreter’s third option is to “leave the metaphor as it is.” According to Stienstra,

“this seemingly simple solution is not without problems and difficulties,” since “the

chance that the metaphor will be misunderstood and rejected because of this

misunderstanding is great.”797

Despite these difficulties, Stienstra is confident that “there

must be some sort of universal, or at least culture-exceeding, metaphorical concept

structuring man’s relationship with the Deity, even if there is no adequate metaphor

available to express it in our culture.” She further postulates that, “this culture-exceeding

metaphorical concept must involve a notion of dependence, of trust, of love, of mutuality,

of faithfulness.”

Stienstra acknowledges that translators need to be sensitive to the perceptions of present-

day audiences with regard to biblical metaphors. “A translator will have to consider the

implications of a literal translation, in the light of the cultural and social changes that

have occurred since the days that these books were written.”798

Present day notions of

kingship, for example, have changed since the days of the Old Testament. The notion of

dynamic equivalence (or: pragmatic equivalence) is important.

Stienstra uses the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ in the sense of ‘pragmatic success’ of a

translation.799

She contends that “a translation meant as a first introduction to the Bible

cannot be the same as one for those familiar with biblical tradition and biblical

concepts.”800

But, against the relativism voiced by some of the initiators of skopos theory,

she maintains that “the source text is indeed ‘sacred’, in the sense that any translation will

have to put across the message of the source text, even though certain nuances and

794

Stienstra (1993:188-189). 795 Stienstra (1993:189). 796 Stienstra (1993:189). 797 Stienstra (1993:189). 798 Stienstra (1993:68). 799 Stienstra (1993:203). 800 Stienstra (1993:204).

303

connotations may be lost.” In Stienstra’s opinion, “a target text that departs too

drastically from the source text does not fulfill the basic purpose of a Bible translation: to

put across the message.”801

Loyalty to the source text (Nord) is very crucially

important.802

With regard to the concept of dynamic equivalence, Stienstra criticizes the general

tendency of equating dynamic equivalence with everyday language use and with

complete naturalness of expression.803

She also questions the avoidance of “traditional,

ecclesiastical jargon” in translations, since, in her opinion, this is not necessarily identical

with “esoterical language.” It is “hardly feasible for a Bible translation to ‘fit the receptor

culture as a whole’. Readers need to be familiarized with the source culture.804

In this

context, she suggests that “perhaps Nida’s translations-for-missionary-purposes should be

accompanied by a programme to familiarize the prospective audience with at least some

aspects of the culture they will encounter in the Bible.”805

Another criticism of the

concept of dynamic equivalence is the elimination of metaphor, which Nida allegedly had

proposed.806

D. Evaluation

Stienstra’s analysis of the biblical metaphor of marriage is helpful to reveal meanings and

relations related to biblical metaphor that might otherwise go unnoticed. However,

occasionally, she reads more into a text than seems to be justified. Her interpretation of

the Hebrew term (qn’) as ‘jealous’, for example, is somewhat one-sided, since the

term can also mean ‘zealous’. In other words, the term , as it is used in Exodus 34:14

is ambiguous, and is not necessarily a marriage related metaphor.807

Stienstra’s focus on the cognitive aspects of metaphor to the exclusion of its rhetorical

aspects is methodologically valid, but it can easily lead to a reification of a conceptual

metaphor as a more or less objective thought system that is isolated from the situational

and pragmatic contexts in which it occurs. Many of the metaphorical propositions

expressed in her book, including the one that forms its title (YHWH is the Husband of His

People) are implied in the Biblical texts, but they are never expressed explicitly in the

biblical text, at least not in the form of a statement in the 3rd

person. The statements that

801 Stienstra (1993:204). 802 Stienstra (1993:205). 803 Stienstra (1993:205). 804 Stienstra (1993:205). 805 Stienstra (1993:206). 806 Stienstra (1993:207). Stienstra (1993:212) has a point when she criticizes Nida’s (1964:220) proposed

rendering of ‘uncircumcised of heart’ as ‘with your hearts unprepared’ (Acts 7:51) into Cakchiquel. This

biblical metaphor is indeed rich in associated commonplaces, as “circumcision is a sign of belonging to the people of Israel, the visible mark of an Israelite’s covenant with God.” This aspect has been lost in the

translation. However, Stienstra herself acknowledges that there are cases where it is impossible to translate

without some loss in meaning or associations. She fails to give a criterion for when this is allowed and

when it is not. 807 Stienstra (1993:226-227).

304

YHWH makes about himself and about the people of Israel are much more indirect.808

Many of the propositional statements written in capital letters are in fact implicatures, but

their explication and CAPITALIZED representation could easily lend them an

ontological status.

Stienstra’s suggestion that metaphors should preferably be retained in translations is very

valid. However, the foundation of this claim seems to be rather weak (metaphors cannot

be expressed otherwise)809

, and seems to be inconsistent with her mild-universalist stance

with regard to the translatability problem and with the fact that she offers literal

paraphrases of metaphors.

Some of Stienstra’s statements are pretty strong: “Translators who think that the Bible

should be taken to the reader, rather than the reader to the Bible, fail to see the

importance of the historical embedding of the text, made manifest in, among other things,

the great metaphorical concepts.”810

Statements like this show that Stienstra is not

primarily concerned with translation situations where the audiences share little common

ground with the culture and worldview of the Bible and where ‘radical translation’ is

being called for.811

9.2.2.8. Hermanson (1996, [1995])

In 1995 Hermanson submitted a doctoral thesis to the University of Stellenbosch on the

translation of biblical metaphors into Zulu.812

In this study a number of selected

metaphors in the book of Amos are analyzed and classified according to their conceptual

categories. In addition, an evaluation is presented as to how successfully these metaphors

808 The focus of those statements is usually not on who YHWH is, nor on who his people are, but on what

YHWH and his people have done and will do in the context of their covenant relationship with all its ups

and downs. 809 Stienstra claims that metaphors can not be expressed otherwise, but does not make any attempt to prove

that this is necessarily the case. Her claim that metaphors cannot be expressed otherwise is perhaps related

to her acceptance of the basic tenets of interaction theory, especially its emphasis on metaphorical concepts

as a complete network of meanings and of ‘associated commonplaces’. Cf. Stienstra (1993:216): “A

translator who wants to pass on the message of the Bible should be fully aware of the metaphorical concept – the complete network of metaphor – used to structure (be it partially) the most basic notion of the Old

Testament, the relationship between YHWH and His people.” This point is very valid in itself, but it fails to

point out that the meanings (implicatures) of textual metaphors are context-bound, and that they do not

necessarily intend to trigger the complete network of metaphor as a system. Too much emphasis on

metaphor-as-a-network, at the expense of metaphor-in-context, can easily lead to what James Barr (1961/

1978:218) has called ‘illegitimate totality transfer’: “The error that arises, when the ‘meaning’ of a word

(understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case

as its sense and implication there, may be called ‘illegitimate totality transfer’.” 810 Stienstra (1993:235). 811 Schleiermacher’s opposition between ‘moving the reader towards the text’ versus ‘moving the text

towards the reader’ is a gross over-simplification anyway. In actual fact, most translations move the text

towards the reader (by using a language that the reader can understand and by making at least some implied information explicit), while at the same time expecting the reader to move towards the text (since no

translation can make explicit all the implied information). 812 Hermanson (1996, [1995]). Metaphor in Zulu: Problems in the Translation of Biblical Metaphor in the

Book of Amos. I’d like to thank Dr. Hermanson for making available to me this dissertation in its compact

(1996) form.

305

have been translated in published Bible translations in Zulu. Hermanson also gives

suggestions as to “how these translations may be improved so as to enable the present

day Zulu reader to recover the implicatures inherent in the Hebrew text.”813

According to Hermanson, “metaphors cover a vast number of source-target domain

mappings, and are highly context-dependent.” His study shows something of the

cognitive and conceptual background which gives rise to metaphor in language. The

author contends that, “understanding the conceptual framework within which a metaphor

is formed in one language, helps to identify the implicatures it contains within a given

context.”814

It is the translator’s task to check “whether or not the speakers of the receptor language

have the same conceptual framework and, if so, whether they are able to invoke a similar

metaphor with the same implicatures.” Hermanson states that “if the receptor language

does have the same conceptual framework and they are able to invoke a similar metaphor

with the same implications, then the metaphor may be translated directly from the one to

the other.” However, if this is not the case, “it is then necessary to discover if the

receptors have another conceptual framework from which they are able to invoke a

metaphor with the same implicatures.” If they do, this means that it may be possible to

translate the metaphor from the source language into the receptor language by using a

metaphor with a different source domain.

Hermanson claims that language use is not static, as Zulu people actively create and

decipher new metaphors. This has consequences for the way metaphor is translated. As a

result, “it may also be possible to extend the normal area mapped between the source and

target domains in the receptor language so as to convey implicatures intended in the

source language to the receptor. This is how metaphor is extended intralingually so it

should be possible interlingually, provided the extended mapping does not already occur

in the receptor language, but with different implicatures. Such interlingual extended

mappings are particularly possible in situations where there is extensive bilingual or

multilingual contact, which is the case in South Africa.”

Hermanson’s approach to the analysis of metaphors resembles Stienstra’s approach in

that he also makes use of a cognitive framework. But, unlike Stienstra, Hermanson has an

eye for the differences in conceptual framework of the source text and the one of the

target audience, and the implications this may have for the way metaphors are translated.

Hermanson devotes a chapter to a description of vernacular metaphors in Zulu. He gives an

inventory of a wide variety of conceptual metaphors: People are (wild or domestic)

Animals, People are Plants, People are Natural Phenomena, People are Machines, People

are Inanimate Objects, Death is a Devourer, Death is an Adversary, Death is a Destroyer,

Life is a Day, Death is Night, Death is Rest, Death is Sleep, Anger is Fire, Enthusiasm is

Fire, etc.

813 Hermanson (1996:iii). 814 Hermanson (1996:iii).

306

People are Animal metaphors in Zulu are particularly interesting, as they are in perhaps

every language. Animal metaphors in Zulu are often used to express human character

traits.815

A lion has the status of the king of the animals, and the lion metaphor is used for a

“strong, courageous, bellicose person”; the leopard metaphor is used for ferocious people;

the hyena metaphor is used for vicious, ugly-looking people; the hippopotamus metaphor is

used for huge, fat persons; the buffalo metaphor is used for a very strong person; dog

metaphors are used for inferior class people, people of course habits, including promiscuous

behavior; pig metaphors are used for people who are untidy, stupid and gluttonous.

Hermanson not only gives a systematic overview of metaphors found in Zulu, but he also

discusses metaphors found in the Bible, especially those found in the book of Amos. He

discusses a wide variety of metaphors: The Deity is a lion, the Voice of the Deity (Yahweh)

is Thunder, People are Plants, Deity is a Warrior, Deity's Weapon is Fire, Annihilate is to

Cut Off, Anger is a Dangerous Animal, Anger is Fire, Anger is a Storm, Battle is a Storm,

Deity (Yahweh) is Truth, An Idol is Falsehood, People are Trees, Nation is Family,

Founding Ancestor is Father of the Nation, Citizens are Children, People are Bovines,

Women are Cows, People are Fish, Famine is Cleanness of Teeth, Death is Darkness,

Closeness to Death is Shadow, Nation is a Maiden, Punishment is Fire, Justice is a Plant,

Deity's Weapon is Lightning, Justice is a Person, Good is Light, Bad is Darkness, Dramatic

Intervention is a Day, Israel is a Man Fleeing to Destruction, The Day of Yahweh is

Inevitable Destruction, Permanence is Flowing Water, Power and Strength is Horn, Heat of

the Sun is Fire, Right is Straightness, Strength is Iron/Bronze, Weakness is Tin, Security is a

Wall, Defencelessness is a Tin Wall, Land is a Container, Nation is the Land, Words are

Liquid, Speech is a Flow [of Words], Doomed People are the Fruit of Plants, Destroying is

Eating, Oppressing is Trampling, Prosperity is Feasting, Adversity is Mourning, Sorrow is

Sackcloth, Grief is Baldness, Extreme Grief is the Death of an Only Son, Earth is a Person,

Judging is Sifting, Kingdom is a Structure, Strong and Glorious is Firmly Built, Weak and

Ignoble is Ruins, David's Kingdom is a Temporary Shelter, Abundance is Flowing Liquid,

People are Plants.

Some of the metaphors found in the book of Amos are very much consistent with metaphors

found in Zulu. For example, metaphors like the Deity is a Lion and The Voice of the Deity

is Thunder are very similar in the book of Amos and in Zulu. Not only the imagery is pretty

much the same, but also the associated meanings (implicatures) are also very similar. Power

and Strength is Horn is another metaphor that is found both in Hebrew and in Zulu, and

where its meaning is very similar. Women are Cows is another metaphor that is found not

only in the book of Amos but also in Zulu. However, its meaning in Zulu is just the opposite

as in Amos. While in Amos the expression “cows of Bashan” is intended as a derogatory

term, in Zulu expressions in which women are addressed as cows are considered to be

complimentary. Famine is Cleanness of Teeth is an example of a metaphor that is not found

815 Hermanson (1996): section 4.14.2.1. “The animal kingdom is a rich source domain for metaphor in Zulu. In a genre such as the folktale in which the corresponding conceptual metaphor Animals are People is

commonly found, the attributes of the animals are understood as human character traits. Then these same

character traits are attributed from animals back to humans in the conceptual metaphor People are Animals.”

According to Hermanson, “the basic conceptual metaphor People are Animals entails a hierarchy of

metaphors which includes all the phyla in the animal kingdom.”

307

in Zulu, but which is also misunderstood. In some cases a vernacular metaphor (A Covenant

is a Knot) was used in Zulu to render a biblical metaphor.

Hermanson describes how metaphors have been translated in a number of existing Bible

translations in Zulu. He concludes as follows: “Examining existing translations of the Book

of Amos in Zulu in the light of the conceptual metaphor theory analysis of the Hebrew

metaphors selected, and the conceptual metaphor analysis of the corresponding verses in

Zulu, it was found that some verses which are not metaphors in Hebrew had been translated

in Zulu as if they were. In these cases, non-metaphorical translations were suggested which

better convey the implicatures of the original text. In some cases, it was felt that the present

Zulu translation of the Hebrew metaphor is adequate, in others new translations were

suggested which it is felt better convey the implicatures of the text in the original context to

the present day Zulu reader. In still others, the conceptual metaphor analysis assisted to

unravel the implicatures of the Hebrew text and make the intended implicatures more

obvious, and thus make them easier to convey in translation.”

Hermanson acknowledges that languages are dynamic and that people often decipher and

create new metaphors. This may have consequences for translation of metaphor. He

rejects the idea of cultural adaptation as a translation strategy for rendering metaphor: “A

translation which requires relatively little processing to give the meaning of the original, but

which omits information regarding the culture of Biblical times, may be more meaningful

initially, but at a later stage has sometimes led to the translators being accused of

deliberately misleading the people for whom the translation was made, once they have

discovered how the original was stated. However it is decided to translate this, therefore, it

would be good to include an explanatory footnote to ensure that the reader understands both

the agricultural practice in Biblical times, and the significance of the metaphor here.”

Another valuable insight expressed by Hermanson is the view that different people in a

language group may have different levels of language competence, as they have different

levels of experience, knowledge and skills. Quite surprisingly, the author does not deal with

the obvious question: if there is such a diversity in language competency within a certain

language group, what kind of people need to be targeted as the target audience of the

translation? Those with a high level of language and metaphor competence or those with a

lower level?

Hermanson’s study is very valuable as a descriptive study of conceptual metaphors in Zulu

and in the book of Amos. Perhaps the only drawback of this study is the fact that an

important aspect of metaphor research is missing, namely comprehension checking with

unconditioned native speakers. Comprehension checking is important, since the most crucial

question related to Bible translation and translation in general is not what the words and

sentences on the printed pages say, but how the average reader understands them in actual

practice.

308

9.2.2.9. Other contributions

In addition to the studies on metaphor discussed above, several articles have been written

on metaphor and figurative speech in general in The Bible Translator (TBT), Notes on

Translation (NOT) and the Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics (JOTT).

Metaphor related articles appearing in The Bible Translator primarily focused on the

exegesis (analysis) of biblical metaphors (source text-oriented). Source text-oriented

articles on metaphor were written by, among others, Clark (1982), Ogden (1988), Mikre-

Selassie (1995), Collins (1995), Likeng (1998), Hermanson (1999), and Slager (2000).

Target text-oriented articles on metaphor: De Blois (1985). Theory-oriented articles were

written by Fueter (1986)816

, Del Corro (1991)817

and Mojola (1993)818

.

Metaphor related articles appearing in Notes on Translation focused on the theory of

translating metaphors and on the translation of metaphors in vernacular languages.

Theory-oriented articles were written by Beekman (1969), Rupp (1974), Forsberg, Bearth

(1979), Deibler (1984, 1971), Leaders (1991). Source text-oriented articles on metaphor

were written by Crofts (1994), Farrell (1996). Target text oriented articles on metaphor

were written by Ham (1965).

816 Fueter, P.D., “Therapeutic Language of the Bible”, in: TBT vol. 37, no. 3 (July 1986), p. 309-319.

Following Paul Watzlawick (The Language of Change. Elements of Therapeutic Communication. New

York: Basic Books Inc. 1978), Fueter makes a distinction between ‘digital language’ and ‘analogical

language’. Digital language is the language of science, of digits, of numbers and of definitions. “It follows the laws of linguistic logic: grammar, syntax, and semantics.” (1986:309). Analogical language, on the

other hand, is the language of imagery (metaphors), pars pro toto, synthesis and totality. “It is the stuff of

dreams, fantasies, and has its own rules.” “We need digital language to interpret, describe, analyse and

explain the information we receive from our senses. But analogical language allows us to communicate

what we feel intuitively, that is our religious, easthetic, ethical and even logical insights.” (1986:309-310).

Digital language is the language of diagnosis, while analogical language is the language of change. The use

of analogical language, such as metaphor, blocks the analytical function of the mind and helps confused

seekers to reframe their world image and experience metanoia by giving heed to behaviour prescriptions

and by participating in therapeutic rituals. Fueter warns against demetaphorization of metaphors in

translation: “Our way of transposing the original text into the language and culture of today consists mainly

in making its meaning explicit by introducing some analytical language into the message we want to transmit. But our technique may mar the Bible’s analogical language and make it less therapeutic.”

(1986:319). 817 Del Corro, A., “The Use of Figurative Language”, in: TBT vol. 42, no. 1 (January 1991), p. 114-127.

Del Corro approaches figurative language from Systems Correspondence Theory, which is based on the

principle of ‘physicalism’. The concept of physicalism “assigns significant value to physical phenomena

affecting man’s thinking and perception.” (1991:117). When discussing Wallace’s (1982) figure and

grounds approach (borrowed from Gestalt psychology), Del Corro, quite surprisingly, does not apply this

distinction of saliency to the difference between figurative and non-figurative language. 818 Mojola, A.O., “Theories of metaphor”, in: TBT vol. 44, no. 3 (July 1993), p. 341-347. Mojola favors the

‘interaction view’ of metaphor. In his opinion (1993:347), “the interaction view preserves the meaning of

the text better than the substitution/comparison view.” Metaphor is an “essential part of the message, a

primary element of the communication process which plays an indispensable role in the understanding and interpretation of the text” (1993:344). ‘Demetaphorization’ of metaphor in translation is not a good idea. “If

we take further the idea that metaphor is a heuristic tool or a cognitive instrument, it may in fact follow that

by substituting metaphor by its purported literal equivalent we are weakening the communicative power of

the original metaphorical statement, and running the danger of distorting or falsifying its message.”

(1993:343).

309

Metaphor related articles appearing in the Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics

were written by Wendland (1995, 2000) and others.

9.2.3. Insights from the field of general translation

Most of the theoretical and methodological contributions to the translation of metaphor

originate from the field of Bible translation. The contributions from translation studies in

general do not add a lot of new insights in this respect. When metaphor is discussed in

modern translation studies it is usually in the context of describing what translation is.819

The discussing of various metaphors that reveal important aspects of translation seem to

receive more attention than metaphor as a specific and pervasive translation problem.

This neglect of metaphor as a translation problem is probably related to the focus of

modern translation studies on theory and description in general rather than on

methodology and specific translation problems.

9.2.3.1. Newmark (1995, [1988])

Newmark (1995, [1988]) devotes one chapter of his textbook on translation on the

translation of metaphors (chapter 10). He sees metaphor as ‘the most important particular

problem’ in translation.820

In his view, “the translation of any metaphor is the epitome of

all translation”.821

Newmark uses the term ‘metaphor’ in the general sense of ‘any figurative’ expression.

The essence of metaphor is ‘to describe one thing in terms of another’.822

He

distinguishes two purposes of metaphor: “The first purpose is cognitive, the second

aesthetic. In a good metaphor, the two purposes fuse like (and parallel with) content and

form.” Metaphor, in his view, “always involves illusion”, and is a “kind of deception,

often used to conceal and intention”.823

According to Newmark, “metaphor incidentally demonstrates a resemblance, a common

semantic area between two more or less similar things – the image and the object”.

However, he sees this resemblance not as a purpose of metaphor, but as a ‘process’ (=

possible side-effect?).

Newmark distinguishes between three aspects of metaphor: its Image, its Object and its

Sense. The Sense is the resemblance or the semantic area overlapping object and image.

It usually consists of more than one sense component – “otherwise literal language would

do.” And, “usually the more original the metaphor, the richer it is in sense

components”.824

819 Cf. for example, Chamberlain, “Gender and the metaphorics of translation,” in: Venuti (2002:314-329). 820 Newmark (1995:104). 821 Newmark (1995:113). 822 Newmark (1995:104). 823 Newmark (1995:104). 824 Newmark (1995:105).

310

There are six types of metaphors, according to Newmark’s taxonomy: dead, cliché, stock,

adapted, recent and original metaphors. Dead metaphors are metaphors “where one is

hardly conscious of the image.” Normally they are not difficult to translate, even though

“they often defy literal translation, and therefore offer choices.”825

Cliché metaphors

“have perhaps temporarily outlived their usefulness” and which are used as a “substitute

for clear thought”. Translators are advised to avoid this kind of metaphors in their

translation.826

A stock metaphor is “an established metaphor which in an informal context

is an efficient and concise method of covering a physical and/or mental situation both

referentially and pragmatically – a stock metaphor has a certain emotional warmth – and

which is not deadened by overuse.” This kind of metaphors can be translated by

reproducing the same image in the target language, or by replacing them with an image

from the target language. However, “as soon as you produce a new image, however

acceptable the target language metaphor, there is a degree of change of meaning and

usually of tone.”827

“Further, you have to bear in mind that reducing a stock metaphor to

sense may clarify, demystify, make honest a somewhat tendentious statement.”828

Adapted stock metaphors should, where possible, be translated by an equivalent adapted

metaphor, particularly in ‘sacred’ texts (political, religious, ideological texts). Recent

metaphors (metaphorical neologisms) should be translated literally, provided that the

sense is clear to the readers. Original metaphors “contain the core of an important

writer’s message, his personality,” etc., and should be translated literally, i.e. while

preserving the imagery of the source text.

According to Newmark, the translation of original or odd metaphors is open to a variety

of translation procedures, which depend on whether the translator wants to emphasize the

sense or the image of the metaphor. “The choice of procedures in expressive or

authoritative texts is much narrower, as is usual in semantic translation.”829

Newmark’s discussion of metaphors and their translation is primarily a practical guide for

translators, and does not contain a lot of theoretical or methodological depth. His

taxonomy of different types of metaphors is helpful to get a feeling for the wide range of

metaphors there is. But it fails to establish clear criteria that help to decide what kind of

metaphor we are dealing with in a particular case. It is interesting to note that Newmark

acknowledges that resemblance is a factor that is incidentally operative in metaphor, but

that he does not see it as a function of metaphor. Converting metaphors into similes is not

mentioned as a possible translation strategy. Newmark shows particular sensitivity to

changes in connotation that may accompany the substitution of source language

metaphors into target language metaphors or into literal language.

825 Newmark (1995:106). 826 Newmark (1995:107). 827 Newmark (1995:109). 828 Newmark (1995:110). 829 Newmark (1995:113).

311

9.2.3.2. Baker (1992)

Baker’s course book on translation (In Other Words) does not discuss metaphors, similes

or figurative speech in general. But it does pay attention to the translation of idiomatic

language. Idioms and fixed expressions are described as follows: “They are frozen

patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form, and in the case of idioms,

often carry meanings which cannot be deduced from their individual components.”830

Idioms and fixed expressions contrast with collocations, which are characterized by

“flexibility of patterning and transparency of meaning.”831

According to Baker, “the main problems that idiomatic and fixed expressions pose in

translation relate to two main areas: the ability to recognize and interpret an idiom

correctly; and the difficulties involved in rendering the various aspects of meaning that an

idiom or a fixed expression conveys into the target language.”832

Baker distinguishes different types of idioms, some of which are more easily recognized

than others. 1. Expressions which clearly violate truth conditions, like, for example, It’s

raining cats and dogs, storm in a tea cup, etc.; 2. Expressions which seem ill-formed

because they do not follow the grammatical rules of the language, like, for example, blow

someone to kingdom come; 3. Expressions which start with like (simile-like structures),

such as like water off a duck’s back; 4. Generally speaking, the more difficult an

expression is to understand and the less sense it makes in a given context, the more likely

a translator will recognize it as an idiom.”833

The following translation problems are mentioned in relation to the translation of idioms:

1. The idiom or fixed expression is culture-specific and does not have an equivalent in the

target language; 2. The idiom or fixed expression may have a similar counterpart in the

target language, but its context of use is different; 3. The idiom may be used in the source

text in both its literal and idiomatic senses; 4. The very convention of using idioms in

written discourse, the contexts in which they can be used, and their frequency of use may

be different in the source and target languages.834

In relation to these various translation problems, the following translation strategies are

discussed: 1. Use an idiom of similar meaning and form; 2. Use an idiom of similar

meaning but dissimilar form; 3. Translate by paraphrase; 4. Translation by omission.

When discussing textual equivalence and cohesion (chapter 6), Baker states that “the idea

that the meanings of individual lexical items depend on networks of relations in which

they enter with other items in a text is now taken as axiomatic in language studies in

general and in translation studies in particular.”835

Texts consist of lexical chains in which

830 Baker (1992:63). 831 Baker (1992:63). 832 Baker (1992:65). 833 Baker (1992:65). 834 Baker (1992:68-71). 835 Baker (1992:206).

312

idioms may also form a link. Translation usually results in shifts in these patterns of

cohesion, as it may affect the lexical chains.

Baker also explains the difference between idiomatic language on the one hand and

implicature on the other hand: “Idiomatic meaning is conventional and its interpretation

depends on a good mastery of the linguistic system in question rather than on a successful

interpretation of a particular speaker’s intended or implied meaning in a given

context.”836

However, no mention of metaphor is made in this context.

9.2.3. Insights from relevance theory

The main contribution of relevance theory to the theory and translation of metaphor is

that metaphors may have a wide array of contextual implications, and that some of those

are strong while others are weak. “Strong implicatures are those premises and

conclusions … which the hearer is strongly encouraged but not actually forced to supply.

The weaker the encouragement, and the wider the range of possibilities among which the

hearer can choose, the weaker the implicatures.”837

According to Sperber and Wilson (2001, [1986]:236), “in general, the wider the range of

potential implicatures and the greater the hearer’s responsibility for constructing them,

the more poetic the effect, the more creative the metaphor.” The meaning of metaphor is

indeterminate to a large degree. And, “the weaker the encouragement, and the wider the

range of possibilities among which the hearer can choose, the weaker the

implicatures.”838

Another important insight that is supported by relevance theory is the idea that the added

value of metaphors compared with their literal counterparts may be that they express that

something is “beyond the norm.” The metaphorical expression “this room is a pigsty”

says more than its literal counterpart rendering “this room is very filthy and untidy”.839

The principle of relevance guides the interpretation. “From the standpoint of relevance

theory, there is no reason to think that the optimally relevant interpretive expression of a

thought is always the most literal one.”840

Relevance theory interprets metaphorical language as a form of loose language use, since

in cases like this the metaphorical expression of the speaker’s thought does not reflect his

actual literal thought.841

Metaphor and other tropes (figures of speech) such as hyperbole,

metonymy and synecdoche are “simply creative exploitations of a perfectly general

dimension of language use.” Metaphor requires no special interpretive abilities or

procedures.842

836

Baker (1992:223). 837 Sperber and Wilson (2001:199). 838 Sperber and Wilson (2001:235). 839 Sperber and Wilson (2001:236). 840 Sperber and Wilson (2001:233). 841 Sperber and Wilson (2001:234). 842 Sperber and Wilson (2001:237).

313

Gutt (1992) discusses metaphors in the context of translation and relevance. He states

that, according to relevance theory, metaphors and other less than literal expressions do

not involve the violation of any norm.843

The idea that literal language constitutes a norm

of some sort goes back to the code model of communication.844

Metaphor is not a formal device that serves to embellish a text, but they are needed to get

the communicator’s intended meaning across. Gutt also claims that “the view that

metaphors have usually one “point of similarity,” or “ground of comparison,” is as

erroneous as the claim that its meaning can be conveyed equally well by an expression in

plain language.”845

This can never be the case, since, according to the principle of

relevance, the speaker would have used a literal expression. The mere use of figurative

language means that “the speaker must have intended to convey something more than this

if the relative indirectness of the utterance is to be justified.”846

It is clear that relevance theory favors the preservation of metaphors in translation. With

regard to the explication of implicatures, Gutt seems to favor the solution of not making

those explicit. Explication would prevent the hearers from drawing their own

conclusions. And the multiplicity of implicatures in the source text would result in a

rather awkward translation, if all the relevant implicatures would need to be explicated.

Where would we stop listing? However, in the context of indirect translations explication

of implicatures seems to be justifiable.

The relevance theoretical approach insight that metaphors have a wide array of contextual

implications, and that there is a difference between strong and weak implicatures is very

valuable. At the same time, it should be noted that relevance perhaps has overstated the

indeterminacy of metaphors. The array of possibly relevant implicatures of a metaphor is

usually dramatically diminished, when a certain metaphor is placed in a specific

linguistic context.847

One may also ask the question whether Gutt gives a fair picture of representatives of the

‘comparison view’ of metaphor, when he suggests that they claim that the meaning of a

metaphor can be conveyed equally well by an expression in plain language.”848

The

principle of charity and of academic fairness would at least require the acknowledgment

that literal rendering of metaphors is not the preferred option. It is at the bottom of the list

of possible translation solutions. Deibler even refers to it as ‘a last resort’, when all the

other options have failed. In addition, Gutt seems to have failed to notice that at least

Beekman and Callow and Barnwell have pointed out that metaphors may have multiple

points of comparison, but that in context usually one point of comparison is most in

843 Gutt (1992:47). 844 Gutt (1992:48). 845 Gutt (1992:51). 846 Sperber and Wilson (1986:236), quoted in Gutt (1992:52). 847 This can be proven by doing a simple test. The metaphorical expression “The Lord is my shepherd”

yields different strong implicatures, when it is placed in different contexts, such as a. … I am not afraid; b.

… I will not get lost; c. … I won’t be in need; or d. … [no linguistic context; uttered in isolation]. 848 Gutt (1992:51).

314

focus. However, Gutt’s emphasis on the indeterminacy of the meanings (implicatures) of

metaphor forms a good antidote against a simplified one metaphor – one meaning

approach, which is often found among adherents of the comparison view of metaphor.

9.3. Conclusions

In this chapter I have given an overview of various contributions to the theory and

methodology of translating metaphors. After discussing the problem of translatability, the

views of several translation theorists working in the field of Bible translation and in the

field of general translation studies were presented.

Nida and Taber (1969) discussed figurative language, but their focus was on idiomatic

language rather than on “live” metaphors and similes. Substitution of idiomatic

expressions is a major concept in their discussion. This concept is closely related to the

notion of compensation. If an idiomatic expression cannot be preserved in the target

language and has to be rendered in plain literal language, it needs to be compensated for.

Literal expressions in the source language can also be rendered as idiomatic expressions

in the target language.

Beekman, Loewen, De Waard, and Beekman & Callow, in various lectures and

publications, addressed the issue of metaphor and simile, which had not received more

than cursory attention in Nida and Taber (1969). De Waard and Beekman & Callow

offered sets of hierarchically ordered principles for the translation of metaphor.

Interestingly enough, the preservation of the form of the metaphor received the highest

priority in these lists. In a sense, the radical opposition of form and meaning, as

advocated in Nida and Taber (1969), was counterbalanced here by an approach where

form and meaning were tied together much more closely, at least as far as the translation

of metaphor was concerned. Wendland (1987) approached metaphor and other figures of

speech from a cultural perspective.

Crofts (n.d.a.) represents perhaps the most rigorous viewpoint in terms of calling

attention to the need of explicating the meaning of metaphors. The use of a so-called six-

leg analogy is presented as a model for analyzing metaphors. Crofts is careful to point

out, however, that this is primarily intended as a tool for metaphor analysis. It does not

mean that every metaphor needs to be translated as a six-leg analogy. Her list of

hierarchically ordered translation principles with regard to the translation of metaphor is

very similar to the one presented by De Waard.849

Stienstra (1993) and Hermanson (1996, [1995]) described certain biblical metaphors

within a framework of cognitive linguistics. The cognitive framework used by Stienstra

and Hermanson helps to uncover the conceptual framework of metaphor and the patterns

849 Crofts differs from De Waard in that she places the rendering of source text metaphors by target

language metaphors at the bottom of the list, while the rendering of source text metaphors in literal

language is moved up one notch. A possible reason for this reversal is that target language metaphors may

have a lot of cultural baggage that is inconsistent with the implicatures intended by the source text

metaphor.

315

of cohesion they lend to texts. Stienstra favors an approach where the reader is moved

towards the text rather than moving the text towards the readers. The imagery of the

source text should be preserved in the translation. The cultural gap between the text and

the audience can be bridged by making a careful study of the text, its metaphors, and the

cultural background of the original text. Hermanson, on the other hand, looks not only at

the conceptual frames of the source text, but also pays attention to the conceptual frames

of the target audience of the translated text. He contends that metaphors are context-

dependent. Hermanson’s description of vernacular metaphors in Zulu is one of the few

descriptive studies that have been done so far in the context of translation theory and

methodology.

Relevance theory claims that metaphors have a wide array of implicatures, which can be

stronger or weaker. Preservation of the image in the translation is claimed as the one and

only solution to the problem of translating metaphors. Keeping the indeterminacy of the

metaphor is the preferred solution, even though there may be situations where the

explication of metaphor is called for (indirect translations).

Fueter (1986) and Mojola (1993) also pleaded for keeping the imagery of the metaphor in

the translation. Fueter bases his claim on Watzlawick’s distinction between ‘digital

language’ and ‘analogical language’ and on the claim that rendering a metaphor in literal

language blocks the therapeutic function of the source text. Mojola contends that

metaphors form an essential part of the message.

Our survey has shown that the theoretical and methodological contributions related to the

translation of metaphor originate mainly from the field of Bible translation. There was a

great deal of consensus among translation theorists from UBS and SIL with regard to the

principles of how to translate metaphor. But, especially in UBS circles there has been a

growing concern for keeping the imagery of the source text in the translation. Both in

UBS circles (Wendland) and SIL circles, the need for explication of metaphor continued

to be emphasized. Gutt’s introduction of relevance theory to the field of (Bible)

translation questioned the basic tenets of meaning-based translation. Due to the influence

of relevance theory and pragmatic theory in general it may be assumed that translators

and consultants have become more cautious with regard to the inclusion of implied

information in the translations.850

A lack of descriptive and comparative translation

studies makes it difficult to validate this assumption beyond any doubt.

The contribution of modern translation studies to the theory and methodology of

translating metaphors is rather peripheral. The notion of metaphor in modern translation

studies is primarily used to describe the nature of translation; Metaphor as a translation

problem seems to be rather peripheral. Newmark’s (1995) discussion of metaphor and

Baker’s (1992) discussion of idioms do not basically differ from the views exposed by

Beekman & Callow, Loewen, De Waard and others.

850 At the same time, the introduction of relevance theory to the field of Bible translation, has sparked

intense debates between advocates and critics of this theory.

316

In terms of the underlying theories of metaphor, Nida & Taber’s (1969) position can be

best described as a combination of the substitution view and the comparison view, in

which the element of substitution seems to be most dominant.851

De Waard, Beekman &

Callow, Wendland852

and others can be best described as adherents of the comparison

view. Substitution as a translation strategy has not been abandoned, but it has become

more peripheral.

Stienstra (1993), Mojola (1993) and Hermanson (1996, [1995]) hold a conceptual view of

metaphor, while Gutt holds a pragmatic (relevance theoretical) view of metaphor. The

newer theories seem to increasingly emphasize the importance of keeping the imagery of

the source text in the translated text. Generally speaking, these newer theories of

metaphor tend to emphasize the uniqueness and relative untranslatability of metaphor.

Preservation of the imagery of the source text and reticence in explicating implicatures

seem to be the major characteristics of these approaches. This is sometimes combined

(Gutt, Stienstra) with a plea for educating the target audiences rather than making too

much implied information explicit in the translation.

We also found that there have been very few attempts to give a more or less systematic

description of the translation of metaphor in Bible translations. What is lacking is an in-

depth study of how translators have actually translated metaphors (in light of the

translation principles laid out by leading consultants and translation theorists). What is

also lacking is a description of how native speakers from various cultures have responded

to various types of metaphor translation, and of how their responses have affected the

translations. The chapters 13-15 of this dissertation are an attempt to fill in some of this

terra incognita for the Una language (Papua) and some other Bible translations in Eastern

Indonesia.

851 This is – at least partly – due to the fact that Nida and Taber (1969) discuss the translation of figurative

language primarily in terms of the translation of idioms rather than live metaphors. 852 Note that Wendland classifies metaphors and similes under the general heading of ‘figures of

comparison’ and not under the heading of ‘figures of replacement’.

317

10. The Cultural and Linguistic Context of Una Vernacular

Imagery

10.1. The Una people and their geographical environment

The Una language is spoken by around 5,200 people who live on the southern slopes of

the Eastern Highlands of Irian Jaya (Papua). The language is spoken in a remote and

isolated area which is located some 120 miles south of Jayapura, the capital city. The

center of the Una language area (Langda) lies about 80 miles east of the regional capital

Wamena and about 40 miles west of the border with Papua New Guinea. There is no road

that connects the Una language area with the outside world. The only way to get in or out

of the area is by small airplane or on foot. The regional capital Wamena lies at a fourteen

days walking distance from Langda (only for skilled mountain climbers).

The Una area is rugged and mountainous. Steep mountain walls, narrow valleys and deep

ravines define the landscape. The mountain ranges on the north side reach heights up to

14,700 feet (almost 5,000 meters) above sea level. The snow-capped Mandala mountain

(formerly: Prinses Juliana Top) is the second highest mountain of Irian Jaya (Papua) and

lies just north east of Sumtamon. And the Biyo mountain (formerly: Prins Hendrik Top),

which ranks as the third highest mountain, towers east of Langda. Major earthquakes

occur once every ten years or so and take their death toll. Due to the El Niño effect major

droughts occur regularly in the area.

The Una language area includes four major valleys: Sainduman, Eiduman, Moruman and

Yamilduman. The first three valleys have a north to south orientation, while the latter has

a west to east orientation. The Sain, Ei, Mo and Yamil rivers are tributaries of the

Steenboom river and the Eilanden river in the south.

There are thirty major villages in the Una area. Sainduman (Bomela) has six major

villages, Eiduman (Langda) has twelve, Moruman has five, and Yamilduman

(Sumtamon) has seven major villages. These villages are located at elevations between

4,000 and 7,400 feet above sea level, and each village is inhabited by between 50 and 300

people.853

Garden houses and homesteads are also found in the garden areas, which are

usually found at elevations that lie below the major villages.

853 The information given in this chapter is based on my own research between 1989 and 2004, and on regular census and literacy surveys performed by our Una co-workers. Part of this information is found in

Kroneman (1989). Local Level Background Study of the Una Language Program. (Unpublished

manuscript). A more detailed study of the Una language, texts and culture will be forthcoming. Louwerse

(1986) gives a good introduction to the Una language, while Louwerse (1987) gives an overview of various

aspects of Una worldview.

318

10.2. The Una people and their culture

10.2.1. Economy

The Una people are horticulturists who cultivate sweet potatoes and taro as their staple

food. In addition, they also eat bananas, edible stalks, pandanus nuts, red pandanus fruits,

etc. and they smoke tobacco (saboka) cigarettes. Una people also eat sago and rice, even

though these do not belong to their domestic food supply. Hunting (cuscus, pigeons and

other birds) and gathering (pandanus nuts, fruits) are additional means of subsistence.

During recent years Una men have also been involved in ‘hunting’ sandal wood in the

foothill areas around Seradela, Samboka and Awinbon.

The Una people cultivate their terraced gardens on the steep mountain slopes, and they

practice a slash and burn system of horticulture. Pigs play an important role in bride price

payments and in ceremonial gift exchanges between villages (moua). Small pigs are often

kept in the family hut. Dogs are kept for hunting and as pets. The Una people also keep

chickens. Rabbits have been introduced as well to increase the meat supply. Sheep and

cows have also been introduced in the area as a part of community development, but most

of these projects have not been very successful.

Intervillage trading is primarily done through intermediaries who have good contacts

(often kinship-based) in a neighboring village. Stone axes, arrows and ileica stringbags

from Langda are traded for pigs from Bomela, Eipomek and Sumtamon and for bows and

Bird of Paradise feathers from Seradela. A very interesting phenomenon is the trading

around of different types of stringbags produced in different locations in the area.

10.2.2. Material culture

Until 1973 the Una people were still living in the Stone Age. Nowadays steel shovels,

axes and machetes are often used to do garden work. Stone axes are still in use as a tool

for splitting pandanus nuts and felling trees, but their function is not as central as it used

to be before steel axes were introduced. Stone axes are also part of the bride price

payments and the child price payments.

Other traditional objects that are still in use are: Stringbags, digging sticks, bamboo

knives, fire saws, bows and arrows. However, Western tools and other products have also

found their way to the Una people. Hammers, nails, pliers, saws, matches, nylon ropes

(for tying up pigs), etc. are also used by Una people.

The traditional Una houses have cone-shaped roofs. Each village consists of a number of

men’s houses (youa ai) surrounded by family houses (diba ai). Until the mid seventies of

the twentieth century there were also menstruation huts (bunga ai) for the women at the

edge of the village. Most Una people also have a garden house (bara ai), where they live

during the week. Nowadays, pastors, teachers, health workers and other people have

“Western” houses (rumah seng) – which are made of wood and have an aluminium roof

and a chimney. Behind these Western houses there is usually a hut which functions as the

319

kitchen (dapur). The kitchen is the place where people normally eat and where most of

their social interaction goes on.

Most of the traditional village houses still have a separate entrance for pigs. Una people

keep one or two pigs in their village house. The segment of the house where the pig(s) is

(are) kept is separated by low boards from the rest of the house. The fire-place forms the

center of the house.

The traditional clothing of Una men is a penis gourd (balabwe). Women used to wear

short grass skirts (kam le). Since the Gospel was introduced to the Una people, the

women normally wear longer grass skirts. But shorter grass skirts are sometimes worn

during nocturnal dancing. Nowadays Western clothing is also worn by Una men and

women, especially on Sundays.

The Una people used to build bridges from trees, but due to frequent floods these bridges

usually did not last very long. During the past eight years or so ten suspension bridges

have been built by local people as part of the community development program which

was coordinated by Margreet Kroneman and sponsored by UNDP854

. As part of this

program catchments for rain water were installed in each of the villages.

Before 1973 the Una people did not know the custom of burying dead people. People

who had died were wrapped in leaves and hung in trees in the neighborhood of the

village. After the bodies had decayed, the skulls and bones were collected and put away

in a cave. But, due to Christian influence, the Una people now bury their dead.

Generally speaking, Una people are open to culture change, especially at the material and

technical levels. Western tools, food (rice, noodles), and houses have made a rather quick

entrance into the Una culture. Yali evangelists introduced two-storey Yali houses. Una

people also followed the example of Yali and Dani evangelists who encouraged them to

build pig fences.

10.2.3. Kinship and socio-political organization

Una society is primarily a kinship society. The kinship terminology is based on an

Omaha system. The relation between ego and mother’s brother and between older and

younger brother is very important. The relation between younger and older brother is also

very special. Descent is defined in terms of patrilineal relations. Polygyny occurs on a

small scale, in particular among the village head men, who are usually wealthier than

other people, and who maintain relationships with other villages.

Una society is basically egalitarian (acephalous). The head men are in fact village elders

who give advice and directions to the local people, and who organize intervillage feasts.

During times of war usually one or two men emerged as ‘war leaders’, based on their

oratory skills as well as their organizational and martial skills. Una villages used to be

united in political and military alliances, which were built and maintained during

854 United Nations Development Program.

320

intervillage feasts.855

These alliances were all but stable, as they were often complicated

by personal factors and kinship (including affinal) relations. It sometimes happened that

half of the population of a certain village supported one alliance, while the other half

supported the other alliance.

Feuding between individuals and/or between villages was often the result of ner deyok

(‘adultery case’), or stealing from gardens. Unhappiness about one’s allotted share in a

bride price could also bring strife. But feuding was (is) not the only way to ‘resolve’

strife. Cursing and sorcery also occur frequently.

Transgressions are nowadays no longer settled by warfare and skirmishes, but rather by

village lawsuits. In case of adultery, the adulterer needs to pay a huge sum of money to

the adulteress and her family. This has led a number of girls and women to trick young

men into adultery in order to make money. In order to make the most of it, they

sometimes wait five to ten year before they report the case. Suspected sorcerers are

usually beaten up until they die, or they are thrown off a cliff.

10.2.4. Traditional religion and worldview

A number of Una clans trace their origins back to a mythical pig or a mythical dog. These

kinds of mythical ancestry are still recorded in the clan-based stories of origin. The Balyo

and Malyo clan in Langda, for example, are described as being descendants of a mythical

pig. The Kisamlu clan in Wasmuryi, on the other hand, is described as having a mythical

dog as its ancestor. This kind of mythical relationship between a clan and an animal used

to have direct consequences for the protein supply of the clan members. For the members

of the Balyo and Malyo clans there used to be a taboo on eating pig meat, while the

members of the Kisamlu clan were forbidden to eat dog meat.

There were also specific food taboos for women, girls and uninitiated boys. They were

not allowed to eat red pandanus fruits, pigeons, and particular types of cuscus. And for

certain religious specialists there was also a special taboo on drinking water during the

time that a sacrificial men’s house was built or rebuilt. There was no taboo on eating

human flesh, however, and Una people practiced occasional cannibalism: they used to eat

the meat of enemies who had practiced sorcery against members of their clan.856

Una traditional religion was very much clan-based. Each and every clan had its own

protecting spirits, usually a male and a female, respectively called ninyi sun du (‘older

brother of people’) and ninyi sun kwin (‘mother of people’). The names of these

protecting spirits were only known to the initiated males of the clan. These protecting

855

In the Eiduman valley, for example, there used to be a perennial war between the village of Laryi

(northern part of the valley) and its associates and the village of Langda (middle part of the valley) and its associates. 856 As far as I can tell, based on reports from Diman Balyo, Iba Deyal, Karba Nabyal and a few other older

Una men, there was no link between cannibalism and any of the major rituals in Una society. The purpose

of cannibalism was primarily destruction of the power of the enemy (sorcerer) rather than absorbing power

from the enemy.

321

spirits were believed to be potentially harmful to people belonging to a different clan.

These spirits were believed to reside in the sacrificial men’s house (youa), and the ninyi

sun du protected and helped his human clan brothers during wartime.

In addition to these protective house spirits, the Una people also believed in a host of

male and female forest spirits. Male forest spirits are basically tricksters who steal food

and seduce women. Unnatural births are usually lineated to the sexual escapades of male

trickster spirits. The role of these male trickster spirits is marginal, however, when

compared with the central role of the isa ner forest spirit who is a giant woman who

cannibalizes adult men. The isa ner, with her famous stringbag in which she carries her

prey, features prominently in the stories and dreams of the Una people.

Not all of the forest spirits were (are) believed to be malevolent, however. The Una

people also recognized all kinds of lords of animals and garden spirits. During the ‘house

rites’, which were conducted once every five years or so, all kinds of gifts were given to

these spirits in order to secure a good produce of gardens and forests. Every clan had its

own area of religious specialization, which usually reflected their economic

specialization. Members of the Balyo clan, for example, prayed to the spirit of the river

Ei to release good stones for the production of stone axes. And members of the Nabyal

clan, for example, prayed to their garden spirits in order to make the sweet potatoes grow.

This kind of praying was not done for the sake of the clan alone, but on behalf of the

other clans of the village as well. During these cooperative rites adult men from all clans

were allowed to participate. But, while the prayers and rituals were open to everyone

(except for women, girls and uninitiated boys), the masters of the ceremonies made sure

that the secret names of their associated spirits were not revealed to outsiders.

The initiation of young boys (4 – 16 years old) into manhood, named kwit dongona, was

one of the cornerstones of Una traditional practices. The main idea of this initiation was

to separate the boys from the dangerous effects of women (menstruation blood) and to

foster their physical growth. After these rituals the boys were no longer allowed to live

with their mother and sisters in the diba ai (‘family house’), and they started to live in the

youa ai (‘men’s house’).

10.2.5. The Una community as an oral society

The Una people are still an oral society. Even though the literacy rate among Una people

has considerably increased over the past fifteen years, 70 % of the population is still

illiterate. But even among the literates oral communication continues to be the primary

means of communication. Face-to-face (oral) interactions are usually preferred, and

written communication is only used when face-to-face (oral) communication is not

possible.

Una society is not only characterized by emergent literacy but also by emergent

bilingualism, especially among the younger generation who attend one of the three

Indonesian elementary schools in the area, or one of the local Bible schools. These

emergent bilinguals use an interior variant of Papuan Malay (rather than standard

322

Indonesian) as their language of wider communication. The number of Una people that

are bilingual in Una and Indonesian (Papua Malay) is between 10-15 %. A relatively high

percentage of the Una younger generation who have followed secondary and/or higher

education in Jayapura or Wamena have not returned to their interior homeland.

Some degree of traditional bilingualism (Una and one or more neighboring languages)

continues to be found among traders, evangelists and people who live in villages near the

border with the neighboring language areas. Some people seem to be really fluent in

those neighboring languages – including those from non-related languages from the Ok

language family. Others have some initial knowledge of a neighboring language, which

helps them to communicate at an elementary level, but they lack the knowledge to carry

on a conversation at a deeper level.

10.3. The Una people and their language

10.3.1. The Una language and its neighbors

The Una language belongs to the Mek family among the Papuan languages (Trans-New

Guinea Phylum) of Irian Jaya (Papua). The Mek language family is located between the

Dani family to the West and the Ok family to the East and South.

The Una language has three major dialects: 1. Sainduman dialect (spoken around

Bomela; 1,500 speakers); 2. Eiduman dialect (spoken around Langda; 2,400 speakers);

and 3. Yamilduman dialect (spoken around Sumtamon; 1,300 speakers). The Eiduman

dialect is the central dialect both in terms of geographical location and of the highest

cognate percentage average that is shared between the dialects. The major dialect chain

lies around an east to west axis. Mutual intelligibility between speakers who live at the

western border of the Una language group and those who live at its eastern border is

moderate.

Together with Eipomek857

(80 % cognate) and Ketengban858

(65 % cognate859

) Una

belongs to the eastern branch of the Mek Family. Mutual intelligibility between Una

(Eiduman/ Langda) and Eipomek, and between Una (Yamilduman/Sumtamon) and

Ketengban is moderate. The western branch of this language family consists of

857 For a description of the Eipomek, see Heeschen (1998a). An Ethnographic Grammar of the Eipo

Language. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Cf. also Heeschen (1990). Ninyi bún. Mythen, Erzählungen,

Lieder und Märchen der Eipo im zentralen Bergland von Irian Jaya (West-Neuguinea), Indonesien. Berlin:

Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 858 For a description of the Ketengban culture and worldview, see Sims & Sims (1992). Ritual and

Relationships in the Valley of the Sun. The Ketengban of Irian Jaya. Jayapura: Cenderawasih University;

Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 859

The cognate percentages mentioned in this section are based on Kroneman and Sims (1988). Una Survey

Report. It should be noted that Heeschen’s cognate percentages are considerably higher. This is possibly related to the fact that Heeschen used a shorter wordlist (Swadesh list; 100 items) to calculate the

percentages than Kroneman and Sims who used an SIL wordlist with 209 items. Cognate percentages tend

to drop when the longer list is used. Another possible factor involved is that informants from different

villages (language varieties) were used. Generally speaking cognate percentages drop, when the

geographical distance between villages increases.

323

Kimyal860

, Nalca, Nipsan (Mek) and Yale-Kosarek861

. The cognate percentages between

Una and these western languages range between 30-50 %. Mutual intelligibility between

Una (Eiduman/Langda) and these western languages of the Mek family is very limited.

Mutual intelligibility between speakers of the Sainduman/Bomela dialect with Kimyal

and Nalca is moderate.

Due to extensive dialect chaining it is difficult to establish language borders on purely

linguistic grounds. The Una people traditionally refer to themselves and their language

group by naming their village or the valley where they live. The name ‘Una’ language

was coined by the first missionaries (The word una means ‘what’ in the Eiduman/Langda

dialect; this term was used by local informants to distinguish the Eiduman/Langda dialect

from other languages and dialects of the Mek language family).

10.3.2. Sociolinguistic factors

From a socio-linguistic perspective the unity of the Una language and society has been

shaped by three important factors:

1. Frequent and extended social interaction patterns (trading, intermarriage, political

alliances) between villages in the Eiduman valley on the one hand and between

villages in the Sainduman and Yamilduman valleys on the other.

2. Evangelistic work in Sainduman (since 1976) and Yamilduman (since 1979) was

coordinated from Eiduman (which was first evangelized in 1973). Langda

evangelists played an important part in evangelizing these neighboring valleys. As

a result social and linguistic interaction between these dialect areas further

increased.

3. Initial language analysis and Bible translation work was done in the

Eiduman/Langda dialect, thus adding prestige to this language variety. The

Eiduman/Langda dialect was also most often used in church services throughout

the area (Scripture reading, sermon, prayer, etc.). More recently there has been a

tendency towards using the local dialects in sermons, prayers and announcements

during the church service.

860 The Kimyal language is spoken by people who live around the mission stations of Korupun and Sela Valley. For a description of the culture of the people of Sela valley, see Godschalk (1993). Sela Valley. An

Ethnography of a Mek Society in the Eastern Highlands, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Academisch

Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit. 861 For a description of the Yale-Kosarek language, see Heeschen (1992). A Dictionary of the Yale

(Kosarek) Language. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

324

10.3.3. Language typology and linguistic properties

Una is a typical Papuan language. It includes the following properties862

:

1. Una verbal clauses have a (Subject) (Object) +Verb (SOV) structure as their

unmarked form.863

Free pronouns and noun phrase arguments are completely

optional from a syntactic perspective.864

But Subject and (human) Object are

obligatorily marked on the finite verb by verbal suffixes (Verb-Object-Subject)865

.

If a clause contains more than one object, the animate (‘indirect’) object usually

precedes the inanimate (‘direct’) object (SIOV).866

In such cases the animate object

is usually marked as object, while the inanimate object remains unmarked.

2. Like many other Papuan languages, Una has a tendency for clause chaining. A

typical pattern of clause chaining is the occurrence of one or more dependent verbs

(unmarked for tense and person) followed by the main verb (obligatorily marked

for tense and person) at the end of the sentence. Example: Ya doboka

sakwetebmou. ‘Having taken the stone axe, he departed’ (Order: axe / having taken

/ he departed).867

The number of clauses in one sentence varies between one and

six. The chained clauses may share a common noun phrase subject argument,

usually located at or near the beginning of the sentence, while each individual

clause may have its own noun phrase object argument. The number of object noun

phrase arguments per clause may vary (1-2 per clause), but especially in chained

clauses there is a tendency to limit noun phrase arguments to only one per clause.

3. Una connectors often signal switch reference or co-referentiality between the

noun phrase subject arguments of adjacent clauses. Dependent verb markers

usually signal co-referentiality between the subject of the dependent verb and the

subject of the independent verb by which it is governed. The dependent verb

marker –oka always signals co-referentiality with the subject of the main verb (cf.

dob-oka (take-DEPV.SS) in the example given in the previous paragraph). The

sequential connector ani (‘after’) also signals co-referentiality, while the

simultaneous connector bok (‘while,’ ‘but’) usually signals ‘different subject’. The

circumstantial connector ba (‘when’) and the sequential connector ura (‘after’)

may be followed by a verb form with a subject that is either different or the same.

862 Since the purpose of this chapter is mainly introductory, and the focus of this dissertation is not on

linguistics (language structure) but rather on language use, I have limited the number of examples in this

section on language typology. Many of the features mentioned in this section are found in Appendix H

(Una text with Morpheme Glosses and Free Translation). 863 For example: Kam aryi maka oyibmou. ‘The dog ate-killed the bird/chicken’. (Order: Dog / Agent

marker / bird / ate.) The word aryi is an Agent marker, indicating that the preceding Noun is the Agent of

the action. 864 The verb form oyibmou (o-yib-mou, kill-eat-FPST.3SG), by itself, means ‘he/it killed-ate [it]’. 865 For example, the verb form karebmanir (see note 866 below) can be analyzed as kareb-ma-ni-r (give-

PST-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.) 866 For example: Ni mam biryi nisi bisam karebmanir. ‘My maternal uncle gave me a pig.’ (Order: My /

maternal uncle / Agent / me-Benefactive / pig / he-gave-to-me.) 867 See Appendix H, line 3 for more details.

325

4. Una noun phrase arguments have the following structure: (Demonstrative)

(Adjective) +Noun (Numeral) +Case marker. Example 1: A wisi ner aryi kir

dobmou. ‘That old woman practised sorcery’ (Order: That / old / woman / Agent

case marker / sorcery / practised). Example 2: A ner ara ninyi dumbaryi obmou.

‘That woman killed four people.’ (Order: That / woman / topic / people / four /

killed). In oral texts and daily conversations it occurs very rarely that all of these

slots are filled. Possessive pronouns precede the nouns. Example: ni mam, ‘my

maternal uncle’ (Order: 1SG / MoBr); er ya, ‘his stone axe’ (Order: 3SG / axe).

5. Una has a split system of case marking: Case marking on free pronouns and noun

phrase arguments has an ergative-absolutive pattern, while the marking of verbal

suffixes reveals a nominative-accusative pattern. Free pronouns and noun phrase

subject arguments are obligatorily marked for Agent if the action expressed by the

verb is thought of as being agentive (with ob- ‘kill’, kiknib- ‘make’, eb- ‘speak’;

but not with: dib- ‘die’, mab- ‘sleep’, buk- ‘sit’, etc.). Noun phrase object

arguments are usually unmarked, except for cases where the object is both animate

and fulfills the semantic case role of dative-benefactive.

6. Noun classes: The case marker is, in fact, a combination of a bound noun class

morpheme (article) and a case marker. Una has two distinct noun classes: I. a-class

(‘mass’: plural nouns in general and singular nouns referring to inanimate things,

animals, and low status agents such as women and children.) and II. bi-class

(‘person’: any human or non-human person identified by name, and high status

agents such as older and same age kinsmen).

7. Plurality of nouns: The plural morpheme –yabwe is obligatory when it refers to

more than one human person (referred to in kin terms); It is optional when it refers

to more than one pig. Plurality of animals and inanimate objects is usually marked

by definite or indefinite numerals, not by a plural morpheme.

8. Personal pronouns: Una has a five-term system of personal pronouns: ni (1SG),

kan (2SG), er (3SG), nun (1PL) and sun (2/3PL). Compared with the

corresponding person subject – tense suffixes which have separate dual forms,

personal pronouns are underspecified. Possessive pronouns have the same forms as

their corresponding personal pronouns (except for the fact that possessive pronouns

are not marked for case).

9. Demonstratives and deictic pronouns (four-term system) are differentiated

according to vertical and horizontal dimensions. The vertical dimension is

instantiated by a- ‘this here’, ei- ‘that up there’, and ou- ‘that down there’. In terms

of the horizontal dimension, a- ‘this here’ contrasts with o- ‘that across there’.

10. Una verbs are often compound forms which combine two or three basic verb roots.

Examples of Una verb serialization: wele[b]+bo[b]+bin- (‘ascend’ + ‘carry’ + ‘go’

= ‘take upwards’), wele[b]+bo[b]+yan- (‘ascend’ + ‘carry’ + ‘come’ = ‘bring

upwards’), o[b]+yib- (‘kill’ + ‘eat’ = ‘eat’ [pig or human]). Compound verb stems

326

may also exhibit a purpose-means relation between verb roots, marked by an –r/-ng

morpheme: wele[b]+r+bo[b]+bin- (‘ascend’ + PURPOSE + ‘carry’ + ‘go’ = ‘go up

in order to take’), de[k]+ng+bin- (‘trade’ + PURPOSE + ‘go’ = ‘go in order to

trade’).

11. Una verbs can be marked by ‘inner operator’ (Foley 1986:143) modal suffixes such

as causative -eib (buk+-eib, ‘sit’+CAUSE = ‘make sit’), ingressive -ok (tik+-ok,

‘stand’+INGR = ‘stand up’), conative -den (dib+-den, ‘see+CONAT = ‘trie to

see’), inertial –lob (kuk+-lob, ‘open’+INERT = ‘leave [door] open’).

12. Finite verb forms are obligatorily marked by ‘outer operator’ suffixes for person

subject-tense. These suffixes specify person-number (singular, dual, and plural of

1st, 2

nd, and 3

rd person), while creating different paradigms of the following tenses:

far past (FPST), yesterday’s past (YPST), today’s past (TPST), immediate past

(IPST), immediate future (IFUT), tomorrow’s future (TFUT), and far/general

future (FUT/GFUT). Example: yibmasi, ‘I ate (FPST)’; yibmonwe, ‘I ate (YPST)’;

yibman, ‘I ate (TPST)’; yibni, ‘I ate (IPST)’; yibkun, ‘I will eat now (IFUT);

yibkwabman, ‘I will eat tomorrow’; yibkwan, ‘I will eat (GFUT)’.

13. Both finite and infinite verb forms are obligatorily marked for person object. The

marking of object person is not as differentiated as the marking for subject person.

Dual and plural forms are not differentiated here, nor is the distinction between 1st

and 2nd

person plural. The 3rd

person object is unmarked, both in the singular and

the plural. The resulting system is relatively simple: -n(i), 1 SG.OBJ; -k(i),

2SG.OBJ; -s(i), 1/2 PL.OBJ; , 3SG/PL.OBJ. Example: kareb-ma-ni-r, ‘he gave

[it] to me’ (order: give-PST-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ), kareb-ma-ki-r, ‘he gave [it] to

you’ and kareb-ma-si-r, ‘he gave it to you/us’.

14. Reflexivity and reciprocity are marked by the verbal suffix –dan. In cases of

ambiguity (if the subject of the verb is plural) the meaning can be disambiguated

by adding reflexive (-damnyi) or reciprocal (mamun) markers to the free pronouns.

Reflexivity in Una is not restricted to the speaker himself, but can be extended to

people that are close to the speaker. Example: Ni mining mi obdanmasi ‘I killed my

own son’. (Order: My / own / son / kill-REFL-FPST.1SG).

15. Comitative arguments are included in the subject as it is marked by person-

number-tense suffixes of verbs. ‘Go together with me’ translates as ni ab tonkwa

binkwanim (Lit: ‘Together with me let the two of us go’).

16. Non-human plural nouns that form the head of noun phrase subject arguments are

cross-referenced on the verb by the 3rd

person.subject singular suffix. Co ilinto

atam tingdur. ‘Many trees stand (3rd

SG) there.’

17. Finite verb forms are marked for aspect (punctilliar, perfect, progressive, habitual,

repetitive) and mood (irrealis, desiderative). Examples: ob-mou ‘he killed

(punctilliar)’; ob-we ‘he killed (perfect)’; on-mou ‘he was killing (progressive)’; o-

327

ram-we ‘he used to kill (habitual)’; ob-di ban-mou ‘he was killing repeatedly’. Ob-

tinyi ‘I could/would kill’; ob-ma-tinyi ‘I could/would have killed’.

18. In Una, there is a distinction between direct imperatives (bindobdum, ‘go away!’)

and indirect imperatives (ukubloabmin ba, ‘please wait’, lit.: ‘while you will

wait’). Imperatives can be softened to permissives by adding the adverb da, ‘OK’

or ur, ‘allowed’ (ur/da birum, ‘you may go now’). General imperatives can be

softened by using a periphrastic construction (ato kuna teleb, ‘it is good to do so’).

In addition to these grammatical forms expressing different degrees of positive

admonition, Una also has categorial prohibitions (ato kuna mem, ‘it is taboo to do

so’ and avolitionals (ato kubmunyei, ‘you’d better not do that’).

19. Una sentences are often linked by tail-head constructions868

. In tail-head linkage

the final verb (or: final clause) of a sentence is repeated at the beginning of the next

sentence. Example: Uki tentok tum aryi er weit ya dakeibmou ura, atei yana

mabmou. Mabmou ani, berekmou ura, ya doboka sakwetebmou. “One day, after

the younger brother broke his stone axe, he came to the village and spent the night

there. After he spent the night and after it dawned (= the next day), he took a

[new] stone axe and left the village.”

20. In Una quotative constructions869

are used for expressing the content of speech

acts and thoughts (including intentions). Observation: Una has often a quotative

construction where English or another western language has two co-referential

objects: ‘Diman welcomed me as a friend’ is translated as: Diman biryi, ‘Ni kwit,’

tenen nisi kibdobnou. (‘Diman welcomed me, thinking, ‘My friend’.’)

10.4. Language use among the Una people

A detailed description of language use among the Una people falls outside the scope of

the present chapter. Instead, an overview will be given of some aspects that seem to be

most salient. Una speakers use their language to refer to things (referential function), to

establish and/or maintain rapport with other speakers (phatic function), to express

themselves (expressive function), to give information (informative function), to make

requests and give orders (directive function), to convince other people (persuasive

function), to express commitments (commissive function), to entertain themselves and

others (play function), etc.

Generally speaking, it can be said that the Una people are very proud of their own

language and of their own language variety (dialect). Indonesian is primarily used in the

domain of formal education and in the communication with government officials and

people from other language areas. In daily life and in the particular domain of religion

(church services) the vernacular language is normally used. During Sunday school classes

and youth group meetings Indonesian is often used. In Church meetings that include

868 For a more detailed discussion of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages, see page 420, footnote 976. 869 For a more detailed discussion of quotative constructions in Papuan languages, see page 438, footnote

1012.

328

people from other language areas (beyond the classis level) a local variant of Malay is

normally used.

Una people are open to using loan words from Indonesian, especially for introduced

items. However, they also use Una descriptive phrases or onomatopoeia’s for the same

items.

Some educated Una people have been observed to switch codes between Una and

Indonesian, depending on the topic that was discussed and the audience. But other

educated Una people seem to have a rather puristic view of language as they avoid code

switching.

Language use is very much tied in with the identity of Una speakers. Lexical choices

(dialect based) and intonation patterns often betray the origin of the speaker. Several

years ago my Una friend Diman imitated the language varieties of speakers of Eipomek,

Nalca, Bime, Bomela, Sumtamon and Lukun. Typical aspects of these language varieties

came out very clearly in Diman’s performance, but were also exaggerated (implied

ridicule) – which caused a lot of hilarity among the audience.

A. The use of kinship terms

One of my first observations related to language use among the Una people was the fact

that kinship terms are used very frequently both as a term of reference and a term of

address. The use of personal names, on the other hand, is pretty much restricted, not only

when Una people address one another but also when they talk about someone in the third

person. In some cases this form of language use could be related to a traditional naming

taboo (a man is not supposed to address his mother-in-law by using her name). But, in

many other cases the use of kinship terms is preferred, even though there is no naming

taboo involved.

Kinship terms are used to establish or perpetuate rapport between the speaker and the

hearer. Kinship terms express the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, and

imply notions of (real or putative) consanguinity, seniority/juniority, gender, and even

potential availability (or: unavailability) as a marriage partner. The use of kinship terms is

a way of articulating the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, and creates

certain expectations with regard to the behavior of speaker and hearer.

Kinship terms are often used as a greeting.

Ni-kwit-yabwe! Ni-kwin-yabwe!

1SG-friend-PL 1SG-mother-PL

‘Hello, my friends’ ‘Hello, my mothers’

Kinship terms often occur as an introduction to a request. This use of the kinship term

implies a strengthening of the request or appeal. It almost functions as a ground of the

request (friends and kinsmen are supposed to share what they have).

329

Ni-kwit-e saboka kareb-nu-rum

1SG-friend-EXCLAM cigarette give-1SG.OBJ-IMP.2SG

“My friend, give me a cigarette.”

Not only kinship terms but also titles and function names are preferably used by Una

people to refer to one another. Even wives may refer to their husbands as “pastor” or

“teacher”.

Pendeta ai buk-mar

Pastor house sit-3SG

“The pastor is home” [said by the pastor’s wife]

Teknonymy is a form of language use that is also found among Una people.

Franki er nai dantam bin-mar do?

Franki 3SG father where go-3SG Q

“Where did Franki’s father go?”

In the few cases that names are used, they are usually combined with kinship terms.

Using a person’s name without a kinship term or title implies that there is no connection

with that person or that the relationship is strained.

B. Indirection

Orders and requests in Una can take several forms, ranging from direct imperatives to

cohortatives and wishes. The language forms that are used (direct versus softened and

indirect forms) depend on the particular situation and the particular kinship relationship

between the speaker and the hearer.870

A maternal uncle (mam) could say to his sister’s son (mi) “Give me a cigarette”. But, his

sister’s son would usually be much more indirect in making a similar request.

Mam-o, saboka yib-tinyi se!

MoBr-VOC cigarette smoke-DESID.1SG EXPRESSIVE!

“Uncle, I would like to smoke a cigarette!

Also, when headmen or church elders address a group of people gathered together, they

will often use a cohortative – instead of an imperative – to initiate certain communal

activities.

870 Requests are also often made through intermediaries who have a good relationship with both the person

who initiates the request and the person to whom the request is being made. One time, an Una friend of

mine complained that I did not want to buy one of his stone axes. This was two or three days after I had

already bought a stone axe from him. But, then he explained to me: “The stone axe that I sold to you

several days ago was Leio’s, not mine.”

330

Ambutum ara kwalina kwalib-kwayeb ati yuk atei ba-na mem

Tomorrow TOP earth.oven eat-COHORT.1PL therefore other village go-INF don’t

“Tomorrow we will have an earth oven feast, therefore don’t go to other villages.”

Rebukes are often given in a way that is rather indirect. Indirect rebukes sometimes even

sound as if they are apologies. The following utterance was directed to someone who

came late for a meeting.

Ni-kwit, nun minob yan-doka uram sisi-ng-mab

1SG-friend, 1PL first come-DEPV.SS word talk-PROGR-1PL

“My friend, we came first and are talking business now”

Euphemisms are not very common in Una. Or, at least we should say that the

terminology related to death (dib-; “die”), sexuality (yobdan-, “have sex”; den, “penis,”

kwat, “vagina”, etc.) and exsecration (dei, “faeces,” lin, “urine”) are generally speaking

expressed in a straightforward way. Incest (having sexual relations with someone from

the same patriclan) is the only term that is possibly a euphemism: me yina (literally

“drink water”).

Metaphor is often used as a form of indirection. When an Una person says Ni win ara

kam biryi ukula dobmar (“A dog has stolen my pandanus nuts”), this is usually an

indirect accusation that someone has stolen his pandanus nuts. This could be followed by

a statement like “yesterday I saw such and so near my garden area, carrying a stringbag

with pandanus nuts.”

When a person is pretty sure that someone has stolen his pandanus nuts, a direct

accusation is usually expressed in the presence of other people. These accusations

sometimes end up in a scolding party and/or fight. If there is a clear violation (theft,

adultery), the case is brought to the kepala desa (head of the village) and the village

headmen. They will hear the accuser, the witnesses and the defendant, and reach a verdict

(which is usually a sum of money that needs to be paid).

However, generally speaking, Una people have a tendency to avoid conflict, and they will

use indirection as their primary strategy to communicate their suspicions.

C. Implicit language

Una speakers do not always make explicit the topic that they are discussing. This is

especially the case when sensitive issues are mentioned. In January 2003 an Una pastor

announced after the church service that during the week a special meeting would be

called to discuss the issue of “whether we will turn our faces to the west or to the east”.

The issue that was going to be discussed was the question whether the Una people would

be included in the new district of Yahukimo (Dekai) to the west or into the new district of

Imbentang (Oksibil) to the east. However, this was not explicitly mentioned. It was

assumed that everybody understood what was being referred to.

331

D. Inclusive language

One thing that I found particularly interesting is the use of inclusive language by Una

people. Spectators of a soccer game or of a musical concert usually say “We have played

the ball” or “we have played the trumpet,” even though they themselves have not touched

the soccer ball or the trumpet.

The Una tendency to use collective (inclusive) language is evident in their tendency to

read the personal “I believe …” of the Apostolic Creed as “we believe …” Contrary to

Western individualism, Una speakers tend to be very sociocentric in their language

use.871

E. Expressive particles

The Una language contains all kinds of expressive particles, with which they spice their

language. Particles expressing astonishment (Naie; literally: “father”; Nonge; literally,

“mother,” Kobe; literally: “pig’s fat”) or grief/concern/rebuke (Se) occur most frequently.

Several years ago I observed that a number of young Una men used the term gembala

(Indonesian loan word for “pastor”) to express astonishment or frustration. One of them

uttered the latter expression when he hit his thumb with a hammer.

F. Individual songs of mourning and/or departure

Una cultural traditions contain a rich repertoire of dance songs (mot), but occasionally

individuals will spontaneously sing a more or less individualized song. This may happen

before, during or after funerals when individuals (often a mother, wife or grandmother of

the deceased person) express their emotions by singing a mourning song. This kind of

songs often have the following content: the singer expresses that the deceased person

died prematurely, and that she is grieved that she will never see her relative again. She

wishes that he would live again, that he would bring firewood for her, and that she would

give sweet potatoes to him. The singer expresses that she wants to die too in order to be

with the deceased person. She wants to climb, climb, climb (repetition) the stairs of

heaven to be with her loved one who died.

Sometimes a mourning song like this is also sung when new students go to Wamena or

Sentani for an extended period of time. When the airplane with the students on board is

ready to depart, a mother or grandmother will often express her emotions by singing a

mourning song. You are leaving to go to school in Wamena. But I will stay behind. I will

die soon. Who is going to bury me?

871 The term ‘sociocentric’ was first coined by Sweder and Bourne (1984). It refers to a conception of

personhood that is primarily viewed in terms of social embeddedness. For a more detailed discussion of this

concept, see Foley (1997:266-269).

332

G. Cursing

Cursing is a practice that still occurs rather frequently among Una people. If a man is

negligent in paying the bride price, his in-laws may curse his wife to the effect that she

will not be able to bear children. And a son who does not help his parents to collect food

and firewood, can be cursed to the effect that he will never be able to have his own

family. In one or two Una villages the results of students in literacy program are poor.

This is attributed to a curse that was uttered by someone whose son died when he was in

school in Wamena. A curse uttered by a relative is believed to be a powerful word that

will take effect sooner or later. Una people are aware of the fact that not every curse

works, but nevertheless this magic of the word – which needs to be carefully

distinguished from sorcery, which also occurs – is still very influential in Una society.

H. Translating and Interpreting

Una pastors usually preach their sermons in Una. However, when there are visitors, they

sometimes translate part of their sermon into Indonesian. And speeches by visitors in

Indonesian are sometimes translated into Una.

I have observed that these oral renderings of a source text message tend to be very

meaning-based (explicative). The focus of the oral translation is to get the main points

across and to explain things that are not clear to the audience.

However, when the same people are asked to produce a written translation based on a

written source text (for example, the Terjemahan Baru), the translation style is

completely different. The translation is usually fairly literal, and no attempt is being made

to make implicit information explicit.

In other words: the Una translators that I have observed over the years tend to provide an

Übertragung (paraphrase; free translation with explanations), when they translate orally,

but an Übersetzung (literal translation) when they translate in a written form. In oral

translation they tend to be more audience-oriented (meaning and intention based), while

in written translation they tend to be more text-oriented (form based).872

10.5. Conclusion

In this chapter a short overview was given of some important aspects of the Una culture,

its language structure and language use. The Una culture was described as an oral culture

with a strong kinship orientation and with emerging bilingualism and literacy. The use of

kinship terms is pervasive, and serves various pragmatic functions. Kinship terms are

used to establish and/or maintain rapport and to strengthen or even ground requests.

Indirection and implicit language occur rather frequently. Una speakers have a tendency

to use inclusive language, even for activities in which they participate as spectators rather

872 When Una translators were encouraged to include an oral step of retelling the content of the source text

in Una before they wrote down the translation, they tended to translate much more naturally according to

the patterns of the Una language.

333

than as agents. The continued presence and influence of cursing is evidence for the fact

that in the eyes of the Una people words are not just empty sounds but they are filled with

power. With regard to the vernacular translation practices of Una translators, a

divergence was observed between oral translation, which was basically audience-

oriented and meaning and intention based, and written translation, which was usually

text-oriented and much more form-based.

334

11. Metaphor and Simile in Una

11.1. Introduction: Overview, method and relevance

Most metaphor research conducted so far has primarily focused on metaphors in English

and in other major languages in the world. Language analyses of minority languages

usually focus on the description of grammatical and phonological patterns of these

languages. The pragmatic aspects of these languages usually receive much less attention,

and descriptions of the forms, meanings and functions of metaphors and similes are even

less attested. So far, no extensive systematic description of metaphor (as expressed in

linguistic forms) is available in any of the Papuan languages in Papua (Irian Jaya) and in

Papua New Guinea. The following description of metaphor and simile in the Una

language is an attempt to fill part of this gap and to redress the balance in this respect.

This chapter contains a systematic description of metaphor and simile in the Una

language. Since metaphor and simile are pervasive in Una, it would be impossible to give

an exhaustive account of all the data that are available. The primary focus will be on

those metaphors and similes which are most salient and seem to be most characteristic of

the Una culture. In addition, the question will be explored whether common root

metaphors in English and other western language (such as LIFE IS A JOURNEY,

WORDS ARE CONTAINERS, ARGUMENT IS WAR, etc.) have correlates in the Una

language. Metaphors are largely culture-specific, but this does not preclude the

possibility of finding common features that are shared by a wide variety of languages.

The approach taken in this chapter is that metaphor is basically a form a language use

(pragmatics) rather than of language structure. This means that close attention will be

paid to the pragmatic context(s) of the metaphorical utterances, which includes the

speaker’s intention and the hearer’s interpretation. The language use of individual

speakers is thought to be highly consistent with the cultural norms regarding language

use within the language community.873

These cultural norms pattern the language use of

individual speakers to a large extent. Language use is seen as a form of cultural

knowledge that is acquired by young speakers and which is further developed and refined

during adulthood. Linguistic creativity of individual speakers is seen as operating within

the boundaries of the cultural tradition in which they stand.

The data presented in this chapter is partly based on a systematic elicitation and cross-

examination of language data with adult native speakers of Una. The original plan was to

base my description of Una metaphors and similes on recorded oral texts. This approach

was abandoned, however, since it yielded results that were highly fragmentary. The

number of metaphors found in my corpus of Una texts (narrative, hortatory, expository)

turned out to be surprisingly low. In daily conversations, however, the number of

metaphors and similes is legio. Gossip, rebukes and (indirect) requests turned out to be

873 Comprehension checking of the Una imagery presented in this chapter – while using “fresh” informants

– revealed that the vast majority of the imagery is shared knowledge. There were only a few cases where

informants did not understand the imagery right away, or where they assigned a somewhat different

meaning to the imagery.

335

very productive ‘genres’ where many metaphors flourish. The fact that relational-

descriptive oriented speech acts like these were not adequately represented in my corpus

of Una texts may at least partially explain why the number of metaphors in the text

corpus was rather limited.

Before we take a closer look at the forms, meanings and functions of metaphors and

similes in Una it may be good to spell out the relevance of this kind of research. A

systematic account of metaphor and simile in the Una language is relevant for various

reasons. First of all, it helps to gain a better understanding of the Una culture and the

worldview shared by Una speakers. Metaphors and similes mirror cultural norms and

values and form as such a window that may open up new perspectives on the vernacular

culture. Secondly, a description of the content and use of metaphor and simile in Una

may give us better insights in the whole area of linguistic pragmatics, i.e. the various

ways in which native speakers use their language in order to accomplish their

communicative goals. And thirdly, the description of metaphor and simile in Una is very

important for any translation work that is to be done in this language. Bible translation in

particular cannot be done properly without a thorough understanding of how metaphors

and similes function in the vernacular language.

11.2. Classification of Una metaphor and related forms of language

Analytical precision requires that a clear description is given of the object of research.

This can be done by contrasting the characteristics of metaphor and simile, which form

the major object of our research, with other forms of language use which may be very

similar but which are also different from an analytical perspective. With the exception of

metaphor, simile and metonymy, none of these other forms of language use are classified

by native speakers of Una as kemdeirin uram (‘figurative speech’).

In the following sections brief discussions are presented regarding analytical differences

between metaphor on the one hand and between simile (11.2.1.), metonymy (11.2.2.),

mythical language (11.2.3.), symbolic language (11.2.4.), generic verbs (11.2.5.), idioms

expressing emotions (11.2.6.), noun classifiers (11.2.7.) and arbitrary mapping (11.2.8.)

on the other. It is hoped that these discussions will lend analytical clarity to our

description of metaphor and simile.

11.2.1. Metaphor and Simile

Una metaphors are closely related to Una similes, and it is difficult to discuss Una

metaphors (e.g., ‘Sam is a pig’) without referring to corresponding similes (e.g., ‘Sam is

like a pig’). Generally speaking, an important difference between metaphors and similes

is that they differ in pragmatic-rhetorical force.874

Similes often function as downtoned

metaphors. Similes are also used to explain the meaning of their corresponding

874

Metaphors tend to have a higher diction than similes. Metaphors may imply intensified (or even

hyperbolic) meaning, whereas similes can perhaps be seen as downtoned metaphors. A metaphorical

expression like ‘Sam is a pig’ sounds much stronger than the simile ‘Sam is like a pig’.

336

metaphors to outsiders. Metaphors often have a strong expressive and evaluative

function, whereas similes often have a more informative and didactic function. But in

terms of meaning and language structure there does not seem to be a fundamental

difference between them. Metaphors and similes operate at the same range of syntactic

levels, including word and phrase levels on the one hand and clause (sentence) and

discourse levels on the other.

In terms of metalinguistic distinctions, Una speakers do not differentiate between

metaphors and similes. The Una expression kemdeirin uram (literally: ‘winding around

talk’875

) is used to refer to various forms of figurative language, including metaphor,

simile and parable. The opposite of kemdeirin uram is lak en uram (literally: ‘clear

saying talk’). The latter expression usually means ‘testimony’, but when used in contrast

with kemdeirin uram, it means ‘literal (non-figurative) talk’.

The expressions kitibdob uram (literally: ‘wrapped talk’; like food is wrapped inside

banana leaves) and inirlon uram (‘talk that is left hidden’) are also used to characterize

metaphors, similes and parables. The reference of the latter two expressions is much

broader, however, than that of kemdeirin uram. They may refer to any kind of

information – related to either figurative or non-figurative speech – that is not overtly

expressed but which is still implied in oral discourse or in a text. The opposite of kitibdob

uram is yongdeirin uram (literally: ‘unwrapped talk’; like food is unwrapped from banana

leaves), whereas the opposite of inirlon uram is lak en uram (literally: ‘clear saying

talk’).876

The expression kiklina uram (literally: ‘comparison word’877

) is also used to characterize

metaphors, similes and parables. This expression is most often used to refer to concrete

examples that illustrate a general rule or principle (eterena deyok ‘teaching stem’). In

relation to figurative language it expresses the aspect of comparison that is implied in the

metaphor, simile or parable. All these forms of figurative language are seen as

comparisons and illustrations of a certain topic. The topic or essence of a story or a

metaphor is called deyok (literally: ‘stem’).

The metalinguistic lumping together of metaphor and simile under the same category in

Una corresponds with our observation that Una speakers tend to treat metaphors and

similes as the same phenomenon. Metaphors are easily converted into similes, for the

sake of explanation. And when Una speakers are asked whether there is any difference

between ‘that man is a pig’ (metaphor) and ‘that man is like a pig’ (simile), the answer is

usually: neik dinyi aca (‘it is just the same thing’) or: a uram nirya ara kemdeirin uram

aca (‘all this talk is nothing else than winding around talk’) .

875 It is interesting to note that some of these meta-linguistic expressions related to figurative and literal

language are metaphorical expressions themselves. 876 In Una, metaphorical language is not a secret language in the sense that it is only known to a few insiders (clan-related) in the language group. Metaphorical language is commonly known language.

However, specialized speech styles – similar to the ones found in Kewa and Kalam (cf. Foley 1986:42-47)

– seem to also occur in Una dance songs. A discussion of these styles and of the role metaphor plays in

those songs falls outside the scope of the present study. 877 The Una verb kiklib- means both ‘measure’ and ‘weigh’.

337

Based on the above considerations, no rigorous distinction can be maintained between the

description of Una metaphors and similes. Pragmatic-analytical precision requires,

however, that we maintain an analytical distinction between metaphor and simile.

11.2.2. Metonymy

Metaphor and metonymy are closely related phenomena. In both cases the expressed term

refers in an indirect way to its intended object, attribute or event. From an analytical

perspective, however, metaphors differ from metonymies in that metaphors are based on

cross-domain mapping, whereas metonymies involve some form of intra-domain

mapping. In other words: in metaphors the expressed term and its referent belong to

different conceptual domains, whereas in metonymies the term and its referent belong to

the same – emically defined – conceptual domain.

(1) Ni kama kib- -ma -nu -rum!

1SG walking.stick become-stay-1SG.OBJ-IMPER.2SG

‘You must become my walking stick.’

[Situation: two people travel together on a trail; the speaker, who has been leading

the way for some time, addresses his fellow traveler, asking him to take his turn in

leading the way.]

Example (1) is a clear case of metaphor. The term kama (‘walking stick’; inanimate

object) is used to refer to a human being. The term (‘walking stick’) and its intended

referent (human being; fellow traveler) belong to different conceptual domains.

(2) Ni- ra aling bitinyi bob-kwab- ma- n

1SG-TOP string.bag two carry-intent-PST-1SG.SUBJ

‘I intend to carry two string bags’

[Situation/Intended implicature: The speaker wants to marry a second wife]

At first sight, example (2) also seems to qualify as a metaphor. The term aling (‘string

bag’; inanimate object) is used to refer to human beings, (potential) wives in particular,

thus suggesting a cross-domain mapping like in (1). In Una culture stringbags are closely

associated with the role of women/wives in society878

, however. This makes it difficult to

analyze (2) as a form of cross-domain mapping. From an emic (culture-specific)

perspective it makes more sense to analyze (2) as a form of metonymic expression.879

878 Stringbags are primarily produced and used by women. Stringbags are mainly used for hauling sweet

potatoes and for carrying babies. 879 In my opinion, a difference in taxonomic category is not a sufficient condition for assigning terms to

different conceptual domains; in a similar way, the sharing of the same general taxonomic property does

not automatically mean that terms belong to the same conceptual domain.

338

Despite analytical differences that can be made between metaphor and metonymy, Una

speakers tend to use the global (inclusive) and intuitive notion of kemdeirin uram to refer

to both metaphor and metonymy.

11.2.3. Mythical language

An important distinction to be made is the distinction between metaphor and mythical

language. Mythical language is language that is thought to be literally true (from an

insider’s view), even though it may be labeled as metaphorical language by outsiders who

do not share the same cultural assumptions.

(4) Isa ner aryi ni-si yi-nu -rur

Evil.spirit woman AGT 1SG-OBJ eat-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRESCONT

‘The female spirit is eating me’

[Situation: this is said by a very sick person who thinks that he will die soon as a

result of spirit cannibalism.]

Statement (4) reflects the traditional worldview of the Una people that certain kinds of

sickness are caused by evil spirits, especially female spirits. This belief is still very

popular, even though the majority of the Una people have become Christians since the

early seventies of the previous century. Some of the younger generation have begun to

reinterpret this kind of mythical language as metaphorical language. However, the

mythical (literal interpretation) status of this kind of statements (often related to health

and sickness) is remarkably persistent.880

11.2.4. Symbolic language

Symbolic language881

is language that is believed to be literally true, but which also

carries a deeper meaning which is also believed to be true.

(5) Tuhan Allah nun Nai, kan-ci bublan kuk- -eib -ma -si -rim

Lord God 1PL Father 2SG-AGT door open-CAUS-PST-1PL.OBJ-2SG.SUBJ

ati, nun nirya kan dam sirya yan- -ma-b

REASON 1PL all 2SG near already come PST-1PL.SUBJ

‘Our Father Lord God, because you have opened the door for us, all of us have

already come near to you.’

[Situation: pastor prays during Sunday morning service in church]

880

It is interesting to note that Una people sometimes interpret introduced metaphors as being literally true.

When discussing the Biblical metaphor ‘the Lord is my shepherd’ (in its Indonesian version) one Una elder expressed that according to him this expression is not a metaphor, but literally true. Metaphors like ‘the

Lord is my rock’ and ‘the Lord is my shield’, on the other hand, were interpreted as true metaphors

(kemdeirin uram, ‘not straightforward talk’). 881 Symbolic language is, of course, different from symbolic action where language or speech is not

constitutive for the success of the symbolic communication.

339

In this (highly conventionalized) prayer the pastor refers to the opening of the church

doors by one of the elders just before the morning service. The opening of the doors has

allowed the members of the congregation to enter church. The expression also has

symbolic meaning, since, entering through the church doors is seen as entering into the

presence of God. In the eyes of the believers, it is God himself who has opened the door

for the members of the congregation, in taking the initiative and by giving them the

opportunity to meet with him during the church service. Praying to God (= direct address)

is seen as the culmination point of entering into the presence of God during the church

service.

Symbolic language is also found in traditional language. The various parts of the bride

price, for example, are named after the body parts of the wife. Pandanus nuts, for

example, are referred to as ner kisok (‘wife’s head’), stone axes as ner si (‘wife’s tooth’),

bows and arrows as ner amnyok (‘wife’s backbone), stringbags as ner bol (‘wife’s skin),

red pandanus fruits as ner mum (‘wife’s breast’), and marsupials as ner deisumsum

(‘wife’s vagina’). Pigs are referred to as ner dama (‘wife gift/payment’).

11.2.5. Generic verbs

As is the case in many other Papuan languages, the Una language is very much verb-

oriented. In Una, the verb is heavily inflected: verb suffixes signal person, tense, aspect,

mood, etc. This is in contrast with nouns882

, adjectives and other word classes which

receive little or no inflection. Una texts – narrative texts in particular – usually have a

high verb to noun ratio.

The number of Una verb roots is rather limited. Compounding of (two or three) verb

roots into verb stems is very productive and yields many new verb lexemes. The relative

sparsity of simple verb roots often results in verb roots with a very broad semantic range.

In those cases, the contextual meaning of the verb is usually modified by an object noun

or subject noun.

The verb yib- ‘eat, drink, smoke, consume’ is a case in point.

a. kwaning yibmar

b. me yibmar

c. saboka yibmar

d. co bok yirandi

e. uw yinmanir

f. yun yinmanir

g. uk yibmar

g. tonok yibmar

‘He just ate a sweet potato’

‘He just drank water’

‘He just smoked a cigarette’

‘He habitually squanders money’

‘Pain eats me’ (suffer from pain)

‘Sickness eats me’ (suffer from sickness)

‘Fire has eaten him’ (burn down)

‘A landslide has eaten him’ (bury)

882 Kinship terms that refer to more than one person require the plural suffix –yabwe. The term bisam ‘pig’,

may also have the same plural suffix, if it refers to more than one pig. However, if the term is modified by a

definite or indefinite numeral, the plural suffix –yabwe is dropped. Dogs, birds and other animals do not

have the plural suffix.

340

The examples d, e and f look very much like metaphors, if we would base our

interpretation on the English glosses. However, a better way of interpretation is to look at

the invariant meaning (‘consume, finish’) of all these examples and take this as the basic

(and literal) meaning of the verb yib-. Based on this, it becomes clear that from an emic

perspective the examples d, e and f are not at all metaphorical extensions. These are just

idiomatic expressions that are partly expressed by the verb yib- which has in fact a very

broad range of meaning, including the notion of experiencing something bad.

11.2.6. Idioms expressing emotions

In Una there are a number of idioms that express emotions. Some of those expressions

look very much like metaphors. Lexicographic analysis reveals, however, that the

relationship between the terms and their referents are either metonymic (based on

contiguity and intra-domain mapping) or idiomatic (the mapping between the terms and

their referents is arbitrary, not motivated). Certain emotions are mapped onto internal

body organs. Positive feelings are mapped onto the liver, whereas negative feelings are

mapped onto the stomach. Both from an analytical perspective and from a native

speaker’s perspective, none of the following examples are metaphors:

(1) Ni-kwit, ni-ra kan-si boukwe weik ku-ku-nun

1SG-friend, 1SG-TOP 2SG -OBJ liver big be-2SG.OBJ-1SG.SUBJ.PRES

‘My friend, I have a big liver towards you’

[Entailment: I care about you]

(2) Ni kanya tin kub-n -ou bok,

1SG inside hot be- 1SG.OBJ-3SG.FPST DS.sim

ni-ryi kir donanyi bi-si o-yib-masi

1SG-AGT sorcerer DEF-OBJ kill-eat-1SG.FPST

‘While my inside was hot, I killed and ate the sorcerer’

[Entailment: I was very angry]

(3) Nun-kwit bi-si mundu wek-mou

1PL friend DEF-OBJ stomach enter-3SG.FPST

‘[Something] entered our friend’s stomach’

[Entailment: our friend is very angry]

(4) Kan-ci nun-si tuba tuba wene- -su -rum ati,

2SG-AGT 1PL-OBJ always correct-1p.OBJ-2s.PRESCONT therefore

ni boub-ma -ni -r

1SG feed-PST-1SG.OBJ-3SG.FPST

‘I am fed up, because you always correct us’

[Entailment: I’m very angry, and can not stand it any longer]

341

11.2.7. Noun classifiers

In Una, certain nouns, when counted, can be accompanied by a classifying noun. At first

sight, at least two classifying nouns seem to be based on metaphorical extension.

Lexicographic analysis reveals, however, that these are not really metaphors, but lexemes

with a broad range of meanings.

The noun kisok (‘head’) is used as a classifier of medium and big-sized round objects

(usually fruits, but not exclusively so). Human and animal heads form no doubt the

prototypical referents of this term. From a lexicographic perspective it is doubtful,

however, that ‘(human/animal) head’ is the basic meaning of the term, and that the

classificatory use of the term is based on metaphorical extension. Human heads are

usually referred to as ninyi kisok (‘person’s head’), and this clearly suggest that the basic

meaning of the term kisok in itself is much more general.

Una English gloss

Win kisok bitinyi karebnurum.

Kwaning kisok dumbaryi karebmakin.

Am kisok unabaryi kibmarim do?

Ken kisok unabaryi boyankwansirim do?

Bola kisok unabaryi boyankwansirim do?

‘Give me two pandanus nut heads.’

‘I gave two four sweet potato heads.’

‘How many taro heads did you put in your

stringbag?’

‘How many (red) pandanus heads will you

bring?’

‘How many soccer balls will you bring?

The noun du (‘oval-shaped product/object’) is also used as a classifier. It is normally used

for smaller objects. This noun collocates, for example, with ‘tree’ and ‘bird’ to form new

lexemes. Co du means ‘fruit’ (literally: ‘tree fruit’), and maka du means ‘egg’ (‘bird

fruit’).

Una English gloss

Kwalyi du bitinyi karebnurum

Win du mikbaryi karebnurum

Buncis du yuk-yuk bulakdum

Mar du bitinyi karebkwinkin

Keil du dobminyei.

‘Give me two banana fruits’

‘Give me a number of pandanus fruits’

‘You must break every single Dutch bean

fruit’

‘I will give you two arrow heads’

‘Do not throw small stones (=pebbles)’

Here too, the classifier term has a very broad range of contextual meanings. From a

lexicographic perspective there is no reason whatsoever to analyze the classifier du as in

mar du (‘arrow head’) and keil du (‘small stone’) as a metaphorical extension of du as in

co du (‘tree fruit’) or in maka du (‘bird fruit’).883

883 Other classifiers include lasi (‘cut’) for tall and narrow objects like wooden boards, bows and red

pandanus fruits; sangkol for containers like gourds, water containers and cardboard and wooden boxes; and

yubwe (‘holding string of stringbag’) for stringbags; and dika (‘rope of grass skirt’) for grass skirts. In the

latter two cases the classifier is a part (synecdoche) of the term it classifies.

342

11.2.8. Arbitrary mapping

Metaphor and metonymy are both forms of motivated mapping. In each of these cases

there is a non-arbitrary link between the term and its referent. In metaphor the mapping is

based on a certain analogy between the term and its referent, whereas in metonymy the

mapping is based on contiguity. Arbitrary mapping, however, is different from both

metaphor and metonymy in that its mapping is not based on analogy or contiguity.

Arbitrary mapping may occur with literal language and with figurative language. It is

often highly conventionalized and lexicalized.

The traditional counting system in Una is a form of arbitrary mapping: The numerals 1-

27 are named after certain body parts (fingers, arms, shoulders, head).884

(3) Una tally system based on body parts:

Body part Numeral Up Numeral Down

..

..

..

dumwe (‘ring finger’)

amwe (‘thumb’)

nab (‘wrist’)

tab (‘under arm’)

in (‘elbow’)

toubni (‘upper arm’)

takwe (‘shoulder’)

koklom (‘side of neck’)

amol (‘ear’)

kakub (‘side of head’)

kisok lu (‘top of head’)

tentok (‘one’)

bitinyi (‘two’)

winiryi (‘three’)

dumbaryi (‘four’)

amubaryi (‘five’)

nabaryi (‘six’)

tabaryi (‘seven’)

inbaryi (‘eight’)

toubnibaryi (‘nine’)

takubaryi (‘ten’)

koklombaryi (‘eleven’)

amolbaryi (‘twelve’)

kakubmikin (‘thirteen’)

kisoklubaryi (‘fourteen’)

telteleknya (27)

bitinyaba (26)

winiryaba (25)

dina dumbaryi (24)

dina amubaryi (23)

dina nabaryi (22)

dina tabaryi (21)

dina inbaryi (20)

dina toubni (19)

dina takwe (18)

dina koklom (17)

dina amol (16)

dina kakub (15)

--

Arbitrary mapping also occurs in certain idiomatic expressions. Attitudes and emotions,

for example, are mapped on to certain body parts.

(4) Ni-kwit, ni-ra kan-si boukwe weik ku-ku-nun

1s-friend, 1s-TOP 2s-OBJ liver big be-2sOBJ-1s.SUBJ.PRESCONT

‘My friend, I have a big liver towards you’

[Entailment: I care about you]

884 It should be noted that the naming of numerals after certain body parts is arbitrary, even though it makes

sense to link numerals to body parts. Linking numerals to certain body parts helps people to keep track of

counting, while they point to the various corresponding body parts. Not every language has a deictic numeral system like this, however, and the body parts that are included in the counting system may greatly

vary. Even within the same language, there may be differences as to which body parts are included and

how many. In the eastern (Sumtamon) dialect, for example, the numbers 13 and 15 are associated with the

eyes (instead of the sides of the head), and number 14 is associated with the nose (instead of the top of the

head).

343

Arbitrary mapping is a widespread phenomenon which also lies at the basis of certain

metaphors. In Western languages like English and Dutch owls are, for example,

associated with wisdom. Donkeys, on the other hand, are associated with stupidity. This

kind of mappings occurs, even though there is no empirical evidence that owls are wise

and that donkeys are stupid.885

Metaphors and similes like these are often based on

folklore, mythology and projection (imagination) rather than on physical and/or

functional correspondence between the expressed term and its referent.

11.3. Una Metaphors and Similes

Now that we have spelled out some basic differences between metaphor and simile on the

one hand and between some other forms of language use on the other, it is time to take a

more detailed look at the Una data. Our primary focus will be on the description of Una

metaphors and similes, both as a form expressed in language structure and as a form of

language use. Other forms of language use will only be discussed insofar they serve the

goal of illuminating our main topic.

Metaphors are pervasive in most natural languages that are presently widely known. The

Una language is no exception to this general rule. Metaphor is not only pervasive in daily

conversations and other forms of language use, but it has also left its mark on the

vocabulary of the Una language.

Before the Una inventory of lexicalized metaphors is described in more detail, some

aspects of the Una language and lexicon in general will need to be discussed.

11.3.1. Lexicalized metaphors

11.3.1.1. Partonymic metaphors

Una partonymy886

is a fruitful source of lexical metaphors. The parts of inanimate objects

and locations are often named and structured after human (animal) body parts. Una

partonymies can also be structured after the anatomy of trees/plants (root, stem,

branches, leaves), but this pattern is not as productive as the human/animal body part

pattern. The parts of human/animal bodies and of trees/plants are highly differentiated,

and it is no wonder that these highly differentiated partonymies form the model for less

differentiated metonymies. It should be noted, though, that the other metonymies are

usually only partly structured in terms of these two models. The partonymic modeling is

usually based on some kind of correspondence (physical or functional) between the

model and the part that is being named.

885 Note that different cultures may hold opposing evaluations. In Fiji, for example, owls are seen as a

prototype of stupidity rather than of wisdom. 886 The term ‘partonymy’ refers to the naming of parts of objects in the lexicon.

344

A. THE HUMAN / ANIMAL BODY AS A PARTONYMIC MODEL

A1. Stone axe partonymy

Individual parts of stone axes are named after certain parts of the human body.

ya si (‘ax tooth’)

ya amnyok (‘ax spine’)

ya taram (‘ax chest’)

ya bol (‘ax skin’)

ya si bana (‘ax chin’)

ya kala bumnyok (‘ax heel’)

cutting edge of ax

upper part (rounded) of ax

lower part (flat) of ax

color of stone ax

part supporting the stone ax

lower end of the ax handle

Irregularities on the upper part of the axe (where too much stone has been chipped off)

are referred to as dilaka (‘wounds’).

Not every part of a stone axe is patterned after human/animal anatomy, however. The

metaphorical structuring of the partonymic lexemes is only partial. The handle of a stone

axe is called a ya kala (‘ax handle’) and the rattan with which the ax is fastened to the

handle is called ya tabwe (‘ax rattan’).

A2. Bow and arrow partonymy

A similar pattern is found with bows and arrows: Individual parts of these objects are

named after certain parts of the human/animal body:

yin u (‘bow nose’)

yin bumnyok (‘bow heel’)

yin taram (‘bow chest’)

mar urub (‘arrow nosetip’)

mar ina kumkum? (‘heel of arrow reed’)

upper part of the bow

lower part of the bow

bow

arrowhead

lower part of arrow shaft

Not every term is patterned after human/animal anatomy, however. Bowstrings are called

yin tabwe (‘bow rattan’); the two fastening strings are called yin mangkwa; and the

decoration of Bird of Paradise feathers and rattan leaves at the upper end of the bow are

called yin sangkwa; arrow shafts are called mar ina (‘arrow reeds’).

A3. Partonymy of other objects

The partonymy of other cultural objects is also partly patterned after human/animal

anatomy.

kama kumkum (‘heel of stick’)

souna kumkum (‘heel of pair of tongs’)

souna inkukab (‘elbow of pair of tongs’)

car nong (‘body of head ornament’)

lower end of walking/digging stick

handle of pair of tongs I (for picking up stones)

handle of pair of tongs II (for picking up stones)

main part of head ornament

345

car urub (‘nose point of head ornament’) lower end of head ornament

But again, not every term is patterned after human/animal anatomy. The polished upper

end of a walking stick, for example, is called kama konga (‘stick handle’). And the two

legs of the pair of tongs for picking up hot stones are called souna lasi (‘sticks of pair of

tongs’).

The partonymy of some cultural objects, such as stringbags, is not at all modeled after

human/animal body parts or after any other partonymy. This is probably related to the

fact that there is no clear similarity between the physical structure of stringbags on the

one hand and human/animal bodies on the other.

A4. Partonymy of geographical features

Geographical features are partly patterned after human/animal anatomy.

mutuk amnyok (‘spine of mountain’)

mutuk amwetam (‘tail of mountain’)

mutuk si (‘mountain tooth’)

mutuk takonya (‘mountain shoulder’)

mutuk katum (‘mountain cheek’)

mutuk otong (‘mountain hair’)

tonok dilaka (‘landslide wound’)

wa dilaka (‘garden wound’)

keil si1 (‘rock/stone tooth’)

keil si2 (‘rock/stone tooth’)

keil amnyok (‘spine of rock/stone)

me katum (‘water cheek’)

me umolonga (‘water navel’)

me silong (‘water salaeva’)

me u dam (‘water nose place’)

mountain ridge

foot of mountain

sharp mountain top

mountain pass

foothills connected to mountain

grass and foliage on mountains

landslide damage (no grass and trees)

bare garden (no grass and trees)

sharp rock/stone

tooth-white rock/stone (chalk)

contour of large rock or stone

bank of river or stream

circular current in river

foaming waves in river

water well, origin of river

It should be noted here that some geographical features are also be patterned after

tree/plant anatomy. Another term for foot of mountain, for example, is mutuk deyok

(‘lower stem of mountain’). (See B1 below). Nevertheless, the human/animal body seems

to be the dominant model.

A5. Partonymy of meteorological features

kiting asing ilul (‘light of the sun’s eye’) sun rays

346

A6. Plant and trees partonymy

win si (‘pandanus tooth’)

win kisok dilou berbetenmar (‘the head of

the pandanus fruit becomes bald’)

kwalyi taruk (‘banana hand’)

co ngang (‘tree neck’)

co te (‘tree arm’)

co umolonga (‘tree navel’)

co si maka (‘tree salaeva’)

thorn of pandanus tree

the pandanus fruit sheds its protective

covering

comb of bananas

bare spot between upper and lower foliage

of trees

branch of tree

hole in a tree (made by woodpecker?)

water/steam that comes from burning wood

A7. Spatial terms based on body part metaphors

taramtam (‘chest side’)

dongtam (‘back side’)

urasintam (‘face side’)

amwetam (‘tail side’)

front side (of person or object)

back side (of person or object)

before, in front of (person)

behind (person); under (thing)

Not all spatial terms are metaphorical: Dinatam (‘left or right side’); sidiktam (‘right

side’); kwanimtam (‘left side’); atam (‘here’), otam (‘over there’), eitam (‘up there’),

outam (‘down there’).

B. TREES / PLANTS AS A PARTONYMIC MODEL

B1. Geographical features

Geographical features can also be patterned after trees/plants:

me te887

(‘water branch’)

me dub (‘water tip/junction’)

mutuk deyok dam (‘mountain lower stem

place’)

mutuk kwa (‘mountain fork’)

minor branch of river

main river

foot of a mountain

mountain pass

B2. Spatial metaphors

Spatial metaphors in general can also be patterned after trees/plants:

deyoktam (‘lower stem place’) under

Note: tree related metaphors are not limited to partonymic terms. Headmen, for example,

are sometimes metaphorically referred to as co deyok nang (‘lower stem of tree people’)

887 In the Langda dialect of Una, there is a clear lexical distinction between taruk ‘arm, hand’ and co te ‘tree

branch’. In other dialects, however, the word for ‘arm hand’ is te. In those dialects, the word co te (‘tree

branch’) seems to be a metaphorical extension of the term for ‘arm, hand’.

347

to indicate their importance. Other people who are dependent on them are called co te

nang (‘tree branch people’). Metaphors like these will be discussed in more detail in

section 11.3.2. below on conventional metaphors.

B3. Causal metaphors

a deyok aryi (‘by this lower stem’) because of this

Conclusion: We found that partonymic metaphors are very productive in Una. While

most of these are based on metaphorical extensions of human/animal body parts, some

are based on the anatomy of trees/plants. Physical and/or functional similarity seems to

be the predominant motivation for this type of extended metaphors. The primary function

of this type of metaphors is, of course, lexical (to fill lexical gaps).

11.3.1.2. Lexicalization of newly introduced items and concepts

Another – potentially fruitful – area of lexicalized metaphors is the lexicalization of

newly introduced items and concepts. Some thirty years ago, Una society began to

experience some dramatic changes. Since 1973 these people of the Stone Age era were

suddenly – and on a large scale – confronted with many new items and concepts from

Western Civilization and from Christianity.888

Airplanes, helicopters, shovels, machetes,

generators, western clothing, rice, tinned meat and other items were some of the most

prominent things that were introduced in a relatively short time.

The lexicalization of these new items and concepts shows that Una speakers are very

creative at naming things and that the Una language turned out to have a lot of elasticity

to cater to the need of naming all these new items and concepts.

The following strategies were used in this lexicalization process: (1) use of loan word

from Indonesian, English, Dutch or a neighboring Papuan language; (2) use of

onomatopoeia; (3) use of descriptive phrases: a generic term in Una plus further

specification; (4) combination of Una generic term and Indonesian specific term; (5)

metaphorical extensions. Of all these strategies, the use of loan words (1) and the use of

descriptive phrases (3) seem to have been more productive than the others.

Examples of loan words (1) from Indonesian and English (as adapted to Una

pronunciation):

radio

kabel

antena

maik

sekop (= skop; Dutch?)

barang (= parang)

‘radio’

‘cable’

‘antenna’

‘microphone, mike’

‘shovel’

‘machete’

888 The first – rather superficial – encounters between the Una people of the Ei valley with Westerners

occurred during an expedition in 1911 and another expedition in 1961 (Gaisseaux expedition).

348

bakaian (= pakaian)

besawat (= pesawat)

bilot (= pilot)

celana

kerekaji (= gergaji)

orok (= rok)

‘clothes’

‘airplane’

‘pilot’

‘pants’

‘saw’

‘skirt’

A number of these loan words underwent semantic changes:

lambu (= lampu; ‘light bulb’)

kaca (= kaca; ‘glass of window’)

Sungkola (= sekolah; ‘school’)

‘generator’

‘window’

‘name of a syncretistic sect from the Sela

Valley area that was active in the

Western Una area before Christianity was

introduced’

Examples of onomatopoeia (2)889

:

ururu

yan karuk

‘airplane’ or: ‘generator’

‘shoes’

Examples of descriptive phrases (3):

im nang kwaning (‘sweet potatoes of

heaven people = people who came by

helicopter or airplane)’

imtam yibarandi ai (‘house/place that

moves through the sky’)

bublan kungna (‘door opener’)

kir-kir en bis (‘spy trail’)

ongon aling (‘stringbag to be worn’)

mum kin aling (‘stringbag for inserting

breasts’)

botona limna aling (‘stringbag for

covering an opening’)

rice

airplane

key

glass of window

clothes

bra

curtains

Examples of combinations of ‘generic’ Una and specific Indonesian (4)890

:

bisam sapi (‘cow pig’) cow

889

Note that onomatapoeic forms like these are nowadays often substituted by Indonesian loan words, such

as besawat (= pesawat, ‘airplane’) and sebatu (= sepatu, ‘shoe’). 890 It should be noted that this kind of combinations are nowadays more and more abandoned by the

younger generation who know Indonesian. They prefer to use the Indonesian loan word without the

pseudo-generic Una classifiers such as bisam (‘pig’) and kam (‘dog’). This applies at least to animals that

are now known in the Una area, such as cows and sheep. When referring to unknown animals such as lions

and camels, the pseudo-generic Una classifiers are still used.

349

bisam domba (‘sheep pig’)

kam si singa (‘dog named lion’)

sheep

lion

Examples of metaphorical extensions (5):

te kwaleng (‘forked branch’)

tiling-tilinga otong lelengna

(‘thorned hair comb’)

domba amol (‘sheep’s ear’)

fork

hair brush

collar of shirt

Conclusion: In this section we have examined the lexicalization of newly introduced

items and concepts in Una. We found that the naming of these newly introduced items

was occasionally based on metaphorical extension. The use of loan words and of

descriptive renderings turned out to be a much more dominant strategy of lexicalization.

11.3.2. Conventional metaphors in Una

The majority of non-lexicalized metaphors are more than just another – more or less

conventionalized – way of referring to certain persons, objects, places or events. Non-

lexicalized metaphors are used by the speaker with a certain pragmatic-rhetorical

intention in mind. In terms of propositional meaning, the speaker usually does not spell

out what exactly he intends to communicate. But despite this indeterminacy of the

intended meaning of the metaphor, there is usually no doubt regarding the feelings,

attitude and implicatures that the speaker seeks to communicate through the metaphor.

Una non-lexicalized metaphors occur in great abundance in daily conversations. What

most of these metaphors have in common is that they describe the character, behavior

and/or physical appearances of people. An interesting difference between lexicalized and

non-lexicalized metaphors in Una is that in the former humans (the human body) often

constitute part of the source domain (vehicle terms), whereas in the latter humans often

form the target domain (topic). In non-lexicalized metaphors, a wide variety of objects

and phenomena from the animal kingdom and from the inanimate world serve to portray

people as well as to express feelings and/or to influence people’s behavior.

In order to present a more or less systematic description of Una non-lexicalized

metaphors, we will now pay attention to the following conceptual areas: a. humans are

animals (11.3.2.1); b. humans are natural objects (11.3.2.2.); c. humans are cultural

objects (11.3.2.3.); d. other metaphors (11.3.2.4.). In addition, section 11.3.2.5.

contains a brief description of the use of loan metaphors (mostly derived from the Bible)

by Una speakers. A lot of these metaphors are no longer foreign to the Una people, but

have become conventionalized. And in section 3.2.6. a brief and very global comparison

is given between Una metaphors and English metaphors.

350

11.3.2.1. PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS

Many non-lexicalized metaphors of the ‘humans are animals’ type imply a negative

evaluation of the person referred to. Most of these qualifications occur in gossip

(talakdon uram), quarrel (keren uram) and in accusations (tatab-tatab en uram).

A. PEOPLE ARE PIGS

A1. Gluttonous people are pigs

The ‘humans are pigs’ metaphor can be used to refer to people who are in a habit of

eating a lot of food.

Ilinto yirandanyi bira ton nang aryi,

‘Bisam atonyi’ eraming. A talak aryok

ersi kum eraming. Erda, yuk nang keken

ai asi ato eraming.

“A person who eats a lot is called “Pig-

like person” by some people. At that time

they don’t say it to him. But, they say it

when other people are listening.”

Bisam mundu bobwe do? “Does he carry the stomach of a pig?”

Anyi bira bisam mundu bobdobnyi. “That person has the stomach of a pig.”

A2. Dirty people are pigs

People who never wash themselves and who are usually very dirty can be referred to as

‘pig dirty’.

Nining weik kurandinyi biti ‘Bisam

nining atonyi’ eraming.

“Regarding a very dirty person, people

say, ‘He is a dirty like a pig person’.”

Note: Another metaphor for dirty people is: ai dingdinga atonyi basuna deibwe (‘person

who is as black as the roof above the fireplace’). On the other hand, people who often

wash themselves are called mekinaia, ‘fish’.

A3. Messy people are pigs

People who do not properly clean up their houses run the risk of indirectly being called a

pig.

Yina sekdoba ai ilinto kuranci ura,

‘Bisam ai kuma’ kiboka ‘Bai

donokdarur’ eraming.

“If there are a lot of food leftovers in a

house, people say, ‘This is not a pig’s

house, you must throw it outside’.”

351

A4. People who usually live in the forest are wild pigs

People who usually live in the forest and do not come to the village can be called ‘wild

pigs’.

Nun kwit bira bai bisam kurur. Atei

yangana kum kurur.

Our friend is a wild pig. He is not in the

habit of coming to the village.

A5. Disobedient children are wild pigs

Children who are lazy and habitually disobey their parents and other people are often

called ‘wild pigs’.

Ninyi uram keken kum mabwe

nermabwe ati, ‘Bai bisam’ enub.

“We usually say, ‘Wild pig,’ regarding

boys and girls who do not listen to

people’s talk.”

A6. Men that have not paid the bride price are fathers of piglets

Men that have not paid the bride price, or who have not paid enough according to his

wife and in-laws, is indirectly rebuked by his wife, when she calls their young son

‘piglet’. The metaphor is intended to be an indirect request:

Ner aryi er mi asi, “Bisam mi,” ebci

ura, er akenyi biryi bisam kum dekanci

ati ato ebnyi ura, “Karebkwanurur,”

tenen eraming.

“When women say, “Son of a pig” to

their [young] sons, they say so, if their

husbands have not paid a pig [for bride’s

price], thinking, “He must give it to me.”

In cases like this the wife is afraid to call her husband a pig, because he might beat her

up. But calling their mutual son a ‘son of a pig’ is a more indirect (and relat ively safe)

way of strongly reminding her husband of his obligations. The intended implicature is

that the father of the young child is a pig himself.

It is not certain whether or not one of the intended grounds of the metaphor is the fact that

pigs obviously mate without paying a bride price at all. By not paying the bride price the

husband behaves less than human, i.e., like a pig. The term of abuse used for the son of

the neglecting father contains at least a clear hint that according to the wife the husband

needs to pay a pig (an additional pig?) to his in-laws.

A7. People with big ears have pig’s ears

People with big ears have pig’s ears (bisam amol). The expression pig’s ears (bisam

amol) or sheep ears (domba amol) is also a lexical metaphor for the collar of a blouse.

352

B. PEOPLE ARE DOGS

B1. Thieves are dogs

The ‘humans are dogs’ metaphor is used for referring to people who are habitual thieves.

Sometimes the term bari kam ‘jungle dog’ is used for the same purpose.

“Kam atonyi,” eraming ara erci ukula

tuba donanyi biti ato eraming. Tonda,

ninyi atei wengkiringnanyi bibabyi ato

eraming.

People say, “Dog-like person,” regarding

someone who has stolen again. And also,

they say it also about a person who

always wanders from one village to

another.

B2. Promiscuous men are dogs

Men who are notorious for their promiscuity, can also be called ‘dogs’.

“Kam yal don” eraming ara er yala, er

ai ninyi, “Nikwit ner,” tenena kum uca,

“Nirya yobdi bitinyi,” tenenanyi biti ato

eraming.

“People say, “Dog clan marrying person”

regarding a person who does not respect

the wives of his clan people, and the

people of his house, but he thinks

regarding them, “I want to have sex with

every single one of them.”

This kind of language is used, when people talk behind other people’s backs. The only

occasion when this kind of language is uttered in front of the person himself, is in a law-

suit, after the person has been convicted, during the ‘rebuking’ phase, which preceded the

‘punishing’ phase.

Deyok sisingmangnyi tum ara ersi lak

eraming. Ba, kum ura, er keken ai kum

eraming.

“People say this openly to him, when they

are discussing the case. But, if they are not,

they do not say it when he hears it.

B3. People that are very shy are dogs that hide their tail between their legs

People that are very shy are said to hide their tail between their legs.

Utotoa li ebmangnyi dikum ab yuk nang

ab tonkwa yibana ab ara alyi asa

kurandinyi biti derlamabdobnyi enung.

“With regard to a person that is so shy

that he does not want to do anything and

he does not walk together with other

people, people say, ‘Tail hiding person’.”

B4. When people are very thirsty, they are like panting dogs

When people are very thirsty, they are panting dogs that stick their tongues out.

353

Me atan weik aryi nunda ‘Kam kang-

kang erandi to kubmanir’ enub.

“When we are very thirsty, we usually

say, ‘I am/feel like a panting dog’.”

C. PEOPLE ARE BIRDS

C1. Promiscuous men are roosters

The ‘promiscuous men are roosters’ metaphor is used for referring to men that have

sexual affairs with many women. The intention of this metaphor is very similar to that of

‘promiscuous men are dogs’ (see 11.3.2.1. B).

“Kirim yal don” eraming ara er yala,

er ai ninyi, “Nikwit ner,” tenena kum

uca, “Nirya yobdi bitinyi,” tenenanyi

biti ato eraming.

“People say, “Rooster clan person”

regarding a person who does not respect

the wives of his clan people, and the

people of his house, but he thinks

regarding them, “I want to have sex with

every single one of them.”

C2. Promiscuous women are bathing pools for birds

A promiscuous girl or woman may be called a ‘bathing pools for birds’. These women

attract men, like bathing pools attract birds. In the forests there are certain pools, where

many birds come to bath, show off, mate and rest. Bird hunters sometimes build their bird

traps there.

‘Me alung ato ner’ eraming ara talyi

yon ner akwe eraming.

“People say “Woman like a refreshing

place for birds” regarding a woman who

is promiscuous.

Another metaphor for a notoriously promiscuous woman is ‘men’s house’. If used for a

man, this is a complimentary term, expressing that the man is very hospitable and serves

his guests well by giving them food. If the term is used for a woman, however, it is

usually negative, indicating a promiscuous woman. Men’s houses and promiscuous

women have in common the fact that they are public sleeping places for men.

A ner ara youa ato kurur. Sal nang

ilinto aryi ersi talyi yobdi baraming.

That women is like a men’s house. Many

males have illicit sex with her.

The most common (lexicalized) expression for promiscuous women and whores is den

yin ner (literally: ‘penis consuming woman’).

354

C3. People that often move around a lot are birds

The people are birds metaphor is used to refer to people who frequently move from one

village to another.

“Erda maka atonyi bica” eraming ara

neik atei kuna kum uca, yuk atei yuk

atei yibarkiringnanyi ati eraming.

“People say, “He is just like a bird”

regarding a person who does not stay in

the same village, but who moves from

one village to another.”

The metaphor does not necessarily imply a negative evaluation of other people. People

can use this metaphor to refer to themselves. In that case, it can either function as an

expression of frustration, or as a good excuse for not giving food to guests: People who

move from one village to another are not in a good position to plant and harvest sweet

potatoes, so the guests should not expect a lot of food.

“Niryi ato ebtinyi, ninyi yating ura,

“Kwaning kum yibkwamab. Nira maka

ato kunun aryi ur bunkwayeb,” ebtinyi.

“I would say like this, when people

would come [to visit], “We are not

planning on eating sweet potatoes. I am

like a bird, and let’s therefore just sit

[without eating].”

The “people are swallows” metaphor is used in a way that is very similar. A widow,

whose only son leads a traveler’s life, might say the following to visiting clansmen of

hers who try to get a gift or payment from her:

“Ni mi dukalima atonyi bica. Erda iya

kum kurur ati, bona ton kum

karebkwansin. Ni yuk kunun aryi.”

“My son is just like a swallow. Because

he is not always here, I will not give

goods to you. This is because I am just by

myself.”

C4. People that quarrel are sparrows

This metaphors is used to refer to people who are often angry, and have a habit of

quarreling with other people. The metaphor is probably based on the voice of the

sparrow, which, according to the Una people, very much sounds like an angry person.

“Kirirobsing atonyi” eraming ara er yu

aryi ninyi kererandanyi biti ato

eraming.

“People say, “Sparrow-like” regarding a

person who habitually scolds other

people out of anger.

C5. People who stare at others are buzzard’s eyes and owl’s eyes

A person who stares at other people is called a buzzard’s eye or owl’s eye.

355

‘Bib asing’ eraming ara ersi tuba

dirdongonmaci ura, ato eraming.

Tonda, ‘Solman asing’ ababyi eraming.

People say, ‘Buzzard’s eye’ to people

who stare at them. And also, they say,

‘Owl’s eye’.

These words are sometimes directly said to the person who stares in order that he will

quit staring. This is considered a rude way of addressing that person (keren uram;

‘quarrelling talk’). A more polite – but nevertheless still straightforward – way of

addressing that person is by telling him: asing dirdongonina mem (‘don’t stare at me’).

This kind of address is called wenena uram (‘rebuking talk’). An indirect address would

be: unato ati dirdongonmanirim do? (‘why do you keep staring at me?’). This kind of

indirect rebuke is called erengdona uram.891

C6. Men that are fully dressed up for dancing are shining Rainbow Lorikeets

Handsome men that are fully dressed up for dancing are called shining Rainbow

Lorikeets. This metaphor is used as a compliment.

Ninyi kamnyi biryi kwirya doboka teleb-

to kubmaci ura, ‘Weten ul’ eraming.

When a man or a young man has put on

his dancing ornaments and looks very

good, people say, ‘Shining Rainbow

Lorikeet’.

C7. Women that can dance well trample like Wesel birds

Women that can dance well are compared to Wesel birds. The simile is also intended as a

compliment.

‘Wesel dangdandi to kunmar,’ eraming

ara mot telebto semaci ner ati ato

eraming.

“People say, ‘She tramples like a Wesel

bird,’ regarding a woman that can dance

well.

Note: men that can dance very well and for a long time are compared to an indigenous

spinning toy, (burburumna du; onomatopoeia) made from a fruit with a sharp point at the

bottom.

Mot tinglona kum uca, iya sunung-

marinyi biti, ‘Anyi bira burburumna du

ato’ eraming.

“Regarding a person who does not quit

dancing, but who dances forever, people

say, ‘That person is like a spinning

fruit’.”

891 It is interesting to note that Una people sometimes get upset when people are staring at them (related to

fear for black magic?), but I have never heard of observed that Una people got upset with people because

they were eavesdropping.

356

Note: people who never want to dance are called keil ato nang (‘people like rocks’),

perhaps because they are not responsive to the invitations form others to join the dancing

(cf. 11.3.2.2. B2.). The ‘people are like rocks’ metaphor is used for a wide variety of

situations where people are unresponsive to the demands of invitations of others.892

C8. A balding men’s head is a deserted dancing place of birds

The head of a balding man is compared to a deserted dancing place of birds.

‘Co aryi keta semlonmar’ eraming ara

dilou ukuryok kwabkalibmarinyi biti ato

eraming.

“People say, ‘The Co bird is no longer

dancing at its dancing place’ regarding a

person who is beginning to become

bald.”

The Co bird is sometimes substituted by the Binim bird or the Toko bird. The meaning of

the metaphoric saying stays the same, however.

C9. Wide-mouthed people have owl-mouths

People with a big wide mouth (physical property) have an owl-mouth (maka Kauwok

bam). The Kauwok is an owl species that seems to have a wide mouth.

D. PEOPLE ARE SNAKES / LIZARDS

D1. Liars are snake tongues/fangs

People who are liars are often called ‘snake tongue/fangs’.

Tola en nang ati, ‘Kwatima silalum’

enub.

“Regarding people that are habitually

telling lies, we say, ‘Snake tongue’.”

Note: It is unclear, whether this metaphor – which is based on metonymic mapping:

tongue speech – is an original Una metaphor, or whether it is an introduced metaphor,

originating from the story in Genesis 3, where the serpent/snake is portrayed as a liar and

adversary of God and mankind.

D2. Dead people shed their skins

In one specific Una folktale, dead people are said to shed their skins:

Nun naiabwe ara nunung aryi ato

eramnyi: ‘Dibmaci ani, kala ulub-

kaboka minob kurana atoa tiryibirur.’

“Our fathers said like this in a folktale:

‘After someone dies, he sheds his skin,

and comes out just like he was before’.”

892 A literal translation of Old Testament expressions like ‘God is our rock’ would certainly spark the

wrong implicatures in the minds of the Una people.

357

D3. Shy people are Iryon lizards

‘Ba bok ai Iryon’ eraming ara dabura

kuramingnyi nang aryi ninyi asing

eibmangiryok, kum eibmana ato kuboka

inirdoraming nang ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Iryon lizard [hidden

among] the leaves of the Ba tree,’

regarding people in the southern lowlands

who, even though they see people, do like

they have not seen them, and hide

themselves.”

Note: a metaphor which implies very similar meaning is sanib atonyi, ‘person like a

cassowary’.

E. PEOPLE ARE FROGS

E1. People that usually laugh loudly are Karkata frogs

People that usually laugh loudly are called Karkata frogs.

Ninyi akwe turaming ara ‘Karkata,’

enung. Mo cebkuci ura, karkata aryi,

‘Karkar’ erandi ati ato enung.

“People say ‘Karkata frog’ regarding

people who usually laugh loudly. They

say this, because, when it is going to rain,

the Karkata frog usually says, ‘Karkar’.”

E2. Babies with thick-set bodies are Neikna frogs

Babies with thick-set bodies are called Neikna frogs. This kind of frog is very big and

thick-set.

‘Neikna,’ eraming ara mi alok asi nong

bubum mi ara ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Neikna frog,’ regarding

babies that have a thick-set body.”

F. PEOPLE ARE INSECTS

F1. A crowd of people are like flies

The expression ‘people are like flies’ is often used as a hyperbole to express that there are

a huge number of people.

Jayapura atei aryi ninyi ilinto kurur.

Akatei nang ara bum ato nukmanto kum

kunung.

“In the village of Jayapura, there are

many people. The people of this village

are like the flies, they cannot be

counted.”

358

Similar expressions with the same meaning: ‘people are like ants’ (ninyi ara tulik ato),

‘people are like the sand’ (ninyi ara me wininga ato) and ‘people are like the stars’ (ninyi

ara kurya ato kurur).

Ninyi ilinto kuramingnyi ura, “Bum

ato” eraming. Tonda, “Tulik ato”

eraming. Tonda, “Me wininga ato”

eraming. Tonda, “Kurya ato” eraming.

“When there are a lot of people, they say,

“They are like the flies.” And also, they

say, “They are like the ants.” And also,

they say, “They are like sand.” And also,

they say, “They are like the stars.”

Note: Kis, a six-year old boy from Langda, who visited Jayapura with his father Saulus,

commented that all the cars on the road where tulik ato, ‘like ants’. Later on, an adult

language informant used the same metaphor. When asked, why cars are compared to ants,

he said that this makes sense, because there are very many cars in Jayapura, and that they

look very small, when you approach the city and look out over it from the mountain side.

Cars also resemble ants in that that they are very organized, and use the same roads,

going in both directions.

F2. Wives are like flies: they follow their husband wherever he goes

Wives are often called flies, because they usually follow their husbands.

Nerabwe ati, ‘Bum aca’ eraming ara

sal akwe miliboka kuraming ati

eraming.

“People say regarding women (= wives),

‘They are nothing else than flies,’

because they usually follow the male (=

their husband).”

Wives may also call themselves flies (implied complaint?)893

:

Ner aryi, ‘Nira bum ato aca,’ eraming

ara sun akenyi kubci tok kununa akwe

kuraming ati ato eraming.

“Wives usually say, ‘I am just like a fly,’

because they only obey what their

husbands are doing.”

F3. Aggressive people are bees

The behavior of aggressive people who suddenly attack other people is compared to

aggressive behavior of bees.

Ordanmangnyi ba, ola nun cukaboka

talerbirimnyi biti, ‘Moum kuna to biriri

eryanmar’ eraming.

When people are fighting, and one person

comes running and suddenly attacks

someone else, people say regarding that

893 The submissive attitude of women that seems to be inherent to this metaphor is somewhat deceptive,

however. Una wives – literally and figuratively – carry a heavy load in taking care of their families. At the

same time, however, most women are also very capable of making their wishes known to their husbands

and to have things things done their way. Self-debasing statements and their implication of loyalty and

obedience are sometimes used to flatter the husband in order to have certain things done their way.

359

person, ‘He attacks like a bee.’

F4. Shy people are spiders that eject from their web

Shy people are spiders that eject from their web:

‘Ni eibningnyei,’ tenen inirdoraming

nang ati, ‘Mungkurukna dak yungna’

enub.

“Regarding people who usually hide

themselves, thinking, ‘May nobody see

me,’ we usually say, ‘Spider that ejects

from its web.’

Note: another metaphor for a shy person is sanib ‘cassowary’ or Iryon lizzard.

F5. Short people are kokom insects

Short people are kokom insects.

Bumang nang ati kokom enub. “As for short people, we usually call

them ‘Kokom insect’.”

F6. People seen from a distance are like kokom insects

People who walk in the far distance, and who can barely be seen with the eye, are

compared to kokom insects.

Wasmuryi atei ato aryi kuboka Langda

atei ato ninyi yibanmang ati asing

eibmabiryok, ‘Ninyi kokom ato

yibanmang’ enub.

“If from the village of Wasmuryi, for

example, we see people walk in the

village of Langda, we usually say, ‘The

people who walk there are like kokom

insects’

G. PEOPLE ARE RODENTS

G1. People who scratch others with their nails are cuscus claws

Many cuscus hunters have experienced that the claws of a cuscus are very sharp. That is

why people who scratch others with their sharp nails are called cuscus:

“Wibyi burut” eraming ara burut

tarakdangyi ba, er kwit biryi erandi.

“Boys say “Cuscus claw” to their friend,

when he opens their skin with his nails

[while they are playing/wrestling].”

A variant of this expression is bib burut, ‘buzzard’s claw’. Like wibyi burut (‘cuscus

claw’) this metaphor functions as a rebuke, while also expressing pain and frustration.

360

G2. People who perform an endless series of acts of mutual revenge are caught in a

cuscus trap

People who are drawn into an endless series of acts of mutual revenge between clans or

villages are caught in a cuscus trap:

‘Sun Bomela nang aryi nunsi eboka

youbsingnyei’ tenen nunci a deyok ati

uram sisikwayeb..

“Let’s settle this case, thinking, “May the

Bomela people not catch us into a cuscus

trap.’”

G3. Outsiders who cause problems are like the spring of a cuscus trap

Outsiders who cause problems in a village are like the spring of a trap: they get easily

away with it, after they have paid the fine. Local people who are involved, however,

continue to bear the consequences.

‘Yokom deina ara a kubkwamab. Kanda

yala aca.’ Ato eraming.

“They usually say, ‘We local people are

the main part of the cuscus trap. You are

the spring.”

G4. People who visit others with their whole family are a Kal mice colony

People who visit others with their whole family are called a Kal mice colony. Kal mice

are famous for having big families.

Mabwe ilintonyi kum mabwe ilinto ner

kum aryi yuk nang ai wengbangnyi ura,

‘Kal bung silib,’ eraming.

“When a man or woman who has a lot of

children enters someone else’s house [for

a visit], people say, ‘Kal mice colony’.”

G5. Women that harvest potatoes that are not yet full-grown are Ayam mice

Women that harvest potatoes that are not yet full-grown are mice:

“Ayam kouna amnyok dung-dung ebdi

kinkwamarim” eraming ara sun nang

bitinyi kwaning ati kererdanmaringnyi

ura, ato eraming.

When couples quarrel about sweet

potatoes, they [husbands] say, ‘You are

going to harvest potatoes like an Ayam

mouse that takes bites from potatoes that

are not yet full-grown’.”

361

H. PEOPLE ARE FISH

H1. Clean people are fish

People who often wash themselves and whose skin is smooth as a result of that are called

‘fish’. This has a rather negative connotation.894

Me tuba kekoka ilab kurandinyi biti,

‘Mekinaia’ eraming.

“With regard to people who always wash

themselves and who are smooth, people

say, ‘[They are] fish’.”

I. OBJECTS ARE BATS

I1. A house with an unfinished roof is a bat’s wing house

A house with an unfinished (aluminium) roof is a bat’s wing house.

Ai aruma dinatam akwe doraming atei

ara ‘Keis telna atei’ eraming. Keis ol

ato kurandi ati ato eraming.

“As for a house of which people build the

roof on one side only, people call it a

‘Bat’s wing house’. Because it is like the

wing of a bat, people call it like that.”

11.3.2.2. PEOPLE / THINGS ARE NATURAL OBJECTS

Una speakers not only compare people to animals (11.3.2.1.), but they also liken people

to inanimate objects like mountains, rocks, trees, plants, etc. The present section gives an

overview of metaphors based on natural objects. These metaphors mainly stem from

source domains related to landscape, flora and weather.

A. THINGS ARE LANDSCAPE FEATURES

A1. A huge pile of things is a mountain

A huge pile of things is a mountain:

‘Mutuk bunin to kubmar,’ eraming ara

bona-bona weikto deibmangnyi ba,

erebmaci ura, ato eraming.

“People say ‘It is sitting like a mountain’,

when they have heaped up a lot of goods,

and when it is a high pile.”

894 In Una culture, people who often wash themselves are suspected of trying to seduce members of the

opposite sex. It is not clear whether this connotation is also sustained by the ‘fish’ metaphor.

362

A2. A gaping wound is a mountain joint

When someone has cut himself deeply, so that the underlying flesh is visible, people say,

‘The mountain is joining’.

Taruk ya aryi kukmaci ba, dinatam

anabmaci ura, ‘Mutuk bunmar’

eraming.

“When someone cuts his hand/arm with a

stone axe, and [the underlying flesh]

shows, people say, ‘The mountain is

joining’.”

The same expression is used, when people refer to a crack in a wall, through which they

can look outside.

A3. Women’s genitals are a mountain cleft

A girl or woman who sits with spread legs, and whose ‘cleft’ shows, is immediately

reprimanded. This euphemistic metaphor is most often used in the context of reinforcing

modest behavior to young girls.

Nerabwe lak kubloboka bukmangnyi ba,

‘Tonok aklobmar’ enung.

“When women sit while leaving it

visible, people say, ‘A mountain cleft

gapes open.’

B. PEOPLE ARE ROCKS

B1. Stingy people are rocks

People who show their goods to their guests, but do not share these with them are ‘hard

rocks’.

Ninyi bun binmaci asi bona ilinto

deibmariryok, ton kum karebci ura,

‘Anyi bira kat keil atonyi’ eraming.

“When some goes to another village in

order to trade, and [his host] has put

down a lot of goods, but he does not give

anything to him, people say, ‘That person

is like a hard rock’.”

B2. People who do not want to dance are rocks

People who are not responsive to the invitations of their peers to join them in dancing are

‘rocks’.

Sun ‘mot semna nun li’ tenen nang ara

keil ato nang kunung.

“The people that think, ‘We do not want

to dance are people like rocks’.

363

B3. People with round heads have Dabim rock heads

Typical pygmies among the Una people are called Dabim head-like people. This is a term

of abuse (keren uram), only used when the speaker is really angry.

‘Dabim kisok atonyi,’ ena ara bumang

nang ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Dabim head-like person’

regarding people that have short bodies

[and round heads].”

C. PEOPLE ARE TREES

C1. Tall people are Mek trees

People who are really tall stand like Mek trees.

‘Mek ato belebwe’ eraming ara ninyi

ilil anyi neanci ati co kikliraming.

“As for people saying, ‘He stands like a

Mek tree’, they usually compare a person

who has grown really tall with a tree.’

C2. Leaders are tree stem people

Leaders are called tree stem people.

Sien nang ara kebdeiboka, ‘Co deyok

nang,’ eramib.

“As for head men, we usually call them

figuratively ‘tree stem people’.”

C3. Followers are branches

Followers are called tree branch people.

Sien nang asi miliraming nang ara

kebdeiboka, ‘Co te nang,’ eramib.

“As for the followers of head men, we

usually call them figuratively ‘tree branch

people’.”

C4. Central places are tree stem places

Central places that formed the place of origin of a particular initiative (like mission

stations and main offices) are called tree stem places.

‘Co deyok dam’ eraming ara wa yuma

deyok kouraming dikum ati ato

eraming.

“People say usually ‘tree stem place’

regarding places where they first planted

a work.”

364

In the past, the village that started a war was called a mar ordana deyok atei (‘arrow

fighting stem place’). And the person who started a war was called a mar deyoknyi

(‘arrow/war stem person’).

C5. Felled people stretch like the trunk of a Cang tree

People that are hit by an arrow and who fall flat on their back are said to stretch like the

trunk of the Cang tree.

Ninyi aryi bisik ebingnyi ba, maraming

ati, ‘Cang mut titiknin to kurur,’

eraming. Tukwe tam marbana ati ato

eraming.

“When people shoot arrows, and [the

person that is hit] falls [flat on his back],

people say, ‘He is stretched out like the

trunk of a Cang tree.”

Note: Cang tree means literally: ‘Tall’ tree.

C6. Young women that are ready for marriage are ripe banana fruits

Young women that are ready for marriage are ripe banana fruits. Having sexual

intercourse with a girl that is engaged with someone else is like picking yellow/ripe

banana fruits when it has become dark.

Yuk nang aryi kam ner yobmaci ba, sun

wa in nang (?) aryi, ‘Kanda a ner

dobkwandim do?’ ebingnyi uca, anyi

biryi ato erandi, ‘Kiting deibmar ba,

kwalyi eng dakdi yiraming to, ni kum

dobkwan.’

“When someone else has had sexual

intercourse with a young girl, the elders

(lit. ‘garden workers’) will ask him [i.e.,

the man to whom the girl is engaged],

‘Will you marry this woman?’ Then that

man will say like this, ‘This is like people

picking a ripe banana, when the sun has

set. I will not marry her’.”

Note: sunyi eng (‘yellow/ripe cucumber’) is sometimes used instead of kwalyi eng

(yellow/ripe banana’).

C7. Close allies are banana stem banana flower

People from different villages who are trading partners and/or allies are called ‘banana

stem banana flower’. The ground of the metaphor is that they are closely linked and are

not easily separated.

‘Unaci babwe’ eraming ara sun bun

dam ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘banana stem banana

flower’ regarding people who sit together

[= trading partners and/or allies].”

Another metaphor that implies similar meaning is deyok mousi ato, ‘like the lower stem

and the upper stem of a tree.’

365

C8. A sharp nose is straight like a branch of a Dil tree

A sharp straight nose is straight like a branch of a Dil tree.

Anyi u ara Dil toukwe bibingnin to

kubwe.

“The nose of that man is straight like a

branch of a Dil tree.”

D. PEOPLE ARE PLANTS

D1. New settlers plant themselves in a new village

New settlers plant themselves in a new village.

Yuk atei nang aryi ton atei iya

binkuranci ura, ‘A koubokwe’ enub.

“As for people from one village who

have planned to stay forever in another

village, we say, ‘He has planted himself

here’.”

Note: a metaphor that is quite the opposite is ‘rain puddle’ (see 2.3.2.5.A).

D2. People who sleep early are Dolkua plants

Minola wi dungnandi nang ati

‘Dolkua,’ enub.

“We say, ‘Dolkua plant,’ regarding

people who usually sleep early.

Note: the flowers of Dolkua plants (kind of grass) close at least one hour before it gets

dark.

D3. Warriors that are covered with blood have been urinated on by Daling flowers

Ninyi obmaci ba, er bol nirya ining

akwe kubmaci ura, ‘Daling keta

lablobmar’ eramnyi.

“With regard to a person who has killed

people, and whose skin is very much

covered with blood, people used to say,

‘The Daling flower has urinated on him.’

E. PEOPLE ARE NATURAL WATER CONTAINERS

E1. People who stay for a short time are rain puddles

People who stay for a short time only may call themselves a ‘rain puddle’.

‘Tiya mekwan aca’ eraming ara tiya

wekmangnyi ani, tubto sun atei yuk-yuk

“People say, ‘We are nothing else than

short-lived rain puddles,’ when they have

366

bindobkwamangnyi ati ato eraming. come for a short time only, and are about

to leave for their own villages.”

Note: Another metaphor that implies the same notion of a short presence is am bok mo

dun (‘dew on the leaves of a taro plant’). A metaphor that is quite the opposite and which

implies the notion of staying somewhere forever is ‘plant’ (see 2.3.2.4.A).

E2. Women that are not romantically and/or sexually responsive are ice-cold pools

Women that are not romantically and/or sexually responsive are ice-cold pools. This

metaphor can be used to justify touchy behaviour – expressing affection without sexual

intentions – between adult men and women that belong to the same clan.

‘Yinimwe mekwan’ eraming ara

nerabwe bol ibingnyi ba, tererem erandi

ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Ice-cold pool,’ when they

touch the skin of women, and are cold

[i.e. no sexual attraction].

The same metaphor can also be used as a rebuke, when it refers to wives that are not

responsive to the advances of their husband. (Cf. the English metaphor: ‘Sally is a block

of ice’?).

E3. Promiscuous women are bathing pools for birds

See 11.3.2.1. C2 above.

E4. Tearful eyes are sponges

A person who has just heard that a close relative has died, may say ‘I will squeeze the

sponge’, indicating that he is very distressed and will cry a lot.

‘Nokom urubkwabman’ ena ara er

kanya mambul weik aryi, ‘Engena weik

ebkwan’ tenen enub.

“As for saying, ‘I will squeeze the

sponge,’ a person says this when his

inside is very distressed (lit. heavy) and

when he thinks, ‘I will cry a lot’.

Note: the word that is used for sponge refers to moss, which forms a natural sponge.

F. THINGS / PEOPLE ARE METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA

F1. A person who brings a message that evokes mixed feelings is a cold sun

‘Yinimwe kiting atonyi’ eraming ara ton

uram teleb ebmaci ani, ton malyi uram

erandanyi biti ato eraming.

“People say, ‘He is like a cold,’ regarding

a person who, after having said good

talk/news, also says bad talk/news.”

367

F2. A rumor is a wind talk

‘Kumwe uram’ eraming ara ‘Diboka

anyi biryi ebmar’ tenen kum uram ati

ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Wind talk,’ regarding talk

about which they do not think, ‘That

person said it truly’.”

Note: this Una metaphor is very similar to the Indonesian metaphor kabar angin ‘wind

news’. It is difficult to determine whether the Una metaphor is an original metaphor or

whether it is a ‘loan’ from Indonesian.

F3. Restless people are like the wind

‘Kumwe ato dona mem’ ena ara ninyi

uram kekena kum uca, lulungmangnyi

ura, ato enub.

“We usually say, ‘Do not move like the

wind,’ when people are restless, before

they listen to a speaker.”

F4. People who talk loud are like the thunder

‘Liman uram kuna ato demdandi’

eraming ara uram ilinto enmanyi ura,

ato eraming.

“People say, ‘He sounds like the

thunder,’ regarding a person who speaks

very loudly.”

11.3.2.3. PEOPLE ARE CULTURAL OBJECTS

In the previous section (11.3.2.2.) an overview was given of metaphor based on the

notion of ‘people are natural objects’. The present section presents Una data that are

based on the notion of ‘people are cultural objects’. There are three major categories:

people are tools or containers (A), people are clothes or ornaments (B), and people are

built structures (C)

A. PEOPLE ARE TOOLS / CONTAINERS

A1. Servants of God are stone axes

Pastors are seen as stone axes of God. They are tools in God’s hands that serve to

accomplish his goals.

Pendeta gembala nang ara er Imtamnyi

ya kunung.

“Pastors are stone axes of the heavenly

One.”

Pastors, elders and deacons are also seen as er Allah wa in nang, ‘God’s [garden]

workers’. The stone axe metaphor seems to fit in with this latter metaphor. Church

leaders are helpers of God, who clear the gardens for God. The objective is that people

368

bear spiritual fruits (‘Du moubting,’ tenen wa inung, “They work [in God’s garden],

thinking, ‘May people bear fruit’.”), such as faith and obedience to God’s words.

A2. Women are stringbags

A marriage negotiator who asks the parents or guardians of a girl whether the young man

he represents can marry her, will start the negotiations as follows: Aling kolo ati yanman,

‘I have come for a big stringbag’.

‘Aling kolo ati yanman’ eraming ara

ner ati moloraming.

“When people say, ‘I have come for a big

stringbag,’ they usually come to ask for a

girl to be married [to one of their

clansmen].

Different kinds of stringbags are made in different areas. Ileica stringbags are made in

Langda, and can figuratively refer to Langda women. Uwa stringbags, on the other hand,

are made in the village of Kerabuk and in the valleys of Moruman and Sumtamon. These

stringbags can figuratively refer to women from these eastern areas. And Walar

stringbags are produced in the Bomela area, and can figuratively refer to marriageable

women from the western area.

‘Aling Ileica karebkwankin,’ eraming

ara kitingbantam ner karebkwamingnyi

ati eraming. ‘Aling Uwa karebkwankin,’

eraming ara yaletam ner karebkwa-

mingnyi ati eraming. Ba, ‘Aling Walar a

karebkwankin,’ eraming ara Bomela

ner karebkwamingnyi ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘I will give you an Ileica

stringbag,’ when they are going to give a

woman from the west. They say, “I will

give you an Uwa stringbag,’ when they

are going to give a woman from the east.

But, when they say, ‘I will give you a

Walar stringbag,’ they will give a woman

from Bomela.”

A man whose wife has become old already, may say, ‘My stringbag is already torn.’

‘Aling sirya kwilikwe,’ eraming ara sun

ner sirya wisi dananci ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘My stringbag is already

torn,’ when their wife has already

become old.”

A man who wants to marry a second wife, will say, “I will carry two stringbags.” This

expression is a euphemism, which perhaps focuses on the economic advantage of having

a second wife. Two wives can haul more sweet potatoes in their stringbags than one wife

could.

‘Nira aling bitinyi bobkwan,’ eraming

ara, ‘Ner bintinibkwan,’ tenen eraming.

“People say, ‘I will carry two stringbags,’

when they think, ‘I will marry a second

wife’.”

369

A3. A person’s stomach is a stringbag

A person who has eaten enough, will say, ‘I have already filled my stringbag.’

‘Ni aling kikib sirya kibman,’ eraming

ara, ‘Yina sirya boubmanir,’ tenen ato

eraming.

“People say, ‘I have already filled my

stringbag until the measure,’ when they

think, ‘I have already eaten enough’.”

A similar metaphor is: a person’s stomach is a big cooking pot.

‘Belanga aca dongonkwabman’ ena ara

‘Yina ilinto yibkwabman’ tenen ato

eraming.

“As for saying, ‘I am going to fill the big

cooking pot,’ people say this when they

think, ‘I am going to eat a lot of food’.”

Compare also the ‘people are pigs’ metaphor for gluttonous people (2.3.1.1.A.).

A4. A wife is a pair of tongs (for picking up heated stones)

Men sometimes call their wives ‘a pair of tongs’ (for picking up sweet potatoes from the

fire895

) to indicate their major role in cooking and food preparation. The term is

sometimes translated in Indonesian as alat dapur, ‘kitchen utensil.’

Sal ara sun ner ati, ‘Souna,’ enung. “Husbands call their wives, ‘A pair of

thongs’.”

A person who has illicit sex with a married woman who gives food to him is said to have

broken this ‘pair of tongs’.

‘Kwaning weten souna delekman,’

eraming ara kwaning kareranci ner

yobmaci ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘I have broken the pair of

tongs for putting sweet potatoes in the

fire,’ when they have had illicit sex with

the woman who gives food to them.”

A5. A person’s living is a digging stick

In Una culture, sticks have two major functions: 1. digging stick (wa kama, ‘garden

stick’); and 2. walking stick (dumun kama, ‘leaning stick’). The digging stick is used for

harvesting sweet potatoes. By metonymic extension, it refers to a person’s living

(constant source of food).

‘Anyi dibmar ati er ner wa kama

bulakmar,’ eraming.

“People say, ‘Because that man has died,

the garden stick of that woman has

broken’.”

895 Pairs of tongs are also used for picking up heated stones in order to put them into the earth oven.

370

A6. The work of an evangelist is a digging stick

‘Er Allah uram lak eterenanyi bisi

dabura mutuk bokdonokwayeb,’ tenen,

‘Wa kama karebkwayeb,’ enung.

“When people think, ‘Let’s send a

teacher of God’s word to the area in the

south,’ they say, ‘Let’s give him the

garden stick.”

A7. A person who leads the way is a walking stick

‘Ni kama kibmanirim,’ eraming ara er

kikwe menekmaci deyok aryi, ‘Kan ton

menekdum,’ eraming.

“People say, ‘You must be my [walking]

stick,’ when they [intend to] say, ‘You

must now lead the way,’ because they

have already led the way all the time.”

A8. Umbrella (‘Head cover against the rain’)

Pastors and elders are sometimes called umbrella (‘head cover against the rain’; this is

usually a banana leaf), because they are believed to protect the villagers from false

teachings and from Satan’s ploys.

‘Isa aryi nunsi dubsicei,’ tenen, Pendeta

gembala nang ara atei tuba-tuba kuna

teleb,’ enub. Pendeta gembala nang ara

mo kaluna ato eraming.

“We say, ‘May pastors always be in the

village,’ thinking, ‘May the evil spirit not

bother us.’ Pastors are like head covers

against the rain.”

A9. A married man is tied to a rope

‘Tabwe debnou,’ ena ara sal tentok,

‘Yuk atei bitinyi,’ teneanci bok, ner

dobci ura, ato enung.

“As for saying, ‘She tied me with a rope,’

men say this, when they think, ‘I would

like to go to another village,’ but they

have already married a woman.

When a couple has a divorce, they free themselves off the rope:

‘Tabwe lobkaboka bana,’ ena ara ner

ab sal ab tangdaraming ati ato enung.

“As for saying, ‘They free themselves off

the rope,’ people say this regarding a

wife and husband who have a divorce.’

371

B. PEOPLE ARE CLOTHES / ORNAMENTS

B1. A young man is a penis gourd

Strictly speaking, the following expression is not a metaphor, but a synecdoche.

‘Balabwe sangkol dakeibkin,’ eraming

ara ‘Ni mi karebkin,’ tenen ato

eraming.

“People say, ‘I will break off a penis

gourd for you,’ thinking, ‘I will give you

my son [to take care of]’.”

B2. A man who always sleeps in a family hut is an old and worn grass-skirt

An adult man who always sleeps in a family hut (diba ai, where his wife and daughters

sleep) and who never sleeps in the men’s hut, is called an old and worn grass-skirt. The

metaphor is a derogatory term for men who do not measure up with real men, who sleep

in the men’s house (youa ai).

Diba ai tuba-tuba marandinyi biti, ‘Le

murya,’ eraming. Ara, kerebdandoka

ato eraming.

“People say regarding a person who

always sleeps in the family hut, ‘Old and

worn grass-skirt.’ That is, when people

quarrel with one another, they say like

this.

C. PEOPLE ARE BUILT STRUCTURES

C1. A person’s inside (seat of emotions) is a house

A person who has just lost a close relative may say: ‘The house of my inside just

collapsed.’

Mambul weik aryi, ‘Ni kanya ai

daksakmanir,’ enub.

“When we are very distressed, we say,

‘The house of my inside has collapsed’.”

C2. A leader is the foundation pole of a house

A person who is a leader (takes initiative) is called ‘foundation pole’ of the house.

Ninyi utotoa deyoknyi biti,

‘Abyokomna,’ eraming. Erci minob

deyok kouanci ba, aminda

tabangdamingnyi ura, ‘Erda

abyokomna ato,’ eraming.

“A person who takes the initiative in

everything is called, ‘Foundation pole.’

Because he has planted the stem first, and

then other people add things later, people

say, ‘He is like the foundation pole.’

372

C3. People who connect to other villages are door place people

‘Bublan dam nang,’ eraming ara sun

atei ninyi bun bisik dam nang ati ato

enung. Nunda Aliryi nang ara

Sumtamon bublan dam nang kunub.

“People say, ‘Door place people,’

regarding people who have partnership

connections with another village. We

Aliryi people are the door place people to

Sumtamon.”

C4. Sitting people who allow a newcomer to pass are staircases

People who sit in a house and who allow a newcomer to pass are staircases. The utterance

‘[I am] your staircase’ implies, ‘It is OK for you to pass.’

Ninyi ai wengyangangiryi, ‘Ni

yankwan,’ ebingnyi ura, a bukmangnyi

ninyi aryi, ‘Kan kweitata’ eraming.

“When someone wants to go inside a

house [where many people are sitting

already], he will say, ‘I will come,’ and

then the people [inside] will say, ‘[I am]

your staircase.’

C5. A man’s genitals are a fire-place pole for women

Women sometimes refer to a man’s genitals as their fire-place pole. When a woman

ostentatiously holds on to a fire-place pole, this may have symbolic meaning, indicating

that she wants to have sex.

Nerabwe ara den ati sun atika enung. “Women call a penis their fire-place pole

This kind of talk is classified both as kemdeirin uram (‘winding around talk’) and lakana

uram (‘playful talk’, which may or may not have sexual associations).

C6. A man who is severely scolded by his wife sits on the ashes of the fire place

The following metaphor is, in fact, related to the more general ‘anger is heat’ metaphor,

which is also attested in the idiom ni kanya tin kubnir, ‘my inside is hot’, meaning, ‘I am

angry.’

‘Uk sin bunkwan,’ ena ara er ner aryi

tuba kereramingyi ura, ato eraming.

Ara, ner dengna kum dekanci ura, ‘Ton

karebnurum,’ eboka ersi kereranci ura,

‘Uk sikin ato bunkwan,’ eraming

“As for saying, ‘I will sit on the ashes of

the fire place,’ men say this when their

wives always quarrel with them. That is,

if he has not [completely] paid the bride

price, and she scolds him, saying, ‘Give

me more,’ they say, ‘I am like sitting on

the ashes of the fire place.’

373

C7. Experienced people are fire logs, newcomers are flames

Una people prefer experienced pastors and teachers over newcomers. The newcomers are

very enthusiastic (give a lot of heat), but they burn up really soon. More experienced

pastors and teachers are burning more steadily.

Pendeta gembala nang ara uk sirika

ato. Ba, siswa praktek ara uk buk ato.

“[Experienced] pastors are like fire logs.

But, theological students who do their

internship are flames.”

C8. A woman who talks a lot of nonsense is a dancing flame

‘Uk buk kuna lengkerengkaningnandi

ner,’ eraming ara talyi ninyi nirya

duboka er tenebci tok uram sisingnandi

ner ati ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Dancing flame,’ regarding

a woman who always bothers other

people, and who talks whatever comes to

her mind.”

C9. A very dirty person is a sooty person

Nining weik nang ati ‘ai dingdinga

atonyi basuna deibwe’ eraming

“Regarding a very dirty person, people

say, ‘He is a person like soot in the fire-

place’.”

C10. A sociable and hospitable man is a men’s house

A man who is well-liked and has always people coming to him is a men’s house:

‘Youa,’ eraming ara dinatam-dinatam

nang nirya tentoknyi bisi buramingnyi

ba, ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Men’s house,’ regarding a

man with whom all the people from

everywhere sit together.’

C11. A promiscuous woman is a men’s house

A promiscuous woman is a men’s house896

:

Tonda, ‘Youa,’ eraming ara ner tentok

dinatam-dinatam nang nirya ersi

yoramingnyi ura, ato eraming.

“People say, ‘Men’s house,’ regarding a

woman with whom all the people from

everywhere have illicit sex.’

896 It is interesting to note that the same image (‘men’s house’) has positive associations when it is

predicated of a man (See C10), but negative associations when it is predicated of a woman, like here in C11.

Negative associations are also related to other cross-gender mappings, like the one where the image of

‘grass skirt’ is predicated of men who only sleep in their family house and not in the men’s house. (See

11.3.2.3. B2 above.)

374

C12. Taking protective measures is building a fence

‘Lika dobnin to,’ ena ara, ‘U yibcei,’

tenen suntik lungdaming. Tonda, ‘Ninyi

aryi obsingnyei,’ tenen kiknibminingna

ababyi, ‘Lika dobnin to,’ eramnyi.

“People say, ‘It is like continually

building a fence,’ when they give shots,

thinking, ‘May we not get sick.’ Also,

people used to say, ‘It is like continually

building a fence,’ when they prepared

themselves, thinking, ‘May people not

kill us [in war]’.”

C13. Doing something wrong is going over a fence

‘Lika dakbisibmar,’ ena ara yuk atei

aryi mutuk wiliboka yuk kuramingnyi

nang nerabwe asi yobmangnyi ura, ato

enung.

“People say, ‘He has gone over the

fence,’ when a man has had illicit sex

with a woman from another area who live

by themselves [and have no marriage

relationships with the village or clan of

that man].”

C14. Peace-makers are bridge builders

Ninyi kum bingdaramingnyi ani,

antanibdeibci ba, bikdandoka, ‘Me bun

tubdeibsir,’ eraming.

“People say, ‘He has built a bridge for

us,’ regarding a person who has made

peace for them. They say so, when they

get to know this, after they have not

known it.’

C15. Getting people hooked is building a bridge

‘Me bun tubdeibsi,’ eraming ara utotoa

minob kareamingnyi ura, ‘Aminda

karebkwaning,’ tenen ato eraming.

Kiklin dinyi ara ato: ‘Ni aling karebsi

asi erbabyi karebkwanir,’ tenen ato

enung.

“People say, ‘I have built a bridge,’ when

they have first given all sorts of things,

thinking, ‘Later they will give things to

me.’ For example: they say this, when

people think, ‘I have given a string bag,

so that he [= the receiver] will give

something to me too’.”

A young man who gives a gift to a girl in order to attract her attention, will also say me

bun tubdeibsi, ‘I have built a bridge’, while he waits for her response.

Building a bridge is not always a positive thing. People can also build a figurative bridge

by doing something bad to someone else. In that case, they should expect something bad

in return (Cf. Dutch, ‘Wie kaatst moet de bal verwachten.’?).

Tonda, yu uram minob eamingnyi asi

aminda dekwamangnyi ura, ‘Me bun

“And also, when people have first said

angry words, and then later people are

375

tubdeibsi, da lingyandarur,’ eraming. about to pay them back, people say, ‘I

have already built the bridge, go ahead

and cross the bridge to my side’.”

C16. Doing something wrong to another person is demolishing a bridge

Yuk nang ab tonkwa teleb-teleb ebdi

kuramingnyi ani, ukula dobdobingnyi

ura, aminda tonkwa kum kuraming. Ato

dinyi ati, ‘Me bun dakmar,’ enung.

“When someone has had a good

relationship with a person, but then steals

something from him, they will not be

together with one another in the future.

Regarding things like this, people say,

‘He has demolished the bridge.’

11.3.2.4. Other metaphors

A. Objects, places and events are ghosts

Isa atei ‘ghost village’ = village abandoned by people

Isa mar ‘ghost war’ = war that never ends

Bura nang kisok ‘head of forest spirit’ = someone with a hydrocephalus

B. Event-based metaphors

te murumna ‘joining hands’ = making peace between warring villages

C. Attribute-based metaphors

caknam ‘light (of weight) = easy

ikin ‘heavy (of weight) = difficult

D. Meta-linguistic metaphors

deyok kouna ‘stem plant’ = theme

bublan kungna ‘door opening’ = opening words

bublan tiringna ‘door closing’ = closing words

11.3.2.5. Introduced (loan) metaphors

In addition to traditional metaphors, the Una language also contains metaphors that stem

from the Indonesian language and/or from the Bible. A metaphorical expression like mum

yung tuba yinub (“we still drink milk”) seems to be a loan metaphor that has been

376

borrowed from Indonesian (kami masih minum susu; implying that the speakers consider

themselves immature, like babies who still drink milk).897

However, the majority of loan metaphors seem to come from the Bible (Christianity).

The imagery of light and darkness (berengna / kunuk) is often used by converts to

describe the contrast between their sinful life before they heard the Gospel and between

the new life they experience as a result of their belief in the Gospel. The imagery of light

and darkness is also used to contrast the ignorance of the past (when people did not know

about God, Jesus and salvation) and the knowledge of the present. Blindness and seeing

is a related pair of metaphors, which refers to the same contrast. These pairs of metaphors

are not only related to the knowledge of religious truth, but also to education (including

informal literacy classes in the Una language). In the past the Una people were not able to

read and write, but now they are. The name of the literacy building in Langda is

Berekalibsir, which means “Light begins to dawn on us.” And the literacy school

building in Aliryi bears the name Asing Ereksir ‘Our Eyes have been opened’.

“Bearing fruit” (du mouna) is another biblical metaphor that is often used by Una

Christians. It is most often used in the sense of having faith and obeying God’s

commandments. Sincere Christians are referred to as du moun nang (“fruit bearing

people”). Adam’s original sin – which is often mentioned in sermons – is often expressed

in terms of Adam destroying the bridge between God and mankind (me bun

dakminikmasir). Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is portrayed as the one who has rebuilt

the bridge (me bun tubto tubdeibmasir). The separation between God and mankind as a

result of sin is also portrayed as a ravine (kot). Mediation between God and man is also

expressed in terms of peace making (antanirdeirisina), like the Una people sometimes

did among themselves in times of war.

Temptation (by other people or by Satan) is usually described in terms of ‘making

someone fall’ (sakeibmar).

The word of God is often referred to as a kama (‘walking stick’) which guides people and

as a yin (‘bow [and arrow]’) which helps them to defend themselves against sin and

attacks from the evil one.

11.3.2.6. Comparison with English metaphors

A full comparison of Una metaphors with English metaphors falls outside the scope of

this chapter, but a few observations are in order.

First of all, there are several metaphors in English that have not been found in Una.

English metaphors like TIME IS MONEY, IDEAS ARE FOOD, ARGUMENT IS WAR,

THE MIND IS A MACHINE etc. were, for example, not found in Una. The reason why

897 The meaning of this metaphor was not readily understood by older Una informants who do not know

Indonesian. Educated informants who are familiar with Indonesian, on the other hand, had no difficulty

whatsoever to explain the meaning of this metaphor, and to give examples of situations in which this

metaphor is used.

377

some of these metaphors are not found in Una is obvious: they are culture-bound and are

based on a Western worldview and values which are very different from Una. Una people

do not see time as an asset, nor do they refer to their mind as a machine. Una metaphors

are primarily used to refer to people, rather than to ideas and arguments. From an Una

perspective, the food metaphor is primarily used for people, not for ideas and thoughts:

PEOPLE ARE FOOD (for malevolent spirits, sickness and disasters). However, we have

seen that this kind of imagery is often interpreted by Una speakers in a real, non-

metaphorical sense.

Other Una metaphors, however, show at least some congruence with English metaphors.

LIFE IS A JOURNEY, UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING, LINGUISTIC EXPRESS-

IONS ARE CONTAINERS, HIGH STATUS IS UP, LOW STATUS IS DOWN are some

metaphors that are found both in English and in Una. The LIFE IS A JOURNEY

metaphor is, for example, expressed in Una expressions for past time (minob kubdi

yangaramoubwe talak, “the period that we came to live”) and future time (aminda kubdi

binkwayeb talak, “the period that we will go to live”). The Una metaphors about light and

darkness and blindness and seeing (mentioned in the previous section) are connected to

the UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING metaphor. The LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS

ARE CONTAINERS metaphor is found in expressions like a uram umbura (“inside this

word/talk”) and kitibdob uram (“wrapped speech,” i.e. speech of which the meaning is

not clearly expressed). The HIGH STATUS IS UP metaphor is implied in Una

expressions like tingdeirina (literally: “make someone stand up”) for appointing

somebody as a headman or an elder and si weik erena (literally: “lift up somebody’s

name”) for praising a person. The LOW STATUS IS DOWN metaphor is implied in

expressions like yan yanina (literally: “trample under one’s feet”) for disobeying certain

rules. Another metaphor that is shared between Una and English is the ANGER IS HEAT

metaphor. A hot-headed Una person would say ni kanya tin kubnou (“my inside is

hot”).898

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS metaphors occur both in English and in Una. Metaphors like

HUMANS ARE PIGS and HUMANS ARE CHICKENS have negative connotations both

in English and in Una (despite the high value that Una people place on pigs as economic

assets). The meaning(s) of the HUMANS ARE PIGS metaphor in Una (dirty, greedy,

disobedient) has some overlap with the meaning(s) of the same metaphor in English. The

HUMANS ARE CHICKENS metaphor in Una (promiscuous) has also partial overlap

with the corresponding English metaphor in terms of sexual connotations (cf. vulgar

terms like “cock” and “chick”). However, in English, the CHICKEN metaphor is also

used for people who lack courage (cowards). This meaning is absent from the Una

metaphor.

898

Una people sometimes use the expression tulum kubmanir (“I became angry”). The word tulum can

mean both “angry” and “smoke”. When I checked this expression out with five or six Una informants (during separate occasions), they did not connect this expression to the ANGER IS HEAT metaphor (“I

became smoky/angry”). Also, when I explicitly asked if the word tulum used in this expression was related

to the tulum that comes from fire, all the informants denied that there was a connection. Based on this, it is

probably safe to conclude that at least in the Central dialect of Una these terms are just homonyms and not

related in meaning.

378

The cross-linguistic comparison of metaphor is, of course, very important for translators.

Cultural interference easily occurs when it comes to translating metaphors. Sometimes

the differences in meaning are very clear.899

But, at other times it may be very easy to fall

into the trap of taking for granted that if languages share similar metaphors these

metaphors must have similar meanings (false cognates).

11.4. Conclusion

In this chapter I have given an overview of Una metaphors and similes, as they are used

among speakers of the Central Dialect (Eiduman) in the village of Langda. Various forms

of figurative language were discussed. In addition an overview was given of lexicalized

(including partonymic) metaphors and conventional metaphors. I found that partonymic

metaphors are based on the underlying metaphors of “Objects are People (with Body

Parts)” and “Objects are Trees/Plants”. With regard to the conventional metaphors, the

following types of metaphors were discussed: “Humans are Animals,” “Humans are

Natural Objects,” and “Humans are Cultural Objects”.

The vast majority of the Una metaphors and similes described in this chapter were based

on physical correspondence900

or functional correspondence901

. Clear cases of imagery

based on arbitrary association were not found in the data. Metaphor and similes often

served the pragmatic function of rebuke or praise. But metaphors are also used as a way

to express an intensification of meaning or to express meaning in a concrete and

condensed form. They are also used to express something in an indirect way.902

In the final part of this chapter some attention was paid to loan metaphors from the Bible,

which are also used by Una people. A brief comparison with English metaphors

concluded this chapter. It was interesting to note that even cultures as diverse as Western

(English, American) culture and the Una culture showed at least some overlap in the

imagery that is used and in the meanings that are associated with it. In addition to cultural

diversity, there was also a certain degree of commonality.

899 Some of the most obvious incongruities in meaning between Una metaphors and Biblical metaphors are

those related to dogs, rocks and trees. When translating 1 Samuel 17:43 (“Am I a dog that you come at me

with sticks?”) into Una, a literal reproduction of the dog metaphor may not be the best rendering, since in

Una the HUMANS ARE DOGS metaphor is primarily linked with being a thief and/or being promiscuous.

And when translating Psalm 92:15 (“God is my rock”), it is good to be aware of the fact that a rock

metaphor in Una usually communicates disobedience or lack of responsiveness. And when translating John

15:5 (“I am the vine; you are the branches”), it is good to be aware of the fact that in Una the metaphors

related to trees and branches are about leaders and followers and not so much about intimate fellowship. 900 For example “Tall people are like Mek trees”. 901 For example “Promiscuous women are bathing pools for birds”. The functional similarity is found in the

attraction that is exerted. Like bathing pools attract birds, promiscuous women attract male suitors. 902 For example, when someone says “I have broken the pair of tongs for putting sweet potatoes in the fire”

he confesses that he has had illicit sex with the wife of the man to whose household he belongs.

379

12. Una Bible Translation: History, Strategy, Skopos, Process

and Product

12.1. Introduction

In the previous two chapters I have discussed the cultural and linguistic context of Una

imagery (chapter 10) and given an overview of various forms of Una imagery (chapter

11). In this chapter I will discuss the history of the Una Bible Translation Project and

mention some important aspects of the Una translation project and translation projects in

general.

Bible translation work is goal-oriented work, and it is usually embedded in a translation

strategy that is more or less explicit. But, in addition, translators and audiences also have

certain assumptions, which usually remain implicit. These assumptions affect the

translation strategy and the translation choices as well as the end result of the translation

and the way the translation will be used by the community. In order to describe and

understand translation projects and translation products it is important that the underlying

strategy and the underlying assumptions are uncovered.

The notion of skopos (the socioreligious function(s) of Bible translations) is central to the

discussion of translation strategy, and will receive due attention in my description of the

Una Bible translation project.903

Since the intended function of a translation usually

influences the more specific translation choices at the textual level, the notion of intended

skopos needs to play an important role in the description, explanation and evaluation of

translation projects.904

Bible translations are produced in a more or less canonized process of exegesis,

translation, and translation checking.905

This process helps translators to produce

903

See chapter 8 (the sections 8.2.1.4. and 8.2.2.4. in particular) for a rather detailed discussion of the

notion of skopos. 904 De Vries (2003:176) distinguishes between the intended skopos – which refers to the function of the translation as it is envisaged by the commissioners of the translation – and the expected skopos – which

refers to the function of the translation as it is expected by the community of users and buyers of the

translation. If there is insufficient overlap between the intended skopos and the expected skopos, there is a

high likelihood that the audience will not accept (use) the translation. It should be noted that the notion of

skopos also includes the choice of the intended audience (viewing language groups as homogeneous

audiences is a serious over-simplification) and choices related to the rendering of source text genres into

the genres of the receptor language. Another methodological point that I would like to make is the fact that

neither the intended skopos nor the expected skopos do necessarily fully overlap with the actual function

that a translation fulfills at a given time for a particular audience. The actual function of a translation may

also change over time. 905

This applies to translations published by national Bible societies that are related to the United Bible

Societies and translations produced by SIL and other translation agencies. In this chapter the focus will be on the checking procedures used by SIL. Four aspects of translation checking perhaps distinguish

(traditional) SIL checking from checking done by other agencies: 1. The consultant check is done in a

verse-by-verse manner rather than in a spot-check manner; 2. Translators are required to provide a written

back-translation in preparation for the consultant check; and 3. The consultant check focuses not only on

matters of exegesis, but, in addition, comprehension checking with native speakers, both at the global and

380

translations of good quality, and it helps publishers to guarantee their customers that the

translation products they are buying meet expected standards. Quality assurance and

social acceptance are the two pillars on which the success of a Bible translation rests.

When a translation has been completed, the end product can be compared with the source

text and with other translations. Inevitably, there will be certain shifts in form and

perhaps in meaning as well. In the final section of this chapter different kinds of shifts are

discussed, and a more refined typology of one particular kind of translation shift

(explication) is proposed.

12.2. History of the Una Bible Translation Project

Before I discuss the translation strategy that forms the basis of the Una Bible Translation

Project, a short overview of the history of this project is in order.

Bible translation work into the Una language was first started by John Louwerse, a

pioneering missionary with NRC who started mission work among the Una people in

1973. With the help of a team of Dani and Yali evangelists, Louwerse built an airstrip

and started to share the Gospel message with the Una people. Louwerse and his wife also

started to learn the Una language. They held Bible/literacy classes, attended to the

medical needs of the people, and started doing Bible translation work. Within a few years

a significant group of Una people confessed their sins and their newly found Christian

faith and were baptized.

Louwerse started his linguistic and translation work pretty much in a monolingual

situation. His language helpers were a group of young Una men. Some of them were still

illiterate, while others were new literates. A lot of good work was done between 1973 and

1984. In 1984 Louwerse and his wife left the mission field in Irian Jaya, due to a conflict

with the mission and with some of the leaders of the national church.

During this first decade of missionary contact, the missionizing and pacification of this

formerly war-torn area – inhabited by people who cherished cannibal practices –

constituted a major change in the life of the Una people. Many people burnt their fetishes,

confessed their faith, and were baptized. The foundation of the indigenous GJPI906

(or:

GJPP) church in 1984 was a big milestone. The young church consisted of new converts

in three different (non-contiguous) language areas (Yali, Nipsan and Una), and was led

by indigenous pastors and elders who had graduated from the seminary in Pass Valley

and from local Bible schools.

detailed levels, receives a lot of attention. 4. The native speakers usually respond in the vernacular language; the translator translates the responses back into English or Indonesian for the consultant. 906 GJPI stands for Gereja Jemaat Protestan di Irian Jaya (‘Church of Protestant Congregations in Irian

Jaya’). At present, more and more church leaders and members refer to their church as GJPP, which stands

for Gereja Jemaat Protestan di Papua (‘Church of Protestant Congregations in Papua’). However, the

official name of the church is still GJPI.

381

Between 1973 and 1984 Louwerse and his translation team worked on the translation of

the following books: Genesis, the four Gospels, Acts, Psalm 23, and a Liturgy (including

the Ten Commandments and the Apostolic Creed). Preliminary versions of some of these

books and booklets were printed and distributed and used in literacy classes and Bible

classes.

After Louwerse left the field, the mission had the four Gospels printed, so that they could

be used by the Una people. In 1984 the Una people requested that the mission would send

another translator so that the Una Bible Translation Project could be continued.

In 1988 my wife and I arrived in Irian Jaya with our one and a half year old son Kars. In

1989 we allocated in Langda, and started language and culture learning. In 1991 we

began translation work, together with two Una pastors – the reverends Wilem Balyo and

Titus Bitibalyo – who had been assigned by the church to work part-time on the

translation project.

Between 1991 and 2002 the complete New Testament and parts of the Old Testament

were been drafted into the Una language. In 2002, a collection of fourteen New

Testament books907

was published, dedicated, and distributed among the Una people. We

expect that the Una New Testament will be completed within the next two years or so.

The Una people would like to receive the Old Testament as well.

In addition to translation work, a lot of time was spent on language and culture analysis,

the development of Una literacy materials, the training of Una literacy teachers and

mother tongue translators, community development (including bridge building and

installation of clean water systems) and relief work (drought relief and earthquake relief).

In addition to my task as a translation advisor to the Una translation team, I have also

been involved in more general group service, while helping national and expatriate

translators in other translation projects. This group service includes consultant checking,

consultant training, curriculum development for mother tongue translators and organizing

and teaching workshops for mother tongue translators in Irian Jaya.

The Una literacy project – coached by my wife since 1997 – stands now practically on its

own, with over thirty local literacy teachers involved in teaching literacy classes in the

vernacular language, with four literacy coordinators who oversee the program, and with

over 900 literacy students who attend the literacy classes on a regular basis.

907

This collection of New Testament books in Una contained: Mark, Acts, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2

Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1-3 John and Jude. The Gospel of Mark and the book of Acts were translated from scratch, even though Louwerse and his team had translated those. But those books

contained too many problems to be re-published without major changes. It was decided that, rather than

doing an extensive revision, these books would be re-translated so that the new translation team would gain

experience in translating New Testament materials and avoid pitfalls of doing a revision before sufficient

translation experience had been gained.

382

12.3. Comparison of the pioneering Una translation with the newer Una

translation

The pioneering Una translation done by Louwerse and his team can be characterized as

follows:

Content: Genesis, Four Gospels, Acts

Format: two columns

No final consultant check (UBS/LAI)

Fairly literal translation

Uses Indonesian loan words for ‘God’ (Allah) and ‘Lord’ (Tuhan)

Names of Biblical persons and places have been adapted to the Una sound

system

Combination of idiomatic Una and translationese

It has some spelling problems (it was based on phoneme distinctions rather

than on actual pronunciation)

Long words and long sentences hinder readability

Information packaging is sometimes a problem

The translation of certain key terms is problematic

Significant comprehension problems

The translation was done by an expatriate translator and language helpers

By contrast, the newer Una Bible translation (published in 2002) can be characterized as

follows:

Content: One Gospel (Mark), Acts, twelve Epistles

Format: one column

Consultant-checked (SIL)

Meaning-based translation, but not more explicative than is necessary

It uses Una terms for ‘God’ (‘the heavenly One’) and ‘Lord’ (‘the elevated

One’)

Names of Biblical persons and places are kept consistent with the Indonesian

Bible (Terjemahan Baru), and not adapted to the Una sound system

More idiomatic rendering

Improved spelling (more consistent with Indonesian and with actual

pronunciation in Una)

Shortening of words and sentences supports better readability

Improved rendering of key terms

No significant comprehension problems

Done by mother tongue translators together with expatriate translator/advisor

A detailed comparison and evaluation of both translations falls outside the scope of the

present discussion. The following comparison of the two translations (plus back-

translations into English) gives a good idea about the differences.

383

Pioneering Una Translation New Una Translation

Markus 1:2a-3

“Niji Nerbananyi Kanurasiyn tam asiy bokdonokoka

erci Kanbiysiyik menekbiysiybkwankircok,

kiknibminikwankir”. Ton: “Ninyi kum kunung mutuk

dam aji niynyi tentok: ‘Sun er Ala biysiyk asiy

kiknibminikdarut, Er biysiyk udiykum yabdarut’ eboka donmar” ebmarey.

“I will send before your face the one who usually goes

to speak my words and while he passes by, going

before you, he will prepare you.” And: “In the area

where people usually don’t live one person shouts

saying, “You must prepare the way of God, you must make straight his way.”

Markus 1:2a-3

“Kekebnurum. Nira Imtamnyi biryi ninyi tentok ara ni

uram erbinkwandanyi bisi bokdonokwan. Anyi bira

kanda ninyi Lembinkwandemnyi bisi menekdiryok, bisik

lilibkwankir.” –

“Ni uram erbinkwandanyi bira ninyi kun kum ai aryi kubdiryok, uram dobkwandi. Erci uram weik doboka ato

ebkwandi, ‘Er Iya Mikibnyi yankwansir ati, sunci

sundamnyi kiknibminikdamunci, bisik yabdarur. Er iya

Mikibnyi yankwansir bisik asi udikum yabmun cok, ersi

kibdobdarur.’ Ato eboka er Imtamnyi uram

erbinkwandanyi biryi uram dobkwandi.”

“Listen. I the heavenly One will send a person who will

go in order to tell my words. As for this person, he will

go before you who are the one who will rescue people,

and he will pave the way for you.” – As for the person

who will go in order to tell my words, being in the place where people usually don’t live, he will shout. Shouting,

he will say like this, ‘The Most Powerful One will come

to you, and therefore you must prepare yourselves, and

pave the way. You must make straight the way that the

most powerful One will come, and welcome him.’

Saying like this, the person who will go in order to tell

the words of the heavenly One will shout.”

At first sight, the rendering of the Pioneering Una translation seems to be just fine.

However, comprehension checks with Una speakers revealed that participant reference

was a big problem in this rendering. Una respondents consistently misunderstood the

antecedents of the pronouns in this passage. When asked to identify the participants to

whom the “I” and the “you” referred in this passage, the Una speakers, asked in different

sessions, answered that “I” refers to “the prophet” and that “you” refers to “John”

(instead of referring to “God” and “the promised Savior/Messiah” respectively.).

The Una speakers also thought that the person in the first part of the verse was someone

different from the one who shouts in the second part of the verse, since the use of the

term “one person” in Una discourse usually signals that this person has not been

introduced before. In the Pioneering Una translation it is also not clear that God is

coming, and that the people need to prepare themselves and welcome him.

The newer Una Bible translation makes explicit who the participants are, and thus avoids

the misunderstandings that the literal translation consistently evoked. It also makes

explicit that God is the one who will come, and that people need to welcome him. It

should be noted, that the imagery of preparing the way and straightening the road has

been kept in the translation, and that no attempt has been made to make explicit the

384

implicature of repentance. The element of ‘welcoming’ has been made explicit, however,

since it seems to be central to the idea of preparing the road for the king.908

12.4. The institutional context of the Una translation project

The Una translation project is a cooperative project with various stakeholders:

Una community; GJPI church in the Una language area909

NRC mission, who supports the project with finances and personnel

SIL, who supports the project with personnel, advice and technical help

Publisher

The expatriate translator/advisor and his family910

The first four stakeholders together form the institutional context of the Una Bible

translation project.911

The expatriate translator/advisor functions more or less as the inter-

mediary between the various stakeholders.

The Una community (church) is both receiver and contributor to the project: the

translated Scriptures are intended for this community, and the church has assigned two

pastors to work as Bible translators. The translation work is done under the responsibility

of the GJPI church. The translation team reports to the Committee for Evangelism and

Church Building, which functions at the level of the General Synod.

The NRC mission gives financial support to the GJPP church in numerous church-related

projects, including Bible translation, and receives reports from the GJPI church regarding

the projects they support. There is no direct reporting relationship between expatriate

missionaries and the NRC mission in terms of the work they are doing. The missionaries

report to the church and the church reports to the mission.

SIL allocates translators and consultants to various language areas and assigns them to

other specific tasks. The allocation is usually done based on the translation needs and

other needs (language survey, vernacular literacy, community development) there are in

the area. Allocation is usually based on the invitation by local communities and

agreements with the government. The activities that individual translators/consultants can

be involved in depend on their visas. SIL does not have an agreement with the church or

908 “Erecting an archway of honor/welcome” would be a good cultural equivalent (borrowed from

Indonesian and Dani culture). It would be well understood by the Una people, since this is the way they

normally receive honored guests, like the resident (bupati) or the governor (gubernur) or his representative.

While cultural equivalents like this can be used in sermons and Bible studies to explain the text, I’d rather

not put these in the translation, since it would conflict with historical fidelity. 909

The GJPI church is the only church in the language area. 95 % of the Una people belong to the GJPI

church; a minority is not officially affiliated with the church. 910 We are members of the mission of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, but have been seconded to

SIL Indonesia. 911 Until now, the GJPI church has acted as the publisher of the preliminary Bible portions that were

published. We’d like to see that the Una New Testament will be published by the Indonesian Bible Society,

but so far the GJPI church has not made a formal request.

385

with a mission. But, in our case, it has a memorandum of understanding with

YAKPESMI, the GJPI-based foundation that is responsible for community development,

education, literacy, etc.

In terms of basic theological assumptions the three institutions that are involved share the

common ground that the Bible is the Word of God, and that translation into the

vernacular languages is crucial for evangelism, church building, and spiritual growth. In

terms of missionary approach, there is a difference between the GJPI and NRC on the one

hand, and SIL on the other. The GJPI and NRC are involved in evangelism, church

planting and church building. SIL, on the other hand, is not involved in these activities,

but focuses on language and culture analysis, literacy work, community development,

and Bible translation.

A. SIL’s perspective on the translated Scriptures

The traditional philosophy of SIL can perhaps be best described as “the Bible is a

missionary”.912

Translators focus on translating the Bible (among other educational and

motivational materials), and they give a testimony of their faith in word and deed, but

they are not involved in any church-related or evangelist work. Scripture use is

recognized as an important goal. But, especially in areas where there are work-related

restrictions or where this might be a sensitive issue, Scripture use activities are avoided.

Traditionally, SIL has primarily worked with government agencies and universities, who

were very much interested in working together in the area’s of survey, linguistics and

literacy, but who also allowed them to be involved in translation work (including Bible

translation work) on the side.

The above mentioned limitations make it necessary that the translated Scriptures are to a

large extent self-explanatory. The underlying idea is that local people need to have direct

access to the Word of God without needing someone else to explain the meaning of the

translated Scriptures. The Bible is primarily seen as an evangelistic tool and as a book

that is used for personal Bible study and meditation. The use of the translated Scriptures

in church services and liturgies is recognized, but providing translations that are geared

towards this specific (liturgical) function is usually not the primary focus of the

translation work.

The fact that a lot of translation work is done in remote language areas for audiences with

high illiteracy rates, with little background knowledge of the Bible, and with little access

to the outside world is another important factor. Producing a literal translation for

audiences like these usually poses more problems (misunderstandings) than that it solves.

912

Cf. Cameron Townsend’s expression: "The greatest missionary is the Bible in the mother tongue. It

never needs a furlough, and is never considered a foreigner." It should be noted, though, that focus on Scripture use and cooperation with churches has become more and more important in SIL (as an

international organization) as well. Emphasis on Scripture Use was promoted by Dye’s (1985, [1980])

study as well as Gutt’s (1992) application of relevance theory to the field of Bible translation. The Vision

2025 movement encourages a wide variation of partnerships and strategies with regard to the goal of

translating the Scriptures in minority languages all over the world.

386

Careful checking of the audience’s understanding of early drafts of the translated

Scriptures helps to translate the Scriptures in a way that is meaningful to the audience,

and which does not jeopardize the translation’s faithfulness to the source text.

The emphasis on meaningful translation is also appropriate from the perspective that a

literal translation often fosters a ritual form of communication, which may be valid in

itself, but which can easily interfere with the Bible as a book of informative

communication and as a source of spiritual change and growth.

B. NRC’s perspective on the translated Scriptures

The mission of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations is part of a relatively small

reformed denomination, which has its roots in the sixteenth century Calvinist

Reformation and in the “Second Reformation” of the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. The biblical doctrines of election, covenant, personal regeneration, and

personal appropriation of salvation are key elements in the theology of the church.

Proclamation of the Gospel and mission work, including Bible translation work in the

vernacular language, are seen as important values as well.

The Statenvertaling is the official church Bible. It is also read for personal and family

use, and in schools and church-based fellowship groups and Bible study groups. The

Statenvertaling (1637) is a King James Version-type of translation. It is fairly literal.

Even though the translation has undergone a number of revisions, its language is still

rather archaic, and difficult to understand without explanation. Families with young

children often read a Children’s Bible in addition to the Statenvertaling, and others make

use of contemporary versions or paraphrases of the Bible to bridge the gap of

understanding. Especially the latter kind of function specialization is not at all

encouraged by the church leadership.

There have been attempts to modernize the language of the Statenvertaling, but these

have not really been accepted within the NRC church and some other related churches

from the same theological and spiritual background. The Statenvertaling is seen as the

authoritative version of the Bible. Major revisions of this translation and new translations

of the Bible are seen as a potential threat to an accurate rendering of the Bible.

The basic philosophy is that readers need to be brought to the translation rather than that

the translation be compromised while being brought to the readership: Young people are

able to learn English, German and French in high school, so why cannot they learn the

language of the Statenvertaling? The Statenvertaling forms the historical link between

present-day orthodox reformed churches and highly respected Reformed Christians and

theologians of the past. The use of the Statenvertaling is closely linked with the identity

of the NRC church and other related denominations. Its language also forms an important

source of the so-called ‘Tale Kanaans’ (literally: ‘the language of Canaan’), which is a

religious sociolect that is used by certain Christians and which also occurs in sermons.913

913 Sermons preached by NRC pastors are usually a mix of ‘the language of Canaan’, plain Biblical

language and of contemporary language.

387

The status of the Statenvertaling is so high that it seems to be almost on a par with the

Biblical source texts themselves.914

The position of the Statenvertaling is strongly

promoted by the ‘Gereformeerde Bijbelstichting’ (‘Reformed Bible Society’). The

membership of the society consists of members from the NRC church and from related

denominations. Recently, the Society announced that they are looking into the

possibilities of developing background materials that would help bridge the gap between

the language of the Statenvertaling and the language of the younger generation.915

C. The GJPI’s perspective on the translated Scriptures

The GJPI uses the Terjemahan Baru (TB) as the official church Bible. This translation

has been the most conservative translation that is readily available in Indonesia at a price

that is affordable. However, the majority of the church members are still monolingual and

don’t understand Indonesian. So, in addition to the Indonesian Bible, vernacular Bible

translations have been translated (Yali language), or are being translated (Una language,

Nipsan-Mek language).

But even the 10-15 % of the church members who understand Indonesian have difficulty

understanding the Terjemahan Baru, as its register is rather high for people from eastern

Indonesia, who mostly converse in a simpler variety of Indonesian Malay.

Pastors and elders sometimes use the Kabar Baik (BIS) translation in an attempt to

understand the meaning of the Terjemahan Baru. Vernacular Scripture portions likewise

are often used as a tool for understanding what the Terjemahan Baru says. The

vernacular Scriptures have a higher status than the Indonesian contemporary version, as

they are also used in church services.

Una pastors and elders have repeatedly expressed that they have difficulty understanding

the Indonesian Bible translations, the Terjemahan Baru in particular. Their reading of the

Una Bible translation has often been an eye opener to them as it helped them to

understand the meaning of the Scriptures.

914 This could be concluded from the fact that the Statenvertaling is considered as the only acceptable and

authoritative translation in Dutch and that the need for a new Bible translation is not seriously considered.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the principal difference between the source text and Bible

translations, including the Statenvertaling, is usually maintained at a dogmatic level. When the doctrine of

inspiration is explained in sermons or catechism classes, a clear distinction is usually made between

inspiration on the one hand and illumination on the other. The Bible authors are believed to have been

directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, while the translators of the Statenvertaling are believed to have been

guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. 915 Cf. ‘GBS wil SV meer uitleggen’ in: Reformatorisch Dagblad, 16 July 2003, page 2. According to

L.M.P. Scholten, the director of the Reformed Bible Society, these background materials will possibly

include a Bible atlas and booklets in which the biblical words, as they have been rendered in the

Statenvertaling, are explained. Scholten makes it clear that ‘if we want to hold on to the Statenvertaling, we

are also responsible for making sure that our children and young people can understand its language.’

388

D. The translator/translation advisor’s synthesis

From the discussion above, it may be concluded that the three institutions that are

stakeholders in the translation and publication of the Una Scriptures have rather different

viewpoints on the Scriptures. The NRC church favors a rather literal view of Bible

translation. It is of the opinion that readers should make an effort to understand the

translation rather than making an attempt to change the translation.916

SIL has a more

meaning-based approach, and wants the Scriptures to be available in a language that

people can readily understand.917

Leaders of the GJPI church struggle with the Bible

translations that are available in Indonesian, and they ask for vernacular Bible

translations that are clearer than the Terjemahan Baru and the pioneering Una Bible.918

How does a translator/advisor who is in the middle of all this synthesize these different

perspectives and come to a translation that is more or less acceptable to all the parties

involved?

The dilemma may seem greater than it is in reality. It can easily be demonstrated that

Bible translation work in Papua is much more complicated than Bible translation work in

the Western world.919

The linguistic and cultural differences and the specific goals of

Bible translations in missionary situations justify an approach that is different from

approaches followed in well-established church situations in the West.

In the context of Bible translation work in Papua, it can also easily be demonstrated that a

‘literal translation’ is often not the same as ‘faithful translation’. Formal correspondence

between the source text and the translation easily results in distorted meaning. Translators

usually walk a tight rope, while they try to avoid the ‘form is meaning’ fallacy on the one

hand and the ‘form is not important to meaning’ one on the other.

The first translations that we as a translation team produce are usually fairly literal.

However, when we do comprehension checking with Una speakers, we usually find out

that certain parts of the translation are not understood well, or are completely

misunderstood, due to certain linguistic and/or cultural factors that interfere with a

correct understanding. Translational adjustments are not made lightly, but if different

native speakers, asked during different checking sessions, have similar mis-

understandings of the translated text, this is usually a sign that something needs to be

done to improve the translation.

916 The relationship between the source text and the translation is primarily seen in terms of an underlying

mirror metaphor: A good translation mirrors the source text as much as possible. 917 The underlying metaphor is the bridge metaphor: the translation bridges the gap between the original

text and the intended audience of the translation. 918 The perspective of Una people on the Bible can perhaps be best characterized by using a veil metaphor,

or rather a wrapping metaphor. The Una people themselves use metaphors like ‘wrapped speech’ for

meaning that is not clear to them. And those who know some Indonesian use the fog (kabut) metaphor to express their lack of understanding of the Indonesian Bible. 919 Cases where literal translations generate severe misunderstandings or other comprehension problems,

like the one presented in section 12.3., are not exceptional, but occur rather frequently. The chapters 13 and

14 of this dissertation contain many examples of misunderstandings that occur, if the translation follows the

forms but not necessarily the meanings of the source text.

389

The overarching goal of our translation work is to produce a translation that is accurate,

clear and natural. Explication of implied meaning is only done, when this is necessary

for the comprehension of native speakers, when it has solid exegetical support from

respected biblical scholars, and when this does not exclude other relevant interpretations.

The work of Bible translation is seen as a step in the educational process and in the

spiritual growth of the Una people. Due to (a) the linguistic and cultural gap between the

world of the source text and the world of the Una people, (b) a low education level, (c) a

Christian tradition that is still in its formative stage, and (d) a tendency to use the

Scriptures as a form of ritual communication, a meaning-based translation seems to be

our most fruitful option.

Some people might question whether missionary translations can be truly called

translations. But, whatever they are called, they are certainly not cultural adaptations or

highly interpretative paraphrases.920

In the context of the church and mission work in

Irian Jaya (Papua) and many other parts of the world this kind of translations have played

an important role in bringing people to Christian faith and obedience.

It would be interesting to see how this translation will impact the lives of the Una people,

and how it perhaps will pave the way for a more literal translation at a later stage, when it

will be time for a revision.921

In the meantime, people who would like to have access to a

more literal translation of the Bible can make use of the Terjemahan Baru or, for

example, the revised Shellabear (Kitab Suci Injil) translation. Or, if they really want to

know the true words of the Scriptures, they should perhaps be encouraged to do an in-

depth study of the Bible in the original languages. Because, every translation, including

the most literal ones, is at best an approximation of the Biblical source texts.

12.5. Strategic issues related to Bible translation

There are a lot of factors that play a role in the planning and managing of a Bible

translation project. As a beginning Bible translator/translation advisor in the early

nineties I was aware of some, but not all, of the important issues.

Working within an SIL framework, meaning-based translation was the preferred

translation strategy that had proven to work best in the context of Papuan languages and

cultures. Emphasis on vernacular literacy work as a preparation for Scripture translation

920 It should be noted that the question of whether or not meaning-based translations are real translations

can easily become a boomerang, since the same question could be asked about literal translations. 921

Ideally, a revision should take place at least once in every twenty or twenty-five years. Languages are

dynamic and may change over time, affecting the meanings signified in Bible translations. The intended function(s) of translations may also change as well as the level of education of the translation audience, and

this may affect the level of explication of implied information. It is interesting, though, that in SIL circles

the issue of revision (after the full New Testament has been published) is often not addressed. Most

revisions take place before the publication of the New Testament. The publication of the New Testament is

usually referred to as the final revision.

390

and Scripture use was another important insight. People are not going to read the

vernacular Scriptures, if they cannot read and write in their own language.

Other important insights were the insight that translation work in the vernacular language

should be need-based and community-based. Since the church played such an important

role in the Una society, and was highly motivated to receive the Scriptures in their own

language, the involvement of the church in the translation project was a high priority. The

training and mentoring of local pastors and other people as translators and literacy

teachers was another important goal, as this would help the Una people to own the

translation project and it would enhance the sustainability of the project.

Determining the dialect in which the translation would be rendered was primarily a

technical issue. Extensive survey work in the Una langue area confirmed that the dialect

spoken in Langda was the central dialect of the language, i.e., the dialect that has the

highest average number of shared cognates with language varieties in the other thirty

villages. People in the western (Bomela) and eastern (Sumtamon) dialects were able to

understand the language variety spoken in Langda. In consultation with the church it was

decided that the Langda dialect would continue to be a basis for the Una Bible

translation. At a later stage of the project it would be decided whether or not Bomela and

Sumtamon would need an adapted version.

The order of translating books was pretty much established. The SIL translation

department recommended a certain order of books, starting from relatively easy narrative

parts of the New (and Old) Testament to the more difficult parts: Genesis portions

(optional), one Gospel (Mark), Acts, 5 T’s (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy,

Titus), more difficult epistles, complete the remaining three Gospels. We pretty much

followed this general order. But, since Genesis had already been translated into Una, we

decided to start our work with a translation of the OT books of Ruth and Jonah.

During that time I was not aware of the skopos approach to translation, and of the way the

choice for a specific Bible function affects the translation choices at the lower level. The

kind of translation that we were producing was in fact a translation with a missionary-

explicative skopos, whose primary function was to help the Una audience bridge the huge

cultural and linguistic gap between their situation and the situation of the source text.

Another thing that I was not aware of was the fact that there is actually a whole range of

possible approaches to translation. The choice for meaning-based translation was made

based on the fact that this was the leading paradigm at the time, and because it had

proven to be a much better option than a literal translation, which caused all kinds of

misunderstandings.

I’d like to mention the various options that I was not aware of during the earlier stages of

the Una translation project, and discuss their potential merits and drawbacks in retrospect.

391

Various options of translation strategies

Language personnel and communities that are involved in the planning of a Bible

translation project have a number of options.

1. No vernacular translation is needed; the local people already know

Indonesian. This would be the best option, when the vast majority of a language

group is bilingual in Indonesian, has access to a Bible in the national language,

and/or has no interest in receiving the Scriptures in their own language.

2. No vernacular translation is needed; the local people need to learn the

national language in order to use the Indonesian Bible. This strategy has been

used in situations where a mission worked in an area where many different

vernacular languages were spoken, and where there was some degree of

bilingualism among the people.922

3. Produce a literal translation in the vernacular without footnotes and

introductions. This kind of a translation would probably be used with a liturgical

function in mind.923

4. Produce a literal translation with extensive footnotes and introductions. This

kind of a translation would probably be used with a Bible study function in mind.

5. Produce a meaning-based translation without footnotes and introductions.

This kind of a translation would probably used with a missionary-explicative

function in mind.

6. Produce a meaning-based translation with introductions and occasional

footnotes. This kind of a translation would probably be used with a missionary-

explicative and/or Bible study function in mind.

7. Produce a Bible story book in preparation for a more literal translation at a later

stage.924

8. Produce a literal translation while preparing complementary explanatory

materials in the vernacular and launching an intensive Scripture Use project in

which key people from the target audience are trained in Scripture reading,

explanation and application.

9. Produce a literal translation and a more meaning-based translation

simultaneously, while presenting them in parallel columns.

10. Produce a meaning-based translation, but mark explicated information in

italics.

11. Produce a meaning-based translation in simple but standard Indonesian or in a

local Malay that will be understood by the people of a group of languages.

922 This approach was followed by the mission of ZGK (Zending Gereformeerde Kerken) in Irian Jaya

(Papua). Indonesian is used as the official church language, and the Indonesian Bible (Terjemahan Baru) is

the official church Bible. When Dr. de Vries (personal communication) worked as a missionary linguist for

the ZGK mission in Irian Jaya (Papua), his commission did not include the translation of the Bible into a

vernacular language. His task consisted primarily in the facilitation of the language and culture learning of missionaries in the linguistically diverse mission field of the ZGK (and GGRI) in Irian Jaya (Papua). 923 The pioneering Una Bible, produced by Louwerse and his team, could be put into this category. It

should be noted, though, that, even though this translation is fairly literal and contains quite a bit of

translationese (‘wooden’ translation), it also contains idiomatic expressions and occasional explications. 924 This approach was used by Dr. Adriani, the pioneering linguist-translator in Sulawesi.

392

12. Record the translated Scriptures on audiotape or videotape.

In terms of the Una project, option one (no vernacular translation) is not applicable, since

the majority of the people are still monolingual and illiterate, and they have a high

interest in receiving the Scriptures in their own language. Option two is not really an

option, since the degree of bilingualism (with Indonesian) is relatively low in Una, and

because the Una people have a high regard of their own language. Option three (literal

translation in the vernacular without footnotes and introductions) would be more of a

barrier than a bridge and generate more problems than it would solve. Option four

(literal translation with extensive footnotes and introductions) would work for a minority

of people who would be able to use footnotes or who are teachable to do so925

, but for the

vast majority of the Una people this would lead to a lot of confusion. Scripture publishers

also put limitations on the number of footnotes that can be added. Option five (meaning-

based translation) is a good option, as is option six (meaning-based translation plus

introductions etc.).926

Option seven (Bible story book paves the way for a literal

translation) may be helpful to some degree, for narrative materials, but the Bible story

book would not be able to build a ramp towards the epistles. Option eight (preparing

additional materials and launching a Scripture use project) could be a good alternative,

but it would require a major shift in working method, shifting from translation work to

sustainable instruction work.927

Option nine (producing two vernacular versions

simultaneously) would not be a good option, since it would generate a lot of confusion

with regard to the question which translation is to be considered as the one that is most

authoritative.928

Option ten (italicizing explicated information) is very difficult to

achieve, since explicated information is so diverse and omnipresent, and since it could

lead the audience to the idea that this information is additional information that it is not

really necessary. Option eleven (simple but standard Indonesian or local Malay) may be

a good option for language groups that have lost their mother tongue, but who have still

difficulty understanding the relatively high register language of the Terjemahan Baru and

other versions. Option twelve (audiotape, videotape) is a good idea, and can be

combined with any of the other options.

925 The use of footnotes requires that the users are fluent readers, and that they are able to connect the

information at the bottom of the page with the information in the text, and to draw the necessary

conclusions based on the combination of the text and the footnote. The use of footnotes can easily interfere

with a good understanding of the text, since the use of footnotes forces readers to go constantly back and

forward between the text and the explanatory footnotes, and this can be very confusing, especially to new

literates. As a rule, translators should not expect readers to heavily rely on footnotes for the understanding

of a text, unless a serious effort is made to really teach readers how to use footnotes. 926

In the latter option the translators need to make sure that the audience understands that the introductions

and footnotes are not part of the original message. 927 An advantage of this approach would be that background information relevant to the understanding of

the text can be explained in more detail than could be done in footnotes. A possible disadvantage could be

that not every reader of the Bible may actually have access to these materials while reading the Bible. 928 Producing a diglot (Indonesian Terjemahan Baru and vernacular translation) would be a better option,

even though this would be relatively expensive.

393

In retrospect, the meaning-based translation strategy seems to be still a very valid

option929

. This is especially the case if the translators exercise restraint in explicating

implied information, and use this strategy only when there is a real need to explicate

implied meaning.

Relevant Factors for Determining the Basic Translation Strategy

Ideally, the choice of translation strategy is to a large degree determined by a combination of the following

factors:

a. What are the expectations of the commissioning agency (agencies), the target audience and the

translator with regard to the form and function of the translation?

b. Who are the primary target audience, and why?

c. Which translation strategy leads to optimal intelligibility?

d. Which translation strategy leads to optimal use of the translation (qualitative, quantitative)?

e. What are the current professional norms as to what constitutes a good translation?

f. What is the function and use of national language translations that are available?

g. What is the quality of Bible teaching in the church (systematic versus fragmentary; global versus

analytic; stereotyped versus text-based applications?)

The basic translation strategy to be chosen should be in line with the socio-religious and socio-linguistic

profile of the language group. There is no scientific method, however, for determining which translation

strategy is to be preferred. The translator’s knowledge of the context and his intuitions about which kind of

translation would fit best are an important factor here.930

It would be good, though, to encourage the development of descriptive studies in this area. Ideally, the

choice for a particular translation strategy should not be based on the translator’s and/or audience’s

assumptions and preferences, but on a well-reasoned proposal that is in line with the socio-religious and

socio-linguistic profile of the language group.

12.6. Bible use among the Una people

In this section an overview will be given of Bible use among the Una people. The results

are based on informal interviews that I had with pastors and elders in the three major

dialect areas of the Una language during the summer of 2002. Part of the information is

based on my personal observations between 1989 and 2004.

929 Meaning-based translation is usually associated with translations with a missionary skopos. An

important issue is the question whether it is valid to produce this kind of a translation when there is already

a more or less established church in the language area, and the majority of the population is already

affiliated with the church, at least in a formal sense. The GJPI church in the Una area was founded in 1984, and is around twenty years old. Does this justify a translation with a missionary skopos? Ideally, a

missionary translation would not be needed anymore, because everybody should already be familiar with

the basic teachings of Christianity. In actual practice, however, knowledge of the Bible is often still very

poor, or at least very fragmentary. 930 L.J. De Vries (personal communication).

394

Socio-linguistic profile of the Una people Language:

Language family:

Location:

Population:

Dialects:

Central dialect:

Literacy rate:

Bilingualism (in Indonesian):

Christianity:

Church denomination:

First evangelized:

Mission:

Una

Mek language family (Papuan; Trans New-Guinea Phylum)

Eastern Highlands of Papua (Indonesia)

5,200 people

Three: Langda, Bomela, Sumtamon (mutual intelligible)

Langda (2,400 people)

25 %

10 % knows Indonesian at minimally elementary school (3rd grade) level

around 95 %

Gereja Jemaat Protestan di Irian Jaya (GJPI), since 1984

Langda (1973), Bomela (1976), Sumtamon (1979)

Netherlands Reformed Congregations (NRC)

Bible use among the Una people Primary church language:

Secondary church language:

Church Bible: Personal Bible:

Study Bible (Pastors):

Youth Group Bible:

Women’s Group Bible:

Sunday School Bible:

Reading classes (adult & children):

Primary function of Bible in church:

Liturgical Bible use:

Bible study function:

Bible memorization:

Personal Bible use:

Una (Bible reading, sermon, songs, prayer)

Indonesian (Bible reading, songs)

Terjemahan Baru and Una Bible (as far as completed) Kabar Baik (BIS) and Una Bible (as far as completed)

Alkitab Penuntun (Bible with introductions and footnotes)

Terjemahan Baru

Una Bible (as far as completed)

Ceritera Alkitab untuk Kanak-kanak (Indonesian Children’s Bible)

Una Bible (as far as completed)

Basis for doctrinal and ethical teaching during church services and the weekly

group devotions in people’s homes (kebaktian rumah)

Restricted to Ten Commandments, Selected Psalms (songs), The Lord’s Prayer, Bible texts related to Baptism, Communion, Confession of faith, etc.

Occasionally during church services

Restricted to Sunday school (Indonesian); not in church

Low and not consistent (even among elders)

Function specialization: From a functional perspective, the Terjemahan Baru and the

Una Translation in progress are the major Bible versions in the Una area.931

They have an

area of overlap: liturgical function. Both translations are not competing, but rather

supplementary. It is to be expected that the Una Shorter New Testament will more and

more adopt the function of a common language, easy-to-follow, introduction to the

Terjemahan Baru, which at times is even difficult to understand for pastors and elders.

931

The older Una translation (Genesis, 4 Gospels and Acts), produced by NRC missionary John Louwerse

and Una informants, functioned as a liturgical translation between 1984 and 2002. This was a fairly literal translation which was difficult to understand, and which had not received final consultant-checking. Books

from the older translation that are not yet available in the newer Una translation can be read during church

services. The other books that have already been substituted by the newer translation still serve as reference

materials for pastors and elders, but are no longer in use in church services and for personal/group

devotions.

395

Forms and functions of Bible versions used in the Una language area (GJPI) A. The Indonesian Terjemahan Baru (TB):

Status: Dominant (Easier passages are only understood by a minority of Una speakers: 10-15 %)

Main function: Liturgical function / standard church version

Secondary functions: Unificational function (church consists of different language groups) and

personal prestige function (Indonesian is the language of the educated few)

Form: moderately literal

B. The Indonesian Kabar Baik (BIS):

Status: Marginal/Specialized

Intended skopos: Common language function (but does not apply in Una context)

Main function: Study Bible function (text, notes and introductions); used by some pastors in

order to make sense of the TB

Form: relatively free

C. The Indonesian Alkitab Penuntun Study Bible (Based on TB):

Status: Specialized (Pastors and teachers)

Main function: Study Bible function; owned by (used by) pastors and one or two elders

Form: relatively literal; Notes: mainly explanatory

D. Vernacular Bible translation (Una): (Shorter NT; 14 books)

Status: Emerging

Main functions: Liturgical and Missionary-explicative functions

Secondary function: Language group identification and prestige function

Form: free (but bound by receptor language structures); explicative where necessary, but seeks to

avoid interpretative translation

The communication style and proficiency of pastors and elders is an important factor in

determining the skopos of a translation. If, for example, pastors and elders do a good job

in explicating the meaning of the Scriptures during the church services, there might not

be a need for a meaning-based translation, but a more literal translation would perhaps

suffice. Based on my observations of Una sermons held during Sunday services over the

years, I would say that the two pastors are doing a good job in explicating the meaning of

the Scriptures and in applying it to the lives of the Una people. The majority of the elders,

however, seem to be struggling in this area, despite continuous efforts to upgrade their

knowledge and skills.

396

Communication style and proficiency Church leaders/Bible teachers: Predominant teaching style:

Choice of text:

Primary transmission of Bible

teaching:

Reading skills of elders:

Teaching skills of elders:

Eye for details:

Text-based application:

A few well-educated pastors; but mostly elders with low education Retelling and global actualizing of a Bible verse or pericope; Analytic verse-

by-verse explanation is rare

Fragmentary; No systematic explanation of a whole book or chapter

Oral

Fair

Ranging between poor and fair

Ranging between poor and fair

Poor

The Bible knowledge of the people and their ability to make sense of relatively new

concepts and trains of thought is another important factor that may have a bearing on the

type of translation that is needed. Unfortunately, the Bible knowledge of the average Una

person is relatively poor, except for certain Bible stories, parables and biblical characters

that are favorite and are often preached on. Knowledge of the history and the cultural

background of the Bible is also relatively poor.

Bible knowledge and receptivity of the Una people Bible knowledge of average Una:

Receptivity of Biblical teaching not

previously taught in church and

catechism classes:

Genesis, Gospels and Acts: Ranging between fair and good

NT epistles and Revelation: Ranging between poor and fair

Old Testament (except Genesis): Poor

Poor

In my opinion, a number of factors have contributed to the fact that Bible knowledge and

Scripture use in general are still relatively poor among the Una people. First of all, there

is no habit of reading and teaching the Scriptures in context and as “lectio continua”.

Secondly, many Una people have not caught on to the idea that reading is a matter of

reading for meaning and of asking questions to the text. Thirdly, there is no tradition of

Bible study, where the meaning of a passage is explored based on simple Bible study

methods such as reading texts in context, summarizing the content of a pericope,

comparing parallel passages, doing word studies, etc. And finally, the relative lack of

simple Bible study materials in the Una language is certainly another factor here.

12.7. The process of translation and checking

In the previous sections we focused on Bible translation strategy and on Bible translation

use among the Una people. The present section focuses on the Bible translation process,

especially on the different steps of reviewing and revision that translators go through.

Bible translation projects on the mission field are usually more complicated than Bible

translation projects in the Western world. In many cases the translators need to write a

grammar and a dictionary as part of the preparation for the work of Bible translation.

Translation teams usually consist of several mother tongue speakers and one

397

linguist/exegete who is responsible for the exegesis. In addition, there is usually only one

reviewer (consultant) who double-checks the exegesis of one particular book or portion.

In Bible translation projects in the Western world there is usually a team of exegetes and

a team of reviewers who are involved in the process. Comprehension checking with

native speakers is an important aspect of Bible translations on the mission field.

Comprehension checks like these are usually not performed in Bible translation projects

in the Western world.

The translation process is a relatively complex process with a number of clearly defined

stages. Translation teams usually go through the following steps: 1. Exegesis; 2. First

draft; 3. Exegetical check and naturalness check; 4. Revised draft; 5. Comprehension

checks with native speakers; 6. Second revision; 7. RSV/NIV/TB check; 8. Back-

translation in English or Indonesian; 8. Consultant-check; 9. Reviewing and final

revision; 10. Publication and distribution.

Comprehension checks with native speakers and the consultant-check are critical aspects

of the translation process. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Translators keep a list

of biblical key terms with vernacular renderings and comments, plus a list of connectors.

These are important aids for translators (in order to be consistent in their translation

work), and for consultants (in order to evaluate the translation work).

Translation checking is a shared responsibility between the translator and the translation

consultant. During various checks the exegetical accuracy, clarity and naturalness of the

translation is evaluated. The consultant check is necessary before a certain Scripture

portion can be published.

Comprehension checking is an important aspect of checks that are done by the translator

and by the consultant. During comprehension checks the translated text is read section by

section and paragraph by paragraph to native speakers. The native speakers are then

asked to retell those sections and paragraphs in their own words. In addition to these

retell questions more specific questions are asked to check to what degree native speakers

understand the details of the translated text.932

The following areas are usually covered by translators and consultants: 1. the native

speaker’s understanding of the main story line (main events, characters, place and time);

2. participant reference (antecedents of pronouns and noun phrases.); 3. concepts that

are foreign to the target culture (“camel,” “tent,” “robe,” etc.); 4. biblical key terms

(“faith,” “righteousness,” “forgiveness,” etc.); 5. logical and chronological relations

between sentences and clauses (connectors); 6. figurative speech (metaphors, rhetorical

questions, irony, etc.); 7. symbolic actions (kneel, beat one’s breast, etc.); 8.

connotations; 9. information packaging (cohesion, focus, information load, natural

932 Questions for comprehension are usually open questions of the Who? What? When? Where? How?

Why? type. It is usually helpful to start with a retell question. This helps the native informant to start with

the big picture, and to give a coherent summary of the main line of the text. More detailed questions can be

added to prompt the informant to fill in the missing pieces. Once the main events and characters have been

mentioned by the informant, more detailed questions can be asked about specific words and constructions.

398

order, discourse features); 10. naturalness of expression; 11. native speakers’ attitudes

towards the use of specific terminology; 12. format of the translation, illustrations,

footnotes, introductions, etc.

The native speakers’ responses usually help translators and consultants not only to see if

the translation really communicates, but also to uncover translation problems. Asking the

right questions and evaluating the native speakers’ answers is a skill that can be learned.

In the process of evaluation, translators and consultants need to decide whether or not the

respondent’s answers indicate that a particular passage has one or more translation

problems; if there is a problem, they will need to identify the problem, and recommend

one or more possible solutions.

Omission of important elements in a retell or answers that are “wrong” or totally

unexpected can be an indication that the translation contains a problem.933

Translators

and consultants need to be very careful in their interpretation of the respondent’s answers.

Respondents sometimes give a wrong answer, because they have forgotten what the text

actually said, or because they simply got distracted.

One of the most interesting aspects of consultant checking is the constant discovery that

people (including translators and consultants) tend to interpret the Bible from their own

experiences and their own cultural frames. It has been my experience as a translator and

as a consultant that cultural interference occurs quite often.934

Translation problems found in vernacular translations sometimes call for a rather rigorous

solution like the reordering of sentences or verses; in other cases, the translation problem

can be fixed by making a very subtle change in the lexical choice or by adding a certain

discourse-pragmatic particle.

933

Faulty answers can be generated by a variety of factors. Comprehension external factors include the

attentiveness and the attention span of the informant. These are to a large degree shaped by the personality (paying attention to details, motivated, etc.) and the physical condition of the informant (informants that are

hungry, tired or distracted tend to make more mistakes than those that are well-fed, fit and attentive).

Comprehension internal factors include lexical choices, order of presentation, participant reference,

explication of implied information. Cultural interference is another, very important, source of

misunderstanding. If more than one informant (in separate sessions) makes a similar mistake in the

comprehension checking of a particular passage, this is often an indication that the translation has a

problem that needs to be fixed. 934 Cultural interference can sometimes be so strong that native informants may neglect information that is

expressed in the text, and that they ‘overwrite’ this information with information from their own cultural

frame. The topic term ‘God’, for example, does not naturally collocate with an image term ‘roaring lion’.

And the topic term ‘Jesus’ does not naturally collocate with ‘thief’. And the topic term ‘believers’ does not

naturally collocate with ‘snakes’. In cases like this, native informants with a Christian background tend to overwrite the topic terms with terms that collocate much better: The negative connotations entailed by the

image terms prompt the informants to think that not ‘God’, but ‘Satan’ is the topic term of the ‘roaring lion’

metaphor. This kind of conditioned topic substitution occurs regularly in comprehension checks. Cases

like this show that translators and consultants should not just assume that the topic term of the metaphor is

understood.

399

A detailed description of questioning techniques, their potential for uncovering

translation problems as well as common pitfalls that need to be avoided falls outside the

scope of this study. Rountree’s (2001) doctoral dissertation gives a good discussion of the

most important techniques involved.

An important question to be answered is the question as to how much native speakers

need to understand of a translated text in order for this translation to pass the consultant

check. Do we expect the native speakers to completely understand the text, both in its

overall meaning (theme, plot, characters) and in all its details, or is there some margin of

tolerance with regard to minor misunderstandings?

Another question to be answered is the one related to background information that was

readily understood by the original audience of the Bible text, but which is not explicit in

the Bible text itself. Is this kind of information to be made explicit in the translated text,

or not?

There are no general solutions to these questions. The answers to these questions are

directly related to the intended skopos (translator’s plan) as well as the expected skopos

(audience’s expectations) of the translation.

12.8. Translation shifts and ‘universals of translation’

When a translation has been completed, it is amenable to analysis and comparison. The

study of translation shifts is an excellent tool for translators to become more aware of the

changes that take place during the translation process.

Translation shifts between the source text and the target text may occur at different

levels: we can distinguish between formal shifts, pragmatic shifts and interpretative

shifts. Formal shifts involve a change in word class or other formal changes, which may

or may not have a bearing on the meaning of the words. Pragmatic shifts are changes

related to language use. This kind of shifts may operate at various levels, ranging form

the word or particle level (e.g., particles expressing speaker attitude) to sentence level

(e.g., rendering a rhetorical question as an imperative) and discourse level (e.g., rendering

a blessing as a prayer). Interpretative shifts are shifts that primarily involve a shift in

meaning.

Translation shifts can be either obligatory or motivated. Obligatory shifts are shifts that

are required by the structure of the target language. Motivated shifts are shifts where the

translator had more than one option, but where he chose one particular option for specific

(communicative, stylistic, pragmatic-rhetorical) reasons. In addition, there may be

optional shifts that are not required by the language system of the target language and

that are not motivated by specific communicative reasons. And finally, translation shifts

can be anomalous, in case there are translation errors involved.

400

Blum-Kulka (2002:313)935

distinguishes “between reader-based shifts, which occur as a

result of a text being read by culturally different audiences, and text-based shifts, which

occur as a result of the translation process per se. In both cases, such shifts are thought of

as affecting the text’s meaning potential.”

A. Formal shifts

Catford (1965) distinguishes several types of formal shifts that may take place during a

translation. He distinguishes between level shifts and category shifts.

A level shift occurs when a grammatical feature in language A is rendered as a lexical

feature in language B, or vice versa. In Una, for example, tense-person is a grammatical

feature that is obligatorily marked by a bound suffix on finite verbs. Mab-mou (sleep-

3SG.FPST) means ‘s/he slept’. When translating into Indonesian both the past tense and

the person marker are lexicalized: dia sudah tidur (3SG already sleep).

Category shifts are subdivided into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shifts and intra-

system shifts.

a) Structure shifts occur when the order of words, phrases, clauses etc. is changed

when translating from one language to another. When translating from Indonesian

into Una, for example, the unmarked word (phrase) order changes from SVO

(Subject-Verb-Object) to SOV (Subject-Object-Verb).

b) Class shifts occur, for example, when a noun is rendered as a verb, or vice versa.

Or, when a passive construction in the Source Language is replaced by an active

construction in the Receptor Language (transposition).

c) Unit shifts occur, for example, when a single noun in the source text is rendered

as a descriptive noun phrase. The rendering of the Greek noun hiereus (‘priest’) as

‘person who works in the house of God’ or ‘person who mediates between God

and people’ is an example of a unit shift. Another typical unit shift is the

rendering of ‘the next morning …’ (Time phrase) into Una: mabmai ani, berekwe

ura (‘They slept, and then it dawned, and after that …’): Two clauses are needed

in Una to express the meaning of a single time phrase in English or Indonesian.

d) Intra-system shifts are changes where the Receptor Language and the Source

Language have similar grammatical systems, but with a different application.

B. Pragmatic shifts

Pragmatic shifts have to do with differences in language use. This happens, for example,

when a rhetorical question of the source text is rendered as an imperative.

935 Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, “Shifs of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”(1986), in: Venuti (2002:298-

313).

401

Matthew 6:28a

and concerning clothing why be.anxious.you.PL?

‘and why are you anxious about clothing?’ ‘Don’t worry about clothing’

Pragmatic shifts may involve formal changes that are carried out in order to preserve the

intention, or they may involve no formal changes, but changes in the meaning, or they

may involve both formal changes and meaning changes.

Pragmatic shifts are often very subtle. Even something as simple as a literal rendering of

personal names may cause pragmatic shifts. In Una, for example, people are usually

referred to by kinship terms or by function terms. These kinship terms are often used

instead of personal names, but they can also be followed by personal names. The absence

of a kinship term connotates emotional distance between the speaker and the people he

refers to. In order to avoid this kind of pragmatic shifts, personal names in Una

translation are often preceded by kinship terms. When Paul, for example, talks about

Timothy, this can be best rendered as ‘our friend Timothy’ in order to avoid the

impression that the relationship between Paul and Timothy was strained.

Pragmatic shifts sometimes occur when translators are unfamiliar with a particular genre

(discourse pragmatics). A mother tongue translator in Una, for example, translated ‘The

Lord is my shepherd’ as ‘May the Lord be the One who takes care of me.’ The indicative

form of this song of confidence (expressive/descriptive style) was changed into a wish or

indirect request (hortatory style), partly because the latter type of genre is much more

common and familiar in Una. In some cases translators have no choice. If, for example,

the target language does not have the genre of a blessing or a wish, translators may render

it as a prayer, if this is the closest natural equivalent in the target language. Other

pragmatic shifts include differences in style and register.

C. Interpretative shifts

Interpretative shifts, like pragmatic shifts, are particularly relevant for translators and

translation consultants. Some interpretative shifts are acceptable in a translation, since

they cause only minor shifts in meaning. Other interpretative shifts may not be

acceptable, as they cause significant changes in meaning. The boundaries between what

is acceptable and what is not are often fuzzy, and different translators and consultants

may have different perspectives on this. It should be noted that from the perspective of

skopos theory, the relative significance of a meaning shift is dependent on the skopos of

the translation.936

936 For example, in translations with a missionary skopos transculturations are viewed as significant shifts

in meaning, if they have relevance for the message. A shift like SL “lion” RL “wild dog” may be less

relevant to the message than a shift like SL “bread” RL “sago”.

402

1. Generalization: The Receptor Language term is more generic than the Source

Language term.

Example:

SL ‘sandal’ RL ‘foot covering’ (acceptable)

SL ‘sheep’ RL ‘pig/animal’ (not acceptable in most Biblical contexts)

2. Specialization: The Receptor Language term is more specific than the Source

Language term.

Example (John 1:40)

‘Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother’ Una: a) ‘Andreas, Simon Petrus’ younger brother’

b) ‘Andreas, Simon Petrus’ older brother’

(Interpretative shift required by the lexicon of the Una language, which has no generic

term for ‘brother’.)

3. Modulation: The Receptor Language term describes the meaning from a different

perspective than the Source Language term does (abstract for concrete; part for whole;

negation of the opposite, different register, etc.)

Example:

English ‘Forget it!’ French N’y pensez plus! (‘Don’t think about it anymore’) PosNeg

SL ‘The Lord looks down from heaven’ RL ‘God sticks his head out of heaven’

4. Modification: The meaning of the Receptor Language term differs from the meaning

of the Source Language term.

Example:

SL ‘bread’ RL ‘sweet potato/staple food’ or ‘taro/staple food’ (acceptability depends

on context)

SL ‘You prepare a table before me’ RL ‘You serve me a six-course dinner’ (not

acceptable in a translation that is intended to be historically adequate)

5. Mutation: The Receptor Language text does not correspond at all to the Source

Language text.

Examples: Addition, deletion, radical change of meaning.

403

D. Translation shifts in metaphor

When a metaphor (‘The Lord is my shepherd’) is changed into a simile (‘The Lord is like

a shepherd to me’), this would be a formal shift which would also involve some change

of meaning, as a simile is a hedged metaphor and usually does not have the same

force/diction as a metaphor.

When the ground of the metaphor is made explicit (explication), this can be seen as a

form of an added specification. (‘The Lord is my shepherd’ ‘The Lord takes care of

me, just like a shepherd takes care of his sheep’).

When a metaphor is substituted by a literal expression (‘The Lord is my shepherd’

‘The Lord takes care of me’) this is often a generalization. It also involves a pragmatic-

stylistic change, as a metaphor (marked language; prominent) is substituted by a literal

expression (unmarked language; non-prominent).

When a source text metaphor (‘The Lord is my shield’) is substituted by a more or less

equivalent target language metaphor (‘The Lord is my war vest’ or ‘The Lord is my

fence’) this is often a modification.

E. Universals of translation

The occurrence of translation shifts is normal in translated texts. They are an ‘almost

inevitable by-product of the process of translation’. Baker (1993) includes a number of

shifts in her ‘universals of translation’. ‘Universals of translation’ are defined as ‘features

which typically occur in translated text rather than original utterances and which are not

the result of interference from specific linguistic systems.’937

Baker tentatively suggested six features which might be viewed as ‘universals of

translation’:

1. A tendency towards explicitation is a common characteristic of translated texts.

2. Many Target Texts tend to simplify and disambiguate passages which are

unclear in the Source Text.

3. A Target Text will frequently ‘normalize’ wayward SL grammar as well as

standardizing other unconventional features of ST.

4. Instances of repetition will either be rephrased using synonyms, or else some of

the occurrences will be simply omitted (Toury 1980:130).

5. In an attempt to ‘naturalize’ Target Text, a translator may exaggerate or overuse

typical TL features.

6. The process of translation might give rise to ‘a specific type of distribution of

certain features in translated texts vis-à-vis source texts and original texts in the

target language’ (Baker 1993:245); such features might include, for example,

cohesive devices or certain lexical items. The presence of unusual distributions of

937 Baker (1993:243). ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.’ In:

Baker, Francis & Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.). Text and Technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

404

features of this type is one of the factors contributing to the phenomenon which is

sometimes known as the third code.938

This tentative list of universals of translation seems to be very plausible, and it may

equally apply to Bible translations. Descriptive studies would be needed to give evidence

for these claims or to modify them.

12.9. Towards a typology of implied information

In this section one specific case of translation shift will be discussed, i.e., the translation

shift of explication. In order to gain a good insight in explication as a translation shift, we

need to know what ‘implied information’ is and what types of implied information there

are.

A. Definitions

Bible translators usually distinguish between “explicit” information and “implicit”

information. Explicit information is understood as information that is clearly and

unambiguously expressed in a text. Implicit information, on the other hand, is usually

understood as information that is not overtly expressed in the text, but which can be

derived from the text and is believed to have been intended by the speaker/author.

In Exodus 20:13, for example, the Hebrew utterance , “You shall not murder/

kill’ implies a human object: “You shall not murder/kill [people]”. Despite the fact that

the human object is not overtly expressed in the text, it is definitely implied.

Modern pragmatic theory has made another, more specific, distinction, i.e., the

distinction between “explicatures” and “implicatures”. Implicatures are understood as

inferences made by the reader/hearer based on an utterance and assumed to have been

intended by the speaker/author. These inferences can be logical, culture-based, or based

on specific knowledge shared by the speaker and the hearer. Explicatures, on the other

hand, are a kind of implicit information which is the development (filling in) of the

semantic (linguistically encoded) content of an utterance.939

Communication

Explicit information Implicit information

Explicatures Implicatures

938 Quoted in: Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997:193-194). 939 For a good and clear explanation of implicatures and explicatures, see Cruse (2000:349-378). See also

Sperber & Wilson (2001:193-202), Gutt (2000:37-41, 44-46, 88-82, etc.) and Gutt (1992).

405

Example of an implicature940

:

A: Can we meet tomorrow?

B: I need to be at the university really early. [This could mean ‘yes’ or ‘no’, depending

on the situation]

Example of an explicature:

A: Can you come tomorrow?

B: Yes, I will. (Elliptical form of ‘Yes, I will come’)

Explicatures are usually easily understood as the implied information can usually be

directly retrieved from the linguistic context. Implicatures, on the other hand, usually

depend on shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer and on the hearer’s

ability to infer the intended meaning (rather than decoding it or filling it in from the

immediate context).

The phenomenon of implied meaning in general has a lot to do with the principles of

economy and prominence in communication. Messages are usually more efficient and

interesting when they are kept short. Communication would become extremely

cumbersome when all the details that could be relevant are included in a message.

Messages usually have a threefold layering: foregrounded information, backgrounded

information, implied information.

The more specific phenomenon of implicatures can be motivated by the principles of

economy and prominence, but it is can also be motivated by the principles of indirection

and pragmatic-rhetorical effects.

Take for example the following utterances941

:

a. Some people are “cat people”; others are “dog people”. We are “dog people”.

b. Some people like Mr. Johnson; others like Mrs. Johnson. I like Mrs. Johnson.

In both cases, the speaker implicates very clearly that s/he dislikes a certain person (Mr.

Johnson) or a certain kind of animal (cats), but s/he has not stated this is a roundabout

way.

The concept of implicatures is also closely connected to the concept of indeterminacy.

Metaphors, for example, may have a wide array of implicatures. The utterance “The Lord

is my shepherd” may have the following implicatures: a. the Lord takes care of me; b. the

Lord protects me; c. the Lord guides me. Genitive constructions may also have different

implicatures. For example, “the righteousness of God” could mean “[a person’s]

righteousness before God” (objective genitive) or “the righteousness which characterizes

God” (subjective genitive).

940 This example is based on Gutt (1992:8). 941 Example a was uttered by a colleague in the context of a parody on cats and cat lovers during a talent

night in Papua (Fall 2003). Example b stems from the literature on pragmatic inferencing.

406

B. Implied information and translation

The issue of implied information is central to a lot of translation problems and

discussions among translators as to what constitutes a good translation. Every translation

has to deal with the issue of implied information. Even fairly literal translations like the

King James Version and the Statenvertaling occasionally make implicit information

explicit.942

There are four important questions related to the issue of implied information: 1. To what

degree is the explication of implied information necessary? 2. To what degree does the

explication of implied information limit the range of interpretative choices of the reader?

3. To what degree is explication of implied information an unnecessary or harmful

interpretative intervention by the translator? 4. Under what circumstances and to what

degree is the explication of implied information acceptable in various types of

translation?

The answers to these questions are partly influenced by the way translators view the

relation between the translation and the source text. If the translation is primarily seen as

a mirror of the source text943

, the amount of explicated information will be kept to an

absolute minimum. If, on the other hand, the translation is seen as a bridge between the

source text and the intended audience there will be much more room for the explication

of implied information.

The answers are also influenced by the translators’ view whether the readers should be

able to understand the global meaning of a text, and particularly its patterns of textual

cohesion and conceptual coherence. Una readers, for example, did not understand that all

the specific happenings mentioned in Mark 13:1-22 were all related to the overarching

theme of the end time, until this was repeatedly made explicit in the translation. Problems

like these are usually not uncovered in translation checking, unless translators and

consultants are aware of these and ask specific questions that may help to determine

whether or not this is a real problem in a specific context.

The answers are also influenced by the translators’ view whether or not the readers of the

translation should be given all the cultural background information that is or could be

relevant to the text and that was part of the conceptual framework from which the

original audiences heard and interpreted the original text. Three main positions can

perhaps be distinguished in this regard: a. cultural background information should not be

included in the translation as it was not part of the message that the authors wanted to get

across; b. cultural background information should only be included if this is crucial to a

good understanding of the main line of the discourse; c. cultural background information

should be included whenever there is a chance to do so, since the readers of the

translation will not automatically have this information in the back of their minds, when

they read the text.

942 Cf. for example Ephesians 1:18; 1:20; 2:1; 2:5-6 in the Statenvertaling. 943 Gutt’s view that direct translation is to be modeled after direct quotation (understood from a Western

and literalist perspective) comes in fact very close to the idea that a translation is a mirror of the source text.

407

The answers to the above questions are, of course, also influenced by the role that is

assigned to paratext (footnotes and introductions) and to explanation by pastors and

teachers in the process of reading and understanding the texts.

In the more literal approaches to Bible translation the translators usually assume that

readers will understand the meanings of the translated Scriptures anyway, or they rely

heavily on the church tradition and teaching to help the readers interpret the translated

Scriptures. In the more meaning-based approaches to translation neither the reader’s

ability to understand the meanings of the Scriptures nor interpretative help from teachers

and pastors are taken for granted.

With regard to the issue of implied information, it is important to note that the wrong

interpretations that readers might assign to a literal translation are no less a form of

interpretation than the explication of implied information on paper by a translator.

Readers who are not familiar with a foreign text are not a ‘tabula rasa’, but they tend to

interpret the text from their own conceptual frameworks, which may result in assigning

meanings to the text that considerably diverge from what was intended. A good question

for evaluating instances of explication of implied information is the question ‘What

would people have understood of this particular passage, if none of the implied

information would have been made explicit in the translation?’

C. Various motivations for explicating implicit information

Generally speaking, there are three different kinds of reasons why translated texts may

need explication:

1. Linguistic motivation (grammatical or lexical)

2. Textual and pragmatic motivation

3. Cultural motivation

1. Linguistic motivation for explication

Lexical/Grammatical:

Hebrew:

murder-2SG Don’t

‘Thou shalt not kill/murder’

(No obligatory object specification)

Una: Ninyi o-na mem

People kill-INF don’t

‘Don’t kill people’

(Obligatory object specification)

Lexical:

Hebrew:

‘king’

Una: Weik sienyi

‘big headman’

(Lexical gap in the receptor language makes

explication necessary)

408

2. Textual and/or pragmatic motivation for explication

Textual:

Greek: (Mark 1:2-3)

‘I will send my messenger … a voice of one calling

in the desert’ (NIV)

Una: Nira Imtamnyi biryi ninyi tentok ara ni uram erbinkwandanyi bisi bokdonokwan … Ni uram

erbinkwandanyi bira ninyi kun kum ai aryi

kubdiryok, uram weik dobkwandi.

I the heavenly One will send a person who will

speak my words … As for this person who will

speak my words, while he will be in a place where

people usually do not live, he will shout words.

(Without these participant tracking explications

Una speakers will assume that Isaiah is the one who

sends his messenger and that the messenger and the person speaking in the wilderness are different

people.)

Pragmatic:

NIV heading Galatians 2:11-21

‘Paul opposes Peter’

Una heading:

Er Paulus biryi, “Nun kwit Petrus bisi wenena uram

ebkarebmasi,’ eboka nukmou uram

‘He Paulus reported saying, ‘I rebuked our friend

Petrus.’

(Adding the kinship term ‘our friend’ is necessary in

Una in order to avoid the wrong interpretation that

Paulus and Petrus were bitter enemies.)

3. Cultural motivation for explication

Hebrew: (Psalm 23:5a)

‘You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies’ (Psa 23:5; NIV)

Una: Ni ordana nang muna kibdongobmumwe nang aryi

asing dinmang ba, kanci nisi weik kwalina deiriranurum.

‘While my enemies over whom you have gained the

victory watch, you make a big feast meal for me.’

(Without this explication, Una people think that the

enemies are waiting in ambush. In that case the

expression of assurance becomes one of utter

anxiety.)

Explication of implied information is used to avoid misunderstandings or to give the

reader some background information that will help him/her to make sense of the text.

409

D. Proposed scale of explication in translation

I’d like to propose the following scale of explication in translation.

Level of

explication

Description Examples

0 Zero-explication in TT ST944 pronouns are always rendered as TT

pronouns, and never explicated by nouns; Mk.

4:1: ST he = TT he; instead of ST he TT

Jesus.

1 Explication required by the grammar of

the TT

Tense-aspect specification in TT. (Papuan

languages like Una have more than one past

tense, and more than one future tense; habitual

and progressive aspect is obligatorily marked; Gender specification in TT. In Una, the term

‘everybody’ is usually rendered as ‘every man,

every woman’.

2 Explication required by the lexicon of the

TT

Lexical “gaps” in the TT are filled by

descriptive phrases. The term ‘king’, for

example is rendered as ‘the big head man’.

3 Explication of explicatures (linguistic

pragmatics) Reference assignment;

Disambiguation;

Enrichment (ellipsis)

4 Explication as required by the cultural

pragmatics of the TT

Inclusion of vocatives and kinship terms in

order to avoid wrong understanding (avoidance

of kinship terms implies hostility).

5 Explication of implicatures necessary for

maintaining the reader/hearer’s sense of

textual coherence (textual pragmatics) and understanding

Explicating missing links (often theme-

related). Mark 13: Make ‘the End of the Age’

theme explicit; explication of symbolic actions, etc. etc.

6 Explication of cultural, historical and

theological background information that

is necessary for a global understanding of

the intended meanings of the text

Explicate that the act of ‘cleansing’ in Mark

1:41 was in fact an act of ‘healing’. (People

suffering from leprosy were ritually unclean.

The act of healing implied spiritual cleansing).

7 Explication of cultural, historical and

theological background information not

strictly necessary for maintaining textual

coherence and global understanding of

the translated text

Explication of meaning of ‘Passover’,

‘Pentecost’ in contexts where the meaning of

these religious feasts is not really in focus

Different types of translation correlate with the kind of explications they allow or prefer.

Literal translations will often make use of the levels 0-3. But in cases where they have a

choice, they may actually prefer to use loan words (for example, “synagogue”) rather

than using a descriptive phrase (for example, “house of worship of the Jewish people”) to

translate lexical gaps. Meaning-based translations, on the other hand, may cover the

whole range of levels from 0-7. Different translations may take different positions on the

944 ST stands for ‘Source Text’ and TT stands for ‘Target Text / Translated Text’.

410

scale, depending on the types of explication they allow and/or prefer. In the newer Una

translation, the explication ranges generally between the levels 0 and 6.945

It should be noted that these differences in level of explication usually appear in passages

where there is a perceived translation or communication problem. In cases where there is

no perceived translation or communication problem, the similarities between literal

translations and meaning-based translations are often very striking.

The explication of meaning that is implied in a text needs to be carefully distinguished

from cases where extraneous information that was not implied is added in the text, or in

cases where the translation is rendered much more specifically than what the source text

actually says. Historical inaccuracies and anachronisms (classifying Abraham as a Jew

rather than a Hebrew) would also fit in this category. Transculturations like “The Lord is

my pilot” and “the seal of God” (for “the Lord is my shepherd” and “the lamb of God”,

respectively) are other examples of extraneous information.

E. Strengths and weaknesses of explication

Potential strengths:

Explication is often needed to mold the meanings of the source text into the

grammatically correct and natural forms of the receptor language

Explication often helps to make the meaning of the text clearer to readers/hearers

that are not familiar with the source text in its original cultural and historical

setting (bridge the cultural / cognitive gap)

Explication often helps the reader/hearer to see the coherence of the text

Explication often helps the reader/hearer to see the relevance of the text

Potential weaknesses:

Explication may narrow down the scope of possible interpretations; by

explicating one particular interpretation in the translation other valid

interpretations may be eclipsed or excluded (loss of indeterminacy)

Too much explication may result in an overly expanded receptor language text

which misses the force (diction) of the original text. It can also easily change the

focus of a text.

945 It should be noted, however, that the notion of explication is not the only important notion on which a

typology of translations should be based. The notion of (literal or cultural) substitution is also important.

Translations can perhaps be best typified by the way they handle metaphors. However, the rendering of

genitive constructions, foreign concepts, key terms, and figurative language other than metaphor is also

relevant.

411

Too much explication could even change the genre of a text: a narrative,

expressive or hortatory text may develop into a more or less expository text (Bible

translation as a mini-commentary)

Too much explication does not invite the reader/hearer to actively try to figure

out the meaning of the text. Due to the explication the reader/hearer may not be

able anymore to discover the whole range of strong and weak implicatures

suggested by the text.

Based on the above observations, it may be concluded that explication can be an

important means of improving the quality of translations. But, due to the potential

problems outline it should be handled with care. Ideally, the level of explication pursued

in a translation is directly linked to the level of understanding of the primary target

audience.

12.10. Conclusions

In this chapter I have given an overview of various aspects of the Una Bible translation

project (history, institutional context, strategy, skopos) and of Bible usage among the Una

people.

The choice of a missionary-explicative skopos for the newer Una Bible translation was

motivated from a variety of reasons. Other translational strategies were briefly reviewed,

but, despite the fact that several of these could be used under certain circumstances, none

of these seemed to form a better alternative for the present situation of the Una people.

I have also given an overview of the translation and checking process and of different

kinds of translation shifts that can be detected in translation products. Special attention

was given to the notions of implicit and explicit information as well as the more specific

notions of implicature and explicature. A scale of explication was proposed to facilitate

the description and evaluation of translations. Potential strengths and weaknesses of

explication were mentioned. It was concluded that “explication” is a delicate topic that

needs to be handled with care.

412

13. Analyzing and Testing Four Una Versions of Psalm 23

13.1. Introduction

In the previous chapter I have discussed some general aspects of the Una translation

project. In this chapter the focus will be on one particular aspect of Una translation work,

namely the rendering of Biblical metaphors into Una. Three questions are particularly

relevant to our investigation: 1. How have Biblical metaphors been translated into the

Una language? 2. How are these more or less foreign metaphors understood by native

speakers of Una? 3. Is there a need for improving the rendering of these metaphors into

Una?

The translation and comprehension testing of four different Una translations of Psalm 23

will be discussed. Three of these translations are fairly non-explicative, while the fourth

one is relatively explicative but attempts to avoid the pitfall of being overly explicative.

In terms of the intended translational functions (skopos), the four translations can be

classified as missionary-contextualizing (pioneering translation), missionary-explicative

(relatively explicative translation) and liturgical (mother tongue translator’s draft and

relatively non-explicative translation).

The discussion of these translations will show various solutions to problems related to the

translation of metaphor and of other textual elements. The discussion of the results of the

comprehension testing with native speakers of Una will show that Una speakers interpret

Biblical texts and metaphors from their own cultural frames which are invoked by certain

expressions in the translation. Precision in choosing vernacular expressions and

explication of frame-relevant information946

are important to keep vernacular readers/

hearers on track of what the intended meaning is and of how the different parts of

discourse, including metaphor, hang together.

13.2. Analyzing and testing four Una versions of Psalm 23

In this section, four Una versions of Psalm 23 are presented and discussed. The first

version that is discussed is Louwerse’s pioneering translation of Psalm 23, which was

published in 1980. This pioneering translation is fairly literal, but it includes some

contextualized aspects as well. This translation seems to have a missionary-

contextualizing skopos (13.2.1.).947

946 This will be discussed in more detail in section 13.5. (“Towards a frame approach to text interpretation

and translation”). 947 The Una pioneering translation shows that there is not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between

explicative translations and translations with a missionary skopos. Translations can have a missionary

skopos, but not be explicative. The missionary skopos can also be expressed by a more or less contextualized translation (missionary-contextualizing skopos). I will use the term missionary-explicative

skopos for translations that have both a missionary skopos and which are also explicative to a level that

goes beyond linguistically mandatory explication and the explication of explicatures. In theory, it is also

possible to have translations with a missionary-persuasive skopos. This kind of translations would be more

explicitly persuasive than the original texts themselves. This would, for example, be the case, when the

413

The second version that is discussed is a preliminary translation of Psalm 23 produced by

pastor/translator Titus Bitibalyo during a workshop of the Indonesian Bible Society in

2002948

. This translation is also fairly non-explicative, and contains some contextualized

aspects as well, but the focus of these contextualized aspects differs from the ones in the

pioneering translation. No clear translation skopos was formulated949

, but the results of

the Una translation as well as other translations produced during the workshop came very

close to translations with a liturgical skopos. (13.2.2.).

The third version is another fairly non-explicative but idiomatic translation that was

produced as a test version to check out several translation variants. It was produced by

the Una translation team, consisting of pastor/translators Titus Bitibalyo and Wilem

Balyo and myself as the translation team’s advisor. This version would be typical for

translations with a liturgical skopos (13.2.3.).

The fourth version is a more explicative rendering of Psalm 23. It was produced by the

same Una translation team for the purpose of comprehension testing. This version would

be typical for translations with a missionary-explicative skopos (13.2.4.).

The objective of this research is to find out which version is best understood by Una

native speakers who have not had any prior access to these translations (so-called

‘unconditioned native speakers’). After the various versions are discussed,

comprehension questions are formulated. At the end of this section the results of

comprehension checking are reported.

13.2.1. The pioneering translation of Psalm 23

13.2.1.1. Introduction

Psalm 23 was first translated into Una in 1980 by translator John Louwerse (N.R.C.

Langda) and his language helpers. 300 copies were produced, according to the

information on the back cover of the typesetted booklet. It is unknown, how many of

section heading of Psalm 23 or other non-persuasive texts would be cast in the form of an appeal like ‘Let’s

follow the LORD who is our shepherd’, and where expressive/commissive statements like ‘I will dwell in

the house of the LORD forever’ are changed into cohortatives (‘Let’s dwell in the house of the LORD

forever’). It should also be noted that translations produced on the mission field (or: produced by western

or national missionaries) are not necessarily translations with a missionary skopos. Literal translations

which do not explicate meaning nor make any attempt to bridge the cultural gap between the source text

and the secondary audience cannot be called translations with a missionary skopos. 948 The translation of Psalm 23 into the vernacular language was one of the assignments that the

participants of the advanced group were asked to do as part of the sessions on the analysis and translation

of poetry and metaphor that I was teaching. Around fifteen participants drafted translations of Psalm 23 and

other poetic passages from the Old Testament, and they produced word-for-word back-translations. A discussion of the translations produced by participants from language groups other than Una would be very

interesting, but falls outside the scope of our present research. 949 The assignment was to produce a translation of Psalm 23 that would stick rather closely to the forms of

the Psalm (in the Terjemahan Baru translation) but which would also be intelligible to village people with

little or no Bible knowledge.

414

these booklets are still possessed by Una people. But during the past fifteen years, I have

only seen two or three copies in the hands of Una people. As far as I can tell, this

translation of Psalm 23 is not (or: hardly) used anymore. Most Una people are

nevertheless familiar with the concept of God as a shepherd950

, and of the notion that

believers are the flock of the Lord.951

Function: This translation of Psalm 23 may have served as instructional and devotional

material for Bible school students, evangelists, and new believers; it may also have

served as reading material in literacy classes, Bible classes and church services. There is

no preface in which the intended function of the translation is made explicit. However,

the missionary (pioneering) setting in which this booklet must have functioned and the

style of translation (fairly non-explicative) suggest that the skopos of this booklet is

missionary-contextualizing. The fact that this translation stands on its own, and has not

been incorporated into a broader corpus of translated Psalms or in the Una liturgy makes

it questionable that a liturgical function was primarily intended.

Format: 8 page booklet (including cover and back pages) on light yellow paper; Size: 10

x 14.5 cm.

Illustrations: two lambs on cover/title page; a ram on page 1 (between verse 1a and 1b);

a lamb on page 2 (after verse 2); a flock of nine sheep on page 3-4 (between verse 3 and

4).

Further lay-out:

With the exception of the title on the cover page, the whole Psalm is written in capital

hand-written letters.

In a few verses (2, 5, 6) a poetic format (indentation and centralization of lines) is

used to help the reader better see the structure of the poem (parallelisms,

segmentation).

Pages 3-4 in the middle of the booklet are combined and form one big ‘landscape’

format page, on which the verses 3 and 4 are written; the poetic format is abandoned

here.

Title: Er Allah Nun Kalingnanyi (‘God Our Caretaker’)

Subtitle: Mazmur 23

950 The terms domba kalingnanyi (‘caretaker of sheep’) or bisam kalingnanyi (‘caretaker of pigs/animals’)

are often used in sermons, prayers and personal testimonies to refer to God as a shepherd. The terms are

also used to refer to pastors and church elders. 951

Psalm 74:1 (‘Why does your anger smolder against the sheep of your pasture’) in the Indonesian

translation of the Geneva Psalter is, in fact, a favorite song that is often sung during church services. The

literary genre of this Psalm (communal lament) has not hindered the Una people from singing it often and with a joyful heart as if it were a praise song. This song seems to be favorite, because of its melody and

because it refers to ‘sheep’, which is a favorite metaphor for people who are followers of God (Jesus). In

the Geneva Psalter, Psalm 74 is sung at the same melody as Psalm 116, which is a Psalm of individual

thanksgiving.

415

13.2.1.2. Una translation with English back-translation

The Una pioneering translation (1980) of Psalm 23 is presented below, followed by a

morpheme-by-morpheme analysis in the second line, and by a (grammatically) free

translation in the third line.952

Er Allah nun kaling-na-nyi 3SG God 1PL take.care-INF-NOMZ ‘He God our caretaker’

1 Er Allah ni kaling-na-nyi ku-rur.

3SG God 1SG take.care-INF-NOMZ be-3SG.PRESCONT

‘He God is my caretaker’

Utotowa nirya ni teleb dinyi ku-nu-rur.

All.kinds everything 1SG good thing be-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRESCONT

‘All kinds of everything is continuously good for me’

2 Er-ci ni-si yongon sungsunga kankan bo-deirit-ba-ra-ni-r.

3SG-AGT 1SG-OBJ soft grass amidst carry-put-go-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES ‘He habitually leads me and puts me down in the midst of soft [long] grass’

Er-ci ni-si yung me dam yak-dongob953-nin bo-ba-ra-ni-r.

3SG-AGT 1SG-OBJ quiet water place drive-CAUS-REP carry-go-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

‘He habitually leads me, driving me repeatedly to a place of quiet water’

3 Er-ci ni kanya tamuboka954 mikib kur-deiri-ra-ni-r.

3SG-AGT 1SG inside again strong be-put955-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

‘He makes my inside strong again.’

Er-ci er si deyok aryi

3SG-AGT 3SG name cause ABL

‘He, because of his name, …

ni-si bisik udikum aryi yak-dongob-nin bo-ba-ra-ni-r.

1SG-OBJ path right/straight ABL drive-CAUS-REP carry-go-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

… he habitually leads me, driving me repeatedly from/at (sic!) the straight path’

952 The spelling and word breaks have been adapted to the new (simplified) Una spelling, which was

adopted in 1992, after extensive orthography checking (which included reading and writing tests) and

discussions with Una people. 953 The common meaning of the independent verb dongob- is ‘insert’. When dongob- occurs as the second

element in a composite verb, however, it often has a causative meaning. 954 The Una form tamuboka can, in fact, be broken down into two morphemes: tamub- ‘return’ and –oka

‘DEPV.SS’. 955 The verb root deib- ‘put’ often functions as a causative when it follows another verb root.

416

4 Kan-ci956 ni tonkwa ku-nurum957 ati,

2SG-AGT 1SG together be-1DL since

‘Since you are together with me, …

a deyok aryi ni-ryi ninyi di-ram-ing kanya mutuk um

this cause ABL 1SG-AGT people die-HAB-3PL.PRES inside land hole

… therefore I will enter the pit hole of the souls of the people who habitually die …

weng-bin-kwan ati, ilil kum kub-kwa-ni-r.

enter-go-FUT.1SG since fear not be-FUT-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

… and therefore, I will not be afraid.’

Kan yang-dongon kama958 ab, kan kwaburyi ab

2SG drive-CAUS stick and 2SG two-forked.stick and

‘Your driving stick and your two-forked stick …

ni kanya teleb kur-deiri-ra-ni-r.

1SG inside good be-put-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

… make my inside feel good.’

5 Kan-ci ni-si o-ni-ri-nyi urasin-tam aryi

2SG-AGT 1SG-OBJ kill-1SG.OBJ-3SG.IRR-NOMZ face-LOC ABL

‘You, before the face of the person who could/would kill me …

suwa yangab-oka ni yina dei-dongo-ra-ni-rim,

leaves serve-DEPV.SS.seq 1SG food put-insert-HAB-1SG.OBJ-2SG.PRES

… serving [food] in leaves, you habitually give me food.’ Kan-ci ni kisok dam asi kweten me aryi959 dik-dongob-oka

2SG-AGT 1SG head place OBJ healing water ABL pour-insert-DEPV.SS.seq

‘Pouring from healing water onto my head place …

kwete-ra-ni-rim.

heal-HAB-1SG.OBJ-2SG.PRES

… you habitually heal me.’

Ding-dongo-ra-ni-rim ati, ni meyok langdi-ra-ni-r. pour-insert-HAB-1SG.OBJ-2SG.PRES since, 1SG container be.full-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES

‘Since you habitually pour it, my drinking container is habitually full for me.’

956 The occurrence of an Agent (ergative) marker on the grammatical subject of a stative clause is

interesting. I have observed that native Una speakers sometimes do that. I am inclined to interpret this as a

pragmatic signal, marking high prominence as well as continuity with er-ci ‘3SG-AGT’ in the previous verse, rather than as a false agent marker or as a translation error. 957 Una requires a dual marking on the subject suffix of the verb, if the noun phrase subject argument and

the comitative argument in the clause occur both in the singular. 958 The Una word kama refers primarily to a ‘digging stick’. 959 The ablative has a partitive function in this context.

417

6 Langdi-ra-ni-r ati, ni kam kub-kwan tum aryi nirya

be.full-HAB-1SG.OBJ-3SG.PRES since, 1SG alive be-FUT.1SG time ABL all

‘Since it is full, from/at all the (future) time that I will live …

kan teleb dinyi ab, kan boukwe weik kur-dei-ra-ni-rim dinyi ab,

2SG good thing and 2SG liver big be-put-HAB-1SG.OBJ-2SG.PRES thing and

… your good thing(s) and your having a big liver towards me …

ni ab tonkwa kub-kwa-nim960.

1SG and together be-FUT-1DL

… will be together with me.’

A dinyi ni ab tonkwa kub-nim-nyi ura,

These things 1SG and together be-1DL-IRR after

‘After these things will have been together with me …

ni-babyi kan ai dam iya kub-kwan.

1SG-too 2SG house place always be-FUT.1SG

… I too will always be near your house.’

13.2.1.3. Comments, questions, and discussion of translation strategy

A. Observations and questions961

A full discussion of translation shifts of this translation as well as the other translations

that will be discussed falls outside the scope of this discussion. In this and the following

sections I will focus on those shifts which seem to be most relevant to the translation

strategy that was followed by the translator(s). It should be noted that it is not always

clear whether a certain shift is primarily text-based or reader-based.962

Section heading:

‘God our shepherd’: the personal relationship between the author (singular) and God

(‘God is my shepherd’) has been put into a broader collective-inclusive963

(plural)

framework. The inclusive aspect is also marked at the end of the Psalm (verse 6: ‘I too

will always be near your house’). The notion of collectivity and inclusiveness is also

960 The dual is not a translation error. In Una, animals and abstract entities are grammatically marked as

singular, even though their actual number may be two or more. This means, that in this sentence, ‘the good

thing’ and ‘the having a big liver towards me thing’ in the noun phrase subject argument are counted as

singular. Because there is also a 1SG pronoun in the comitative argument, Una grammar requires a dual

marking on the subject pronoun suffix of the verb. 961 Questions and observations related to naturalness will be discussed in more detail in section 2. 962 I have consciously refrained from classifying the various translation shifts, since this is often a matter of

interpretation, and focusing on matters like these could easily eclipse the actual data. But, occasionally I

will make a comment related to the nature of a particular shift. 963 The term ‘inclusive’, as it is used in this context, is not to be confused with ‘inclusive’ language in the

sense of gender-inclusive language, as it is often used in discussion related to modern Bible translations.

418

reinforced – be it in a subtle way – by the illustration of a group of nine sheep between

the verses three and four.964

This would be a clear example of a reader-based shift.

verse 1:

‘A Psalm of David’ has not been preserved in the translation. An omission like this

would fit in with a missionary skopos. The focus is not on the author who wrote this

poem, but on the readers who are expected to appropriate this poem as an expression

of their relationship with God.

The name YHWH (‘LORD’) has been translated by the Indonesian loan word Allah

(‘God’). The latter term was supposedly chosen in order to leave no room for

ambiguity as to whom is intended here.965

‘The LORD is my shepherd’ has been translated as ‘God is my caretaker’

(generalization; demetaphorization); For people who have visual access to the

booklet, the demetaphorization is somewhat compensated by the illustrations of

lambs and sheep.966

In this case, it is difficult to determine whether this is a text-based

shift or a reader-based shift; it is probably a combination of both.967

The 1st person singular object suffix is not included in the term ‘caretaker’, although

this would have been more natural in Una, and according to some native speakers is

even mandatory.

The negative statement (‘I shall not be in want’) has been transposed into a positive

one (‘all kinds of everything is continuously good for me’968

). This transposition was

perhaps done, because the negative statement supposedly did not imply the notion of

abundance. However, by doing so, the ‘parallelism’ with verse 4 (‘I will not be

afraid’) has been lost.

The asyndetic connection in the Hebrew source text is maintained in the Una

translation (implicature: causative relation between 1a and 1b).

Verse 2:

‘Green pastures’ is translated as ‘in the midst of soft (long) grass’. The purpose of the

action of leading the sheep ‘in the midst of soft (long) grass’ has not been made

964 The use of a singular pronoun is often interpreted as exclusive language by Una people. That is why

they preferred that in the newer version of the Apostolic Creed, the confessional statements that structure the creed would be rendered as inclusive language (‘we believe …’) rather than as individual language (‘I

believe …’). 965

The Indonesian term ‘Tuhan’ (‘Lord’) is used for both God and Jesus. 966

Interestingly enough, there is no illustration of a shepherd, nor of his staff and rod. The focus seems to

be on the sheep, at least as far as the illustrations are concerned. 967

By demetaphorizing the expression, the translator avoids a sticky translation problem: a literal

rendering of ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ would result into the faulty translation ‘The Lord is my sheep

caretaker’, i.e., he is the one who takes care of my sheep. Another option would be to render this as a simile

with explicated ground: ‘God takes care of me, just like a sheep caretaker takes care of his sheep.’ A rendering like this would perhaps not fit in with the fairly literal translation approach that is followed by the

translator. Also, his missionary skopos may have led him to keep the translation as simple as possible. For a

good alternative, see the rendering with the thought quote (‘The Lord takes care of me, thinking regarding

me, “My sheep”.’) discussed in section 12.2.3. 968 This rendering is in fact problematic.

419

explicit in the translation. Will Una readers/listeners understand that this symbolizes

abundance of food for sheep?

‘He leads me’ has been translated as ‘he leads me by driving me.’ This is a reader-

based shift, which introduces a contextualized element. The image evoked by the Una

translation is one of a pig rather than a sheep being led by a shepherd.969

The Una

people either drive their pigs or lead them with a rope tied to one of their forelegs.

Small piglets are sometimes carried. This element of driving is, in fact, rather

dominant, as it occurs three times (verses 2, 3 and 4). The element of God who leads

his flock by going before them is absent here.970

Verse 3:

‘in paths of righteousness’ has been translated as ‘from/at the right/straight path’.971

It

is possible that the idea of ‘righteousness’ (interpreted in the sense of ‘doing what is

right in the eyes of the Lord’) has been lost in the translation. Una people might think

that this is about not getting lost in a literal sense, and not in a moral or religious

sense. But this will need to be checked out with native speakers during the

comprehension checks.972

Verse 4:

‘Even though’ (contra-expectation) is expressed as ‘therefore’, which sounds illogical

not only in English, but also in Una (‘I will enter the pit hole … and therefore I will

not be afraid’). This ‘therefore’ is probably triggered by the reason-result relation

between the main propositions of this verse (‘you are with me … therefore I will not

be afraid’)

‘Valley of the shadow of death’ has been rendered as ‘the pit hole of the souls of the

people who habitually die973

’ (= netherworld); This seems to be a reader-based shift

resulting in contextualized demetaphorization (or: reification).974

It marks a shift from

969 NRC missionaries introduced sheep to the Una people in the seventies and eighties of the previous

century as part of their community development projects, and presumably also as a means of familiarizing

the Una people with certain aspects of Biblical culture. The concepts of flock and shepherd (‘sheep tender’)

are much less familiar to them. During our fifteen years’ stay in Langda (1988-2003), it often happened that

two or three sheep – like pigs, without a shepherd – were roaming around on the Langda plateau. The sheep

were often teased by village kids. Roaming sheep sometimes needed to be driven away from the airstrip,

before a small aircraft could land. 970 According to Dalman (1939:249) [AuS VI], shepherds usually guided the sheep by going before them.

But sometimes it was necessary to drive the sheep from behind. Dalman’s photographs of early 20th century

flocks in Palestine (nrs. 29 and 30) show both ways of mobilizing flocks of sheep and goats. 971

A more natural translation would probably be: ‘He guides me and as a result of that I habitually walk on

a straight path’. In this rendering the order of the verbs is reversed and the connector is explicated. 972 Comprehension checking with native speakers of Una showed that this was not a problem at all. The

informants understood that this refers to ‘obeying God’s commands’. 973 The use of the habitual aspect seems to be an error. 974

It looks like the translator saw this verse as a bridge between the worldview of the Old Testament and

the worldview of the Una people. This would fit in with a missionary approach, promoted by Don Richardson, Daniel Shaw and others, where ‘redemptive analogies’ play a key role in relating the Biblical

truths to the worldviews of the people. Translators and missionaries should be careful, however, that

cultural bridging is exegetically sound and does not introduce elements that are not warranted by the

original text. Preachers and teachers have also more freedom in contextualizing the message than

translators have.

420

a metaphorical expression related to the threat of death or severe danger to an actual

entering of the netherworld, the spirit world of the souls of the dead.

‘Your rod and staff’: The rod as a weapon of defense against wild animals has been

interpreted as a driving stick. The staff ‘two-forked stick’ seems to be used in a

similar way. As a result, the double focus on defense (rod) and guidance (staff) has

been narrowed down to guidance only. The question needs to be asked, how people

can be comforted by a stick that drives them. Does this collocation make sense to the

Una people?

Verse 5:

‘my enemies’ has been translated as ‘the person who might kill me’. The switch from

the plural in the source text to the singular in the translated text is interesting. It is

very likely that ‘the one who might kill me’ will be understood by the Una people as

referring to Satan, and this will be checked out during the comprehension tests.

‘prepare a table’ (metonymy) has been translated as ‘serve food in banana leaves and

put it down for me.’ This is a natural expression that reflects the way Una people

honor their guests by serving them food. It also involves a reader-based (culture-

based) shift, as serving food on banana leaves was not the way the people living in

the Old Testament times treated their guests.

‘you anoint my head with oil’ (symbolic action expressing the honoring of guests) has

been translated as ‘You heal me, while pouring from (partitive) healing water on my

head place.’ (medicinal action towards sheep which could have been intended by the

translator as a metaphor of salvation).This rendering is probably inspired by the

popular exegesis that the anointing of the head is still part of the shepherd and sheep

metaphor: The shepherd anoints the head of the sheep, wounded by thorns, with

oil.975

However, the pioneering translation leaves it in the middle whether this part

reverts to the shepherd and sheep metaphor, or whether it is a continuation of the host

and guest metaphor in the first part of this verse.

Tail-head linkage976

is added: ‘my drinking container is habitually full for me. Since

it is habitually full …’; the connector ati ‘since’ suggests a causal link between those

975 This exegesis has been popularized by Phillip Keller, whose booklet on Psalm 23 has been popular among Christians. 976 Tail-head linkage is a discourse feature in many Papuan languages, including Una. It involves the

recapitulation of events mentioned in the previous sentence (Foley 1986:201). De Vries (1989:204)

describes tail-head linkage as follows: “In t-h linkage, two sentential paragraphs are linked by the

recapitulation of the assertion of the Final Clause of the preceding sentential paragraph (= tail) in the first

clause of the next sentential paragraph (= head).” Tail-head linkage may occur in the form of subordinate

recapitulatory clauses (Foley 1986:201) or in the form of coordinate-dependent clauses, like in Kombai and

Wambon (De Vries 1989:205), and in Una. De Vries (1989:204-205) identifies two main functions of tail-

head linkage: “In the first place, it expresses the Frame function; the recapitulated information of the Frame

clause (the ‘head’ of the t-h linkage is the Frame-constituent) serves as the setting for the new information.

At the same time, the Frame links the event-chain of the present sentential paragraph to the list of events

that makes up the narrative. In the second place, t-h linkage serves a processing function. Since the Medial Chain and the Final Clause often contain many verbs denoting new events with most of the predictable

arguments of these verbs unexpressed, the information-rate in the sentential paragraph is high. Now at the

start of a new sentential paragraph, the recapitulation of the t-h linkage gives the speaker the time to

process the coming Medial Chain and the addressee to process the information given in the preceding

Medial Chain. By t-h linkage the flow of information is slowed down in between two sentential paragraphs.

421

the verb ‘pour’ (of healing water) and the verb ‘be full’ (of water container); This

results in a mixing of two distinct metaphors: as a result of the pouring of healing

water, my cup is full. This seems to imply that the cup (water container) is full with

anointing oil! This needs to be checked out with native speakers.

Verse 6:

The metaphorical verb ‘follow me’ is translated as ‘be with me’, which, in a sense, is

still metaphorical (personification), because this verb phrase normally does not

collocate with abstract concepts like ‘goodness and love’. As a result of this shift, the

thematic element of movement is removed from the final part of the Psalm. The

aspect of movement (based on the ‘Life is a Journey metaphor’), which occurred

between the scene of the host and the guest in verse 5 and the scene of the author

dwelling in the house of the Lord in verse 6, has been lost in the translation. This

results in a rather static representation of the verses 5 and 6 as opposed to the verses

1-4, where verbs of movement occur in abundance.

The abstract nouns ‘goodness’ and ‘love’ have been translated as respectively ‘good

thing’ and ‘your having a big liver towards me thing’

The expression ‘all the days of my life’, which refers to goodness and love that follow

the author (verse 6a), has been omitted in the translation. Its meaning is probably

implied in this particular context (see the comment under the next bullet). This entails

that this translation does not preserve the parallelism with ‘always’ in verse 6b, which

refers to the author’s dwelling in the house of the LORD.977

Tail-head linkage is added again: ‘After these things will have been together with me

…’. The use of the sequential connector ‘after’ is based on an interpretative decision

that God’s goodness and love follow the believer during his life time, while the

dwelling in God’s house is seen as something that comes after that, in heaven.978

‘I will dwell’ has been translated as ‘I too will always be.’ The ‘too’ is probably

added to avoid the notion that the author would be the only one who will always be in

the house of the Lord. The communal aspect of the shepherd-sheep relation is also

expressed in the title of the booklet: ‘God is our shepherd’. By doing so, the

translators give a hint to the readers and hearers, that this Psalm is not just a reflection

of the intimate relationship between the speaker and God, but that it is also relevant to

the present-day Una people as it can also be a reflection of their own relationship with

God.

‘In the house of the LORD’ has been translated as ‘near your house’. Note that the

pioneering translation does not switch back to the 3rd

person singular, like the Hebrew

does. Do the Una people understand that ‘you’ refers to YHWH, and that ‘your

This processing function manifests itself very clearly in pause-phenomena and intonation-contours

associated with t-h linkage.” 977 Loss of poetic parallelism occurs rather frequently in common language versions like the Good News

Bible, and supposedly it also occurs in missionary translations. Nowadays translators seem to be more

aware of the poetic structures of texts they translate. The idea that parallelism is redundant was popular during the heydays of dynamic equivalence. It was based on the idea that texts and messages are primarily

about information and propositional meaning. Poetic structures and expressive elements of texts were not

always given the place they deserve. 978 The underlying metaphors that support this particular interpretation are ‘Life is a Journey’ and ‘Death is

Homecoming’.

422

house’ refers to the tabernacle or the temple? Or, would they understand it as

‘heaven’? The latter interpretation is probably the one that the Una people would

choose. The reference in verse 4 to death (going into the pit) would support this

interpretation, but this would need to be checked out with native speakers.

B. Discussion of translation strategy

It is not easy to derive conclusions regarding the translation strategy that underlies the

translation of such a short text like Psalm 23. But, based on a detailed analysis of the

translated text, we can draw the following conclusions:

a. the translator has tried to give a rather literal translation; he does, for example, not

make explicit the causal implicature between 1a and 1b (‘God is my caretaker, and

therefore all kinds of everything is continuously good for me’)979

; he also does not

explicate any of the pronouns that refer to YHWH by substituting them by ‘God’ or

‘Lord’, or by adding ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ as further explication; The translator even

changes the expression ‘house of the LORD’ into the pronominal ‘your house’, which

is, at least potentially, more ambiguous than ‘the house of the Lord’. The translator

also avoids to spell out the ground(s) of the majority of the metaphors found in this

Psalm.

b. the translator has not consistently pursued a literalist translation strategy; He also

contextualizes elements from the original text to the Una culture. His emphasis on

‘driving’ is more in line with the practices of dealing with pigs in New Guinea than

with practices of dealing with Palestinian sheep. And his rendering of ‘the valley of

the shadow of death’ as ‘the pit hole of the souls of the people who habitually die’

evokes the idea of the Una netherworld where the souls of the death wander around.

Moreover, ‘you prepare a table for me’ has been translated as ‘you serve me food on

[banana or other] leaves’.

c. the translator also simplifies the text in his translation. ‘A Psalm of David’ is omitted,

the name YHWH is rendered as ‘God’, and ‘the LORD is my shepherd’ is rendered as

‘God is my caretaker’ (demetaphorization). This simplification seems to fit in with

the assumption that this translation has a missionary skopos.

d. the translator includes two subtle clues to make the reader and listener aware of the

fact that this Psalm is also relevant for the Una reader and listener, even though it

seems to speak only about the intimate relationship between one individual speaker in

the poem and the Lord. The first clue is included in the section heading (‘God is our

caretaker’), and the second one is included in the final verse (‘I too will always be

near your house’). The addition of collective-inclusive language also seems to fit in

with the assumption that this translation has a missionary skopos.

979 The non-explication of causal implicatures, especially those occurring in poetic texts, is actually a good

translation strategy, since it preserves indeterminacy and may help to signal poetic genre. Explication

would only be needed, if native speakers are not able to connect the asyndetic sentences in a meaningful

way.

423

e. In terms of thematic coherence, the concept of caretaking seems to be the

overarching theme, while the concepts of the valley of death (interpreted as physical

death; entering into the realm of the souls of the dead980

) and the house of the Lord

(interpreted as life after death in heaven) are important elements that structure the

translation at a more specific level. The latter two expressions are arguments of verbs

that are marked as future tenses and contrast with the rest of the translated Psalm,

which is characterized by a consistent use of the present habitual tense).981

The

thematic element of movement (journey) is preserved in the first part of the Psalm

(verses 1-4), but removed from the second part of the Psalm (verses 5-6), thus

weakening thematic coherence between the two parts of the Psalm.

f. The translator is aware of discourse patterns of the Una language. In verse 5 he

makes use of a tail-head linkage, in which the pouring of the oil (healing water) and

the filling of the cup (water container) are brought into a causal relationship with each

other.982

In verse 6 there is another instance of a tail-head linkage (‘your good

thing(s) and your having a big liver towards me will be together with me. After these

things will have been together with me …’).983

g. There are a number of places where it could be argued that the translator has based

his translation on a questionable exegesis984

or has given a less than adequate

980 The traditional Una view of afterlife is that the souls of the dead go to a certain hill in the jungle, and live a life that in many ways reflects the life of the people that live on earth. The souls of the dead live in a

village with men’s houses and family houses, they have their own gardens, and make occasional visits to

the world of the living. The spirits of the dead were also believed to live in holes in the ground. Nowadays,

Una believers tend to see physical death as a period of transition between life on earth and life in heaven or

in hell. The souls of the dead are believed to linger around for a while, before they go to their eternal

destination. During this time the souls of the dead are believed to appear to relatives or friends, especially

when there are certain issues that have not been settled, or when sorcery is involved. According to some

informants the souls of the dead will not linger around for more than forty days. They based this on the fact

that the Lord Jesus stayed on earth for forty days between his resurrection and his ascension to heaven, thus

limiting the transition time for those who believe in him. Conceptions like these are very common, despite

the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the doctrine of the Reformed tradition in which the NRC mission and the GJPP church stand. 981 The metaphor of shepherd and sheep is not expressed as a thematic element (both terms are absent from

the translation). It seems like the translator expected the readers (listeners as well?) to be able to notice the

illustrations and some indirect clues (repeated use of the verb yangdongona ‘drive’ and the mentioning of

grass and water) and arrive at the conclusion that this is metaphorical language about shepherd and sheep. 982 The Hebrew text does not have a connector between these clauses. If it is necessary to make explicit the

connection between these clauses, an additive connector (‘and’) would seem to be the best solution. 983 The use of tail-head linkage in Una is usually found in narrative texts, hortatory texts and expository

texts. However, tail-head linkage does not frequently occur in traditional poetic texts (dance songs). Dance

songs have a lot of repetition of key sentences and key words, but tail-head linkage, both in its sequential

(after) and simultaneous (while) forms, is rare. It should be noted that in the case of the tail-head linkage in

verse 6 the use of the sequential marker ‘after’ is interpretative (it supports the idea that being in the house of the Lord is what happens after the believer has died), as would be the use of the simultaneous marker

‘while’ (this would support the idea that the presence in the house of the Lord is a symbolic expression for

enjoying a close fellowship with the Lord during this lifetime and beyond). 984 It could be argued that the exegesis of verse 4b (‘I will enter the land hole of the souls of the people who

habitually die’) is questionable. The same could be argued with regard to the interpretation of the anointing

424

translation.985

(A discussion of translation errors is fully legitimate in the context of a

skopos approach to translation, even though it is not a major focus.)

h. Overall, this pioneering translation of Psalm 23 can perhaps be best characterized as a

fairly literal translation with a missionary skopos and with some attempts of

contextualization (missionary-contextualizing skopos).

C. Questions for testing Psalm 23 with ‘unconditioned native speakers’

In order to test the communicability of this rendering of Psalm 23 in Una, questions for

comprehension are usually formulated ahead of time. In this section, I will summarize the

most important questions that I would ask the ‘unconditioned native speakers’ based on

the translated texts.986

Questions like these usually contain standard questions of the

Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? type, as well as more specific questions related

to anticipated comprehension problems in a specific translation.987

After the ‘unconditioned native speakers’ have had a chance to read or listen to Psalm 23

one or two times, questions like the following will be asked988

:

1. What is this text about? Please tell the content of this Psalm back in your own words! (check theme; summary of the Psalm) [verse 1-6]

2. Who is said to be a caretaker? (check reference of participant) [verse 1]

3. What kind of a caretaker is God said to be?989

4. Why is God called a shepherd? (check inferences; metaphor awareness) [verse 1-2]

5. Where does God lead the author/speaker? (check reference of location) [verse 3]

of the head as medical treatment of the sheep by the shepherd in verse 5c (seeing this as a new metaphor of

host and guest seems to make so much more sense), and the interpretation that the house of the Lord is

heaven rather than the tabernacle or the temple as a symbol of fellowship with God. 985 In verse 1b (‘All kinds of everything is good for me’), for example, the translation does not carry the

intended meaning. In common language Una this expression does certainly not mean that the speaker has

everything he needs. It would imply that the speaker still desires all these things. In verse 4b the rendering

of the even though (contra-expectation) as since (reason-result) is illogical and not supported by any

exegesis. The translation of ‘rod’ as ‘driving stick’ in 4c seems to exclude the notion of the ‘rod’ as a weapon of defense. There is also at least one place where the translation is highly ambiguous: verse 3b (‘he

drives me from/at the right path’). 986 These questions are intended to be a guideline, and not a straightjacket. Informants sometimes give more

information than they are asked for, and this makes it superfluous to ask a specific question later on during

the checking session. The informant’s answers may also prompt the consultant to ask more specific follow-

up questions. 987 Note that the formulation of the questions asked usually follow the terminology used in the translation

and in the back-translation. For example, the expression ‘caretaker of sheep’ would be used instead of

‘shepherd’, etc. However, for ease of comprehension of the readers of this dissertation, the checking

questions are presented here in a form that is more accessible and more in line with standard use of English. 988

Specific verses can be re-read to the informant, before specific questions related to that verse are being

asked. 989 This question is important to ask, since this particular translation does not make it explicit that God is

portrayed as a shepherd (‘caretaker of sheep’). Readers who also see the illustrations may understand this.

But, listeners who don’t see the booklet with the illustrations, and who need to rely on what they are

hearing may have a hard time figuring out that this Psalm is not about a caretaker in general, but about a

caretaker of sheep. Oral-aural comprehension testing is important to find this out.

425

6. What is meant by the term ‘right path’? (check inferences; metaphor awareness)

7. What kinds of things does God do? (check metaphorical events) [verse 1-4] 8. Whom does God make lie down in green pastures? (check reference of participant) [verse 2]

9. Why would God make people lie down in green pastures? What does this refer to? (check

implicatures of the metaphor; metaphor awareness)

10. Tell me more about ‘the land hole of the people who habitually die’. What is it like? What kind of people live there? How do you get there?

990 [verse 4]

11. How does the author feel, when he will enter this ‘land hole’? Is this a good place? Is it a bad

place? Would people be afraid to go there? Why? 12. Why will the author not feel afraid, when he will enter this ‘land hole’? (check understanding

of coherence; causal connector)

13. What is the ‘driving stick’ used for? What is the ‘two-forked staff’ used for? (check reference of object)

14. How could a ‘driving stick’ make a person feel good? (check inferences; logic/coherence)

15. Who serves food to the author? (check reference of participant) [verse 5]

16. What has the enemy to do with this meal? What is he doing? Is he a threat to the author? (check inferences; logic/coherence)

17. Could you give an example of what kind of a person would be an enemy like this? Anyone

else? 18. Who puts ‘healing water’ on the author’s head? (check reference of participant)

19. Why would God put ‘healing water’ on the author’s head? (check understanding of symbolic

action) 20. What is the thing that is full (was filled)? (check reference of object)

21. What is the author’s cup filled with? (check reference of object)

22. Why would the author say that God filled his cup, and that his cup is full? (check metaphor

awareness) 23. What will always be together with the author? (check reference of abstract events) [verse 6]

24. Where will the author always be? (check reference of location)

25. Where is ‘the house of the Lord’? (check reference of location)991

This kind of questions are usually very helpful to consultants and translators to see if the

translation really communicates, and to discover comprehension problems. Then, if a

comprehension problem has been found, the translator or consultant needs to decide what

exactly the problem is and how it could be solved in the translation.

990 The fact that a couple of question have been formulated here does, of course, not imply that all these

questions are asked simultaneously. Asking one question at the time is important for the success of a

consultant check. The additional questions are follow-up questions, in case the respondents don’t come up with a crystal-clear answer right away. 991 During the years that I have served as a translation consultant in Papua (Irian Jaya) (1996-present), I

have always asked a question like this to check out the meaning of the key term ‘temple’, which is often

translated as ‘house of God’. In most cases, the unconditioned native speakers misunderstood the term

‘temple’ (‘house of God’), and said that it is located in heaven.

426

13.2.1.4. Testing the pioneering version of Psalm 23

He God [is] our caretaker

1 He God is my caretaker. All kinds of everything is continuously good for me.

2 He habitually leads me and puts me down in the midst of soft [long] grass.

He habitually leads me, driving me repeatedly to a place of quiet water.

3 He makes my inside strong again.

He, because of his name, he habitually leads me, driving me repeatedly from/at (sic!) the straight path’

4 Since you are together with me, therefore I will enter the pit hole of the souls of the people

who habitually die, and therefore, I will not be afraid.’

Your driving stick and your two-forked stick make my inside feel good.

5 You, before the face of the person who could/would kill me, serving [food] in leaves, you

habitually give me food.

Pouring from healing water onto my head place, you habitually heal me.

Since you habitually pour it, my drinking container is habitually full for me.

6 Since it is full, from/at all the (future) time that I will live your good thing(s) and your

having a big liver towards me will be together with me.’ After these things will have been

together with me I too will always be near your house.’

The pioneering version of Psalm 23 was tested with four adult Una men during four

different sessions. Two of the men were illiterate, one of them had completed the

Indonesian elementary school, and another one had completed junior high school. The

translation was first presented without the illustrations of sheep.992

The translation was

read to the illiterate men, while the educated men were asked to read the text themselves.

During the retell, the main theme (‘God takes care of us’) came through very clearly.

None of the respondents had difficulty with this. However, the imagery of shepherd and

sheep was not noticed by three of the respondents, even after the first verses were read to

them again. The other respondent mentioned that God is our caretaker, and that people

(believers) are his pigs. He did not mention this during the first retell, but in response to a

more specific question regarding the ‘soft grass place’ and the ‘place of quite water’.

Verse 1: The second half of the first verse was understood by most of the informants as

an expression of desire to own all the good things that God prepares for his people rather

than as an expression of satisfaction that all these good things have already been

received. Only one of the informants understood this in the sense that everything had

already been provided. When asked what was included in ‘everything’, he responded:

food (yina), breath/life (isin), health (kweteransir dinyi). When discussing a more

accurate rendering, one of the respondents suggested the following rendering: ‘Thinking,

“My sons and daughters,” God gives us freshness/life in abundance.”993

992

Most of the informants who read the text together with the illustrations (of sheep) understood that this

was about shepherd and sheep imagery that portrayed the relationship between God and individual believers. Two informants did not right away recognize that the illustrations portrayed sheep. 993 The term yik dinyi (“freshness/life”) differs from the normal Una term for life (kam kuna), which

primarily refers to physical life, and which is also used as a basis for the term for eternal life (iya kam kun

dinyi; life forever). The term yik dinyi, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the aspect of ‘the good life’

(quality life). In the context of Christian teaching, it is primarily used to denote aspects of spiritual life,

427

Verse 2 was mostly understood in the sense that God carries the believer (or sheep) in his

arms and puts him in a place of soft grass. One informant thought that God carried it on

his shoulders (amakoka bobaramwe). The intended notion of abundant provision of food

was understood by only one of the respondents. Two respondents suggested that this was

a place of rest. But, the idea of a sheep feeding on good green grass that is available in

abundance did not come through at all. Likewise, the place of quiet water was understood

as a mere location, not as a place where the sheep could drink. The expression ‘drive

repeatedly’ was understood by two respondents as referring to the image of a sheep of pig

driven by its owner. However, one respondent was confused: Why would God drive his

children to a place of water? Were they unwilling to go there? Or was God angry with

them, because he was driving them away?

Verse 3: None of the respondents saw a connection between this verse (‘become strong’)

and the previous verse (provision of food, drink, rest). The ‘straight path’ in verse 3, on

the other hand, was correctly understood in a metaphorical sense as ‘doing what God

commands us to do’. However, the element of ‘driving’ in this verse made two of the

respondents wonder whether the speaker/author was unwilling to do what God told him

to do.

Verse 4: This verse was understood as referring to the death of the author/ speaker. When

entering the pit hole of the souls of the dead, he would not be afraid, because God would

be with him. One person said that this pit hole is between the world of the people who

live and the world of the souls of the dead. The term ‘driving stick’ was well understood,

but the term ‘two-forked’ stick drew a blank. Una people use two-forked sticks as a fire

rake (to manage garden fires). Two-forked sticks are also used when building bridges, or

to pick up something that has fallen into a river. However, the term did not make sense in

the context of driving sheep or pigs. When we were discussing the function of the staff,

one informant suggested ‘stick for hooking and pulling sheep’ (domba asi kwareboka lir

kama).

Verse 5: The enemy was understood by most of the respondents as referring to Satan (isa

sienyi si Iblis; ‘the headman of the evil spirits named Satan’). The informants understood

that God feeds his people, while Satan looks on. Satan looks on, because he wants that

the believers will become his children again. One informant thought that the term

‘enemy’ referred to people who do not believe. One of the informants linked this passage

about the feast meal to the Lord’s Supper (Communion). The idea that God gives

abundant provision to his people came through loud and clear in the responses. One of

the informants reacted to the fact that the enemies were not given any food. Even if

people kill us, we need to give food to them. (Nun obmasingnyi nang ababyi yina karena

such as peace with God and happiness, but it has also physical aspects. This concept comes very close to what Louwerse (1987:95) calls ‘life elixer’ in the context of discussing the Una concept of kanya, ‘soul,

awareness, will’. As far as I know, the term yik dinyi was traditionally not used in the context of the Una

initiation rites (kwit dongona). The focus of those rites were on the growing (nebkwaming) of the boys and

on their transition from the potentially dangerous world of the women (menstruation blood) to the world of

the men.

428

teleb).Two respondents said that Satan as the enemy still poses a real threat to believers;

the other two said that God really protects his children from Satan. One of the informants

linked the anointing of the head with the practice of some Una people to put ‘healing

water’ on the head of sick people, while they are praying for them.994

Verse 6: It was not really clear to the respondents whether the first part of the verse

refers to life on earth or life in heaven. The final part of the verse (about the house of the

LORD) was clearly understood by each one of the respondents as referring to heaven.

13.2.1.5. Summary and suggestions for improving the translation

Summary:

a. The main theme of the Psalm (‘God takes care of his people’) came through very

clearly in the responses of the Una men.

b. The imagery of shepherd and sheep was not understood by two out of four

respondents.

c. Verse 1b was understood as an expression of desire rather than of satisfaction

d. The concept of ‘straight path’ was well understood in its metaphorical sense of

‘doing what God commands us to do’.

e. The concept of ‘driving’ caused interference, since it led some respondents to

believe that the author/speaker did not want to obey God’s commands, and/or that

God was angry with the author/speaker.

f. The dark valley was associated with death and with entering the realm of the souls

of the dead, while the ‘house of the Lord’ was associated with heaven.

Suggestions for improving the translation:

1. Render the shepherd metaphor more clearly in the translation (especially in verse

1, where it is absent from the translation).

2. Render verse 1b as an expression of satisfaction (correct translation error)

3. Remove the extraneous concept of ‘driving’ from the translation

4. Find an adequate rendering for ‘house of the Lord’ that would at least include the

interpretation of ‘temple’ or ‘tabernacle’ (on earth); This would help readers to

understand that the ‘house of the LORD’ refers primarily to the believer’s

relationship with God while he is still living on earth.

994 This practice is not only linked to James 5:14-16, but it has also roots in Una pre-Christian shamanism.

Una church leaders are discouraging church members to be involved in practices like these, since they are

seen as opening the door to syncretism and reviving paganism.

429

13.2.2. Mother Tongue Translator Version (First Draft)995

13.2.2.1. Introduction

The following translation of Psalm 23 was produced by pastor/translator Titus Bitibalyo

during a workshop for mother tongue translators that was organized by the Indonesian

Bible Society in May 2002 in Kotaraja (Papua). This served as a first draft, and was not

published.

13.2.2.2. Una translation with English back-translation

The mother tongue translator not only translated Psalm 23 into Una, but also provided

word-for-word and (grammatically) free back-translations of his translation work. For the

sake of this study, I made a fairly literal back-translation into English.996

Mazmur 23

Daud mot mazmur

1 Imtamnyi, kan ni kalingnaninyi kurum aryi,

kikiman kurdeiranirim.

2 Kanci teleb sungsunga kankan kairbaranirim,

Kanci teleb me yiban dam asi kairbaranirim.

3 Kanci ni kanya namirdeiranirim,

Kan si deib aryi bisik udikum bobaranirim.

4 Mambul mutuk yibanmanyi ababyi,

Ilil kum kuranir.

Erci ni ab yibaranim

Er kama ab Er tabwe ab aryi katabum eranir.

5 Kanci niti ordana nang kankan aryi yina

kareranirim. Kanci ni kisok dub co yung me dingdongonurum

ba, langdeirirur.

………………………..

6 Kanci nisi bico kiboka kam kurdeirinurum.

Nisi iya boukwe kimnurur ati, Er ai iya kubkwan.

Psalm 23

A Psalm song of David

1 Heavenly One, you are the one who are taking care of

me, and therefore you are continually997 doing good to

me.

2 You usually accompany me among the good grass, You usually accompany me to good flowing water.

3 You make my inside soft,

Based on your name you usually lead me on the right

path.

4 Even if I would go through a distressing area,

I am usually not afraid.

He usually goes together with me.

His stick and his rope usually make me steadfast.

5 You usually give me food, while I am in the midst of the

enemies. While you pour oil on top of my head, it is usually full

……………………. [Cup: implied]

6 Having pity on me, you continually make me alive.

He has a big liver towards me for always, and therefore

I will always be in his house.

995 This translation was done by pastor Titus Bitibalyo during the LAI workshop (May 2002) in Kotaraja.

He used the Terjemahan Baru (TB) and the Kabar Baik (BIS) as his main source texts. The fact that this

particular draft is labeled ‘mother tongue draft’ does not imply that this is the only translation in which

mother tongue translators were involved. On the contrary. The pioneering version had supposedly input

from mother tongue speakers, and the other two translations had major input from mother tongue

translators. This particular version is interesting, because it is a first draft that was done by a mother tongue

translator without any specific translational input from a translation advisor. Exegetical input was given during a lecture that preceded the translation exercise. 996 A detailed word-for-word back-translation, as was presented in the previous section, is not presented

here. 997 The habitual aspect in Una can mean either ‘usually’ (‘habitually’) or ‘continually’. The meaning that

seems to be most applicable in a certain context is rendered in the back-translation.

430

13.2.2.3. Comments, questions and discussion of translation strategy

A. Observations and Questions

Section heading

The translation has no section heading that summarizes the theme of the Psalm. The

mentioning of genre and author998

functions more or less as the title of the Psalm.

Verse 1

The name of YHWH, rendered as Imtamnyi (‘the heavenly One’999

), is used as a

vocative here. This shift from the 3rd

person to the 2nd

person seems to cause a shift in

genre: The song of trust of the source language is changed into a kind of doxological

prayer/address (but without expressions like hallelujah or ‘I praise you’) in the

receptor language. A switch of pronouns has been maintained, like in the source text,

but the order has been reversed. The Hebrew text has: 3rd

person 2nd

person 3rd

person (A B A structure), while this version of Una has: 2nd

person 3rd

person

2nd

person (B A B structure). The reason for this shift is probably the fact that personal

prayer is a well-known genre among the Una people, whereas a personal song of

confidence is not.

Like in the pioneering version, the notion of shepherd is not overtly expressed in this

preliminary mother tongue translator version. God is identified in general terms as ‘the

One who takes care of me1000

’. Unconditioned native speakers of Una may not

understand the coherence between verse 1 and the verses 2 and 3.1001

Like in the pioneering version, the negative statement in verse 1b (‘I lack nothing’)

has been changed into a positive one (‘you are continually doing good to me’).

The asyndeton in verse 1 is not preserved; but it is rendered as a combination of

connected clauses that are in a reason-result relationship (‘therefore’). The translator is

998 Una speakers understand the expression ‘a Psalm song of David’ in the sense that David is the author of

the Psalm. During the workshop the participants were encouraged to leave the translation ambiguous so

that other interpretations would not be excluded. Renderings like ‘a Psalm song written by David’ were

avoided. 999 The rendering of God’s names in vernacular terms rather than Indonesian (TUHAN, ‘LORD’) or

Indonesian-Arabic (Allah, ‘God’) loan words is typical for this translator and others who have a tendency to

avoid loan words and use Una expressions wherever they can. Translators from Nalca, a related language

located north of Una, also seemed to prefer vernacular terms for God rather than using Indonesian terms. In Una, there are other people who prefer the use of the Indonesian names for God. This issue needs to be

settled before the complete Una New Testament will be published. 1000 The Una verb translated as ‘take care of’ actually means ‘watches over’. Care and protection are the

two major components of this verb. 1001 This turned out to be indeed a problem.

431

more explicative than the Terjemahan Baru and the Kabar Baik, both of which keep

the asyndeton.

Verse 2

The verb ‘accompany’ is used rather than the verb ‘lead’. The verb ‘accompany’

implies a going to and coming back from the good grass place, while the verb ‘lead’

would focus on going to the good grass place, but would not necessarily imply the

return to the original point of departure.

The 3rd

person of the source text has been changed into the 2nd

person.

Verse 3

‘He restores my soul’ is translated as ‘he makes my inside soft’, i.e., ‘he makes my

inside feel happy’. The focus shifts from physical recuperation to a happy state of

mind that could have been caused by such a recuperation.

The shift from the 3rd

person to the 2nd

person applies here too.

Verse 4

‘The valley of the shadow of death’ is translated here in general terms as ‘the

distressing area’ (understood in the sense of causing distress to people). No future

tense is used here, like in the pioneering translation, but rather an irrealis mood (‘even

if I would go …’). Accordingly, the concept of the dark valley is not interpreted as

death, but rather as unspecified difficult situations in this earthly life.

Here the pronoun switch is reversed: the 3rd

person pronouns of the source text are

replaced by 2nd

person pronouns in the target language.

YHWH’s rod and staff are rendered as his stick and rope. A stick (kama) in Una can

be a digging stick or a walking stick. In this context a walking stick is the most likely

interpretation. The rope is a reader-based shift (contextualization). In Una society a

rope is used to guide a pig, when people are on the move. The rope is a symbol of

care.1002

The notion of rod – as a weapon of defense an protection – is absent here.

Verse 5

The element of giving a feast meal is not expressed nor implied in the Una

translation. The translator simply translated ‘you give me food’. The element of

abundant provision is lost here. (undertranslation)

1002 Una pastors and elders are also called domba kalingna nang (‘people that take care of sheep’) or bisam

biringna nang (‘people that tie pigs’). Doing a village by village roll call to determine the number of people

that are absent during the Sunday morning services is usually called bisam biringna (‘tying the pigs’).

432

The expression ‘before my enemies’ of the source text is expressed even stronger: ‘in

the midst of my enemies’.

The symbolic action ‘pouring oil on my head’ is expressed literally in the translation

without further explication as to what the purpose of this might be.

The element of the overflowing/abundance (‘being full’) is expressed, but the concept

of cup has not been retained in the translation. This makes the translation somewhat

cryptic here. It is not clear what exactly is full. It looks like something unspecified is

full of the oil (literally tree sap water) that had been poured on the author’s head.

Verse 6

‘Goodness’ and ‘love’ are rendered – in reversed order – as ‘have pity’ and ‘make me

alive’.1003

The personification of goodness and love has not been retained in the

translation, and the aspect of these personified blessings following the author is also

not preserved in the translation. The notion of ‘all the days of my life’ is not overtly

expressed either, but it could be argued that this is implied by the use of the present-

continuous aspect of the verb.

The ‘have pity’ part is repeated by a near-synonym ‘have a big liver’ in the first part

of the final sentence in verse 6. The structure used here looks like a tail-head linkage,

but it differs from it in two respects: a. it repeats the front rather than the tail of the

previous sentence; and b. it uses a near-synonym rather than repetition.

The additive connector ‘and’ in the Massoretic Text is rendered as a causal connector

(‘and therefore’).

Tense/aspect: the present continuous tense and the present habitual tense are

maintained throughout the translation. Only the last verb in verse 6 has a future tense.

The term ‘house of the Lord’ is rendered as ‘his house’. The use of a possessive

pronoun instead of a name is understandable, as the Lord is the only main participant

in this Psalm, besides the author. However, this pronominalization obscures the fact

that the name of YHWH forms the beginning (verse 1; YHWH), middle (verse 3;

because of his Name) and end (verse 6; YHWH) of this Psalm.

The expression ‘his house’ (= the house of the Lord) is likely to be understood by

Una people as ‘heaven’.

1003 Reversal of the order is natural in Una, since expressions of emotion or intention are usually expressed

before expressions of action that follow from these emotions or intentions.

433

B. Discussion of translation strategy

a. This translation done by a mother tongue translator is a fairly literal translation

with some explication of implied information.1004

b. The shift in genre (individual song of trust doxological address) and the

rendering of ‘YHWH’s rod and staff’ as his ‘stick and rope’ are examples of

reader-based (contextualized) shifts. But, unlike the pioneering translation of

Psalm 23, the concept of the ‘dark valley’ was not rendered in a contextualized

fashion (world of the souls of the dead), but it was kept more indeterminate

(difficult situations).

c. Some of the logical connections between clauses have been made more explicit.

Other aspects of the text seemed to have been undertranslated (abundant meal

give food). The cup is not mentioned at all, but it is implied by the verb ‘it is full’.

d. Several features of the pioneering translation were also found in this mother

tongue translator draft. The shepherd metaphor in verse 1 was demetaphorized to

the more general concept of ‘caretaking’. However, the mother tongue translator’s

version contains even less indirect clues than the pioneering translation that this is

metaphorical language about a shepherd and sheep.1005

e. Overall, this translation seems to have a liturgical skopos. It is fairly literal and

relatively non-explicative. It assumes that the readers/hearers have a certain

amount background information. The subtle shift in genre (song of trust

prayer) also seems to fit in with a liturgical skopos. It contains one clear example

of a contextualized rendering (‘your stick and your rope’), in which the shepherd-

sheep frame is partly colored (overwritten?) by a pig owner – pig frame.1006

C. Questions for comprehension

When doing a comprehension check of this particular translation, most of the questions

listed in 12.2.4.1. C. could be asked. The specific form of those questions would, of

1004 It should be noted that the current translation was done by an experienced mother tongue translator, and

that the production of a more or less form-based translation that would nevertheless be understandable to

native speakers was the main point of this assignment. Generally speaking, beginning translators, including

expatriates and mother tongue translators, tend to be fairly literal in their written translations. Oral

translation, on the other hand, is usually much more free and meaning-based. Literal translations usually

become much more idiomatic and natural, if mother tongue translators are asked to retell the content of the

source text orally, before they put the translation into writing. 1005

Mother tongue translators, who often have a Bible school or seminary background, sometimes assume

that native speakers of their language have the same background information about the Bible and biblical culture as they themselves do. 1006 This kind of contextualization seems to be different from those discussed in the context of the

missionary-contextualizing translation. I’m inclined to interpret this example of contextualization as a form

of native speaker interpretation rather than viewing it as a part of a translation strategy.

434

course, need to be adjusted to the actual terminology used in the translation. And some of

the questions mentioned there may not be applicable to this particular translation.

Some of the questions to be added:

1. Why does God make the author’s inside soft? [verse 3; check the meaning of the

idiom]

2. What exactly is this ‘distressing area’? Could you give an example of this? [verse

4; check the meaning of this term.]

3. What is meant with God’s stick and rope? How can these make the author

steadfast? Steadfast in what respect? [verse 4; check the meaning of this term.]

4. Who is pouring oil? On whose head? What would be the purpose of this? What

kind of oil is being used? For what purpose is this oil normally used? [verse 5;

check out the understanding of symbolic action.]

5. Why does God have pity on the author? [verse 6; check the connotations of this

term.]

6. Why does the author say ‘You continually make me alive’? [verse 6; check the

implicatures of this expressions.]

435

13.2.2.4. Testing the mother tongue translator’s draft of Psalm 23

Psalm 23

A Psalm song of David 1 Heavenly One, you are the one who are taking care of me,

and therefore you are continually1007 doing good to me.

2 You usually accompany me amidst the good grass,

You usually accompany me to good flowing water.

3 You make my inside soft,

Based on your name you usually lead me on the right path.

4 Even if I would go through a distressing area,

I am usually not afraid.

He usually goes together with me.

His stick and his rope usually make me steadfast.

5 You usually give me food, while I am in the midst of the enemies.

While you pour oil on top of my head, it is usually full

……………………. [Omission: cup]

6 Having pity on me, you continually make me alive.

He has a big liver towards me for always, and therefore

I will always be in his house.

This translation was tested with four other Una informants. Two illiterates and two

people who had completed elementary school.

The main theme of the Psalm came through very clearly during the retelling of the Psalm

by each one of the informants: “God takes care of his people. He gives us everything we

need.” But, like in the pioneering translation, the metaphor of shepherd and sheep did not

come through. Three out of the four informants did not pick this up.

The implicatures intended in verse 2 (abundant provision of food and water for sheep)

did not come through. The informants did not know what the specific purpose was of

God accompanying the believer (or: sheep) to a good grass place and good flowing water.

Two informants said was that it was a good place to be, because it was an area with a

fertile soil. They thought that God brought the believer to this area to plant a new garden!

Verse 3: ‘you make my inside soft’ was unanimously understood as ‘you make my inside

feel good/happy’. The ‘straight path’ was understood by three of the informants as ‘doing

what God tells us to do’.

Verse 4: The ‘distressing area’ was understood as the area where the evil spirits are

active. None of the informants linked this with death (‘entering the world of the souls of

the dead’). The stick was associated with God leading his people, and the rope was

1007 The habitual aspect in Una can mean either ‘usually’ (‘habitually’) or ‘continually’. The meaning that

seems to be most applicable in a certain context is rendered in the back-translation.

436

associated with God taking care of his people. One informant explicitly mentioned the

custom of Una people to tie pigs with a rope to make sure that they do not stray away.

The Lord does the same with his people, so that they will not stray away.

Verse 5: The mentioning of enemies in the translation led the informants to believe that

God feeds his people during wartime. The informants were not sure whether or not the

enemies still posed a threat to the author/speaker. The purpose of the anointing of the

head was not clear to the informants. One of them mentioned the New Testament story of

a woman who poured good smelling stuff on Jesus’ feet.

Verse 6: The first part of the verse was understood as referring to the believer’s time on

earth. ‘You continually make me alive’ was understood as ‘you always follow/help me’

(tuba-tuba miliranurum) and ‘you always rescue me’ (tuba-tuba lemnanirim). The

second part of this verse was understood as referring to the life in heaven after the

believers have died (Er Imtamnyi ai ara imtam ai kurur; nunda dib tenen nang diamibyi

ani, imtam ai wengbinkwayeb).

13.2.2.5. Summary and suggestions for improving the translation

Summary:

a. The main theme (“God takes care of his people”) came through very clearly

b. Three out of four informants did not notice the shepherd and sheep metaphor

c. The ‘distressing area’ was understood as an area where evil spirits are active

d. Verse 6b was interpreted as referring to eternal life in heaven.

Suggestions for improving the translation:

1. Render the shepherd metaphor more clearly, especially in verse 1, where it is absent

2. Explicate the purpose of metaphorical and symbolic actions

3. Find a more adequate rendering of ‘house of the Lord’, a rendering that would

allow the interpretation that this expression refers to the ‘tabernacle’ or ‘temple’ on

earth.

437

13.2.3. Relatively non-explicative translation

13.2.3.1. Introduction

The following translation is another example of a relatively non-explicative1008

translation. This translation tries to do more justice to the details of the original text that

were either lost or that were too much backgrounded in the two versions that were

discussed earlier. This version contains a number of deliberately literal translations1009

,

which have been included for the sake of testing.

13.2.3.2. Una translation with English back-translation

Mazmur 23

Daud mot

1 TUHAN bira, “Ni domba,” tenen ni kalingnaninyi kurur.

Utotoa kum atabkwanir.

2 Erci nisi teleb sungsunga dam mardeirinurur.

Yiban me dam erci nisi bobanurur.

3 Erci ni kanya teleb kurdeirinurur.

Erci nisi menekoka bobanurur ati,

nira udikum bisik akwe banun.

Er si deib aryi Erci nisi teleb bisik bobanurur.

4 Ilil kot dam yibanmanyi ababyi, ni kanya ilil kum

kubkwanir. Kan ni ab tonkwa kuranim ati, ni kanya katabum eranir.

Kanda co balala ab kama ab talerandim ati, ni kanya teleb

kuranir.

5 Kanci, “Kwalibkwanim,” eboka nisi du dongonurum.

Ni ordana nang ababyi asing dinmangnyi bok, kwaliranim.

Kanci ni kisok dub asi co yung me dingdongonurum.

Ni me yin moyok asi kanci langdeiboka dingdongorum.

6 Kanci nisi teleb kimdeirin dinyi ab boukwe weik

kimdeirin dinyi ab ara tanglona kum uca nisi

milibkwaniring. Ura, ni kam kuranyi talak nirya kubkwan sokon ara

TUHAN ai bura aryi iya kubkwandi.

Psalm 23

A song of David

1 The LORD habitually takes care of me, thinking

[regarding me], “My sheep.” I will not be in need of

anything.

2 He makes me lie down in a good grass place.

He leads me to a place of running water. 3 He makes my inside feel good.

Because He, going before me, leads me,

I walk on nothing else than on a straight path.

Because of his name, He leads me on the good path.

4 Even when I go through the awesome ravine, my inside

will not be afraid.

Because you are together with me, my inside is steadfast.

Because you are holding a club and a stick, my inside is

happy.

5 You habitually invite me, saying, “Let the two of us

have a feast meal.” Even while my enemies are looking on, the two of us have

a feast meal.

You pour oil on top of my head.

As for my drinking container, you continually pour it full.

6 As for your doing good to me and your big liver

thinking on me, the two of them will follow me without

quitting.

And now, as for my habitual place for the rest of my life,

it will always be1010 in the house of TUHAN.

1008 This somewhat paradoxal expression refers to a type of translation where non-explication occurs

relatively frequently. It does, of course, not imply that there are various degrees of non-explication. 1009 It should be noted that a ‘literal rendering’ of the source text into the target language does not

necessarily imply that this is a ‘literalism’ (in the sense of translationese, i.e. vernacular language that is not

natural or commonly used). 1010 Note that the exegesis of as ‘return and dwell’ is not expressed in this translation. (Cf. chapter

6). Since both the Terjemahan Baru and the Kabar Baik translations interpret this verb as “dwell”, this

interpretation is preserved in the translation. The alternative rendering ‘return and dwell’ will be mentioned

in a footnote.

438

13.2.3.3. Comments, questions and discussion of translation strategy

A. Comments and questions

Section heading

This version does not have a thematic section heading.1011

Verse 1

Unlike the two translations that were discussed earlier, the imagery of shepherd and

sheep has not been generalized and demetaphorized in this version, but it has been

preserved as a pastoral metaphor (“The Lord takes care of me, thinking [regarding

me], “He is my sheep.”). The linguistic feature of quotative construction1012

(a thought

quote in this case) is used to help express the specific imagery of shepherd and

sheep.1013

Unlike the other two translations, the negative statement (“I will lack nothing”) has

been translated literally (as a negative statement) rather than as a positive statement.

Will Una speakers be able to derive the intended implicature of abundant provision

based on this negative statement?

1011 If a thematic section heading would have been included, it probably would have been very close to the

content of verse 1a (“The LORD is my shepherd”), or have been rendered in more general terms: “The

LORD takes care of his people”. 1012 Quotative constructions occur rather frequently in Papuan and Amerindian languages. Cf. L.J. de Vries,

“Quotative Constructions and Translation in Papuan languages.” In: The Bible Translator vol. 43, no. 3

(July 1992), p. 333-342. According to De Vries, quotative constructions “are used in at least the following

domains: with speech-act verbs, in intentional expressions, in cognition/emotion expressions and in

evidential constructions.” The frequency of quotative constructions in Papuan languages is related to “a

tendency in Papuan languages to prefer direct speech (direct discourse)”. “Sometimes this tendency is so strong that indirect forms of reporting speech are either absent or marginal.” (De Vries 1992:334).

Following Dooley (1989), De Vries defines (in)direct discourse “in terms of deictic orientation and not in

terms of verbatim (word-by-word) versus adapted modes of reporting speech.” “Direct quotation-forms

have all their deictic elements oriented immediately, i.e. oriented towards the utterance-situation of the

reported speech act and not of the reporting speech act.” These deictic elements are, for example, tense and

personal pronouns. In order to express a sentence like “They praised John,” Papuan languages often use

expressions like “They (praising) said to John: “You are good/great.” Similarly, a sentence like “He

promised to come,” is often rendered as “He said, “I will come”. Since the New Testament contains many

speech-act verbs, “it will be clear that in languages where speech-acts verbs obligatorily or preferably take

direct quotations there will occur very many direct quotations in the translated New Testament.” (De Vries

1992:336). However, quotative constructions are not restricted to verbs of saying, but they are also found in

“inner speech”, i.e. in intentional contexts (to want, to desire, to refuse), and in expressions of thoughts and emotions. In Una, quotative constructions are governed by the verb eb- ‘say’ or the verb teneb- ‘think’. 1013 The proposed translation is not mentioned in the literature on metaphor translation as a possible option,

but it works really well in Una, and perhaps in other Papuan language as well. This particular rendering has

the following advantages: it preserves the specific shepherd-sheep metaphor, it is rather succinct, and it is

idiomatic.

439

Verse 2

‘He makes me lie down’ has been translated literally, with the intention of checking

out the implicatures with Una informants. Would the use of this verb imply that the

shepherd had been carrying the sheep in his arms prior to ‘making it lie down’? And

would Una speakers understand this verse in the sense that the focus in on resting

rather than on the abundant provision of grass? Will they understand that verse 2 is a

further specification of verse 1b?

The use of pronouns in this verse and in the rest of the Psalm is generally consistent

with the use of pronouns in the source text. The switch from 3rd

person (verses 1-3) to

2nd

person (verses 4-5) and back to 3rd

person (verse 6) is reflected in the translation.

However, the use of the 2nd

person in the middle of the Psalm is extended to verse 6a

(‘as for your doing good to me and your big liver thinking on me …’). None of the

pronouns of the source text have been substituted by names or nouns. If participant

tracking turns out to be a problem the pronoun ‘you’ could be rendered as ‘you

LORD’ once or twice to keep the readers/hearers on track as to who is intended.

Verse 3

The verb ‘lead’ has been qualified by the dependent verb ‘going before’. Without this

specification this verse could be interpreted in the sense that the sheep is being carried

by the shepherd. 1014

The term ‘straight path’ is further qualified as the ‘good path’. Does this help Una

speakers to understand that the term ‘straight path’ is used in a metaphorical

(religious-moral) sense?

Verse 4

The ‘dark valley’ has been rendered as ‘awesome/frightening ravine’. The

implicatures of this term will need to be explored during the comprehension checks.

Does the idea of ‘awesome/frightening ravine’ primarily evoke associations of a

dangerous place, because people (and sheep) can easily fall into the ravine? Or, are

there other reasons why this ravine is awesome/frightening (evil spirits, for

example)?1015

‘Your rod and staff’ is rendered as ‘your club and stick’. The notion of rod (as a

weapon of defense or protection) has been made explicit. The notion of stick (as a tool

for guidance) has been kept implicit.

1014 The semantic range of the Una verb bo-ba-na (lit. ‘carry-go-INF’) includes the notions of carrying,

accompanying and leading. 1015 Una people will probably not think of the danger of wild animals, like wolves, that might attack in the

dark valley. Nor would they associate the dark valley with robbers that lie waiting in ambush.

440

Verse 5

This translation mentions not only the eating during the feast meal, but also the

invitation to join the feast meal, prior to the meal.

The potential misconception that during the feast meal the enemies are lying in

ambush is avoided here by using a connector that expresses contrast or counter-

expectation (‘even though my enemies watch, the two of use have a feast meal’).

Verse 6

The staying in the house of the Lord is explicitly marked as something that takes

place during the author’s lifetime.

B. Discussion of the translation strategy

a. This translation is a fairly non-explicative. The asyndeton between the two

sentences in verse 1 has been preserved. The symbolic action of pouring oil on the

head of the author (verse 5b) has not been explicated. The concept of the ‘house

of the Lord’ (verse 6) has not been explicated either.

b. The translation includes some explications. The ground of the shepherd metaphor

(taking care) has been explicated1016

. Also, the aspect of ‘going before’ is

explicated (to avoid the conception of ‘carrying’). The term ‘straight path’ is

further qualified as ‘good path’, which is usually understood in a metaphorical

sense as doing good and/or believing in God.

c. The translation includes natural language expressions. The use of quotative

constructions in the verses 1 and 5 are examples of this. And ‘your rod and staff

comfort me’ has been rendered as ‘because you are holding a club and a stick, my

inside is happy’1017

.

d. The translation includes several literal renderings: ‘I will not be in need of

anything’ (verse 1), ‘make lie down’ (verse 2), ‘as for your doing good to me and

your big liver thinking one me, the two of them will follow me’ (verse 6), ‘house

of the Lord’ (verse 6).

e. In terms of reader-based shifts, the aspect of the feast meal is highlighted (verse

5). This section includes the invitation to the meal and the eating of the meal. This

is consistent with Una schema of feast meals. Important feasts (feast meals) are

usually announced ahead of time. The rendering of the ‘dark valley’ as an

‘awesome ravine’ is another example of contextualization.

1016 It should be noted, though, that the notion of care is already a component of the lexical term for

‘shepherd’ as it is expressed in the Una language. Domba kalingnanyi ‘caretaker of sheep’. 1017 The notion of comfort is broken down in CAUSE+be happy.

441

f. All in all, this translation can be best characterized as a fairly non-explicative

rendering. It is also a test-version in the sense that it includes natural language

expressions as well as a number of literal renderings (potential literalisms). In

terms of skopos it fits in with the profile of translations with a liturgical skopos.

C. Specific questions to be asked during comprehension checks

In addition to the questions formulated in the previous sections, the following specific

questions could be asked:

1. What does the Lord habitually do to the author? (Verse 1; Check shepherd

metaphor)

2. What kinds of things is the author not in need of? (Verse 1; Check the reference

of ‘all kinds of things’)

3. To whom does ‘he’ refer? (Verse 2; check participant tracking)

4. For what purpose did the Lord make him/it lie down in good grass places? And,

for what purpose did He lead it/him to a place of running water? (verse 2)

5. What does the ‘straight path’ refer to? When (how) do people walk on a straight

path? (verse 3)

6. Why (for what purpose) does the Lord lead the author on the straight path? (verse

3)

7. What kind of a place is the ‘awesome ravine’? Why would it be ‘awesome’ to the

author? (verse 4)

8. What was the purpose (function) of the club? And what was the purpose

(function) of the stick? (verse 4)

9. How can the Lord’s doing good to us ‘follow us’? How can his big liver thinking

‘follow us’? (verse 6)

10. What will be the author’s habitual place for the rest of his life? (verse 6)

442

13.2.3.4. Testing the non-explicative rendering of Psalm 23

Psalm 23

A song of David 1 The LORD habitually takes care of me, thinking [regarding me], “My sheep.”

I will not be in need of anything.

2 He makes me lie down in good grass places.

He leads me to a place of running water.

3 He makes my inside feel good.

Because He, going before me, leads me,

I walk on nothing else than on a straight path.

Because of his name, He leads me on the good path.

4 Even when I go through the awesome ravine, my inside will not be afraid.

Because you are together with me, my inside is steadfast.

Because you are holding a club and a stick, my inside is happy.

5 You habitually invite me, saying, “Let the two of us have a feast meal.”

Even while my enemies are looking on, the two of us have a feast meal.

You pour oil on top of my head.

As for my drinking container, you continually pour it full.

6 As for your doing good to me and your big liver thinking on me,

the two of them will follow me without quitting.

And now, as for my habitual place for the rest of my life,

it will always be in the house of the LORD.

This version was tested with another four Una informants. Three of them were illiterate

and one of them had completed high school.

The main line of the Psalm came through very clearly in the retell part of the sessions. All

the informants mentioned “God takes care of his people” as the main point of the Psalm.

In addition, the imagery of shepherd and sheep was clearly understood by all the

informants. One of the informants interpreted the quotative construction (‘The LORD

takes care of me, thinking, “My sheep.”’) as an expression of ownership. “God takes care

of the believers because he owns us. He does not want Satan to own us, or to harm

us.”1018

Verse 2: Since the imagery of shepherd and sheep had been clearly established in verse

1, the informants had no difficulty whatsoever to figure out the meaning of verse 2. The

good grass is food for the ‘pigs’1019

(bisam yina), and the water place is for drinking. Two

of the informants immediately understood that this was all metaphorical language

(kemdeirina uram; ‘twisted language’), and they explained to me that both the ‘good

food’ and the ‘good water’ stand for ‘the Word of God’ (Er Imtamnyi uram). The good

grass place and the good place of water is a safe place, where God protects his people.

Nobody will harm them, and they won’t fall into the water or into a ravine. One of the

1018 The notion of ownership was not intended to be a primary focus of this rendering of the shepherd

metaphor, but it is not inconsistent with it either. 1019 The term bisam (‘pig’) was used in a generic sense here, including sheep. One of the informants

explained that real pigs don’t eat grass, but they uproot the soil (tukwe luboka yirur).

443

informants thought that the place of running water referred to the place where new

believers are baptized.

Verse 3: ‘He makes my inside feel good’ was interpreted by three informants in a

spiritualized sense: ‘He makes my inside good’, i.e., ‘He makes that I bear fruits (du teleb

mouranir), and that I do what he commands me to do’. To one of these informants this

verse meant that the author did not doubt anymore (kanya bintinina kum), but that he

listened to the word of God, and stopped doing evil things. He contrasted the straight path

(udikum bis) of God with the twisted path (tengkwanin bis) of Satan. Walking in the

straight path was explained as praying (sembayang molona) and listening to God’s word

(er Imtamnyi uram kekena). The expression ‘he leads me, while going before me’ was

paraphrased by one of the informants as ‘he leads me while taking me by the hand’ (taruk

taleboka bobanurur). The shepherd-sheep metaphor is exchanged for a guide metaphor

where one person leads another person through difficult terrain.1020

Verse 4: The awesome ravine was also interpreted as figurative language. According to

two informants it referred to the place where evil spirits are active. The third informant

interpreted it as the area where people live who don’t know the word of God (er

Imtamnyi uram walwal nang).1021

The fourth informant interpreted as a ravine, like the

one near Langda, which is very dark, and where enemies (ninyi sirik; real people) were

waiting in ambush to kill the author/speaker. The stick was interpreted as the word of

God (er Imtamnyi uram). This stick is ‘the stick of God’ (er Imtamnyi kama) and the

‘light stick’ (berengna kama). When we hold this stick, we don’t need to be afraid, to be

attacked by enemies, or to fall into the ravine1022

. The word of God is in fact a weapon

(yin; bow [and arrow]). Another informant interpreted the stick as the guiding stick, and

he added that because God guides us with this stick, our faith is strong (er kanya

lulungna kum; mereka punya iman tidak goyang). Another informant interpreted the stick

as something that the believer needs to lean on, just like old people or people who are

weak lean on a stick. The club was understood by two informants as a weapon of defense

against enemies. The term did not seem to make sense to the other two informants. They

understood its literal meaning, but in the context of all this metaphorical talk they were

not able to make sense out of it.

Verse 5: The mentioning of the enemies (yin doun nang = ‘people holding bows’)

immediately evoked the question, “Are you talking about humans (tukwe nang, ‘earth

people’) or are you referring to Satan and the evil spirits (isa nang)? Two informants

thought it referred to Satan and the evil spirits. The other two were not sure. The feast

meal was associated with the Lord’s supper by two informants. The oil poured on the

head of the author/speaker was associated with the Holy Spirit (Er Imtamnyi Kanya).

1020 The expression ‘he leads me while taking me by the hand’, spoken by our Una friends, recalls precious memories of them holding my hand while we were hiking through steep mountainous areas with steep

cliffs. I often felt that without their help and persistence to accompany me to my destination, I would be

lost. 1021 This refers to unevangelized areas, where warfare and sorcery make it a very dangerous place to live. 1022 This metaphor is often used to refer to ‘falling into sin’.

444

Verse 6: The concept of goodness and love/pity, rendered as personifications, and

following the believer, was not readily understood. Only one of the informants seemed to

understand it more or less. He said, “Oh, they are like church elders who watch over

people and do good to them.” Two informants understood that ‘the house of the LORD’

referred to heaven where the believers will be forever. According to one of the

informants it cannot refer to a place on earth, since people will only be temporarily (tiya)

on earth. In this verse it says that the author will be there forever (iya), so it must be in

heaven. The other two informants said that the house of the Lord is in the hearts (insides)

of the believers. When asked how he would render this verse if it was to refer to being

close to God during the rest of his earthly life and after death, one of the informants

suggested the following rendering: ‘In the future I will always be close to the heavenly

one’ (Aminda kubdi bankwan talak nirya asi er Imtamnyi dam iya kubkwan).

13.2.3.5. Summary and suggestions for improving the translation

Summary:

a. The main point of the Psalm came through very clearly (“God takes care of his

people).

b. The metaphor of shepherd and sheep came also through very clearly. This helped

the informants to put verse 2 in the right context, and understand its meaning.

c. Once the informants understood that this passage contains metaphorical language,

they spontaneously came up with explanations of what the topics of those metaphor

are. They even spiritualized the idiomatic expression (‘He makes my inside feel

good’) in the sense of ‘he makes my inside good’ (regeneration of sinful nature).

d. The expression ‘the house of the Lord’ was understood as ‘heaven’ by two

informants. The two other informants, taking the expression completely out of

context, said that the hearts of the believers are the house of the Lord.1023

Suggestions for improving the translation:

1. Avoid the expression ‘he makes my inside feel good’, since it can be interpreted in

a spiritualized sense that is not intended here.

2. Find a better rendering of ‘love and goodness following [the believer]’, since the

present rendering appears to be a literalism that is not well understood.1024

3. Find a better expression for ‘the house of the Lord’ so that it cannot be

misunderstood.

1023 These informants reversed the metaphor ‘we will dwell in God’s house’ as ‘God will dwell in our

house’, i.e., in our hearts. 1024 The most natural translation would be to render this as follows: “As for the rest of my life, God will

always follow me, having a big liver towards me (love) and doing good to me (goodness).”

445

13.2.4. Relatively explicative translation

13.2.4.1. Introduction

The three translations discussed so far were relatively non-explicative. That is, the

explication of implied information was kept to a minimum. The following translation is

much more explicative.

13.2.4.2. Una translation plus English back-translation

Mazmur 23 Daud mot

1025

1 Nun Nai Erebdobnyi bira ni kalingnaninyi kurur.

Domba kalingnanyi er domba asi dirnilirandi to,

nun Nai Erebdobyi biryi nisi dirniliranir.

Mitik dinyi ababyi kum atabkwanir.

2 Erci nisi teleb sungsunga dam mardeirinurur uca, yina

teleb dinyi akwe yinun. Nimalyok yiban me dam bobanurur uca, me teleb dinyi

akwe yinun.

3 Nun Nai Erebdobnyi bira ni kanya teleb kurdeirinurur

ati ebman.

Nun Nai bira nisi menekoka bobanurur ati,

nira udikum bisik akwe banun.

Er si deib aryi Erci nisi teleb bisik bobanurur.

4 Mutuk amwe dam mambul kurdeirin dam yibanmanyi

ababyi, ni kanya ilil kum kubnuti.

Kanda Imtamnyi ni ab tonkwa kuranim ati, ni kanya

katabum eranir. Kanda co balala ab bisik menengna kama ab talerandim

ati, ni kanya teleb kuranir.

5 Kanci muna kibdongobmarim nang aryi asing

dinmangnyi ba, kanci nisi du dongoboka weik kwalina

deiriranirim.

Kanci, “Nikwit” tenen ni kisok dub asi co yung me

dingdongonurum.

Ni me yibkwan moyok asi kanci langdeiboka

dingdongorum.

6 Ura, kanci nisi teleb kimdeirin dinyi ab kan boukwe weik kimdeirin dinyi ab ara tanglona kum uca nisi

milibkwaniring.

Tonda, aminda kam kuranyi talak nirya ni kubkwan sokon

ara er Imtamnyi ai bura aryi iya kubkwandi.

Psalm 23 A song of David 1 Our Father the Elevated One is the one who takes care

of me.

Like a caretaker of sheep provides for his sheep,

our Father the Elevated One provides for me.

I will not be in need of even a small thing.

2 He usually makes me lie down in a good grass place,

and as a result of that I eat nothing else than good food.

He leads me to a place of gently running water,

and as a result of that I drink nothing else than good water.

3 Our Father the Elevated One makes my inside feel good,

I tell you.

Because our Father, going before me, leads me, I walk on nothing else than on a straight path.

Because of his name, He leads me on the good path.

4 Even if I go through the distress causing place at the foot

(lit. ‘tail’) of the mountain, my inside would not be afraid.

Because you heavenly One are together with me, my

inside is steadfast.

Because you are holding a club and a guiding stick, my

inside is happy.

5 While the people over whom you have gained the

victory are looking on, you invite me and open a big

cooking pit for me. Thinking, “My friend” you pour oil on top of my head.

As for the container that I will drink from, you pour it full.

6 Now, as for your doing good to me and your big liver

thinking on me, the two of them will follow me without

quitting.

And also, as for my habitual place during the rest of my

life, it will always be1026 in the house of the heavenly One.

1025 Daud biryi liboka sebmou mot (‘A song that David composed and sang’) would be too explicit, since

we do not know for sure what ‘A Psalm of David’ actually means. 1026 Note that the exegesis of as ‘return and dwell’ is not expressed in this translation. (Cf. chapter

6). Since both the Terjemahan Baru and the Kabar Baik translations interpret this verb as “dwell”, this

interpretation is preserved in the translation. The alternative rendering ‘return and dwell’ will be mentioned

in a footnote.

446

13.2.4.3. Comments, questions and discussion of translation strategy

A. Comments and questions

Section heading

This version has no thematic section heading

Verse 1

The metaphor of shepherd and sheep has been rendered as an explicated simile. “Like

a watcher of sheep provides for his sheep, our Father the Elevated One provides for

me.” This simile is preceded by the thematic sentence: “Our Father the Elevated One

takes care of me”.

The name YHWH (‘LORD’) has been rendered as ‘Nun Nai Erebdobnyi’ (Our Father

the Elevated One). A number of the pronouns have been substituted by the descriptive

noun phrase ‘our Father the Elevated One’ or by ‘our Father’. In one case, the vocative

‘Imtamnyi’ has been added after the 2nd

person singular pronoun.

Verse 2

The events of eating good food, and drinking good water have been made explicit.

These events are the purpose why the Lord leads the sheep to the good grass places

and the places of gently running water.

Verse 4

The ‘dark valley’ is rendered as ‘the distress causing place at the foot (literally: ‘tail’)

of the mountain’. The foot (‘tail’) of the mountain is a place where spirits are usually

active, and it is therefore a place to be avoided.

Both the concept of club and the concept of staff has been expressed in this

translation.

Verse 5

The problem of the ‘enemies waiting in ambush’ interpretation is solved here in a

different way than in the previous translation. The term ‘enemies’, interpreted as

‘enemies over whom God has gained the victory’ has been translated as ‘the people

over whom you gained the victory’.

The purpose of the symbolic action is made explicit by using a quotative construction

(“thinking, “My friend,” …”).

447

The container that will be full is explicitly identified as a ‘drinking container’.

Verse 6

The expression ‘house of the LORD’ has been retained and is not further explicated

as ‘the house where people bring gifts to God’. However, by fronting the time frame

(‘during the rest of my life’) an attempt is made to guide the listener’s interpretation

that the house of the LORD refers primarily to being close to the LORD during the life

on earth, and not to eternal life in heaven.

B. Discussion of translation strategy

a. The explication of implied information (both explicatures and implicatures) is

characteristic for this translation.

b. The translation avoids explication of every single aspect that could be explicated.

For example, the concept of ‘walking on a straight path’ (verse 3) is not

explicated, nor is the purpose of the club (co balala) explicated (verse 4)1027

. The

concept of ‘the house of the Lord’ (verse 6) is not explicated either.1028

c. The explication of implied information leads to a translation that may be very

clear, but which is also rather verbose.

C. Specific questions to be asked

Most of the questions that are relevant have already been mentioned in the discussion of

the previous translations.

1027 A full explication of the concept of club would require a rendering like the following: “You are holding

a club, thinking, “I will drive away and kill wild dogs.” (“Yu kam asi yakdonokoka obkwan,” tenen co

balala asi talerandim). 1028

If ‘the house of the Lord’ is taken in the sense of primarily referring to the temple or the tabernacle, it

could be rendered as ‘house where people [killing sheep and cows] put down gifts for the heavenly One.’ ([domba sapi oboka] er Imtamnyi bisi dama deirin ai). There are two problems with a rendering like this in

the particular context of Psalm 23: a. An extensive rendering like this does not seem to fit in with poetic

genre, especially not in light of the fact that Psalm 23, in its original Hebrew rendering, is rather succinct;

and b. this rendering focuses on the sacrificial aspect of ‘the house of God’, whereas in this context the

focus seems to be on the notion of fellowship with God.

448

13.2.2.4. Testing the fairly explicative rendering of Psalm 23

Psalm 23

A song of David

1 Our Father the Elevated One is the one who takes care of me.

Like a caretaker of sheep provides for his sheep,

our Father the Elevated One provides for me.

I will not be in need of even a small thing.

2 He makes me lie down in good grass places,

and as a result of that I eat nothing else than good food.

He leads me to a place of gently running water,

and as a result of that I drink nothing else than good water.

3 Our Father the Elevated One makes my inside feel good, I tell you.

Because our Father, going before me, leads me,

I walk on nothing else than on a straight path.

Because of his name, He leads me on the good path. 4 Even if I go through the distress causing place at the foot (lit. ‘tail’) of the mountain,

my inside would not be afraid.

Because you heavenly One are together with me, my inside is steadfast.

Because you are holding a club and a guiding stick, my inside is happy.

5 While the people over whom you have gained the victory are looking on,

you invite me and open a big cooking pit for me.

Thinking, “My friend” you pour oil on top of my head.

As for the container that I will drink from, you pour it full.

6 Now, as for your doing good to me and your big liver thinking on me,

the two of them will follow me without quitting. And also, as for my habitual place during the rest of my life,

it will always be in the house of the heavenly One.

This version of Psalm 23 was tested with three illiterates and three people who had

finished elementary school or a lower level Bible school.

The main theme of the psalm was well-understood by the informants (“The Lord takes

care of his people, and will not abandon them”). The imagery of shepherd and sheep was

also well understood.

Verse 1: Two informants said that the provision that God made for the author/speaker in

this context included food (kwaning; ‘sweet potatoes’) and water (me; ‘water’). Two

other informants said that this is not about physical food, but about God’s power (mikib).

One of the informants thought that the author/speaker was in need, while he uttered these

words.1029

The others thought that he was well taken care of.

Verse 2: The place where the shepherd leads the sheep was interpreted as a metaphor that

refers to a place of abundant food. One of the informants gave an example: “The water to

1029 The use of the future tense (‘I will not be in need of even a small thing’) may have led him to this

interpretation. Using the habitual aspect instead of the future tense may help to avoid this kind of

interpretation.

449

which he leads the believer is not naughty (arikal) like the river Ei, which easily floods,

but it is quiet like the Yalame stream.” The expression ‘he makes me lie down’ implied

that the shepherd was carrying the sheep (taruk taleboka bodeiritbaranir). One of the

informants suggested the following rendering ‘while the caretaker of sheep goes before,

the sheep follows closely behind him’ (domba kalingnanyi bomenekoka banmar ba,

domba ara er dam kuboka milirandi).

Verse 3: The expression ‘he makes my inside feel good’ was interpreted by the

informants as ‘he makes my inside feel happy’ (ni kanya kilkil kubdeibmanir). The

explication of eating and drinking in the previous verse helped the informants to interpret

this expression in its literal sense.1030

The straight path was interpreted as the ‘good path’,

‘God’s path’. People who walk on this path do what God commands us to do (Er

Imtamnyi biryi ebdeibmou uram kunubdi baraming). People who walk on the straight

path go to church, don’t lie, and don’t commit adultery. And people, like X, who take a

second wife, are no longer on the straight path. They have become followers of Satan.

Verse 4: The majority of the informants interpreted ‘the distress causing place at the tail

of the mountain’ as the foot of the mountains, in the narrow valleys, where the evil spirits

are active. The stick and the club were interpreted as the Word of God. You always take

it with you. Evangelists take it with them when they go to unevangelized areas. God’s

stick is not intended to kill people, but to teach people the truth. Two of the informants

understood that the club was intended as a weapon of defense against jungle dogs (bai

kam). It can also be used to kill people (ninyi on dinyi). One of the informants said that

the club that God is holding is “soft” (yongon dinyi).

Verse 5: The enemies watch the feast meal, but they are not dangerous anymore. They

realize that they have lost. (“Nun muna kibdongobmasir,” tenen dinmang). Some

informants thought that the enemies referred to evil spirits (yu nang; literally ‘angry

people’). Others thought that this expression refers to people who do not obey the words

of God (er Imtamnyi uram keken kum nang). Two informants thought that the feast meal

referred to the Lord’s supper (Communion). The oil was interpreted as the Holy Spirit

(Er Imtamnyi Kanya), faith (dib tenen dinyi) or as prayer (er Imtamnyi bisi molona).

Verse 6: Three informants interpreted the ‘being in the house of the Lord’ as being in a

close relationship with the Lord, during our life on earth, and during the eternal life in

heaven. The expression ‘during the rest of my life’ helped to avoid the interpretation that

the house of the Lord only refers to heaven. One informant thought that this only referred

to eternal life in heaven.

1030 In Una stories, a report of eating and drinking is usually followed by an expression that the people have

a good inside (sun kanya teleb) or that they are happy (sun kanya kilkil). These terms belong to the schema

of meals. By explicating the eating and drinking in verse 2, the interpretation of verse 3a as referring to

satisfaction after a meal is the most natural interpretation. The addition of ‘I tell you’ also signals that verse

3a does not contain new information, but that it refers back to the previous context.

450

13.2.4.5. Summary and suggestions for improving the translation

Summary:

a. The main point of the Psalm came through very clearly (“God takes care of his

people”).

b. The metaphor of shepherd and sheep came also through very clearly. This helped

the informants to put verse 2 in the right context, and understand its meaning.

c. The expression ‘he makes me lie down’ was understood as implying that the

shepherd had carried the sheep to the pasture rather than leading it there.

d. The translation is rather verbose, and it is not very poetic (the latter is true of all the

Una renderings of Psalm 23 discussed so far).

Suggestions for improving the translation:

1. Avoid the expression ‘he makes me lie down’, since it would imply that the

shepherd was carrying the sheep rather than leading it.

2. Try to come up with a translation that is less verbose and more poetic, but which

is understood equally well

451

13.3. Comparison and evaluation of the four translations

A. Comparing and evaluating the main features of the four translations

Comparing and evaluating translations is a risky business, since it is so easy to either

over-emphasize or neglect certain aspects. The fact that two translations of Psalm 23 (the

relatively non-explicative and the relatively explicative one) were produced with

significant input from myself as a translation advisor, and that one translation (the mother

tongue translator’s draft) was produced by a friend and co-translator makes it even more

difficult to step back and give an evaluation that is totally unbiased.

I have tried to avoid a biased interpretation by looking at a broad range of aspects that

seem to be significant for the evaluation of translations. The following diagram

summarizes the features of the various translations.

Feature

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Intended function Missionary-

contextualizing

Liturgical Liturgical Missionary-

explicative

Conciseness

Fair-Good Good Fair Poor

Precision Fair

Fair Good Good

Coherence Poor-Fair

Poor-Fair Fair High

Naturalness

Fair Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

Explication Low on

explication

Low on

explication

Some explication Substantial

explication

Comprehension Poor-Fair

Poor-Fair Good Good

Indeterminacy Exceeds

indeterminacy in

ST

Exceeds

indeterminacy in

ST

Less indeterminate

than ST

Less indeterminate

than ST

Contextualization Some

(significant)

Some

(peripheral)

Some

(peripheral)

Some

(peripheral)

Interpretative rendering

Some (significant)

Some Some Some

Translation errors

Some Some None detected so

far

None detected so

far

Metaphor Rendering Poor-Fair

Poor-Fair Good Good

Poetic rendering Poor Poor

Poor Poor

The diagram shows that the various translations have different strengths and weaknesses,

if they are viewed from one particular perspective. However, in the context of a skopos

approach it is important that translations are primarily evaluated in terms of their

identified skopos. Translations with a liturgical skopos should not be expected to be

highly explicative, nor should translations with a missionary-explicative skopos be

452

expected to be very concise or to get a high rating on the preserving of indeterminacy.

One cannot eat his cake and have it. The choice for a particular skopos has consequences

for the way a translation is rendered.

As a rule of thumb, translations with a liturgical skopos should perhaps be evaluated in

terms of how successful they are in avoiding the pitfall of producing a translation that is

not adequately understood by the audience. And, translations with a missionary-

explicative skopos should perhaps be evaluated in terms of how successful they are in

avoiding the pitfall of producing translations that are overly explicative.

‘Conciseness’, for example, is an important principle, not only for translators of

translations with a liturgical skopos, but also for translators of translations with a

missionary-explicative skopos. The explication of implied information is sometimes

necessary, but skilled translators will always look for possibilities to render the explicated

information in a way that is both adequate and economical.

‘Precision’ and avoidance of ‘translation errors’ are, of course, important for every

translator, irrespective of the intended function of the translation. ‘Coherence’ is another

important aspect: If readers/listeners are not able to figure out how the different parts of

the translated text hang together, the translation has a problem that needs to be addressed.

Overall, coherence, precision and comprehension were highest in the explicative

translation. However, the non-explicative translation also scored relatively high in these

areas. Both the pioneering translation and the mother tongue translator’s draft lost

significant points in precision, coherence and comprehension, because they did not

clearly establish the shepherd metaphor at the beginning of the Psalm. None of the

compared translations was very poetic in nature.

All the translations showed restraint in the application of their identified skopos. The

pioneering translation (missionary-contextualizing skopos), for example, did not

contextualize the shepherd – sheep metaphor by changing it into a pig owner – pig

metaphor. The translations with a liturgical skopos did not totally avoid the explication of

implied information. And the explicative translation (missionary-explicative skopos) did

not explicate everything that could have been explicated.

Naturalness (natural use of the receptor language) is primarily evidenced by the use of

grammatically correct forms, lack of literalisms, and the choice of fitting lexical items are

three important factors here. The mother tongue translator’s draft scored high on this. The

pioneering translation scored much lower, while the non-explicative translation and the

explicative translation were in between.

453

B. Comparing the handling of figurative language

Various translation strategies were used to render metaphors into Una. Metaphor

preservation without ground explication occurred most frequently (29x), followed by

metaphor preservation with ground explication (9x) and Source Text (ST) image

Target Text (TT) image substitution with ground explication (7x). The following diagram

shows how these strategies were used in the four translations.

Translation Strategy Pioneering

Translation

Mother

Tongue

Draft

Non-

explicative

Explicative

Translation

TOTAL

Metaphor

preservation

Without

Ground

explication

7x 7x 10x 5x 29x

With Ground

explication

-- 1x 2x 6x 9x

Metaphor

generalization

Without

Ground explication

1x 1x -- -- 2x

With Ground

explication

-- -- -- -- 0x

Metaphor

Simile

Without

Ground

explication

-- -- -- -- 0x

With Ground

explication

-- -- -- 1x 1x

ST Image

TT Image

Substitution

Without

Ground

explication

2x 2x 1x 1x 7x

With Ground

explication

2x -- -- -- 2x

Metaphor Ground

Substitution

1x 2x 1x 1x 5x

Metaphor implication

-- 1x -- -- 1x

Metaphor reification 1x -- -- -- 1x

TOTAL 14x 14x 14x 14x 56x

The translation and comprehension of fourteen metaphors in Psalm 23 is summarized in

the following diagrams. Figurative language

(1)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Shepherd

(verse 1) Strategy Image Ground

substitution

Image Ground

substitution

Metaphor preser-

vation Simile + Grounds

Topic He God (Allah) Heavenly One

(vocative)

The LORD

(TUHAN)

Our Father the

Elevated One

Image Not preserved Not preserved Caretaker of sheep Caretaker of sheep

Grounds Caretaker Caretaker Takes care Caretaker of sheep

/ provides for

Metaphor

Comprehension

Image unclear

Meaning clear

Image unclear

Meaning clear

Image Clear

Ground clear Image Clear

Grounds clear

454

Figurative language

(2)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Pastures

(verse 2) Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Amidst soft

grass

Amidst good

grass

In a good grass

place

In a good grass

place

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Eat nothing else

than good food

Metaphor

Comprehension

Purpose of grass

(food) not clear

Purpose of grass

(food) not clear

Purpose of grass

(food) not clear

Purpose of grass

(food) clear

Figurative language

(3)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Waters

(verse 2) Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Place of quiet

water Good, flowing

waters

Place of running

water

Place of gently

flowing water

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Drink nothing else

than good water

Metaphor

Comprehension

Purpose of quiet

water (drinking)

not clear

Purpose of quiet

water (drinking)

not clear

Purpose of water

place (drinking)

not clear

Purpose of water

place (drinking)

clear

Figurative language

(4)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Path

(verse 3) Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Straight path Straight path Straight path Straight path

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated1031

Metaphor

Comprehension

Clear: Obey

God’s commands

Obey God’s

commands

Obey God’s

commands

Obey God’s

commands

Figurative language

(5)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Valley

(verse 4) Strategy Reify image Preserve image Specify image Preserve image

Topic Die; enter the

netherworld

[indeterminate] [indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Enter the pit hole

of the souls of the

dead

Area/mountain

(generalized)

Ravine Place at foot of

mountain

Grounds Not applicable distressing awesome Causes distress

Metaphor

Comprehension

Meaning clear;

Metaphor lost

Ground clear Ground clear Ground clear

1031 Reference to the udikum bisik (‘straight path’) is repeated by the near-synonymous teleb bisik (‘good

path’), but this is not really a form of explication.

455

Figurative language

(6)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Rod

(verse 4) Strategy ST Image TT

Image substitution

ST Image TT

Image substitution Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [indeterminate] [indeterminate]

Image stick stick club club

Grounds driving Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated

Metaphor

Comprehension

Purpose: clear

Drive [sheep/pig]

Purposes clear:

Guide/ Lean on

Purpose: not

clear in context

Purpose: not

clear in context

Figurative language

(7)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Staff

(verse 4) Strategy ST Image TT

Image substitution

ST Image TT

Image substitution Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [indeterminate] [indeterminate]

Image Forked stick Rope [Pig’s __] stick stick

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated guiding

Metaphor

Comprehension

Not clear Clear: watch/take

care of pig

Clear: Watch/

care/ guide

Clear: guide

Figurative language

(8)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Comfort

(verse 4) Strategy Image

Generalized

Image generalized Demetaphorized

(Image Grnd) Demetaphorized

(Image Grnd)

Topic Stick & stick Stick & rope Club & stick Club & stick

Image Make inside feel

good

Make steadfast Image lost Image lost

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated My inside is

good/happy

My inside is

good/happy

Metaphor

Comprehension

Meaning clear Meaning clear Meaning

Spiritualized

Meaning clear

Figurative language

(9)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Enemies

(verse 5) Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Indeterminate;

sg]

[Indeterminate;

pl]

[Indeterminate; pl] [indeterminate; pl]

Image Before the person

who could/would

kill me

In the midst of

enemies/killing

people

Fighting/killing

people

The people over

whom you gained

the victory

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated captive/harmless

Metaphor

Comprehension

Reference:

contextualized:

evil spirits

Ground: not clear

Reference:

contextualized:

evil spirits

Ground: not clear

Reference:

contextualized:

evil spirits

Ground: not clear

Reference:

contextualized:

evil spirits

Ground: clear

456

Figurative language

(10)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Prepare

table

(verse 5)

Strategy ST Image TT

Image

substitution

Image

generalization ST Image TT

Image

substitution

ST Image TT

Image substitution

Topic [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Feast meal Give food Feast meal Feast meal

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated

Metaphor

Comprehension

Image: clear

Grounds: clear:

Relation/care

Image/Grounds:

partly clear:

Relation/care

Image: clear

Grounds: clear:

Relation/care

Image: clear

Grounds: clear:

Relation/care

Figurative language

(11)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Anoint

(verse 5) Strategy ST Image TT

image substitution Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Pour healing water

Pour tree sap water/liquid

Pour tree sap water/liquid

Anointing

Grounds heal Not explicated Not explicated Thinking, “my

friend” …

Metaphor

Comprehension

Image: healer

Purpose: clear

Image: clear

Purpose: unclear

Image: clear

Purpose: unclear

Purpose: clear

Hospitality

Friendship

Figurative language

(12)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Cup Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic [Implied: healing

water]

[Implied: oil/tree

sap water]

[indeterminate] [Indeterminate]

Image Full cup Full [Cup: implied]

Full cup of drinking water

Full cup of drinking water

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated

Metaphor

Comprehension

Image: unclear:

cup with water

or oil?

Ground: clear

Image: unclear:

cup with water

or oil?

Ground: clear

Image: clear: cup

of drinking water

Image: clear: cup

of drinking water

Figurative language

(13)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

Compan-

ions (verse 6)

Strategy Preserve image Image Literal Preserve image Preserve image

Topic Goodness & love God has pity,

makes alive

Goodness & love Goodness & love

Image Be together with [Personification]

-- Follow [Personification]

Follow [Personification]

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated

Metaphor

Comprehension

Meaning: Clear

Companions

Meaning: clear Meaning: clear

Followers/helpers

Meaning: clear

Followers/helpers

457

Figurative language

(14)

Pioneering

Translation

Mother Tongue

Draft

Non-explicative

Translation

Explicative

Translation

House of

the

LORD

Strategy Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image Preserve image

Topic Temple/tabernacle Temple /

tabernacle

Temple/tabernacle Temple/tabernacle

Image House of God House of God House of God House of God

Grounds Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated Not explicated

Metaphor

Comprehension

[Salvation/

Fellowship with

God in heaven]

[Salvation/

Fellowship with

God in heaven]

[Fellowship with

God on earth]

[Fellowship with

God on earth]

13.4. The interpretation of Psalm 23 by native speakers of Una

In the previous sections we have seen how unconditioned native speakers of Una

interpreted the various versions of Psalm 23.

Verse 1: Generally speaking, the main theme of the Psalm (“God cares for his people”),

as expressed in each of the versions, was understood very well. In two translations,

however, the imagery of shepherd and sheep was not clearly expressed in the translation,

and it was consequently not noticed by the majority of the informants.

Verse 2: Informants who did not understand that shepherd/sheep imagery was involved,

were not able to make sense of the more specific pastures and waters metaphors in verse

2. They saw it merely as a mentioning of a location where the Lord took the believer, but

the imagery of sheep feeding on grass in lush pastures and drinking from quiet waters

was not evoked in their minds. The intended implicature of abundant provision for sheep

(believers) did not come through. The mentioning of areas with green grass triggered the

gardening frame (fertile soil) in the minds of some of the informants rather than the

shepherding frame.

In the other two versions, where the imagery of shepherd and sheep had been clearly

established at the beginning of the Psalm, the interpretation of verse 2 was not a problem

at all. The informants immediately saw the connection with the previous verse, and

interpreted the information in the light of the shepherd and sheep frame that had been

established there.

In the translations where the frame of shepherd and sheep had not been established in

verse 1, and where the informants were interpreting the Psalm from a Deity and believer

frame, the concept of God ‘driving’ the believers caused misunderstanding. The

informants thought that God was angry with the believer and/or that the believer was not

willing to walk in the ‘straight path.’ In the two other translations, where the frame of

shepherd and sheep was clearly established in the first verse, the notion of ‘driving’ was

readily understood as a metaphorical rendering of God leading the sheep/pig.

458

Verse 3: The expression ‘straight path’ was well-understood as a metaphor for obeying

God’s commandments. This concept was understood right away even by the informants

who were not aware of the shepherd and sheep frame in Psalm 23.

The expression ‘He makes my inside feel good’, which is normally used in a general

sense of ‘he make my inside feel happy’ was spiritualized by some informants: ‘He

makes my inside good’ (in the sense of ‘he cleanses my inside from thinking evil

things’). The spiritual context of this expression (‘walk in the right path’) made the

informants believe that a spiritual interpretation was required.

Verse 4: The dark valley was most often understood as the area where evil spirits are

active. In the pioneering translation it was rendered as ‘the pit hole of the people who are

dead’. This triggered the frame of the place of the souls of the dead, rather than the area

where the enemies were waiting to attack.

Verse 5: The ‘enemies’ (or: ‘enemy’ in the singular form) were understood by most of

the informants as referring to Satan. When the term ‘enemies’ is mentioned in a spiritual

context, like reading from a Bible text, the first meaning that leaps to people’s minds is

“Satan” or “evil spirits”. Most of the informants were not really sure, whether or not the

mentioning of the enemies in this context posed a threat to the believer. The default frame

that seemed to come to mind first was the one of enemies who were lying in ambush

ready to attack the believer who was enjoying his feast meal with God. As a result some

informants saw this as a threat to the believer. However, some informants remembered

that God was at the scene and that he would protect the believer. But, in either case none

of the informants understood that these enemies were, in fact, subjugated enemies. And

that the mentioning of the enemies in this context was primarily intended to heighten the

feeling of assurance rather than voicing apprehension.1032

The feast meal that is mentioned in this Psalm was interpreted as a reference to the Lord’s

Supper by several informants. The explicit reference to a feast meal (kwalina) and a cup

(moyok), and the fact that God figures as the host of the believer led several of the

informants to the interpretation that communion was involved here (Church frame).

Verse 6: The expression “the house of the Lord” was almost consistently interpreted as

“heaven”. This was especially the case in those translations where the “dark valley” was

interpreted as “death”. However, when “for the rest of my life” was clearly expressed in

the translation, the informants understood that “heaven” was not the primarily intended in

this context, but that this referred to a close relationship with the Lord during the

believer’s life on earth. Some informants understood this as going to church regularly.

1032 In Una christianized worldview, people are seen as either children of God or as children of Satan.

People who believe in Jesus and obey God’s commandments are seen as children of God, whereas people

who disobey God’s commandments or who are still unevangelized are seen as children of Satan.

Temptation into sin (primarily seen as killing, stealing, committing adultery, or marrying a second or third

wife) is usually referred to as ‘Satan attacking people’ or ‘people falling into the ravine’.

459

With regard to the interpretation of metaphors and similes in general, it was interesting to

note that Una native speakers had a tendency to assign fixed meanings to metaphors.

They interpreted the metaphors of Psalm 23 in the light of those already known.

Informants who understood that verse 2 was metaphorical language understood the grass

and the water as the Word of God (Bible). And the shepherd’s staff was also interpreted

as the word of God. The oil, mentioned in verse 5, was interpreted as referring to the

Holy Spirit. The meaning of the metaphor was not deduced from the text, but it was

supplied from their knowledge of other parts of the Bible that they are more familiar

with. None of the informants seemed to be aware of the fact that the same metaphor can

have different meanings when used in different contexts.

The comprehension checking of psalm 23 with native speakers of Una confirms a

working hypothesis that I formulated for myself about ten years ago, and which I have

seen confirmed many times during comprehension checks that I have been involved in

both as a translation advisor of Una and as a translation consultant for other (mostly

Papuan) languages: When native speakers misunderstand a particular aspect of a

vernacular translation in their own language, such misunderstandings are often not just

anomalies, but they make sense from the perspective of the native speakers’ worldview.

A lot of these misunderstandings are in fact predictable, once we have a good grasp of the

cultural background and the worldview-guided hermeneutics of the informants. A lot of

these misunderstandings can be avoided, if we consciously apply a frame approach to

translation, and if we constantly keep in mind the cultural background of the users of the

translation.

In the following section I will propose a frame approach to text analysis and translation.

In the context of this approach, there seem to be two translation strategies which are

particular helpful to avoid misunderstandings caused by cultural interference: 1. Make

use of lexical choices that are not ambiguous; and, 2. Provide context that filters out

undesired interpretations.

13.5. Towards a frame approach to text interpretation and translation

Wilt (2003) advocates a ‘frames of reference’ approach towards translation. He

distinguishes several kinds of frames in relation to Bible translation work: cognitive

frames, sociocultural frames, organizational frames, and communication-situation

frames.1033

Textual frames are also briefly mentioned, but these do not get a lot of

attention in his approach. However, in Appendix A on ‘cognitive frames’ Wilt makes the

following comment in a footnote: “Text frames, from the macro-levels of book or Bible

to the micro-level of the sentence, are a subset of cognitive frames. The study of how

predominant text frames of an audience’s culture compare with those of biblical cultures

has been a key area of Bible translation studies, and is discussed in chapter 3 of this

book.”1034

1033 Wilt (2003:43-56). 1034 Wilt (2003:242).

460

In chapter 3, Bascom discusses the concept of ‘frames’ in the context of Katan’s (1999)

book Translating Cultures, which he centers around the concept of frame. Katan’s

approach “places culture (understood dynamically) at the center of any understanding of

language and, thus, translation.”1035

Culture is viewed as “a dynamic process, constantly

being negotiated by those involved.”1036

Culture “is not a factor, but is the framework

(the context) within which all communication takes place.”1037

Based on research

stemming from Gestalt theory Katan sees frames and signs (including linguistic signs) as

interacting dynamically in the process of communication events. Signs “evoke frames …

and frames are tried out provisionally … to interpret emerging signs.”1038

Katan sees

translators as “cultural mediators” and describes the translation in terms of “generaliz-

ation,” “deletion,” and “distortion”.

A frame approach to textual interpretation and translation, similar to the one proposed by

Katan (1999) and Bascom (2003), seems to be appropriate for explaining the various

translations of Psalm 23 and the results of the comprehension tests with native speakers

of Una. In this section, I will propose a model of frame analysis that will help to explain

the data.

Text-cognitive frames1039

, as they reflect the (probable) intentions of by authors of texts

and/or the interpretations of receivers of texts, can be viewed as a set of nested, and more

or less interlocking, frames. These frames are nested in the sense that more specific

frames are embedded in more general frames. They are interlocking in the sense that (in

the minds of the authors and/or the receivers) the more specific frames are linked to the

more general frames.

Psalm 23, viewed from a frame approach1040

, could be represented as follows:

1035 Bascom, in Wilt (2003:82). 1036 Katan (1999:21), cited in Wilt (2003). Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a hold of Katan’s

book. It is out of print, but will be reprinted soon. Bibliographic data: Katan, D. (1999). Translating

Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. 1037 Katan (1999:241). 1038 Bascom, in Wilt (2003:84-5). “These processes take place very rapidly in communication, with

incomplete data constantly being processed on the sensory side, and provisional frames constantly being

constructed, discarded, and replaced on the cognitive side.” 1039 The concept of “text-cognitive frame” is very close to the notion of “schema” as it is applied by

Anderson (1985) to reading theory and to text interpretation (Cf. section 8.3.1. of this dissertation). The

concept of “text-cognitive frame” is also close to the concept of cognitive “hypertext” which plays an

important role in text generation (by the author) and text interpretation (by the hearers/readers). Cf. Hope,

in: Rebera (1997:7-19), “Redefining a Functional Theory of Translation.” The hypertext emerges in the interaction between the reader/hearer, his cultural (cognitive) framework and the text. The use of the term

‘text frame’ is avoided here, since it seems to suggest that these cognitive frames are an extension of textual

features, which are necessarily evident from looking at the discourse and rhetorical structures of a text.

“schema” as it is applied by Anderson (1985) to reading theory and text interpretation. 1040 This diagram represents a reconstruction (interpretation) of the author’s intention of the text.

461

The LORD (verse 1) TOPIC FRAME

Shepherd (verse 1) SCRIPT/EVENT FRAME 1

Cares for sheep

Leads to lush PASTURES

Leads to good DRINKING PLACES

Allows sheep to rest

Guides sheep on the right PATH

Protects against enemies in VALLEY

Guides [believer] on paths of righteousness; for his name’s sake (3b)

Host (verse 5) SCRIPT/EVENT FRAME 2

Prepares abundant meal

Anoints the guest’s head

Fills the guests’ cup [with

wine]

Sends guest on his way with two

companions (goodness & love)

All the days of my life TIME FRAME

Allows [believer] to dwells in his house/sanctuary (6)

Head of Household / Fellowship (verse 6) PLACE FRAME

Has fellowship with people in his

HOUSE/sanctuary on earth

forever TIME FRAME

The Topic Frame (‘The LORD’) is the all-encompassing content frame, in which two

scripts (Event Frames) (‘The LORD is a Shepherd’ and ‘The LORD is a Host’) and one

Place Frame (‘The believer dwells in the house of the LORD’) have been embedded.

In addition to the above mentioned content frames, another type of frame can be

distinguished: a metalinguistic frame. The metalinguistic frame contains knowledge

about the kind of information that is being communicated in the text. What is the genre of

the text, and what kind of information is being communicated? Is it intended to be factual

462

information or fiction? Are the utterances intended to be understood in a literal sense or

in a figurative sense?

The concept of text-cognitive frame, as proposed here, entails the notions of signalling,

coherence, purpose, implicature, script, and selectivity.

First of all, a text-cognitive frame needs to be signaled in the text so that readers/hearers

will be able to understand that it is active in the text. In verse 1 the thematic utterance

“The LORD is my shepherd” signals the TOPIC FRAME (‘The LORD’) and the first

EVENT FRAME (‘shepherd’). And since the first utterance is metaphorical, it also

triggers the METALINGUISTIC FRAME of figurative language. The EVENT FRAME

of shepherd is first developed (verses 1-4); In the verses 5 and 6b the EVENT FRAME of

host is developed, while the Psalm ends with the PLACE FRAME of the house of the

LORD and the TIME FRAME of “all the days of my life”. The continuity between these

different frames lies primarily in the TOPIC FRAME. But, in addition, there are thematic

links between the various event frames (eating, drinking, resting, movement).

Text-cognitive frames also give coherence to the understanding of the text. Readers who

understand that a shepherd frame is active in the first part of the Psalm are able to make

sense of the more specific events that are mentioned in the verses 2-4. They understand

that the various events mentioned in these verses are linked together, as they all belong to

the shepherd’s routine (script). If they are familiar with the encyclopaedic knowledge

related to the shepherd frame, they will also understand the specific purposes of all the

script-related events, even if these are not explicitly mentioned in the text. They

understand, for example, that the shepherd leads the sheep to the green pastures, not just

for giving them rest (as is explicitly expressed in the Psalm), but also, and perhaps

primarily, to feed them (which is not directly expressed in the Psalm, but which can be

derived as an implicature).

The concept of selectivity is a very important aspect of text-cognitive frames. Without the

articulation of a specific frame, utterances can be ambiguous. In cases like these people

tend to fall back on default interpretations which usually reflect their own interests,

experiences and cultural backgrounds. The mentioning of ‘green grass’, for example,

usually has a different meaning for a horticulturist than it has for a shepherd. The

horticulturist may interpret it in terms of a fertile piece of soil that can be used for

gardening; the shepherd, on the other hand, may see it as a good pasture for his sheep.

These frames are mutually exclusive. The clear articulation of a text-cognitive frame in

the text steers the interpretation and delimits the meanings of the textual signs.

When frames are not clearly articulated in a translation, or when they are generalized,

coherence between the interlocking frames may be weakened or lost. This happened, for

example, in the pioneering translation and in the mother tongue draft, where the thematic

utterance ‘the LORD is my shepherd’ was generalized to ‘God is my caretaker’. The

concept of ‘driving’ was not understood as ‘a shepherd driving a sheep/pig’ but as ‘God

driving a believer’. Based on this, some informants concluded that God was angry with

463

the believer, presumably because he did not want to ‘walk on the straight path’ (obey

God’s commandments).

In the diagram below a compilation is given of various shifts in interpretation that were a

result of lack of frame articulation in translations. Since this is a compilation of various

shifts occurring in various translations, it probably constitutes a worst case scenario of

text interpretation.

The LORD (verse 1) TOPIC FRAME

Shepherd (verse 1) SCRIPT/EVENT FRAME 1

Cares

Cares for sheep believer

Leads believer to lush PASTURES

fertile LAND/SOIL [to plant garden?]

Leads believer to good DRINKING

PLACES WATER [in order to cross?]

Allows sheep believer to rest

Guides disobedient believer on the right

PATH

Death

Protects against enemies in VALLEY Accompanies believer when he dies

Guides [believer] on paths of righteousness; for his name’s sake (3b)

Regeneration: God regenerates the heart of the author

Host (verse 5) SCRIPT/EVENT FRAME 2

Prepares abundant meal

Anoints the guest’s head

Healer

Fills the guests’ cup with oil

Sends guest on his way with two

companions (Goodness & love)

forever TIME FRAME

Allows [believer] to dwells in his house/sanctuary in heaven (6)

Head of Household / Fellowship/Salvation (verse 6)

Heaven PLACE FRAME

Has fellowship with people in his

HOUSE/sanctuary on earth

forever TIME FRAME

464

Generally speaking, the lack of perceived coherence resulted into partial fragmentation

and desintegration of the text-cognitive frames as presented in the previous diagram. At

the same time, some of the key terms found in the translated texts triggered new frames

in the minds of the Una informants.

The shifts that took place can be best summarized by the terms ‘deframing’ and

‘reframing’. Deframing took place with the shepherd metaphor in two of the translations.

It was reframed in more general terms as ‘God cares for the believer’. The anointing of

the guest’s head with oil (verse 5) is not part of the Una script of hosts and guests, and

without a clear frame articulation it was reframed by Una speakers as a healer who

treated a sick person. The filling of the cup was no longer connected with the frame of

hosts and guests, but now it was connected with the healer frame, and interpreted as ‘you

fill my cup with healing oil’. Another important shift that took place was the reframing of

‘the house of the LORD’ (referring to the temple or the tabernacle as God’s sanctuary on

earth) as ‘heaven’.

‘Deframing’ and ‘reframing’ can be avoided or at least be minimalized by frame

articulation. Frame articulation can be done in several ways (ranging from very subtle to

very rigorous solutions). It can be done by explicating the frame1041

, by avoiding frame

generalization1042

, by choosing lexical terms that are unambiguous1043

, by explicating the

purpose of the action1044

, by explicating implicatures1045

, or by reordering elements1046

.

The changes between two frames can sometimes be very subtle. Take, for example, the

term ‘house of the LORD’. The default meaning in Una of a term like this is ‘heaven’.

Explication of this term is not a very good option in a poetic text like Psalm 23. The

rendering of the accompanying time frame makes all the difference here. A rendering like

“I will always live in the house of the LORD” is understood as “I will always be with the

LORD in heaven.” However, if the time frame is rendered as “As for the rest of my life”

the interpretation of “house of the LORD” as “heaven” is excluded, even though this is

normally the default interpretation.

1041 Example: Make explicit that the enemies in Psalm 23:5 are captives who are not dangerous any more.

This rules out the enemies waiting in ambush scenario. 1042 Example: Make sure that the imagery of shepherd and sheep is clearly expressed in Psalm 23:1, and

avoid generalizations of the frame (like ‘God is my caretaker”) in which the imagery has been lost. 1043 Example: Avoid a rendering like ‘he makes my inside feel good’ (ni kanya teleb kurdeirinurur)

(meal/satisfaction frame), because it can also be interpreted as ‘he makes my inside good’ (regeneration

frame). ‘He makes my inside feel happy’ (ni kanya kilkil kurdeirinurur) would be an unambiguous

rendering. 1044

Example: explicate the purpose of the anointing with a thought quote: “Thinking, “My friend,” he pours

sweet smelling liquid on my head.” Note that the lexical choice for oil (‘sweet smelling liquid’) evokes a frame that is different from the one evoked by a rendering like ‘healing water’ (healer frame). 1045 Example: explicate the implicatures in verse 2: he leads me to green pastures so that I can eat in

abundance. He leads me to quiet water, so that I can drink water. 1046 A simple reordering of eating – anointing – drinking from cup to: eating – drinking from cup –

anointing may also help to articulate the frame of eating and drinking

465

Section headings play an important role in frame articulation. They usually set the stage

for the interpretation of a whole section or chapter. In the pioneering translation the

section heading was used to articulate the collective-inclusive significance of Psalm 23.

The personal-individual Psalm was framed by a collective-inclusive framework.

13.6. Towards a poetic rendering of Psalm 23

The various versions of Psalm 23 that were tested in this chapter were all more or less

prose renderings of this Psalm. The poetic aspects of the Psalm did not receive a lot of

attention. The focus was on the accuracy of meaning rather than on expressive aspects.

However, if the Old Testament Psalms are to really communicate to the Una people, and

if they are to become a vehicle for expressing their faith, it would be good to express

them in a poetic form that resonates most with the people.

The Una people have a wide repertoire of songs. The main genres are traditional dance

songs (mot)1047

and group songs (merena).1048

Introduced genres are psalms (mazmur)

and hymns (nyanyian rohani)1049

and Bible songs (Allah mot; literally: ‘God’s dance

songs’).1050

The sung Psalms and the hymns function in a liturgical setting. The Bible

songs, on the other hand, originated in a missionary setting, but are also sung during

special occasions during the Christian liturgical year.

More research is needed to determine what genre of songs would be best to serve as a

model for translating the Una Psalms. Since the melodies of the Geneva Psalter and the

hymns are very popular, especially among the younger generation, it is very likely that

the text of Psalm 23 will be put to these melodies. In the context of a missionary-

explicative Bible translation, the rendering of Psalm 23 in the form of a ‘Bible song’ is

probably most appropriate. Below is a first rough draft of Psalm 23 rendered in a form

that resembles the Allah mot (Bible songs).

1047 Traditional dance songs include initiation songs (kwit semna mot), trance songs (morob morob en mot),

songs about women (ner mot). The dance/song leader sings a line, and then the rest of the dancers/singers

sing a refrain of vowels and whistle through their noses. 1048 Merena songs are usually sung by groups of young boys when they are involved in a certain activity. 1049 A number of psalms and hymns have been translated into Una and are sung at the melodies of the

Geneva Psalter. Older Una people feel that the tunes of the dance songs and the group songs are not

appropriate for singing Christian songs. According to one informant, singing Christian songs to the tunes of

the traditional dance songs and other songs would remind him of the words of the old songs and of the contexts in which these were sung. 1050 The Bible songs were introduced by Dani and Yali evangelists. The song leader sings a line, and the

rest of the congregation sings the refrain (ye..ah, ye ..oh). The content is usually a Bible verse. The Bible

songs are only sung during special occasions, like Christmas, New Year, Easter and Pentecost. They are

usually sung by older men, mostly elders, who have served as evangelists in the past.

466

Mazmur 23

Daud mot

1 TUHAN bira nisi kalingnurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Utotoa nirya asi karebdi banurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Yik dinyi langdeiboka karebdi banurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

2 Domba Kalingnanyi kalingnurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Teleb sungsunga dam bobanurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Teleb yiban me dam bobanurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

3 TUHAN bira nisi kalingnurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh. Ni nong ab ni kanya ab mikib yanmanir. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni Kalingninanyi menekoka bobanurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Niryi ersi tuba-tuba milibkwan. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Er si deyok aryi nisi bobanurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Nira teleb bisik akwe banun. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

4 Ilil mutuk dam yibanmanyi ababyi. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni Kalingninanyi ab tonkwa iya kuranim. Ye..ah,

ye..oh. Ni kanya ilil kum kubkwanir. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Er kama aryi nisi bobanurur. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Co balala talerur ati. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni kanya ilil kum kubkwanir. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

5 TUHAN bira weik kwalina deibmanir. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni ordana nang asi muna dongobmar. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni kisok dub asi co yung me dikdongobmanir. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

Ni me yin deyok asi langdeiboka dikdongobmanir.

Ye..ah, ye..oh.

6 TUHAN bira tuba-tuba bico tenebkwanir. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

Tanglona kum uca boukwe kibkwanir. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Aminda kubdi bankwan talak ara. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Ni TUHAN ai dam iya kubkwan. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Psalm 23

A song of David

1 The LORD takes care of me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He continually gives me everything. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He continually gives life/freshness in abundance. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

2 The Caretaker of sheep takes care of me. Ye..ah, ye..oh. He leads me to a good grass place. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He leads me to a good place of running water. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

3 The LORD takes care of me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

My body and my inside have become strong now. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

My Caretaker leads me, going before me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

I am always following Him. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He leads me because of His name. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

As for me I only walk on the good path. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

4 Even when I go through the awesome area. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

My Caretaker is always with me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

My inside will not be afraid. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

With his stick he guides me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

Because he carries a club. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

My inside will not be afraid. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

5 The LORD has prepared a big feast meal for me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He gained the victory over my enemies. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He has poured oil on my head. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He has filled my drinking container. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

6 The LORD will always think pity on me. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

He will have a big liver towards me without quitting.

Ye..ah, ye..oh.

During all the time that I will live. Ye..ah, ye..oh.

I will always be in the house of the LORD. Ye..ah,

ye..oh.

467

14. Testing the comprehension of various Biblical metaphors

by native speakers of Una

14.1. Introduction

In the previous chapter the translation and comprehension testing of four different Una

versions of Psalm 23 were discussed. In this chapter I will present the results of

comprehension testing of a broader variety of biblical metaphors that were selected from

the Psalms and from the Gospels.

Metaphor testing with native speakers of Una presented in this chapter consists of three

parts. In the first part, native speaker comprehension testing of a group of selected texts

that are related to the shepherd and sheep metaphor will be reported. In the second part,

comprehension testing of a variety of other biblical metaphors will be presented. These

include metaphors for God like “The LORD is my shield,” and “The Lord is my rock,”

as well as metaphors for believers like “Being Blessed [by God] is Growing” and “Being

blessed by God is Bearing Fruits”. In the third part, I will report the results of the

comprehension testing that was done on one particular text from the New Testament

(Matthew 15:21-28; the story of the Canaanite woman). In this passage a variety of

metaphors is found, including the shepherd metaphor (Jesus is the Shepherd of the Lost

Sheep of Israel), the children metaphor (The people of Israel are God’s children), the

dogs metaphor (Pagan/Non-Israelite people are Dogs), and the bread metaphor

(Receiving Healing/Salvation is Eating Bread).

The various metaphors were presented in different forms to different groups of

informants. Metaphors were presented in explicated or non-explicated form. In some

cases the metaphorical utterances were presented in context; in other cases they were

presented out of context. Each text (rendering) was tested individually with minimally

four (fresh) informants.

The objective of this comprehension testing was to see how native speakers of Una make

sense of more or less foreign metaphors, and to what extent they make use of the

linguistic context that was provided to interpret the metaphors.

In this chapter the focus will be on metaphor comprehension. Exegetical aspects of the

various metaphors are discussed in the chapters 5-7 (on the imagery of shepherd and

sheep in the Old and New Testament) and in Appendix F, where other metaphors are

discussed briefly.

468

14.2. Shepherd and sheep related metaphors

14.2.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter I discussed the translation and testing of the shepherd and sheep

metaphor in Psalm 23. In Psalm 23 the metaphor of shepherd and sheep is thematic and

structures the discourse. However, there are other passages in the Bible where the

metaphor of shepherd and sheep also occurs, but not in the form of an extended

metaphor. The question arises whether a non-thematic or relatively isolated occurrence of

a particular metaphor in a particular context poses constraints on the comprehension of

native speakers. Would it be more difficult for native speakers to understand non-

thematic and more or less isolated metaphors than thematic metaphors? To what degree

does the linguistic context help them to figure out the meaning?

The following passages were selected to be translated into Una and to be checked with

native speakers of Una. Genesis 48:15 (God has been Jacob’s shepherd); Psalm 100:3

(the people of Israel are God’s sheep). Matthew 2:6b (the Messiah-king is a shepherd);

Matthew 7:15 (false teachers are wolves in sheep clothes); Matthew 9:36 (simile; sheep

without shepherd); Matthew 10:16 (simile; sheep among the wolves); Matthew 26:31

(God will strike the shepherd); John 10:27 (metaphor; Jesus’ followers are sheep); John

21:15 (metaphor; Christian leaders are shepherds).1051

14.2.2. Testing the comprehension of shepherd related metaphors

14.2.2.1. God is an individual believer’s shepherd

Passage Una English Back-translation 1. Genesis 48:15

Yakub biryi er Imtamnyi biti ato

ebmou. “Er Imtamnyi bira nisi

bomenekoka kalingnaninyi kibnou.”

Jacob said like this regarding the

heavenly One. “The heavenly One has

been the One who went before me and

who continually takes care of me.”

The majority of the informants understood the shepherd metaphor in the sense that God

was the one who was leading Jacob all the time, while taking care of all his needs. Two

informants associated this expression with a missionary script. When Una people go to

the unevangelized area’s in the South, God is the One who goes before them, and who

takes care of them. It looks like the term ‘go before’ is associated with the fulfillment of a

specific task or ‘mission’. The term kalikoka milinaninyi (‘the One who continually takes

care of me and who follows me’) does not have this specific association, and is perhaps a

better rendering here. The concept of ‘A Spirit/Deity follows a person’ implies protection

from the enemies.

1051 For an introduction to the meaning(s) of these metaphors, see the chapters 5 and 7 on the imagery of

shepherd and sheep in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, respectively.

469

14.2.2.2. God is the shepherd of the community who worships him

Passage Una English Back-translation 2. Psalm 100:3 Er Imtamnyi bira iya Erebdobnyi kurur.

Erci nunsi kiknibmasou. Nunda er dinyi kunub. Nunda nun Nai biryi kalingsu-

rur domba kunub.

The heavenly One is the Most Elevated

One. He made us. We are his own. We are the sheep of whom our Father takes

care.

All the informants understood this very well: God is our shepherd, and people (believers)

are like his sheep. The aspect of protection came out very clearly. God is the One who

protects us from falling into a ravine (= metaphor for falling into sin). He drives Satan

away, who constantly tries to tempt people to do sin. The aspect of care, which is

normally implied in the term kalingna did not come through in the informants’ responses.

If the aspect of care needs to be expressed, it could be added to the expression (Nunda

nun Nai biryi dibniliboka kalingsurur domba kunub, ‘We are the sheep of whom our

Father takes care of and provides for’) or it could substitute the ‘taking care’ (Nunda nun

Nai biryi dirnilisurur domba kunub, ‘We are the sheep for whom our Father provides’). I

prefer the latter option, as it is more concise than the other, and because the Una people

seem to understand the protection part anyway.

14.2.2.3. The Messiah-king is the shepherd of God’s people

Passage Una English Back-translation 3. Matthew 2:6b Sun kankan aryi ninyi tentok anaboka

tingyaci ura, erci, ‘Ato kubkwayeb,’

eboka sun Israel nang ara nira

Imtamnyi dam kun nang asi

kalikwandi.

Among you one person will come forth

and stand up, and saying, “Let’s do such

and so,” he will take care of the people

of Israel who are close to me the

heavenly One.”

This translation was understood by the majority of the informants as referring to an

announcement of the coming of an elder-type person who will give leadership to the

people of God. The informants understood that this verse refers to the coming of the

Messiah (Jesus). But the translation suggested the coming of an elder-type person rather

than a king-type person. In other words: the translation triggered a church frame in the

minds of the respondents rather than a kingship frame.

The kingship frame can be articulated by adding ‘big headman’, and by changing the

cohortative ‘Let’s do such and so’ (which is typical for Una headman and elders) to an

imperative ‘You must do such and so’. Suggested correction: ‘From among you will

come forth one person who will be a big headman, and saying, “You must do such and

so,” he will take care of the people of Israel who are close to the heavenly One.”

470

14.2.2.4. False Teachers pretend to be harmless sheep but they are dangerous wolves

Passage Una English Back-translation 4. Matthew 7:15 Tola uram eteren nang ara bisam

domba ato kibdangiryi yankwaming bok, sun kanya ara bai kam kanya

bobkwaming.

As for the people who teach lying words,

they come to you like sheep pigs/animals, but they carry insides of

jungle dogs.

The Una informants understood this passage in the sense that people who were speaking

lying words pretended to be good people who followed God. But, in their hearts they

were thinking something different. They were people who carried the inside of a dog, that

is, they were thinking, “I will marry a second wife,” or, “I will steal something.”

This interpretation is a clear case of cultural interference. The Una metaphor of dogs

(dogs are promiscuous; dogs steal) colors the interpretation of this biblical metaphor. The

fact that the translation refers to jungle dogs did not seem to make a difference here. In

Una land jungle dogs are not necessarily dangerous. They can also be rather shy. The

notion of the dogs wanting to attack the sheep (wolves/dogs are killers of sheep) was not

understood at all. This needs to be made explicit in the translation.

Another notion that was not understood well was the notion of false teachers. The Una

informants understood that those people were speaking lying words (liars). But, the idea

that those lying words were used to lead people astray from the truth of the Gospel was

not clear to the informants. The frame that was triggered in the minds of the informants

was the concept of church goers who once had been Christians but who fall back into

paganism rather than enemies of the Gospel and persecutors of Christians, missionaries in

particular.

The concept that sheep are followers of God and Jesus was very clear to all the

informants. But it triggered a church frame. In their responses, the sheep metaphor was

not related to the dog metaphor.

In the corrected translation the frame of false teachers is more clearly articulated by

adding a thought-quote which expresses their intention (‘Let’s lead people astray’). The

dog metaphor is also more clearly related to the sheep metaphor. In the second thought-

quote the intention of these false teachers is expressed (‘Let’s kill and eat those sheep’).

Una English Back-translation Tola uram nang ara, ‘Bisik bowanikminikwayeb,’

tenen sun dam yangamingnyi uca, sunci,

‘Nunbabyi er Imtamnyi domba kunub,”

ebingiryok, sun kanya dam aryi yu kam kanya

boboka, “Domba oyibkwayeb” tenesunung.

‘As for the people who teach lying words,

thinking, ‘Let’s lead people astray,’ they come

to you saying, ‘We too are sheep of the heavenly

One,’ but they carry the insides of angry dogs,

thinking regarding you, ‘Let’s kill and eat those sheep.’

471

14.2.2.5. The People of Israel are sheep without a shepherd

Passage Una English Back-translation 5. Matthew 9:36 Er Yesus biryi a nang nirya dinmou

uca, erci er kanya aryi boukwe weik kubmou. Ara, sunci mitang ab

kalikmana kum kuramiryok, kalingna

nang aryi kalingna kum domba ato

kuramnyi deyok aryi er boukwe weik

kubmou. Dinmou cok, erci er

miliramnyi nang asi ato ebmou. Diba,

wisina ara ilinto wisirur bok, wa in

nang asi mitik to anun kunung.

“While Jesus watched all those people,

he had a big liver in his inside. That is, he had a big liver on them, because they

were weak and were not taken care of,

like sheep who are not taken care of by

caretakers of sheep. While he watched

them, he said like this to his followers.

“Really, the harvest is a lot, but there are

only few garden workers.”

This passage was understood very well by all the Una informants. They understood that

the caretaking people are figurative language (kiklina uram) for people like pastors and

elders. They take care of the people. The Israel people did not have people like this, who

took care of them. Jesus has pity on the Israel people, thinking, “My children.”1052

The

informants also understood the harvest metaphor. The harvest is figurative language for

the people who listen to the words of God. There are many of those people. But there are

only few workers (wa in nang). These workers are like pastors, elders and evangelists.

14.2.2.6. The People whom Jesus sent are Sheep; The enemies of the Gospel are

wolves

Passage Una English Back-translation 6. Matthew 10:16 Dindarur. Niryi sunsi bokdonokwansin

uca, sunda domba ato kurandum nang

ara bai kam kankan aryi binkwandum.

Bai kam kankan aryi kuramun cok,

sunci kwatima bingna asi bobdobdarur.

Tonda, maka emnanyi namin kanya asi

bobdobdarur.

“Look. I will send you (PL), and as a

result you who are people like sheep will

go among the jungle dogs. While you are

among the jungle dogs, you must carry

the knowledge of snakes [in your

insides]. And also, you must carry the

soft inside of doves.”

The Una informants understood that the jungle dogs (bai kam) are the people who do not

listen to the words of God. Some informants were puzzled as to why Jesus sent his

apostles to the jungle. One informant was very adamant. ‘This is not good. People should

not go to the jungle. Are the those people whom Jesus sent perhaps followers of Satan?’

Living in the jungle is associated with being a pagan. ‘When the Una people became

Christians, they gathered together in the villages and listened to the words of God in

church every Sunday. Before that they were living in the jungle.’1053

1052 It was interesting to note that none of the informants said that Jesus himself is the shepherd of the

people. 1053 Before the Una people came into contact with the Gospel, they were already living in villages. However, they also spent a lot of time in their gardens and in the jungle. Evangelists encouraged the people

to come to the village regularly, so that they could hear the Word of God. This is perhaps the background

of the Una metaphor bisam biringna (‘tie pigs’) for the roll call during the Sunday morning services.

During the week Una people can go wherever they want, but on Sundays and during the Christmas holidays

they need to come to the village and gather together (bulub-) in church.

472

There are perhaps three factors that seem to reinforce this interpretation: 1. The use of a

simile (‘like sheep’) is ambiguous here, because it could imply that these people are ‘not

really’ sheep of God; 2. ‘Among the dogs’ is also ambiguous. It may or may not imply

that the ‘sheep’ belong to the same group as the dogs. 3. The mentioning of the snake

simile reinforces the same interpretation, because in the minds of Una people,

metaphorical snakes don’t carry good insides. They speak with two tongues (silalum

bitinyi), and are followers of Satan.

The dove metaphor (emnanyi), on the other hand, was not interpreted in a negative sense.

According to some of the informants it refers to the Holy Spirit.1054

The concept of being

upright like the doves did not come through, even though it was expressed in the text.

This shows that the meaning of commonly known metaphors (or: symbolic meaning) can

easily interfere with the meanings of metaphors that are less known.

Misunderstandings can be avoided by articulating the missionary frame (‘while you go

and teach the Good Words’), and by explicating that the angry dogs form a threat to the

apostles. This can be done by explicating the contrast between the angry dogs and the

weak sheep. It can also be explicated in a thought-quote (‘May they not kill us’).

The snake metaphor causes heavy interference, as it is associated with ‘lying’ and ‘being

a follower of Satan’. The best option seems be to avoid the snake simile in the translation,

and give the literal rendering plus explanation in a footnote.

Suggestion for improving the translation:

Una English Back-translation Dindarur. Niryi sunsi bokdonoksinyi uca, sunda Teleb uram eterebdi barandum cok, mitang

domba ato kuboka yu kam dam binkwandum. Yu

kam kankan aryi kuramun cok, sunci,

“Oyibsicei,” tenen bikdob kanya asi bobdobdarur.

Tonda, maka emnanyi namin kanya asi

bobdobdarur.

Catatan kaki:

Yunani uram umbura aryi ato erur. ‘Kwatima ato

bikdob kanya bobdarur.’ Nun Du Yesus biryi er milin nang asi ato ebmou. Ara, ‘Tola uram

ebkwan,’ tenena ati ato kum erur. Erda, ‘Bikdob

kanya bobkwan,” tenena ati ato ebmou.

“Look. I will send you (PL), and as a result, while you will go and teach the Good Words,

being like weak sheep you will go to the place

where angry dogs are. While you are among the

angry dogs, thinking, “May they not kill and eat

us,” you must carry wise insides [in your

insides]. And also, you must carry the soft inside

of doves.”

Footnote:

The Greek language says like this. ‘You must

carry a wise inside like a snake.’ Jesus said this to his followers. That is, he did not say this

about, ‘I will speak lying words,’ thinking. But,

he said this about, ‘I will carry a wise inside’

thinking.

1054 The interpretation of the dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit seemed to originate from the informants’

knowledge about the story of Jesus being baptized. The dove that descended on Jesus’ head is often

explained as being a symbol of the Holy Spirit.

473

14.2.2.7. God will strike the Messiah-king who takes care of his people

Passage Una English Back-translation 7. Matthew 26:31 “Nira Imtamnyi biryi domba

kalingnanyi bisi obkwan. Obni ba, domba mer ara kurukna bis

binsekwaming.”

“I the heavenly One will hit/kill the

caretaker of sheep. When I kill it the sheep will scatter everywhere.”

All the informants understood immediately that the caretaker of the sheep referred to in

this verse is Jesus. They also understood that this passage announced that Jesus would be

killed. When asked who it was who killed Jesus, none of the informants said that this was

God, even though this was clearly expressed in the translation. ‘The one who killed Jesus,

the caretaker of the sheep, is not God. God has pity on his Son. But, the people who did

not like him killed Jesus.’

This is a clear example of strong, internalized, context (theology: God is on Jesus’ side,

so God cannot be the one who hits/kills Jesus; Bible knowledge: the Jewish leaders

plotted against Jesus to kill him) taking precedence over weak, linguistic, context as (God

will hit/kill the Messiah-king). The stronger context overwrites the weaker context. Two

informants thought that Satan was the one who killed Jesus.

This specific case of heavy cultural (theological) interference is an example of

conditioned topic substitution. In this case, it is very difficult to further improve the

translation. An explanatory footnote might help to explain the purpose of this verse (‘The

killing of the Messiah-king had already been announced in the Old Testament, and it was

part of God’s plan to rescue his people. God loved his Son, but he allowed people to kill

him so that he could rescue his sheep.’)

14.2.2.8. Followers of Jesus are his sheep

Passage Una English Back-translation 8. John 10:27 Er Yesus biryi ato ebmou. ‘Ni domba

ara ni uram kekenung ba, nisi

milinunung.’

Jesus said like this. ‘While my sheep

hear my words continually, they follow

me continually.’

This passage was well understood by all the informants. The term ‘sheep’ refers to

people, that is people who really listen to (obey) God’s words. In the past, before the

Gospel came, the Una people lived as sheep, scattered everywhere in the jungle. Since

the Gospel has come, they live together in the villages.1055

1055 In actual practice, Una people still spend a lot of time in their gardens and in the jungle.

474

14.2.2.9. Christian leaders are shepherds; believers are sheep

Passage Una English Back-translation 9. John 21:15 Yesus biryi Petrus bisi ato ebmou.

‘Kanci ni domba mabwe asi

kaliknurum.’

Jesus said like this to Petrus. ‘You must

take care of the young ones of my

sheep.’

This passage was also well understood. This is figurative language. Pastors and elders are

like caretakers of sheep. They tell the believers, “Don’t walk on the bad path.” Jesus told

Petrus that he should watch over the sheep.

14.2.2.10. Summary

The metaphor of shepherd and sheep is very familiar to the Una people, even though they

had never seen a sheep before the early seventies of the twentieth century.1056

The

informants understood that people who follow God and Jesus are sheep, and that God and

Jesus are caretakers of sheep. Pastors and elders are also caretakers of sheep. The fact

that these shepherd and sheep metaphors were isolated in the sense that their meaning

could not directly be deduced from the immediate context did not seem to make a

difference at all. The assignment of topic and ground of the metaphors seemed to happen

instantaneous, as the informants immediately and spontaneously identified these in their

retelling,

However, the Una informants did not understand certain aspects of the shepherd and

sheep metaphor. They did not understand, for example, that wolves form a deadly threat

to sheep. Pigs and sheep in the highlands of Papua don’t have any natural enemies, and

the term bai kam (‘jungle dog’) does not really convey the intended meaning of ferocious

wolves who are prone to kill domesticated animals.1057

During the checking sessions it was discovered that the Una default interpretation of the

shepherd metaphor (‘caretaker of sheep’) is based on a church frame rather than on a

political frame. In order to establish an accurate translation frame articulation was

sometimes needed in cases where the church frame was not intended. When the shepherd

metaphor in the source text functioned in a messianic-royal context, this was articulated

in the translation by using the expression ‘big head man’ (political frame) and by using

imperatives rather than cohortatives in the thought-quote.

1056

There are perhaps two reasons why the shepherd metaphor has been relatively easy to understand for

the Una people. The first reason is that for lack of a term for shepherd, a descriptive phrase was used to

refer to shepherds. The second reason may be that the missionaries introduced sheep to the Una people, which gave them an opportunity to observe the similarities and the differences between sheep and pigs. 1057 The topic side of the ‘Enemies of the Gospel are ferocious wolves’ metaphor is also foreign to the Una

people. Persecution of Christians by non-Christians is unknown to the Una people, who are a majority of

Christians (95 %). However, in the minds of the Una people, the believers as sheep of God (Jesus) do face

another major threat: Satan tries to make them sin, so that he can claim them back as his children.

475

We have also seen that the linguistic context does not seem to play a major role in the

interpretation of metaphors. The linguistic context is sometimes overruled and

overwritten by the informants’ internal context.

We have also seen that in the interpretation of native speakers of Una the meaning of the

biblical metaphors of shepherd and sheep and other related metaphors is rather fixed. The

possibility that a particular image might have a variety of context-dependent meanings

was not recognized by any of the informants. The more or less fixed meanings that were

assigned to metaphors are shaped by the meanings they have in the Biblical texts that are

most familiar to the Una respondents. The meaning of snake imagery seems to be

primarily colored by the role of the serpent in Genesis 3; the meaning of dove/pigeon

imagery is primarily colored by the meaning of the dove/pigeon in Mark 1:10 and

Matthew 3:16; and the shepherd metaphor seems to be primarily colored by texts like

Luke 15:1-7, John 10:1-21 and Psalm 23.

14.3. Other Biblical metaphors

14.3.1. Introduction

The shepherd metaphor is relatively well understood even by people from the Una culture

to whom this metaphor was not introduced until the early seventies of the twentieth

century, when they first received the Gospel. There are other biblical metaphors,

however, which are probably less understood and which require special attention of Bible

translators.

In this section I will discuss some of the animal-like metaphors and object-like metaphors

from the Bible, which may or may not be difficult to understand for the Una people. The

following passages with metaphors were selected. Psalm 84:12 (‘God is a Sun and a

Shield’); Psalm 91:1-2 (‘God’s Protection is a Hiding Place’); Psalm 91:3 (‘Unexpected

Hostile Action is a Fowler’s Snare’); Psalm 91:4 (‘God’s Protective Care is Bird’s

Wings; His Protection is a Shield’); Psalm 92:13 (‘Being Blessed [by God] is Growing’);

Psalm 92:14-15 (‘Being Blessed [by God] is Bearing Fruits’); Psalm 92:16b (‘God is the

Believer’s Rock’).1058

Each of these metaphors were tested with a minimum of four informants who were

interviewed individually.

1058 For an exegesis of these metaphors, see Appendix F (Exegetical Notes on Tested Metaphors).

476

14.3.2. Testing the comprehension of other Biblical metaphors

14.3.2.1. ‘God is a Sun and a Shield’

Passage Una English Back-translation 1. Psalm 84:12 Tuhan Allah bira kiting atonyi ab mar

lilisina atonyi ab kurur. The Lord God is like a sun and like a

person who protects us from arrows.

‘God is a Sun’: The ‘God is a sun’ metaphor, rendered as a simile into Una, was

interpreted by most of the Una informants as God being the metaphorical source of light

who teaches the truth to the people. The metaphors of light and darkness, as they are used

by the Una people1059

, refer to the time that the people know the Gospel and have become

Christians as opposed to the time that they did not know the Gospel and did all kinds of

evil things, including warfare, cannibalism, sorcery, killing, stealing, committing

adultery.

Several informants rephrased the sun metaphor in more general terms as ‘God is the one

who makes/causes light for us’ (Er Imtamnyi bira berengdeirisurutnyi kurur) or ‘God is

the One who gives something like light to us’ (Allah bira berengna ato karesurur). In

other words, the unknown metaphor (‘God is the sun’) was explained in terms of a related

metaphor that is commonly used among Una people.

Some informants adjusted the topic ‘God is a sun’ and reinterpreted it in terms of a much

more familiar metaphor: ‘God’s Word is a light’. This was contrasted with the hearts of

people that are dark (kunuk). Darkness was associated with the way of life before the

Gospel came (minob kuramoubwe to, ninyi oramoubwe, ner yoramoubwe, ukula

doramoubwe). One informant suggested: ‘God is like the rising sun’ (kiting

anamyangarandi atonyi kurur).

Three informants connected the ‘God is the sun’ metaphor with the fact that God sees

everything, that he watches people, and will punish the people who do evil things.1060

One informant interpreted the ‘God is like the sun’ simile in the sense that there is only

one God, just like there is only one sun. None of the informants associated this metaphor

with the concept of God blessing his people.

One of the informants combined the two metaphors in his interpretation: ‘God is a Sun’

means that He gives sunlight to us. ‘God is a Shield’ means that he protects us from the

sun rays (arrows) by providing shade. When the sun hurts us, he makes us sit in the shade

(kiting u yinmasir ba, koka ai bura burdeirisurur).

‘God is a Shield’: Most of the informants expressed discontent with the rendering ‘God

is like a person who protects us (lit. ‘blocks’) from arrows’. They preferred a rendering in

which the term ‘war vest’ (ting) was included, since the Una people used war vests not

1059 Cf. chapter 11 (section 11.3.2.5. on ‘introduced (loan) metaphors’). 1060 I found it very interesting that ‘The sun is God’s eye’, which is a common notion in ancient near

eastern mythology (metaphorology?), surfaced spontaneously in the responses of some of the Una

informants.

477

shields in the past. However, the simile rendering ‘God is like a war vest’ was not

acceptable either. One of the informant interpreted this as ‘God’s word is like a war vest’,

which would be acceptable. Once I had explained the intended meaning, he suggested the

following rendering ‘God is the one who puts a war vest on us’. (Er Imtamnyi bira nun

ting kiningdeirisurutnyi kurur). This turned out to be the rendering that was favored by

the majority of the informants. This vernacular metaphor communicates the intended

meaning of ‘protection’, but its application was narrowed down to God protecting

believers from falling into sin, when they are tempted by Satan (spiritualized

interpretation).

The proposed rendering of the metaphor seems to be our best option. But, since the

original image is lost in the translation, it would be good to include a footnote in which a

literal rendering of the original metaphor is given, and the martial customs of the ancient

Israelites is explained.1061

It would also be good to make explicit that God’s protection

included protection against human enemies and oppressors.

14.3.2.2. ‘God’s Protection Is a Hiding Place’

Passage Una English Back-translation 5. Psalm 91:1-2 Er Imtamnyi biryi inirdorban ai iniboka

bowengbirur nang ara er Iya Mikibnyi

bukwe dam kuboka manung.

A nang ara er Imtamnyi bisi ato enung

Kanda nun inirdorban ai kurum. Kanci

nunsi kalikoka lemsurum. Nun kanya

kansi deibmakoubwe.

As for the people whom the heavenly One hides and brings inside a hiding

place, they habitually sleep near the side

of the Most Powerful One. Those people

will say to the heavenly One like this.

You are our hiding place. You

continually watch over us and rescue us.

We have put our insides on you.

Several informants thought that this hiding place refers to heaven for people who listen to

God’s words (dib tenen nang asi imtam ai loubkwansir). Others thought that it referred to

God’s protection of believers while they are still on earth. One of the informants was not

sure whether the people who dwell in God’s hiding place were angels or believers.

Two informants concluded that the people who were in the hiding place must have done

something wrong, because normally Una people only hide when they are ashamed of

something bad they have done. They apparently did not interpret these verses within the

frame of the believers being persecuted by enemies, but in terms of a frame of people

who have done something wrong and need to hide.

Frame articulation would help to avoid wrong interpretations. In this case, it can be easily

done by making the notion of protection explicit in the section heading (“God takes

care/watches over his people, thinking, “May bad things not happen to them.”)

1061 See Appendix G (‘God is a Sun and Shield’) for a sample interview.

478

14.3.2.3. ‘Unexpected Hostile Action is a Fowler’s Snare’

Passage Una English Back-translation 6. Psalm 91:3 Diboka, ninyi aryi kansi eboka

youbmakingnyi ababyi, er Imtamnyi biryi kansi tabwe lobdongobkwankurur.

Yun dangdongon dinyi kan dam yakici

ababyi, nun Nai biryi leboka

kwetebkwankir.

Really, even if people would catch you

in a trap, the heavenly One would rescue you. Even if a sickness would come

close to you, our Father, rescuing you,

would heal you.

None of the informants understood the meaning of the fowler’s snare metaphor, which

was rendered into Una as a (cuscus) trap metaphor. One informant tried to make sense of

the metaphor by interpreting the verb youbmakingnyi (‘if they catch you in a trap’) as

yobmakingnyi (‘if they would have sexual relations with you’). Adding a thought-quote

often helps to make the intended meaning clearer (“ … even if people would catch you in

a trap, thinking, “Let’s do evil things to him.””), but in this case it did not help the

informants to make sense to the metaphor.

Once I had explained what is intended here, they suggested that the translation be

rendered as follows, “Even if the evil spirit ties you with a rope, the heavenly One will

untie you” (Isa aryi tabwe debmakici ababyi nun Nai Imtamnyi biryi lobkwansurur).1062

The people who try to tie the believers with a rope and lead them astray are people who

don’t believe God’s words. They are doing this, because they are followers of Satan.

Satan is strong, and he tries to tie people up, thinking, “They are my pigs.”

The suggested rendering is too explicit, however. The source of the imminent (potential)

danger referred to in this verse is much more indeterminate than Satan. And the nature of

the danger intended in this verse seems to be primarily physical harm rather than spiritual

harm.

The best option seems to be to render the fowler’s snare metaphor (hunting/trapping

frame) into a plotting to kill metaphor in Una (war/treachery frame): Ninyi aryi,

“Obkwayeb,” tenen marmun yibkingnyi ababyi, er Imtamnyi biryi kansi lebkwankir,

“Even if people would plot against you, thinking, “Let’s kill him,” the heavenly One will

rescue you.” The original metaphor could then be mentioned in a footnote.1063

1062 Note that in this proposed rendering the frame of hunting/trapping has been changed into a frame of

animal husbandry: Satan has tied the believers with a rope, thinking, “They are my pigs.” But, God will

rescue the believers by untying the ropes. 1063

The use of translational footnotes, where the translator gives the literal meanings of the original text,

needs to be careful distinguished from the use of explanatory footnotes, which are intended to give the missing piece of information that readers need in order to understand the text. In chapter 11 I presented a

number of reasons why explanatory footnotes are not particularly helpful with audiences like the Una

people. However, adding translational footnotes in cases where a source text expression could not be

rendered literally – especially in well-known verses – lends credibility to the translator. Exegetical

footnotes, in which relevant alternative renderings are mentioned can also be helpful.

479

14.3.2.4. God’s Protective Care is Bird’s Wings; His Protection is a Shield

Passage Una English Back-translation 7. Psalm 91:4 Maka ner aryi er mabwe irirandi to, er

Imtamnyi biryi kansi ol amwe tam irikurur. Er Imtamnyi bukwe dam

wengdormin cok, kan kanya ara er

Imtamnyi dam deibkwandim. Er

Imtamnyi biryi kansi tuba-tuba

kalingkurur aryi mar lilisina ab mikib

lika ato kukurur.

Like a mother bird hugs her children, the

heavenly One hugs you under his wings. While you have taken refuge near the

side of the heavenly One, you put your

inside on (trust) the heavenly One.

Because the heavenly One takes

continually care of you, is to you like an

arrow shield and like a strong fence.

In this rendering, the metaphor has been changed into a simile, and the ground of the

metaphor (protection) has been spelled out. All the informants understood the meaning of

the simile. God hugs the believers, thinking, “My children.” “May Satan not bother

them.” God only protects his own children, not Satan’s children, i.e., the people who do

not believe and who do evil things. One of the informants suggested a more anthropo-

morphic rendering ‘Our Father hugs us, while holding our hand’ (Nun Nai biryi taruk

taleboka irisurur).

One of the informants rephrased this very beautifully and graphically: “Saying, “Tock-

tock,” and thinking, “May the jungle dog not kill all of them, the mother hen hugs her

chicks with her wings. It is like little children who sit really close to their fathers. Their

insides are happy.” (Nguk-nguk eboka, “Bai kam aryi obsekcei,” tenyi er ol amwe tam

irisurur. Mitik mabwe aryi sun nai boukwe dam bindoka sun naiabwe dam buraming to

kurur. Sun kanya kilkil kurur.).

The shield and buckler metaphor (doublet) in this verse was also rendered as a simile:

‘like an arrow shield and a stone wall.’ The doublet was kept in the translation, but the

second part of the doublet was filled with a vernacular metaphor. All the informants

immediately picked up on the fence metaphor, which they saw as figurative language for

protection. God is like a strong fence for the believers (mikib lika ato kurur). Element of

protection. He will not forsake his children, but will protect them against Satan’s attacks.

Only one of the informants mentioned the arrow shield. His interpretation was that the

fence and the arrow shield are the same thing.

14.3.2.5. ‘Being Blessed [by God] is Growing’

Passage Una English Back-translation 2. Psalm 92:13 Er Imtamnyi uram kunun nang ara

telebto kuboka abnin co kurma arandi

to kubkwaming.

A nang ara Libanon mutuk co aras

lukluk eboka arandi to kubkwaming.

As for the people who obey the words of

the heavenly One, they will be like the

kurma tree that grows well. As for these

people they will be like the aras tree at

the Libanon mountain which grows fast.

The majority of the informants interpreted this unknown metaphor of growing trees

(rendered as a simile) in terms of a tree/plant related metaphor they often use, i.e., the

‘Doing good [in God’s eyes] is producing fruits’ metaphor. Believers are like people who

480

bear fruits in their insides (sun koukwe dam aryi du moubmurubmar). They really listen

to the words of God, and don’t listen to other words. They don’t do evil things (malyi

dinyi dona kum).1064

None of the informants picked up on the idea that this simile is not about doing

something, but about receiving and undergoing something. (receive God’s ‘blessing’ and

prosper). One of the informants came close. He said that believers are like a tree of iron

wood that won’t fall (kum kulubsakwandi). Without explicating the ground of the simile

in the translation, Una speakers would not be able to understand the intended meaning.

The fact that the ‘righteous’, mentioned at the beginning of the verse, was translated as

‘the people who obey the words of God’ probably underscored the idea of ‘producing

fruits’ rather than ‘receiving blessing’. Frame articulation can solve this problem. “As for

the people who obey the words of the heavenly One, the heavenly One will bless/praise

them. He will give it1065

, and as a result they will grow like the kurma tree that grows

well…”

14.3.2.6. ‘Being Blessed [by God] is Bearing Fruits’

Passage Una English Back-translation 3. Psalm 92:14-15 Er Imtamnyi ai tuba kuramingnyi nang

ara er Imtamnyi dam kubingnyi ba, du

moubkwandi. Sun wisi dangnyi ababyi

iya du moubkwandi. Koula kum

dankwandi. Erda, du teleb iya

moubmurubkwandi.

As for the people who are always in the

house of the heavenly One, while they

are close to the heavenly One, they bear

fruits. Even when they have become old,

they will bear fruits. They won’t wither.

But, they will continue to bear good

fruits, forever.

The ‘Believers Bear Fruits’ metaphor in this passage was understood in the sense that

believers do good things that are pleasing to God.1066

People who listen to God’s word

bear fruit. People who don’t listen wither. They will be gathered and thrown into the

‘lake of fire’ (‘hell’). This is not about real fruits (du sirika kuma), but it is about faith

(dib tenena). Those who believe / obey God’s word will always bear fruits. (Du mouna

ara kum daksakwandi). None of the informants understood this is the sense that believers

are blessed by God.

1064 In the context of the metaphor of ‘Doing Good is Bearing Fruits’ most informants commented that in

order to grow fast and to bear good fruits, the soil must be really fertile (mutuk sul ai). In order for people

to bear fruits, God fertilizes the soil of our insides (kulonga dein ai) by teaching us his words. Others

connected it with flowers who grow very quickly. 1065 The verb kareb- (‘give’) in combination with the connective uca (and as a result) is often used as a causative in Una. This is especially the case, when the verb that needs to be ‘causativized’ normally has an

impersonal subject and does not take the usual causative morphemes. 1066 One of the informants referred to the believers as ‘people who bear fruits’ (du moun nang). When asked

what kind of fruits the believers produce, he gave the stereotypical answer: go to church, pray, listen to

God’s words, obey the Ten Commandments.

481

When I explained the purpose of the metaphor, some informants suggested the rendering

kisal dakwansir (‘He will praise/bless us’) or yik dinyi karebkwansir (‘He will give

freshness/life to us’).

The expression ‘the house of the Lord’, as it occurred in this context, was interpreted as

the hearts of people (believers). This makes sense from the ‘Believers bear fruits’

metaphor, which was triggered by the words ‘they will bear fruit’ in the same verse.

Bearing fruits for God means bearing fruit in your heart (believe and obey God’s words).

The best rendering is probably: “As for the people whom the heavenly One

praises/blesses, while they live [on earth], they will be in the house of the heavenly One

without quitting. Because the heavenly One gives life/freshness to them, they will bear

fruits. Even when they have become old, they will bear fruits. They won’t wither. But,

they will continue to bear good fruits, forever.” This rendering checked out very well

both with the first batch of informants and with fresh informants.

14.3.2.7. ‘God is the Believer’s Rock’

Passage Una English Back-translation 4. Psalm 92:16b Er Imtamnyi bira niti kil kon atonyi

kunurur. The heavenly One is like a rock to me.

Most of the informants drew a blank when they heard this metaphor – rendered as a

simile – for the first time. They needed to think about it.1067

After a while, they began to

respond. Most of the informants were able to make sense out of it, after they had reflected

upon it for a while. One informant interpreted it in the sense that God is the one who lives

forever: A rock is hard and does not wither like plants. God is called a Rock, because he

lives forever. Two informants understood the metaphor in the sense the God is the most

elevated person (keil kon are im noutam erebdob keil; iya erebdobnyi) as opposed to us

earth people (tukwe nang) who are like the place under the floor of the house (ambonga

nang ato); others understood it in the sense that God can be trusted. Like a rock he does

not shake, but He is steady, and can be trusted. God is a shelter for the believers (dib

tenen nang). One of the informants disagreed with this simile. A rock is hard and dead;

but God is the living One.

Only one informant understood the metaphor of rock as a shelter (“Mo cebcei,” tenen

kibwa tam wengnaming; Thinking, “May I not get wet,” people go inside a [natural rock]

shelter.). But even then, the concept of God protecting his people did not come through

very clearly.

The Una metaphor that seems to most clearly communicate the notion of protection

against enemies is the fence (lika) metaphor.

1067 This was the first time that I heard Una informants say that they needed to think about the meaning of a

metaphor. In most other cases, they immediately assigned meaning to the metaphor without much thinking.

In some cases the meaning they assigned was correct, in other cases the assigned meanings reflected the

meaning of Una vernacular metaphors or the meaning of metaphors found in familiar Scripture passages,

but did not reflect the intended meaning in the text.

482

14.3.2.8. Summary

The comprehension testing of the various biblical metaphors discussed in this section

showed that the Una informants tended to interpret the foreign metaphors in terms of

more familiar metaphors. The domesticating interpretation of metaphors was

accomplished by adjusting the image and/or by adjusting the topic. In the ‘God is a sun’

metaphor both the topic and the image were adjusted to the familiar metaphor ‘God’s

Word is a light’.

Una informants preferred the use of vernacular images in cases where the imagery of the

source text was not known to them. In rendering psalm 84:12 ‘war vest’ imagery was

preferred over ‘shield’ imagery, since Una people are unfamiliar with shields. The Una

informants also had a tendency to avoid metaphorical expressions in which God was

equated with an object. So, rather than translating ‘God is a shield’ as ‘God is a war vest’,

they suggested ‘God is the one who puts a war vest on me.’

The use of vernacular images is attractive, since it can be a powerful tool to help the

people understand the meaning of the original metaphor. However, the use of a

vernacular image instead of the original image can also easily lead to meaning that is too

narrow, or to meaning that is distorted. The metaphor of the fowler’s snare (Psalm 91:3),

for example, did not make sense at all to the informants. They suggested a ‘tying with

ropes’ metaphor, but this metaphor turned out to be connected to a spiritual frame of

Satan claiming people as his pigs (followers). In order to steer away from such an

interpretation that would be too narrow, a ‘plotting to kill’ metaphor was proposed

instead.

The metaphor of God protecting his people under bird’s wings, rendered as a simile into

Una, was well understood. However, the metaphors ‘Being Blessed [by God] is Growing’

and ‘Being Blessed by God is Bearing Fruit’ were not understood. The informants

consistently approached the metaphors of growing and bearing fruit from a ‘Believing in

God is Bearing Fruit’ and ‘Obeying God’s Commands is Bearing Fruit’. Once the notion

of blessing was articulated in the translation, the informants understood the meaning of

the metaphor. The metaphor ‘God is a sun’ was also not understood in the sense of

blessing and giving prosperity, but rather as ‘giving light’ and ‘teaching the truth’.

The fact that some of the discussed biblical metaphors were similar to metaphors familiar

to Una people did not always help them to understand the intended meaning. The reason

for this is the fact that the cognitive frames in which these metaphors function were not

always the same. The ‘bearing fruit’ metaphor, for example, is used in psalm 92 as an

expression of God’s blessing of the believers (creation-blessing frame); in the perception

of Una informants, however, this metaphor functions is an expression of obeying God’s

commands (church frame). Metaphors that seemed to be very similar in meaning, turned

out to be ‘false cognates’.

The linguistic context seemed to play some role in the interpretation of the metaphors.

This was evidenced by the fact that some informants interpreted metaphors with

483

information from the same context and came up with a more or less unified

interpretation. Unfortunately, this did not always help the interpretation. In psalm 92:14-

15, for example, the ‘bearing fruits’ metaphor was combined with the expression ‘the

house of the Lord’. The house of the Lord was then interpreted metaphorically as the

heart of the believer, which perfectly fits with the frame of ‘bearing fruits’, as it is

commonly understood by Una people.1068

14.4. Metaphors in the Story of the Canaanite Woman

14.4.1. Introduction

The story of the Canaanite woman who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal her daughter

contains several metaphors: the sheep metaphor (‘the lost sheep of Israel’), a dog

metaphor (‘Non-Israelite people are dogs’), a child metaphor (‘the people of Israel are

children’), a food metaphor (‘healing is giving food’).

14.4.2. Testing the comprehension of metaphors in Matthew 15:21-28

Una English Back-translation Matthew 15:21-28 Kanaan mutuk ner aryi er Yesus bisi dib tenebmou

uram

A sirya ura, er Yesus bira anaboka Tirus ab Sidon

ab mutuk bindobmou. Bindobmou ura, a mutuk aryi

kuramwe Kanaan ner tentok yandoka uram weik

dobmou cok, er Yesus bisi ato ebmou. ‘Nai, kanda

Daud Mi kurum ati, kanci ni boukwe kibnurum. Ni

nebnyi asi isa aryi wekwe uca, mambul weik kurur

ati, kanci bico kibsurum.’

Ato eboka molobmou bok, er Yesus biryi ersi uram

ton kum dekeibmou. Tanglona kum uca uram weik

dobmou ba, er Yesus miliramnyi nang aryi yandoka

er Yesus bisi ato eboka molobmai.

Matthew 15:21-28 Story/words about a woman from the Kanaan area

who believed in Jesus

After this was finished, Jesus departed and went to

the area of Tirus and Sidon. After he went, a

Kanaan woman who was in that area came [to him]

and while she was shouting, she said like this to

Jesus. ‘Father, since you are the Son of David, have

a big liver on me. As for my daughter, an evil spirit

has entered her, and as a result she is very

distressed, therefore have pity on us.’

She asked saying like that, but Jesus did not say any

word in return to her. While she was still shouting

without quitting, the followers of Jesus came to him

and asked him saying like this.

1068 It is not uncommon that in contexts where metaphors occur literal expressions are also interpreted as if

they were metaphorical expressions. Not only translators need to be aware of this, but pastors and teachers

of Bible schools and seminaries need to be aware of this kind of hermeneutic dynamics. Taking metaphors

out of context and combining them with other metaphors sometimes occurs in the context of ethical

discussions. Some time ago two co-workers of ours were discussing the question of whether or not a man is

allowed to divorce his wife. They were particularly interested in two metaphorical expressions, which are

linked by the body metaphor: 1. ‘a man and his wife are one flesh/body’ (Genesis 2:24); and 2. ‘if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away … and if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it

off and throw it away …’ (Matthew 5:29-30). The combination of these verses suggested to these co-

workers that divorce is allowed. In their interpretation, a wife is a body part of her husband, which should

be thrown away in certain circumstances. However, they were not sure whether this was a valid

interpretation, and they asked our advice on the exegetical validity of their interpretation.

484

‘Nai, kanci a ner asi, ‘Bindobdum,’ ebdum. Erci nun

milibmasir aryi uram dobdi yanganmar ati, kanci,

‘Bindobdum,’ ebdum.’

Molobmai ba, er Yesus biryi sunsi ato ebmou. ‘Ni

Nai Imtamnyi biryi nisi bokwetebnou ara sun Israel

nang ara waningna domba asi bulubdeiboka lebkwan ati bokwetebnou.’

Ebmou bok, a ner aryi kekebmou ci, kutam

ikdongoboka er Yesus bisi ato ebmou. ‘Nai, kanci

bico teneboka milibnurum.’

Molobmou bok, er Yesus biryi ersi ato ebmou. ‘Roti

sun mabwe yibkwaming tenen kiknibmating dinyi

ara kam ati karebman kum.’

Ato ebmou bok, a ner aryi ato ebmou. ‘Nai, diba

ebmarim bok, kam ara kablobmaci dinyi yinung. Ara, kam dam nang aryi sirya yibmangnyi ura, kam

ara co lamna aryi kuboka sakmaci kablobmaci dinyi

yinung.’

Ato ebmou ura, er Yesus biryi a ner asi ato ebmou.

‘Ei, ni kwin. Kan dib tenenin dinyi ara weik

kubmakir ati kanci molobmanirim to kunubkurur.’

Er Yesus biryi ato ebmou ba, a talak aryok, er

nebnyi kanya wekamwe isa ara anabkaboka

bindobmou uca, er nebnyi teleb kibdobmou.

‘Father, tell this woman, ‘Go away.’ Because she

keeps following us while shouting, tell her, ‘Go

away.’

When they asked it, Jesus told them saying like this.

‘As for my Father the heavenly One sending me, he

sent me in order that I would gather together and rescue the Israel people who are lost sheep.’

He said that, but that woman having heard that,

bended her knees and said like this to Jesus. ‘Father,

having pity on us, help me.

She asked it, but Jesus said to her. ‘As for the bread

that the children will eat, it is not appropriate to give

it to the dogs.’

He said that, but the woman said like this. ‘Father,

you have said this truly, but dogs usually eat the leftover things. That is, after the owners of the dogs

have eaten, the dogs eat the food that falls from the

table.’

After she said like this, Jesus said like this to the

woman. ‘Hei, my mother. Because your belief is

great, I will do for you what you just asked me.’

When Jesus said like this, at the same moment, the

evil spirit who had entered her daughter went away,

and her daughter became well again.

Most of the informants understood the main line of the story. A Canaanite woman comes

to Jesus, begging him to heal her daughter, who is absent from the scene and who is

possessed by an evil spirit. Jesus heals the daughter of this woman, because the woman

believed in him.

During the retell of the story, the first part and the final part of the story came through

very clearly. However, the middle section of the story was not mentioned at all by any of

the informants. This part tells how Jesus refuses to help the woman, and that the disciples

beg him to take action by sending the woman away. The middle part also contained the

metaphors that were to be tested.

The initial silence of the informants about the middle part of the story is probably not an

anomaly. It can at least be explained very well from a (cultural) frame approach. The

middle part of the story did not seem to make sense from the perspective that Una people

have of Jesus as a Savior who is always ready to help people. Jesus’ lack of responsive

action in this particular story simply does not fit in with what Una people would expect.

Because it did not make sense, the Una informants (consciously or unconsciously)

ignored this part of the story during the retell.

485

When I directed the informants’ attention to the middle part of the story, they seemed to

be able to understand the bits and pieces. But, they did not seem to be able to put this all

together.

The informants understood the metaphor of the lost sheep. During the retell, it came out

very clearly that God had sent Jesus to the people of Israel, who had strayed away from

God and who were not listening to God’s words. Jesus was to teach the Gospel (Teleb

uram; Good words) to them, so that they would obey God’s words again.

But, why did Jesus speak of the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ in this particular context of a

woman requesting that her daughter be healed? Only one of the informants linked this to

the request that the woman had made, and interpreted Jesus’ response correctly as an

indirect refusal to help the woman. However, this refusal did not make sense to this

informant. Why would Jesus not help the daughter of this woman, if he was sent to the

lost sheep of Israel? The contrast between ‘lost sheep of Israel’ and Canaanite woman

was not clear to him or to any of the other informants. The name ‘Canaan’ was seen as a

geographical indication of the land/place where the people of Israel lived. People who

live in Canaan must belong to the people of Israel too. All the informants thought that the

Canaanite woman did belong to the people of Israel. One informant thought that the

woman belonged to the people of Israel, because she believed in Jesus. The theological

frame that formed the background of this story (The people of Israel are the chosen

people of God; people from other nations are not his favorites) was completely lost on the

Una informants. As a result, the amazing part of this story that it is a woman of pagan

descent who believes in Jesus (as opposed to many people of Israel who did not believe at

all) was not understood either.

The informants also understood that the term dogs was used in a derogatory way. When

asked what this referred to, they said that dogs are people who do not obey the words of

God. People who are called dogs steal things from others, or are promiscuous. Dogs are

people who do not believe, people who carry the heart of an evil spirit (isa kanya bon

nang). But this woman believed in Jesus, so how could she be a dog? The meaning of the

dog metaphor (including the dogs eating leftover foods) was more or less clear to the Una

informants, but the topic was unclear. They did not understand that this referred to the

Canaanite woman and other people who did not belong to the people of Israel.

When discussing the metaphor ‘the bread of the children’, some informants –

predictably! – said that this is the Word of God (er Imtamnyi uram). Other informants –

predictably! – associated it with the element of bread in the Lord’s supper, which

symbolizes Jesus’ body. Here again, a metaphor was understood from a church frame,

and its meaning was pretty much fixed. None of the informants understood that ‘the

bread of the children’ in this particular context refers to salvation and healing.

Frame articulation can help to connect the parts of the story that seemed to be

disconnected in the minds of the Una informants.

486

First of all, the identity of the Canaanite woman needs to be explicated. Introducing the

woman as ‘a non-Israel woman from the Canaan land/area’ would help to build the frame

of Israel people versus non-Israel people. It would simultaneously function as a thematic

link between the first part of the story and the middle part.1069

Secondly, the metaphor of ‘the bread of the children’ needs to be linked more clearly to

the healing of the daughter. This could be done, by explicating the notion of healing in

the woman’s repeated request in verse 25: “Father, having pity on us, heal my daughter.”

Thirdly, a thematic link, similar to the one mentioned above, could be established

between the middle section and the final part of the story, by adding the term “non-Israel”

in the quote margin of verse 28: “After she said like this, Jesus said like this to this non-

Israel woman: …”1070

These changes helped these and other (‘fresh’) Una informants to understand the

connections between the different parts of the text. Once these connections were

established in the translation, the informants were able to understand the implicatures like

‘Non-Israel people are dogs’ and ‘Healing/salvation [by Jesus] is eating bread’.

14.5. Conclusions

Comprehension checking with native speakers of Una of various biblical metaphors,

including the metaphor of shepherd and sheep, confirmed that the interpretation of

metaphors is to a large degree dependent on the cultural frames that are evoked in the

minds of the Una people during the time that they read or listen to the text. These cultural

frames are triggered by the metaphors and other concepts in the translated text that are

perceived as being relevant.

Foreign metaphors that have been translated literally (as foreign metaphors) in the target

language were most often understood in terms of similar metaphors (‘God is a sun’

‘God’s word is a light’). If the intended ground(s) had not been explicated in the

translation, the metaphors were interpreted in terms of the default meaning of their

closest receptor language counterpart images.

When the image term was an item that was not known in the receptor culture, a

descriptive phrase explaining this item was used initially. However, renderings like these

did not always clearly communicate the intended meaning. And the Una informants

preferred the use of cultural equivalents. In those cases a footnote was added (in the final

version) in which the original metaphor of the source text was mentioned.

1069 This information could be given in the section heading instead of putting it in verse 22. For Una people

it seems to work better to give the general information in the section heading (‘Story/words about a woman

from the Canaan area who believed in Jesus’) and to give more detailed information in the text (‘a non-Israel woman from the Canaan area’). 1070 Including this information the quote would make this even more prominent (“Hei, my mother, even

though you are a non-Israel woman, your belief is great. I will therefore do what you requested me to do.”).

However, explicating this kind of implied information in a direct quote should be avoided as much as

possible.

487

But even familiar metaphors were easily misunderstood, especially in cases where the

intended meaning of the source text was different from the commonly understood

meaning in the receptor language. Frame articulation usually helped to correct wrong

interpretations, and to allow the readers/hearers to make sense of the translated text.

Frame articulation also helped to give the Una informants a chance to understand the

unity of the original text (coherence). Understanding the unity of the text helped them to

make sense of the details of a text, and to see how the different pieces of information

(including the relations between metaphors in a text) and frames of understanding were

linked together.

The underlying assumption of the approach adopted in this study is that at least some

frame articulation needs to be done in the translated text in cases where native speakers

consistently misunderstand a translated text. This assumption is closely connected with

the missionary-explicative skopos that is envisaged for the Una translation.

It would be very interesting to see how frame articulation would work in approaches

where translators rely primarily or completely on paratextual explanations (introductions,

section headings, footnotes, glossary), on extratextual aids (like Bible story books) or on

explanations given by pastors and teachers to communicate implied information,

including implied information that is relevant to the understanding of the unity

(coherence) of the translated text. To what degree can more or less intensive Scripture

Use1071

programs or Scripture Engagement1072

programs help to bridge the cognitive gap

between the source text and secondary audiences? For what kinds of audiences does this

approach work? And what is the success rate and the coverage in terms of percentages of

the total population of a language group? It would be good if descriptive and comparative

studies would be undertaken in this area.

I am planning to do some more experimenting in this area as well. But, at this point the

choice for missionary-explicative skopos for the Una Bible translation still seems to be

the best option. This approach seems to be justified in the light of the relatively poor

Bible knowledge and Bible study skills that the majority of Una people have right now

and in the light of the fact that, generally speaking, the explanation of the Scriptures in

sermons is rather weak. It also seems to be justified in the light of the results of

comprehension testing with native speakers, like the ones presented in this chapter and

the previous one.

1071 The term Scripture Use (or: Scripture in Use) is commonly used by SIL translators. Scripture Use

overlaps partly with literacy work, where people are taught to read fluently and with understanding. Putting

the translated Scriptures to audio tape, video tape, and/or vernacular music (ethnomusicology) is another aspect of Scripture Use. It may also include programs of Bible memorization, of training people in

principles of doing Bible study, and of preparing helps for Bible readers. Scripture Use may sometimes

even extend to training readers in principles of contextualization. 1072 The term Scripture Engagement is sometimes used by translation officers related to the United Bible

Societies.

488

15. The Rendering of Metaphor in Fifteen Vernacular Bible

Translations from Eastern Indonesia

15.1. Introduction

Vernacular Bible translations in minority languages form an important and growing

segment of the total number of Bible translations that are available in the world. But,

little is known about these translations outside the limited circles of the – often

monolingual1073

– audiences that make use of them.

Linguists and exegetes – both national and expatriate – who have been involved in

vernacular translation projects have been sharing information about these translations in

newsletters, articles and books about Bible translation.1074

Nevertheless, it seems like a

systematic and descriptive research of vernacular Bible translations in minority languages

is still in its infancy.1075

This is at least the case with vernacular Bible translations in

Papua (Indonesia) and other parts of Indonesia, where very little descriptive research has

been done from a translation perspective.1076

1073 True monolingual groups (100 %) are rarely found these days, even in Papua (Indonesia). But,

especially in the interior languages a large degree of the population is still monolingual. In the Una

language, for example, 75 % of the population is still monolingual. Predominant monolingualism is not the

only reason for translating the Bible into minority languages, however. Even true bilingual speakers are advocating vernacular translations on the grounds that these translations are usually better understood than

translations in the national language and that they contribute to a sense of unity and identity among

vernacular target audiences. The publication of vernacular Scripture portions, in combination with the

publication of simple dictionaries, grammar sketches and vernacular literature (folktales) and with the

establishment of literacy programs, sometimes plays a major role in the revitalization of endangered

languages. 1074 Articles in The Bible Translator (published by the United Bible Societies) and Notes on Translation

(formerly published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, but recently discontinued) often contain

descriptive data on vernacular Bible translations, but these are usually rather limited in scope. Textbooks

like Nida and Taber (1969), Beekman and Callow (1974), etc. also contain lots of data on various

vernacular translations, but here the focus is more on translation pedagogy (how to translate) than on a descriptive analysis of the data. 1075 There are a number of factors that seem to play a major role in our relative lack of knowledge of

vernacular language translations. First of all, the number of people who are acquainted with these minority

languages is very limited. Secondly, the few outside linguists and exegetes who could shed more light on

these translations are usually heavily occupied with their demanding tasks of language and culture analysis,

consulting, training, and keeping up with new developments in their fields of expertise. This makes it very

difficult to find time to make a contribution to descriptive analysis of vernacular Bible translations. Thirdly,

not everybody seems to be convinced of the significance of descriptive research for translation theory and

translation methodology. Translators and consultants that have an interest in the theoretical and

methodological aspects of translation usually focus more on theoretical models than on data-oriented

research. Fourthly, data-oriented research of vernacular Bible translations is somewhat sensitive in that it

can be easily misunderstood and criticized by people who do not know the linguistic, cultural and institutional contexts in which these translations have been (are being) produced, and who have no clue of

the complex decision making processes that translation teams go through. 1076 In Papua (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) over 250 different languages are spoken. In the rest of Indonesia

around 420 languages are spoken. Cf. Grimes (1988:487). Translation work is in progress in many of these

languages.

489

In this chapter an attempt is made to fill in some of the blanks related to our knowledge

of vernacular Bible translations in Indonesia. Fifteen vernacular Bible translations from

Eastern Indonesia have been researched with respect to their rendering of a selected

number of Biblical metaphors. Five of these languages are located in Sulawesi, three in

Maluku, and seven in Papua. Seven of these languages are Austronesian languages, while

the remaining eight are Papuan languages.1077

The research in this chapter is based on written – and fairly literal – back translations of

the vernacular translations into English or Indonesian. These back-translations are

normally used as an information tool for consultants who do the final check before

vernacular translations can be published.1078

However, not every translation agency

requires a written back-translation. As a result, the majority of vernacular Bible

translations that have been checked and published by the Indonesian Bible Society (LAI)

fall outside the scope of our present research.1079

The vernacular translations that were used in this research were selected based on the

fulfillment of the following criteria:

a. They have been checked by a translation consultant and are currently used by

language communities (or will be used in the near future).

b. They have been made accessible by providing a written – and fairly literal – back-

translation of the vernacular into English or Indonesian.

c. The translation team that produced the vernacular translation and the back-

translation has given permission to use the data for this research.

The fifteen vernacular translations that were researched form a good cross-section of

Bible translation projects facilitated by SIL linguists. They also from a good cross-section

in terms of language variety (Austronesian and Papuan), education level, and institutional

context. Even in terms of translation strategies (more meaning-based vs. more form-

based), there is a good variety of different approaches. Generally speaking, translations

1077 One of the Papuan languages researched in this chapter is located outside the province of Papua: Galela

(North-Maluku). All of the Austronesian language data are from outside Papua. At this point, no data were

available for any of the Austronesian languages located in Papua. 1078 Back-translations are a very useful tool for descriptive analysis of vernacular Bible translations. A

potential drawback, however, is the fact that not every translation team has the habit of adjusting the back-

translation to changes that were made during the final consultant check. At least some of the translation

teams who made their data available pointed out that they had not adjusted the back-translation to final

changes that were made during the consultant check. For one of the translation teams that were originally

approached, this was a major reason for not making their back-translations available. They felt that their

back-translations did no longer reflect the final translation product. In order to minimize the possibility of

mismatches between the back-translations and the vernacular Bible translations, the respondents were given

an opportunity to double-check the accuracy of their back-translations and to give comments on a preliminary version of the present chapter. 1079 Translation officers of the Indonesian Bible Society (LAI) usually rely on oral back-translations and re-

tellings from language informants during consultant checks. In SIL, however, a written back-translation,

prepared by the translation team, is required before a translation consultant will check the translation with

the translation team and ‘unconditioned’ native speakers.

490

from Sulawesi tended to be more form-based, while translations from Maluku and Papua

tended to more meaning-based with regard to the ways they render metaphors.

The research presented in this chapter is by no means intended to be a final description of

how metaphors have been translated in the researched translations, nor does it claim that

it is fully representative for all the vernacular translations in Papuan and Austronesian

languages. In order to get a more complete picture, a larger quantity of vernacular

translations would have to be studied. Also, a wider variety of translations, including

those produced by pioneering missionary translators and, more recently, by mother

tongue translators1080

, would have to be included. The present research is no more than an

initial step towards a systematic and data-based understanding of vernacular translations

in Eastern Indonesia.

15.2. Methodological aspects

15.2.1. Research questions

With regard to the translation of metaphors a lot of questions come to mind. The

following research questions have guided our research.1081

1. How have metaphors been translated into Papuan and Austronesian languages?

a. the metaphor has been kept in the translation without any explication

b. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile without explication

c. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile with additional explication

d. the metaphor of the source text has been replaced by a vernacular

metaphor of the target language

e. the metaphor has been replaced by a literal rendering in the target

language

f. the metaphor has been rendered in a different way

2. Which ones of the above mentioned translation strategies occur most frequently?

Which ones occur less frequently?

3. How much diversity is there in terms of translation strategies followed in the

vernacular translations? Are some translations more explicative than others? And

if so, is there a correlation between the degree of explication and geographical

1080 Most of the fifteen vernacular translations that are being discussed in this chapter have been produced

by joint teams of mother tongue translators and expatriate linguists/exegetes. But, to my knowledge, none

of these translation projects are mother tongue translator projects in the sense that national translators have

the sole or final responsibility for the project. In translation teams working with the Indonesian Bible

Society, however, national translators have the sole responsibility for the translation product before it is

checked by a translation officer. SIL is also moving in this direction, while providing a support structure

consisting of training courses, workshops, mentor and consultant help for mother tongue translators. 1081

It should be noted that not every research question was pursued to the same degree of detail nor on the

same breadth of scale. The first three research questions were pursued in-depth and on a broad scale,

covering all the relevant data. The other research questions were pursued in less detail.

491

location (in other words: are translations from isolated areas in Papua more

explicative than translations from Sulawesi)?

4. How do the vernacular translations compare to translations in languages of wider

communication (English and Indonesian) with regard to the way they translate

metaphors?

5. What kinds of metaphors are usually explicated in the translation? Under what

conditions are metaphors usually explicated? (The meaning of the metaphor is not

clear to the audience, cultural interference, other?).

6. What are some important conditions under which the explication of metaphor is

usually avoided? (Constraints of genre, context, theological sensitivity, perceived

authenticity1082

, metaphor is peripheral to the theme of the section, other?).

7. Do the topic-term, the image-term, and the ground(s)-term usually occur in the

same clause or sentence, or can they also be spread out over more than one clause

or sentence?

8. If the ground (point of comparison) of the metaphor has been made explicit in the

translation, does it usually follow the clause/sentence with the topic-term and the

image-term, or can it also precede this clause/sentence?

9. To what degree do translations show sensitivity to the fact that a metaphor may

have more than one (more or less related) point of similarity simultaneously?

10. If a metaphor of the source text is not kept in the translation but rendered as a

literal expression, has there been any attempt to compensate for this loss of

metaphoricity in the immediate context?

11. To what degree is the translation of metaphor focused on:

a. communicating the (informative) meaning of the metaphor

b. communicating the expressive and pragmatic aspects of metaphor

c. preserving the potential indeterminacy of meaning of the metaphor

d. a combination of these factors

12. To what degree is there a correlation between the way metaphors have been

translated (particularly the absence or presence of explication) and the education

level of the audience? And to what degree is there a correlation with the

translation strategy that has been followed?

1082 The term ‘perceived authenticity’ is used by Andersen (1998) to refer to the perception of audiences

that translated Scriptures form an authentic representation of the source text. If a translation makes too

much implicit information explicit, educated people who have access to a more literal translation in the

national language may view the more explicit translation as being non-authentic. The issue of ‘perceived

acceptability’ is closely related to the issue of ‘acceptability’ of the translated Scriptures by the audience.

492

15.2.2. Research methods

The following methods have been used in this research:

a. A descriptive analysis – both quantitative and qualitative – of vernacular

translations was based on written back-translations in English or Indonesian.

b. The description of the translation data was complemented by a survey among the

translation teams to get their perspective on issues related to the translation of

metaphor.

c. Follow-up correspondence with translation teams was carried out in cases where I

had questions related to the back-translation or where the responses to the survey

form were unclear.

d. A comparison was made between the vernacular translations and a number of

English and Indonesian Bible translations in order to get a feeling for how these

vernacular translations relate to translations commonly used in these two languages

of wider communication (national, international languages).

15.2.3. Limitations of this study

A systematic analysis of vernacular translations based on fairly literal back-translations in

English or Indonesian is an excellent tool for describing these translations. At the same

time it should be noted, however, that a descriptive study like this can only touch the

surface, since it has no access to the underlying reasons that form the basis for all the

translation choices. Translators usually have very good reasons for their translation

choices, but they seldom keep a detailed record of the specific reasons why they chose

one particular translation variant and rejected other options.

In a descriptive study like this it is also impossible to give a detailed account of the

cultural and institutional contexts in which these translations have been produced, the

intended function of the translation (skopos), and of the translators’ assumptions related

to translation.1083

In this study, the focus is on comparing translations with one another in

order to gain a better understanding of these translations, especially with regard to the

way they translate metaphors. But, this approach can easily lead to a situation where we

lose sight of the fact that the most important question related to a translation is not how it

compares to other translations, but rather how it fits in with its cultural and institutional

context and with the intended function.

1083 Generally speaking, the translations in Sulawesi seem to be embedded more formally in church structures and practices than translations in Papua and Maluku. And, generally speaking, the translations in

Papua seem to face more challenges related to bridging the cultural gap between the biblical text and the

present-day audience than the vernacular translations in Sulawesi do. These general observations help us to

understand why vernacular translations in Papua tend to be more explicative than vernacular translations in

Sulawesi.

493

15.3. The Survey

Before I discuss the results of my research of the fifteen back-translations from Eastern

Indonesia, I will present the survey form (15.3.1.), give an overview of its results

(15.3.2.), and draw some conclusions (15.3.3).

15.3.1. The survey form

The following survey form was sent out to 23 language teams in Indonesia (along with a

request to make their back-translations available for this research).

Questionnaire Related to the Translation of Metaphors

1. How would you rate the translation of metaphors in terms of difficulty (compared with other

translation problems)?

<Very High> 1 2 3 4 5 <Very Low>

2. What is, in your opinion, the most difficult aspect of translating metaphors? (Use 1 for the most difficult aspect and 5 or 6 for the least difficult)

… Exegesis of the metaphor / Find the point of comparison

… The translation of metaphors that involve images unknown to the audience

… Cultural interference (known images have a different meaning)

… Preserving the indeterminacy of metaphor (multiple meanings simultaneously)

… Conflicting opinions between commentaries

… [Other:] ……………………………………………………………………..

3. How frequently do you encounter cultural interference when translating metaphors? (The image is

more or less familiar to the audience, but the meaning they get from it does not square with the intended meaning of the metaphor of the source text)

<Very Often> 1 2 3 4 5 <Never>

4. What kind of translation strategy do you use most often when you are translating a metaphor?

(Use 1 for the most frequent and 5 for the least frequent)

… Keep the metaphor without adding any explication

… Use a simile without adding any explication

… Use a simile while explicating the point of comparison

… Use a vernacular equivalent of the source text metaphor … Substitute the metaphor with a literal rendering in the target language

5. To what degree does the genre of the text in which the metaphor occurs influence the way you

translate a metaphor? (teaching materials, poetry, etc.)

<Very High> 1 2 3 4 5 <Very Low>

6. To what degree does the comprehension of unconditioned native speakers influence the way you

translate a metaphor?

<Very High> 1 2 3 4 5 <Very Low>

494

7. To what degree does ‘perceived authenticity’ influence the way you translate metaphors? (E.g., the

audience expects the translated text to look like the Terjemahan Baru.)

<Very High> 1 2 3 4 5 <Very Low>

8. What other factors influence the way you translate metaphors?

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

9. Could you give an example of metaphor translation where cultural interference made it necessary

to make the point(s) of comparison explicit?

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

10. Could you give an example of metaphor translation where you substituted the metaphor of the

source text with a vernacular metaphor that was more or less equivalent?

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

11. Could you give an example of metaphor translation where you substituted the metaphor of the

source text with a literal rendering?

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

12. How often do you render a literal expression in the source text with an idiomatic or metaphorical

expression in the target language?

<Often> 1 2 3 4 5 <Never>

13. Could you give an example of substituting a literal expression in the source text with an idiomatic

or metaphorical expression in the target language?

…………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………….

14. Is your knowledge of vernacular metaphors primarily based on:

a. Working knowledge of metaphors and similes based on continued language learning/use. b. Discussion with language helpers and co-translators during translation sessions

c. A systematic research of metaphors and similes found in the language and documented in

a paper or thesis

d. Combination of a and b

e. Combination of a, b and c

495

15.3.2. Survey results

The above survey form was sent out to a total of 23 translations teams in Indonesia (along

with a request to make their back-translations available for metaphor research). Fifteen

teams responded by sending their back-translations (65.2 %). Eleven teams also filled out

the survey form (47.8 %). There were no teams who did return the survey form, but did

not make their back-translations available.

The responses to the questions are tabulated below. Quantitative data (questions 1-7, 12

and 14) are presented before more qualitative data (questions 8-11, 13). The numbers in

the boxes correspond to the number of respondents who chose a particular rating.

15.3.2.1 The difficulty rate of translating metaphors

The respondents rated the translation of metaphors as something ranging between

average difficulty and very high difficulty.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

1 How would you rate the translation of

metaphors in terms of difficulty (compared

with other translation problems)?

2 18.2 %

3 27.3 %

6 54.5 %

-- 0.0 %

-- 0.0 %

15.3.2.2. The most difficult aspect of translating metaphors

The respondents rated the preservation of indeterminacy as the most difficult aspect of

translating metaphors. Translating metaphors with a foreign (unknown) image ranked

second. Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

Relative

Ranking

2 What is, in your

opinion, the most

difficult aspect of

translating

metaphors? (Use 1

for the most difficult aspect and 5 or 6 for

the least difficult)

Exegesis 2 20 %

1 10 %

3 30 %

2 20 %

2 20 %

#3

Unknown Image 2 20 %

4 40 %

2 20 %

2 20 %

-- 0 %

#2

Cultural

Interference

-- 0 %

4 40 %

2 20 %

2 20 %

2 20 %

#4

Preserve

indeterminacies1084

5 50 %

3 30 %

1 10 %

-- 0 %

1 10 %

#1

Conflicting

commentaries

-- 0 %

2 20 %

2 20 %

3 30 %

3 30 %

#5

Other suggestions

added by respondents

Literal/Free 1 Not

included in

ranking

Appropriateness 1

Keep / substitute

metaphor

1

1084 Due to the rather sketchy explanation of the term “indeterminacy” in the survey form (“multiple

meanings simultaneously”), at least some of the respondents may have misunderstood this concept in the

sense of “unpacking multiple meanings” rather than understanding it as “keeping interpretive options open

by non-explication.”

496

15.3.2.3. The frequency of cultural interference when translating metaphors

According to the majority of the respondents cultural interference occurred only

occasionally when they are translating metaphors.1085

A translator of an interior Papuan

language was the only one who gave this a ‘very high’ rating.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

3 How frequently do you encounter cultural

interference when translating metaphors? (The

image is more or less familiar to the audience,

but the meaning they get from it does not

square with the intended meaning of the metaphor of the source text)

1 9.1 %

-- 0.0 %

2 18.2 %

4 36.4 %

4 36.4 %

15.3.2.4. Predominant translation strategies when translating metaphors

The majority of the respondents put the use of a simile plus explication as the most

frequently used translation strategy. The use of a simile without explication ranked

second.1086

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

aver-

age

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

Relative

Ranking

4 What kind of translation

strategy do you use most

often when you are

translating a metaphor? (Use 1 for the most

frequent and 5 for the

least frequent)

Keep

metaphor, no

explication

-- 0.0 %

1 9.1 %

3 27.3 %

3 27.3 %

4 36.4 %

#5

Use simile, no

explication

3 27.3%

1 9.1 %

2 18.2 %

4 36.4 %

1 9.1 %

#2

Use simile,

plus

explication

4 36.4 %

4 36.4 %

2 18.2 %

-- 0.0 %

1 9.1 %

#1

Use

vernacular

equivalent

2 18.2 %

1 9.1 %

3 27.3 %

3 27.3 %

2 18.2 %

#3

Use literal

equivalent

1 9.1 %

1 9.1 %

5 45.5 %

2 18.2 %

2 18.2 %

#4

1085 This rating was much lower than I had expected. It shows that, at least in the perception of the majority

of the respondents, cultural interference is marginal, when translating metaphors. 1086 We will see in a later section of this chapter that this perception of the translators is not supported by

our research findings based on a descriptive analysis of the back-translations.

497

15.3.2.5. The role of genre in translating metaphors

According to the majority of respondents, the text genre in which a metaphor occurs is an

important factor in deciding as to how the metaphor can be best translated.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

5 To what degree does the

genre of the text in which

the metaphor occurs

influence the way you

translate a metaphor?

(teaching materials,

poetry, etc.)

Respondent gave

specific rating

4 40 %

3 30 %

1 10 %

1 10 %

-- 0 %

Respondent

indicated s/he

didn’t know

1 10 %

15.3.2.6. The role of the comprehension of native speakers in translating metaphors

According to the majority of the respondents the comprehension of unconditioned native

speakers plays an important role in the way they translate metaphors.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

6 To what degree does the comprehension of

unconditioned native speakers influence the

way you translate a metaphor?

7 70 %

3 30 %

-- 0 %

-- 0 %

-- 0 %

15.3.2.7. The role of ‘perceived authenticity’ in translating metaphors

According to the majority of the respondents ‘perceived authenticity’ speakers does not

play an important role in the way they translate metaphors.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

7 To what degree does ‘perceived authenticity’

influence the way you translate metaphors?

(E.g., the audience expects the translated text

to look like the Terjemahan Baru.)

-- 0 %

-- 0 %

1 10 %

5 50 %

4 40 %

498

15.3.2.8. Rendering literal expressions in the source text with metaphorical

(idiomatic) expressions in the receptor language

The answers to this question were rather divided. 44.4 % of the respondents thought that

they (very) frequently translate literal expressions in a metaphorical (idiomatic) way. 11.1

% put this in the ‘average’ category, while 33.3 % put this in the ‘low frequency’

category.

Nr Question <1>

very

high

<2>

high

<3>

average

<4>

low

<5>

very

low

12 How often do you render

a literal expression in the

source text with an

idiomatic or metaphorical

expression in the target language?

Know 2 22.2 %

2 22.2 %

1 11.1 %

3 33.3 %

-- 0.0 %

Don’t

know/remember

1 11.1 %

15.3.2.9. Expatriate translator/advisor’s knowledge of vernacular metaphors

The vast majority of the respondents base their knowledge of vernacular metaphors on

their personal working knowledge of the vernacular language and discussions with

language helpers. Only one respondent had also done significant research of vernacular

metaphors.

Nr Question Score

14 Is your knowledge of

vernacular metaphors

primarily based on:

a. Working

knowledge only

-- 0 %

b. Discussion

with language

helpers only

-- 0 %

c. Systematic

research only

-- 0 %

d. Combination

a/b

10 90.9 %

e. Combination

a/b/c

1 9.1 %

499

15.3.2.10. Other factors that influence the translation of metaphors

Nr Question Answers given by various translators

8 What other factors influence the way you translate metaphors?

“Translating the meaning of the metaphor is more important than preserving its form and

image.” (meaning-based translation)

“Historicity is also a factor. “Camel” should

not be translated “pig”, etc.” (historicity)

“The intended meaning of the metaphor, as

the original readers would have understood

it, is not always clear. Commentators differ

in their understanding of certain metaphors.”

(ambiguity, different interpretations)

“If the metaphor is an extended one

throughout Scripture we try to keep it, with

explanation if necessary.” (thematicity)

“Comprehension of the upper level

discourse by the reader at times influenced

whether to substitute the metaphor with a literal rendering.” (comprehension at

discourse level)

“The comprehension and interpretation of

the mother tongue translators on the team [is

an important factor].” (comprehension and

preferences of mother tongue translators)

15.3.2.11. Examples of cultural interference

Nr Question Answers given by various translators

9 Could you give an example

of metaphor translation

where cultural interference made it necessary to make

the point(s) of comparison

explicit?

“Example: Being a shepherd, taking care of animals. The

Abun norm is not to take good care of animals in terms of

giving food etc, so we needed to add take GOOD care of animals to make this cultural inference explicit.” (Abun;

Papua)

“Example: “wise as serpents”. In the Bauzi culture “snakes”

characteristics do not include the characteristic of being wise.”

(Bauzi; Papua)

“Perhaps ‘beware of the dogs’.” (Anonymous 1; Papua

Interior)

“Example: “beating of chest” in the receptor language means

one is proud (Anonymous 2; Papua Coastal)

“Examples: “You brood of vipers,” tell “Herod that fox,” etc.

As you can see, animal metaphors almost never work in

Meyah, because the Meyah do not use animal characteristics

to describe humans. Calling someone a pig or a chicken

communicates very clearly in American English, but does not

collocate in a Meyah person’s mind. Even if a simile is produced, the characteristics that we attribute to a certain

animal are not necessarily the same characteristic that the

Meyah attribute to the same animal. Therefore, the appropriate

animal needs to be found that shares the same characteristics

that the Biblical animal has.” (Meyah; Papua)

500

“Mat 4:19 "…you teach people to follow me, which-is-similar

to you-netting-fish to gather-them-in”.”1087 (Galela; Maluku)

“John 6:35: “I am that life/existence food.” We did not have to

make it explicit, but we had to say “food” instead of bread,

since bread is considered a light and unnecessary snack.”

(Bambam; Sulawesi)

“In 2 Tim 4:3, in the third draft we had pokomohende’o

birindo da mokato. “please their itching ears” but later we

discovered the Moronene meaning of the idiom “itching ears” was used to describe people who didn’t like what they were

hearing. So now it reads pokomohende’o birindo “please their

ears”. I can’t think of an example where we added the point of

comparison because of interference.” (Moronene; Sulawesi)

15.3.2.12. Examples of culturally equivalent renderings of metaphors

Nr Question Answers given by various translators

10 Could you give an example

of metaphor translation

where you substituted the metaphor of the source text

with a vernacular metaphor

that was more or less

equivalent?

“I send you out as young pigs among wild dogs. (sheep among

wolves)” (Abun; Papua)

“If the son should ask the father for a fish would he give him a

snake?” The point of the passage is that “fathers give their children good things” But keeping the text literal at this point

would mean that the father giving the son a fish instead of a

snake would be a poor gift. The generic word for “snake” in

the context of food indicates “python” which has lots of meat.

So we substituted a specific kind of snake which is inedible

which was turned down by a consultant as being anachronistic

in the geographical setting of Palestine. So we went to

something that is to me not very exciting: ‘inedible snake’.”

“James 3:12 “figs bearing olives” and “grapevines bearing

figs” went to “breadfruit does not bear matoa fruit” and “iloi”

(kind of vine that produces edible fruit) does not bear “nigo” (kind of vine that produces edible fruit).” (Bauzi; Papua)

“Acts 2:35 “until I make your enemies a footstool for your

feet.” until I make the people who oppose you into your

doormat [foot wiper]. (IDIOM: make someone into a foot

wiper is to treat them as nothing.)”

“Mark 15:29 “Those who passed by hurled insults at him,

shaking their heads” Those who passed by there

continuously bit their lips at him and abused him (Equivalent

cultural activity with same meaning, rather than actual

metaphor).” (Dobel; Maluku)

“Matt 28:3b “…his cloak was like the white of cotton”.”

(Bambam; Sulawesi)

“1 Thes 5:8 we translated “putting on the breastplate of faith and love” to be “we always wear an invulnerable war vest

(baju kebal) of belief and love” where the “baju kebal” was

used by warriors to protect themselves in battle, the

invulnerability probably produced by spells or inner power.”

(Moronene; Sulawesi)

1087 The concept of catching people like fish has probably negative (harmful) connotations.

501

“Mat. 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your

brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own

eye?” (NIV).”

“One Uma who read this verse said, “This is a mistake, there’s

can’t be a board in a person’s eye.” Another Uma, who was

very sharp and later went into the pastorate, said, “This is speaking about sleep in the eye. We have a figure of speech in

Uma: to point out the sleep in a friend’s eye means we are

pointing out another’s sins or faults.” So the Uma translation

of this verse was changed to say:

“Why do we stare at the sleep in another’s eye, yet the piece

of wood that is in our own eye we don’t know it’s there!”

(Note that the Uma word for “sleep in the eye” is not like the

English word which uses “sleep” in an extended sense. It

means “dried gunk.”) We have a footnote saying that “splinter

of wood” in the original is actually “board.” We don’t bother

to explain in the footnote that “sleep in the eye” is actually “speck” in the original, because the Umas say that they

understand the meaning of “sleep in the eye” as a figure of

speech so well, and that’s what “speck” means here anyway!”

(Uma, Sulawesi)

15.3.2.13. Examples of metaphors in the source text rendered literally

Nr Question Answers given by various translators

11 Could you give an example

of metaphor translation

where you substituted the

metaphor of the source text

with a literal rendering?

“We have adopted a practice to include metaphors and not to

remove them, but if they need to be explicated to do so. There

are one or two cases where they have been removed.

“…but watch out for those dogs” (Php 3.2) caused too much

confusion so we simply write “those who are evil.” (Abun;

Papua)

“I Peter: Satan is like a roaring lion. We could find no animal

that was intimidating enough. So we just translated the

propositional meaning.” (Meyah; Papua)

“Mrk 8:34 "take up his cross" substituted with the Galela

literal "must humble-themselves (Lit. put-self-down) then let-go-of each-of their desires in-their hearts …, and [having done

that] it-won't-matter if they-bear suffering to-the point-of

dying." (Galela; Maluku)

“…In 1 Thes. 2:19 we translated “the crown in which we

glory” to be “kalianlah akan {menjadi} tempat kami

dipuji”[you are the ones who will {become} the place where

we will be honored] …(but perhaps this is also metaphorical)

…in 1 Thes 4:13 –15 we translated “fall asleep” to be “die”.”

(Moronene; Sulawesi)

502

15.3.2.14. Examples of literal expressions rendered metaphorically

Nr Question Answers given by various translators

13 Could you give an example

of substituting a literal

expression in the source text

with an idiomatic or

metaphorical expression in

the target language?

“Established and firm (Col 1.23) we use “like a biro vine

sticks to a tree branch.” (Abun; Papua)

“Hypocrite => good on top person”

“Lk 12:29: “your Father knows that you need these things

(food and drink) “the need of food” is rendered “the Father

knows about (the need you have) to squash inner urging”

which is another way of saying “sustenance”.” (Bauzi;

Papua)

“Paying a wage” in our language is rendering “Wiping away

someone’s sweat”. (Anonymous 2; Papua – Coastal)

“Acts 6:3 "wisdom" their ear holes are long-lasting (idiom:

they are wise).” (Dobel; Maluku)

“Gen 18:13 “Could I myself {doubt} still have a child in this

(condition of) being-past-child-bearing age? [lit. here up at the

branch off from the main water source]” (Bambam;

Sulawesi)

“angry” = “sakit hati” [sick-hearted]; “peace” =

“menyejukkan hati” [refresh someone’s heart] (Moronene;

Sulawesi)

“Acts 23:1 “Men and brethren: I have lived in all good

conscience before God until this day.” (KJV)”

“Uma: “My relatives! My heart is chicken-egg smooth! Until this day, I consider that there is no fault of mine in God’s

sight.”

(There is no specific term in Uma for “conscience,” so this

idiom of saying that one’s heart is “chicken-egg smooth”

explains the meaning in an idiomatic way.)” (Uma, Sulawesi)

15.3.2.15. Additional comments

Perceived authenticity

Perceived authenticity (acceptability of a vernacular translation in the light of a high

prestige and fairly literal translation in the national language) seems to play a role in

Sulawesi more than in Maluku and in Papua.

A translator working in Papua (interior) wrote the following:

(Ad 7: perceived authenticity): This was rarely an issue, (but when it was, we took it quite

seriously)

A translator working in Sulawesi wrote the following:

(Ad 2): The Uma people are mostly church people. Some Umas working with us wanted to

retain the imagery of a metaphor because it was familiar (from the Indonesian translation)

503

and colorful; others (through my “indoctrination”) wanted to “explain” the metaphor so

that the majority of Umas could understand more easily. The tension between these two

conflicting opinions was the greatest difficulty in translating metaphors. Do we make a

“tight” translation (with metaphors translated as in the original), which is what the church

leaders and most people automatically want? Or do we translate more “loosely” e.g.,

change metaphors or similes or make the point of comparison explicit?

(Ad 6). We were influenced TOO MUCH by the comprehension of the UNS, in the opinion

of some Uma leaders. They wanted us to give more weight to the acceptability and

perceived authenticity of the translation by Uma leaders.

(Ad 7) (See comment on question 6. If I could revise the Uma NT today, I would gather

much feedback and advice from Umas, and I am sure that they would urge a tighter, more

literal translation. They would want a translation that is as natural as possible without

adding sentences and bits of implied information that aren’t found in the Indonesian

translation (TB).)

Tension between translator’s preferences and final translation product

A translator from Papua wrote the following:

(Ad 4: translation strategy): Our Preference was #1 to use the metaphors “as is”, but #2

would be source metaphor + explicating point of comparison, #3 simile, #4 simile +

explicating point of comparison, #5 vernacular equivalent, #6 literal without metaphor. The

rating below are more what we actually ended up doing as we worked through the process.

[The actual translation practice as perceived by this translator was that metaphors were

more often rendered as similes (without or with explication) than as metaphors.]

15.3.3. Survey Conclusions

The translators’ responses were quite unanimous in stating that:

Preservation of the indeterminacy of a metaphor is the most difficult aspect of

translating metaphors

The translation of metaphors is highly influenced by the understanding of native

speakers (during the testing phase of the translation)

Genre is an important factor when translating metaphor

Perceived authenticity is usually not a major factor in translating metaphors

Cultural interference is usually not a major factor in translating metaphors

The majority of biblical metaphors are rendered as similes (plus or minus

explication)

At this point we need to remind ourselves that these survey data represent the translators’

perspective on translation and do not necessarily reflect the realities of translating in

actual practice. In a later section we will compare the survey responses to the findings of

our descriptive analysis of the translations.

At least three respondents remarked that part of their answers were a “stab in the dark”.

In some cases this may have been influenced by the fact that the translator had not been

504

involved in translation for over a year. But even a translator who is still actively involved

in translation work remarked at one point:

I haven't researched our translation of metaphors – the above answer is a guess at what we might have done. I'd be interested to know what we actually do if you research that in our

back translations.

This comment underscores the fact that translators do not always keep score of the ways

they translate. Translators don’t translate metaphors, but they translate texts which often

contain metaphors of different varieties. The translators’ intuitions about their translation

preferences are very interesting, as they clearly show their struggle to communicate the

meaning of metaphors in a way that is both clear and accurate, but these meta-

translational intuitions are not infallible. They need to be complemented by empirical

(descriptive) research.

15.4. Descriptive analysis of metaphor translation in fifteen vernacular

translations

This section contains a descriptive analysis of metaphor translation in fifteen vernacular

translations from Eastern Indonesia. First, an overview is given of the Biblical passages

on which the research was focused (15.4.1.). Then, information is given about the

vernacular translations that were researched (15.4.2.). And finally, the results of the

research are presented (15.4.3.).

15.4.1. Research focus and background information on the selected metaphor

passages

The focus of this research is on a number of selected passages from Genesis and from the

four Gospels. A total of sixty-six passages were chosen. Twenty passages were selected

from the Old Testament (Genesis), and forty-six passages were selected from the New

Testament (Gospels).

Book References Number of

passages

Genesis 2:24; 3:15; 4:7; 4:10; 4:11; 13:16; 15:1; 16:12; 17:1; 18:27; 22:17; 27:40;

48:15; 49:5; 49:9; 49:17; 49:21; 49:22; 49:24; 49:27

20

Matthew 2:6b; 4:16; 5:6; 5:13; 7:3-5; 7:6; 7:15; 9:12; 9:16-17; 9:36-38; 10:6;

10:16; 11:28-30; 12:48; 15:21-28; 19:23; 21:42; 23:16-24; 23:27; 26:31

20

Mark 8:38; 10:38; 12:36; 14:36 4

Luke 1:53; 1:69; 1:78-79; 3:7; 3:9; 3:16; 6:43-45; 11:34; 13:32; 13:34 10

John 1:29; 3:4; 4:10; 6:35; 7:37-39; 10:6; 10:11; 10:16; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1;

21:15-16

12

Total: 66

505

Each of the above passages contains at least one metaphorical expression or a related

form of figurative speech.

Genesis Matthew Mark Luke John Total

Idiom1088 7 2 2 -- -- 11

Metaphor 12 24 3 14 10 63

Personification1089 3 -- -- -- -- 3

Metonymy 1 -- -- -- 2 3

Metaphorical proverb

-- 1 -- -- -- 1

Simile 2 2 -- -- -- 4

Hyperbole -- 1 -- -- -- 1

25 30 5 14 12 86

Several of these passages contain figurative language related to shepherd and sheep,

which is the main topic of this dissertation.1090

But, a broad scope of other imagery was

included as well in order to get a good cross-section of Biblical metaphors from these

five books. Below is a table with the ten source domains that occurred most frequently in

the selected passages:

Domain Genesis Matthew Mark Luke John Total

Animal (wild) 7 6 -- 3 -- 16

Animal (dom.) 2 7 -- 1 6 16

Agriculture 1 1 -- 4 1 7

Food /drink 1 2 -- 1 3 7

Container -- 1 2 -- -- 3

Kinship 1 2 -- -- -- 3

Light/dark -- 1 -- 2 -- 3

Road /

Movement

2 -- -- -- 1 3

Life/death -- -- -- -- 3 3

Earth 3 -- -- -- -- 3

Animal imagery (both wild and domesticated) and agricultural imagery occurred most

frequently. Metaphors, occurring in the same context, are sometimes linked together by

the same conceptual domain. In Matthew 10:16, for example, there is an accumulation of

animal imagery: sheep, wolves, snakes, pigeons. And in Luke 13 the fox metaphor

(referring to King Herod’s destructive behavior) contrasts with the hen and chicks image

(referring to Jesus’ inner desire to protect the people of Jerusalem).

1088 Idioms have been included in this research, as they can be viewed as dead metaphors. There is not always a clear-cut boundary between (‘live’) metaphors and idioms (‘dead’ metaphors). 1089 Personification is, in fact, a special case of metaphor. 1090 Originally, I had also planned to include the translation of Psalm 23 in this research. But, this part was

cancelled, since none of the respondents had completed the translation and back-translation of this

shepherd’s psalm.

506

The following table lists some of the predominant topics to which the images are applied

in the selected passages1091

:

Topic Genesis Matthew Mark Luke John Total

Person/tribe 9 -- -- -- -- 9

God/YHWH 6 -- -- 1 -- 7

Jesus/Messiah1092 -- 4 4 2 10 20

People of Israel -- 4 -- 1 -- 5

Believers -- 6 -- 2 3 11

Non-believers -- -- 1 2 -- 3

False teachers -- 5 -- 1 -- 6

In terms of topic-image linkage in the source text, the following types of linkage were

found in the (source text) data:

1. Predicative linkage between the topic and the image (as in John 10:11:

“I am the good shepherd”.)

2. Attributive linkage between the topic and the image (as in Mark 8:38:

, “in this adulterous and sinful

generation”.)

3. Genitive linkage between the topic and the image (as in Matthew 15:24:

, “the lost sheep of the house of

Israel”.)

4. Comparative linkage between the topic and the image (as in Luke 13:34:

, “I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her

chicks under her wings.”)

5. Pragmatic linkage1093

between the topic and the image, where the topic is not

expressed in the same syntactic unit (sentence) as the image, but where it is

mentioned in the linguistic context, or where it can be deduced from this context.

1091 This list is somewhat simplified, since topics of metaphors tend to occur in networks consisting of

related topics which are partly contrastive. In the metaphor of the good shepherd in John 10:1-18, for

example, Jesus is the primary topic of the imagery. But, in the same context, and as part of the same

imagery, “hirelings,” and “wolves” are also mentioned, which refer to unfaithful leaders of the sheep and

false teachers. Metaphorical utterances sometimes refer to more than one topic, and in cases like that it is

sometimes difficult to know which one of the (implied) topics is the one primarily in focus. In Matthew

9:12, for example, there are three implied topics (1. the self-righteous Pharisees, referred to as “the healthy”; 2. the tax collectors and the sinners, referred to as “the sick”; 3. Jesus/God, referred to as “a

doctor”). 1092 This includes metaphors related to Jesus’ person, his work, and his teaching. 1093 Pragmatic linkage like this occurs usually when the image term serves a referential function rather than

a predicative function.

507

(as in , “Go, tell that fox …” in Luke

13:32, where the metaphor refers to King Herod, mentioned in verse 31.)

In terms of the discourse-pragmatic functions served by these metaphors, the following

comments can be made1094

:

1. Metaphors (as well as other forms of figurative speech) are a form of marked

language (as opposed to literal language). A metaphorical expression usually has

more prominence in a given discourse than a literal expression would have.

Metaphors are used to attract the hearer’s attention, and they are often found at

significant parts of a given discourse.

2. Metaphors are often used to give structure (cohesion) to a text. In Genesis 49, for

example, a variety of animal metaphors structures the discourse. And in John 10:1-

18 the shepherd metaphor structures the discourse. Imagery often occurs in pairs.

In cases like these, where a similar point is made by two or three different images,

the intended function may be added prominence. (Compare the dual imagery of salt

and light in Matthew 5:13-14).

3. Many metaphors, both those with predominantly positive associations and those

with negative associations, seem to serve the function of intensification. People

“who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Matthew 5:6) have a strong desire for

righteousness. And when the LORD tells Abram, “I am your shield” (Genesis

15:1), the implied information is that the Lord will continually be close to Abram

and really protect him.

4. Metaphors are sometimes used to justify a particular statement or kind of behavior.

(persuasive function). The metaphorical proverb in Matthew 9:12, for example,

serves as a justification of Jesus’ contact with tax collectors and sinners (“It is not

the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”) By using this medical metaphor,

Jesus justifies his close contact with these sinners. Meanwhile, he corrects his

opponents’ perception of him that he is a bad person, because he associates himself

with sinners. Nobody can blame a doctor for visiting his patients, and in the same

way nobody should blame Jesus for visiting sinners and calling them to repentance.

The twin metaphors in Matthew 9:16-17 (new patch on old garment; new wine in

old wineskins) are another example where the logic inherent to the image is

imposed on the topic and where the metaphor serves a persuasive function.

5. Metaphors are an excellent tool for condensing multiple meanings in just a few

words. Conciseness in style and indeterminacy of meaning are often linked

together. In Luke 1:53, for example, the terms “hungry” and the “rich” refer

primarily people who are “hungry” or “rich” in a spiritual sense, but they certainly

do not exclude people who are hungry or rich in the physical sense of the word.

1094 These comments are not intended to cover the whole range of discourse-pragmatic functions found in

all the researched data.

508

And the expression “a horn of salvation” (Luke 1:69) is certainly much more

indeterminate than translations like “a powerful savior”.

A number of metaphors (animal metaphors in particular) function as a form of

abusive language, in which the speaker expresses strong negative feelings towards

the audience, or towards a person who is not present. (As in Luke 3:7, where John

the Baptist addresses the crowds as “brood of vipers”, and in

Matthew 23:27, where Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees by

telling them: , “you are like whitewashed

tombs”.1095

)

When a speaker refers to himself by a metaphor that implies a degree of self-

debasement, this may be an indirect form of politeness. (In Genesis 18:27, for

example, Abraham expressed politeness with regard to God, when he referred to

God with the metaphorical term “Lord” and to himself as “dust and ashes”:

“Behold, I have taken upon

myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.” [RSV])

In terms of genre in which the metaphors occurred, the following comments can be made:

1. The vast majority of the biblical metaphors studied in this chapter occurred in

direct speech (as opposed to the narrative framework of texts).1096

2. Metaphors occurred in a wide variety of genres: conversation, blessing (or:

Stammesspruch, “tribal saying”), promise, prophetic announcement, introduction to

curse, command (direct or indirect), commission, advice, testimony, teaching,

rebuke.

3. With regard to metaphors that occur in didactic genre, there seems to be a

distinction between a didactic-explicative sub-genre where the grounds(s) of the

metaphors are spelled out in the text and between a didactic-evocative sub-genre

where the explication of the ground(s) is usually avoided.1097

In the latter case, the

hearers are expected to draw the right conclusions regarding the topic and/or

ground(s) that have been left implicit. John 10:1-21, for example, could be

classified as a didactic-explicative genre, since the ground(s) of the extended

metaphor are clearly spelled out. The twin metaphors in Matthew 9:16-17 (new

patch on old garment; new wine in old wineskins), on the other hand, are an

1095 The fox metaphor, mentioned in the previous paragraph, is, of course, another example of this

widespread use of metaphor as abusive language. 1096 The only case where the imagery was not found in direct speech was in Matthew 9:36 (simile):

(“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”). 1097 This difference is sometimes described in terms of a distinction between “allegory” and “parable”.

509

example of a more didactic-evocative genre, since the hearer is supposed to supply

the topic and ground(s) of the metaphor.

4. Animal and plant metaphors (related to power and fertility) seem to be very

prominent in the Old Testament blessings in Genesis. These metaphors almost

seem like a distinctive feature of this genre. In cases like these, translators would

do good to preserve the image.

In terms of the interaction between metaphors – embedded in direct speech – and the

narrative framework, the following comments can be made:

1. Some metaphors are “anchored” in the narrative framework, while others are not.

The kinship metaphor in Matthew 12:501098

, for example, is embedded in the story

that Jesus’ mother and brothers were standing outside the house and wanted to

speak to Jesus. In such cases, translators must make sure that they keep the image,

unless they want to destroy cohesion of the text. In John 4:14, the water metaphor

is anchored in the situational context of Jesus meeting the woman at the well.

2. There are cases where the original audience apparently misunderstood the

ground(s) of the metaphor. In cases like these, the translator should, of course, try

to avoid explication of the metaphor. (John 3:3 would be an example of this).

There is probably a whole lot more that could be said about the metaphors researched in

this chapter. But, since the main goal of this chapter is to describe the rendering of sixty-

six metaphor passages in fifteen vernacular Bible translations from eastern Indonesia, we

will need to move on beyond these preliminary observations about forms and functions of

metaphors in the source text.

But, before we go on to the next section, the main content of the sixty-six metaphor

passages is summarized in three tables presented below.

1098 “For whoever does the will of my Father is heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

510

Table: Selected metaphor texts from Genesis Nr Passage Figurative expression Classification Image (Domain) Meaning / Ground

OT-1 Gn 2:24 Become one flesh idiom People Become one

OT-2 Gn 3:15 Crush head

Strike heel

idiom

idiom

Animal (snake/attack)

Animal (snake/attack)

kill/overcome

attack

OT-3 Gn 4:7 Crouching sin at door personification Supernatural (demon) attack/overpower

OT-4 Gn 4:10 Crying blood personification People (revenge) require revenge

OT-5 Gn 4:11 The earth opened its mouth personification People (drink) spilt on ground

OT-6 Gn 13:16 Dust of earth simile (single) Earth multitude

OT-7 Gn 15:1

Shield

Reward

metaphor

metonymy Warfare (weapon)

Economy (payment) protect

give reward

OT-8 Gn 16:12 Wild donkey metaphor Animal (wild donkey) wild, hostile

OT-9 Gn 17:1 Walk before idiom Movement serve

OT-10 Gn 18:27 Dust and ashes idiom Earth insignificant

OT-11 Gn 22:17 Stars, Sand simile (parallel) Sky, Earth multitude 2x

OT-12 Gn 27:40 Yoke idiom Animal / Slavery control

OT-13 Gn 48:15

Shepherd

Walk before

Angel

metaphor

idiom

metaphor

Animal husbandry

Movement

Supernatural guardian

guide, feed

serve

guard, rescue

OT-14 Gn 49:5 Brothers metaphor Kinship accomplices

OT-15 Gn 49:9 Lion’s cub metaphor Animal (lion) powerful

OT-16 Gn 49:17 Snake metaphor Animal (snake) sudden attack

OT-17 Gn 49:21 Female deer metaphor Animal (deer) wild, isolated

OT-18 Gn 49:22 Fertile vine metaphor Agriculture have many descendants

OT-19 Gn 49:24

Shepherd

Rock

metaphor

metaphor

Animal husbandry

Landscape/cave

protect

protect

OT-20 Gn 49:27 Wolf metaphor Animal (wolf) savage, powerful

Table: Selected metaphor texts from the Gospels (I) Nr Passage Figurative expression Classification Image (Domain) Meaning / Ground

NT-1 Mt 2:6b Be the shepherd idiom Animal husbandry be ruler, leader

NT-2 Mt 4:16 darkness, light metaphor Light misery, salvation

NT-3 Mt 5:6 hunger and thirst idiom Food / Drink have strong desire

NT-4 Mt 5:13

Salt

Light

metaphor

metaphor

Food (seasoning)

Light

good influence

good influence

NT-5 Mt 7:3-5 Speck and plank metaphor Wood sin/weakness

NT-6 Mt 7:6 Dogs, pearls, pigs metaphor Animal (dog/pig)

Valuable possession

bad people

God’s Word?

NT-7 Mt 7:15

Sheep’s clothing

Ferocious wolves

metaphor

metaphor

Animal husbandry

Animal (wolf)

Appearing harmless

Be destructive

NT-8 Mt 9:12

Healthy, sick, doctor metaphorical

proverb

Health & Sickness non-needy, needy,

helper

NT-9 Mt 9:16-17 Patch / old garment

Wine / old wineskin

metaphor

metaphor

Clothing

Container

incompatibility of old and

new teachings

NT-10 Mt 9:36-38

Sheep

Harvest, workers

simile

metaphor

Animal husbandry

Agriculture

helpless people,

converts, evangelists

NT-11 Mt 10:6 Lost sheep metaphor Animal husbandry helpless people

NT-12 Mt 10:16

Sheep, wolves

Snakes, pigeons

simile

simile (parallel)

Animal husbandry

Animal (snake/pigeon)

helpless, destructive

shrewd, innocent

NT-13 Mt 11:28-30 Yoke

Burden

metaphor

metaphor

Animal/slavery

Carry

teaching, commandments

NT-14 Mt 12:48

Mother, brother, sister metaphor

metaphor

Kinship close relationship

NT-15 Mt 15:21-28

Lost sheep,

Children

Dogs

metaphor

metaphor

metaphor

Animal husbandry

Kinship

Animals (dogs)

helpless people (Israel)

close relationship

outsiders (pagans)

NT-16 Mt 19:23

Camel , eye of needle hyperbole

(comparative)

Animal husbandry (camel)

Tool (needle)

impossible event

NT-17 Mt 21:42 Stone metaphor Building election, promotion

NT-18 Mt 23:16-24 Blind (3x)

Guides (2x)

metaphor

metaphor

Disabled / health

Guide

ignorant

teach the truth

NT-19 Mt 23:27 White-washed tombs simile Graveyard, tomb hypocrites

NT-20 Mt 26:31 Shepherd, sheep metaphor Animal husbandry leader (Messiah), followers

511

Table: Selected metaphor texts from the Gospels (II) Nr Passage Figurative expression Classification Image (Domain) Meaning / Ground

NT-21 Mark 8:38 Adulterous generation metaphor Marriage / Adultery unfaithful to God

NT-22 Mark 10:38 Drink cup,

baptize

idiom

metaphor

Wine / container

Water / immerse

share fate/suffering

suffering/death

NT-23 Mark 12:36 Put enemies under feet idiom Royalty / victory bring victory / subdue

enemies

NT-24 Mark 14:36

(Mt 26:39)

Cup

metaphor Wine / container experience suffering

NT-25 Luke 1:53 Hungry

Rich

metaphor

metaphor

Food

Possessions

needy, non-needy

NT-26 Luke 1:69 Horn of salvation metaphor Animal powerful (savior)

NT-27 Luke 1:78-79 Dawn / rising sun metaphor Light salvation

NT-28 Luke 3:7 Vipers / snakes metaphor Animal (snakes)

evil people

NT-29 Luke 3:9 Ax, fire

Tree, fruit

metaphor

metaphor

Tools (ax)

Agriculture-1

judgment

people, good behavior

NT-30 Luke 3:16 Baptize

Winnow

metaphor

metaphor

Water / immerse

Agriculture

judgment

judgment / division

NT-31 Luke 6:43-45 Tree, fruits metaphor

metaphor

Agriculture

people

behavior

NT-32 Luke 11:34 Light of the body metaphor Light

NT-33 Luke 13:32 Fox metaphor Animal (wild) Destructive

NT-34 Luke 13:34 Hen and chicks simile Animal (domesticated) protective

NT-35 Jn 1:29 Lamb of God metaphor Sacrifices take away sin

NT-36 Jn 3:4 Born again metaphor Childbirth new life, relation with God

NT-37 Jn 4:10 Water metaphor Drink eternal life

NT-38 Jn 6:35 Bread metaphor Food eternal life

NT-39 Jn 7:37-39 Drink, water metaphor Drink Holy Spirit

NT-40 John 10:6 Door metaphor Animal husbandry Access to salvation

NT-41 Jn 10:11 Shepherd metaphor Animal husbandry Care, protection

NT-42 Jn 10:16 Shepherd, sheep metaphor Animal husbandry Lead, follow

NT-43 John 11:25 Resurrection, life metonymy Life & death 2x give eternal life

NT-44 John 14:6 Way, truth, life metonymy Life & death;

Road/movement

teach the truth

give eternal life

NT-45 Jn 15:1 Vine metaphor Agriculture sustain spiritual life

NT-46 Jn 21:15-16 Lambs, sheep metaphor Animal husbandry 3x Jesus’ followers

512

15.4.2. Information on vernacular translations

Fifteen translation teams sent their back-translations. The majority of these back-

translations were in English. The back-translations sent by the Moronene team as well as

part of the back-translations sent by the Galela team were in Indonesian.

Not all the translation teams had completed the translation of Genesis. As a result, only

seven back-translations were available for metaphor research. For the Gospels, between

12 and 14 back-translations were available for research.

Language Province Wider

Language

Family

Gen Mt Mk Luke John

1. Bambam Sulawesi Austronesian + + + + +

2. Da’a Sulawesi Austronesian + + + - +

3. Moronene Sulawesi Austronesian - + + - -

4. Muna Sulawesi Austronesian - + + + +

5. Uma Sulawesi Austronesian - + + + +

6. Dobel Maluku Austronesian +/-1099 - + - -

7. Galela Maluku Papuan1100 + + + + +

8. Luang Maluku Austronesian + + + + +

9. Abun Papua-Coastal Papuan - + + +/- +

10. Bauzi Papua-Interior Papuan + +/- - + -

11. Berik Papua-Interior Papuan - + + + +

12. Mairasi Papua-Coastal Papuan - + + + +

13. Meyah Papua-Interior Papuan - + + + +

14. Anonymous 1 Papua-Interior Papuan + + + + +

15. Anonymous 2 Papua-Coastal Papuan - + + + +

7 14 14 12 12

Most of the back-translations were in very good shape. There were only a few cases

where certain relevant verses were missing in the back-translations. This accounts for a

few minor holes in the data. But, overall, the data were rather complete, and gave a good

indication of the way metaphors and other forms of figurative language had been

translated in these languages.

15.4.3. Research results

15.4.3.1. The rendering of metaphor

The first research question, mentioned in section 15.2.1. above, was formulated as

follows:

1. How have metaphors been translated into Papuan and Austronesian languages?

a. the metaphor has been kept in the translation without any explication

1099 The +/- sign indicates that only part of the book was available in translation and back-translation. 1100 It should be noted that the term Papuan (or: Non-Austronesian) is used here in a language typological

sense and not in a geographical sense or in a language genetic sense.

513

b. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile without explication

c. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile with additional explication

d. the metaphor of the source text has been replaced by a vernacular

metaphor of the target language

e. the metaphor has been replaced by a literal rendering in the target

language

f. the metaphor has been rendered in a different way

The results of our research are summarized in the table below:

A. Old Testament (Genesis):

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

Bambam 5 8 9 0 3 25

Da’a 8 6 9 0 2 25

Moronene - - - - - -

Muna - - - - - -

Uma - - - - -

Dobel (*) 0 7 4 0 0 11

Galela (*) 1 10 7 0 2 20

Luang 7 7 6 2 2 24

Abun - - - - - -

Bauzi 1 12 8 2 2 25

Berik - - - - - -

Mairasi - - - - - -

Meyah - - - - - -

Anonym-1 0 14 8 0 2 24

Anonym-2 - - - 0 - -

TOTAL 22 64 51 4 13 154

Percentage 14.3 % 41.6 % 33.1 % 2.6 % 8.4 % 100.0 %

Ranking 3 1 2 5 4

B. New Testament (Four Gospels):

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

Bambam 38 10 10 1 4 63

Da’a 26 9 14 0 6 55

Moronene (*) 24 4 4 0 5 37

Muna 47 3 6 1 5 62

Uma 24 12 17 1 4 58

Dobel (*) - - 3 1 - 4

Galela 29 15 14 0 6 64

Luang 25 24 17 1 6 73

Abun 16 17 10 0 8 51

Bauzi (*) 9 12 7 1 3 32

Berik 29 17 14 2 4 66

Mairasi 39 8 7 2 5 61

Meyah 23 22 14 1 5 65

Anonym-1 27 22 11 1 5 66

Anonym-2 28 20 13 1 4 66

TOTAL 384 195 161 13 70 823

Percentage 46.7 % 23.7% 19.6 % 1.6 % 8.5 % 100.1 %

Ranking 1 2 3 5 4

514

C. Conclusions with regard to general tendencies in rendering metaphors

The Old Testament (Genesis) and New Testament (Gospels) data are pretty much

consistent: They show that in all these fifteen vernacular translation from eastern

Indonesia metaphor-to-simile renderings form a significant segment of all the metaphor

renderings that were researched (41.6 % in the OT data and 23.7 % in the NT data).

Substitution of an original image with a vernacular image occurred only very

occasionally (2.6 % in the Old Testament data and 1.6 % in the New Testament data).

In the Genesis data relatively few metaphors were rendered as metaphors (14.3 %). This

was partly due to the fact that these data contained a significant amount of “dead”

metaphors (idioms), which are often rendered by a literal substitute. But, in addition, the

majority of the remaining (“live”) metaphors were rendered as similes rather than as

metaphors. The PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS and PEOPLE ARE PLANTS metaphors from

Genesis 49 and Genesis 16, for example, were consistently rendered as similes.1101

The Gospel data showed a much higher percentage of metaphors that were rendered as

metaphors (46.7 %) than the Genesis data. Familiarity of the vernacular audiences with

the imagery of the Gospels and a relatively high degree of contextual clues facilitating

metaphor comprehension are probably important factors here.1102

The fact that in the

majority of the researched data, metaphor-to-metaphor renderings were found much more

frequently than metaphor-to-simile renderings must come as a surprise to the majority of

translators who filled out the survey form.1103

Our quantitative data also show that the original image, either in the form of a metaphor

or a simile, was kept much more frequently than that it was substituted by either a literal

expression or a vernacular metaphor. In the Old Testament data the original images were

preserved in 55.9 % of the cases (as opposed to a total of 35.7 % of literal substitutions

and vernacular metaphor substitutions). In the New Testament data the original images

1101 It would be interesting to know why these animal metaphors were changed into similes. One reason

could be that animal metaphors are often an expression of abusive language (e.g., pig, dog), and that the use

of a simile helps to neutralize negative connotations associated with the metaphor. Another possible reason

could be the fact that the vernacular language does not have animal metaphors (like Meyah). Also, in the

context of translated texts with a lot of unfamiliar content, similes are usually easier to process than

metaphors, since similes are explicitly marked as figurative language at a segmental level. 1102 One reason for not rendering a metaphor as a simile would be that similes tend to tone down the

pragmatic-rhetorical force of the metaphor. But, it is unclear to what degree this has been a conscious factor

in the process of translation. 1103 The mismatch between the translators’ own perceptions of how they translate metaphors and between

the actual data may have been influenced by a number of factors: 1. Translators normally don’t keep score

of how frequently they use certain translation strategies and techniques. The multiple tasks of exegeting, translating and checking translations are already complex enough to deal with. 2. Lots of metaphors (both

“live” and “dead” ones) go unnoticed during the translation process, since they pose no translation or

comprehension problem. Metaphors that do pose translation and/or comprehension problems tend to be

much more prominent in the translator’s mind, and these are the ones that are often rendered as a simile

with additional explication of the ground(s).

515

were preserved in 70.4 % of the cases. In 16.9 % of the cases the original images were

rendered as literal expressions (19.6 %) or by vernacular images (1.6 %).

When we look at the data (the Gospel data in particular, since they cover a broader scope

of languages), it becomes clear that the researched translations can be placed along a

continuum. Muna, Mairasi and Moronene are on the one side of the scale where

metaphor-to-metaphor renderings are most dominant. Abun, Bauzi, Meyah, Anonymous-

1 and Anonymous-2 are on the other side of the scale where metaphor-to-simile

renderings together with literal substitutions are most dominant. Bambam, Da’a, Uma,

Galela and Luang are somewhere in the middle.

Generally speaking, we may conclude that the translations in Sulawesi remain closer to

the form of the metaphor, while translations in Papua (with the exception of Mairasi)

more often go for a metaphor-to-simile rendering or a literal substitution. The other

translations (some from Sulawesi and some from Maluku) take a middle position.1104

15.4.3.2. The explication of metaphor

Now that a general pattern has been discovered with regard to the question of how

metaphors have been rendered in fifteen vernacular Bible translations from eastern

Indonesia, due attention needs to be given to the specific question of how explication has

been handled in these translations.

Biblical metaphors, like most other metaphors, are closely connected with the original

culture(s) they stem from. As a result their meaning(s) are not always obvious to

audiences with a completely different cultural background. Explication of the meaning(s)

of the metaphor is one particular strategy to deal with this problem.1105

Explication can

take place either by addition (where the image is kept) or substitution (where the image is

eliminated). We can further distinguish between single and multiple explications of

images.

The explication of metaphor may focus on providing the topic of the metaphor (the

person, object, event, quality etc. that is being described by the image) or on providing

the ground(s) or the meaning(s) of the metaphor. Explication may also focus on filling in

1104 In this descriptive study no attempt is being made to explain these differences in detail. In general, it

can be said, however, that translations are produced in situations where many factors play a role: linguistic

and cultural barriers to communication, education level of the audience, comprehension of the audience,

access to explanatory materials in Indonesian and/or the vernacular language, expectations of church

audiences and other audiences how vernacular translations should look like, the translation team’s

preference for specific translation strategies, input from consultants, and – as has already been mentioned –

the skopos or the intended function(s) of the translation. I’d like to make it clear that this conclusion is

intended as a descriptive statement and not as an evaluative comment. The big question related to vernacular Bible translations is not to what degree they reflect the forms of the source language, but to what

degree they serve their intended function(s) in the specific context(s) in which they are being used. 1105 Substituting the original metaphor with a more or less equivalent metaphor from the target language

would be another strategy. A third strategy would be to substitute the original metaphor with a more

generic metaphor that is well understood by the target audience.

516

more details of the image of the metaphor. Another aspect of explication related to

metaphor has to do with the way topics and grounds are linked to the images.

We must, of course, maintain a clear distinction between original explications of

metaphor in the source text and between translational explications in translations. In the

context of this study, we are most interested in these translational explications.

A. Old Testament (Genesis): translational explications

The table below contains the same data as in the previous section (15.4.3.1.A.). However,

the numbers that follow the slashes are new: They indicate the number of translational

explications found in these data.

Translation Additional explication (1) Substitutional

explication

Additional explication (2)

Total

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other

Bambam 5 / 0 8 / 0 9 / 8 0 / 0 3 / 0 25 / 8

Da’a 8 / 4 6 / 2 9 / 8 0 / 0 2 / 0 25 / 14

Moronene - - - - - -

Muna - - - - - -

Uma - - - - -

Dobel (*) 0 / 0 7 / 6 4 / 4 0 / 0 0 / 0 11 / 10

Galela (*) 1 / 1 10 / 7 7 / 7 0 / 0 2 / 0 20 / 15

Luang 7 / 0 7 / 4 6 / 1 2 / 0 2 / 0 24 / 5

Abun - - - - - -

Bauzi 1 / 1 12 / 10 8 / 7 2 / 0 2 / 0 25 / 18

Berik - - - - - -

Mairasi - - - - - -

Meyah - - - - - -

Anonym-1 0 / 0 14 / 8 8 / 6 0 / 0 2 / 0 24 / 14

Anonym-2 - - - - - -

TOTAL 22 / 6 64 /37 51/41 4/0 13/0 154/84

In the Genesis data the ground(s) of the metaphor were explicated in 84 out of 154 cases

(54.5 %). In 41 of these cases the explicated ground(s) substituted the image (26.6 %). In

the remaining 43 cases the explicated ground(s) were added to the image (27.9 %).

Explication of the grounds occurred much more frequently with similes (37 cases; 24 %)

than with metaphors (6 cases; 3.9 %).

There were nine cases where more than one ground had been made explicit in the

translation. Five in Anonymous-1 and four in Bauzi. In seven of these cases, the

metaphor was rendered as a simile, and in the other two cases it was rendered as a literal

expression.

In none of the Genesis data explication of the ground(s) or of the topic was accomplished

by paratextual means (section headings or footnotes).

517

B. New Testament (Gospels): translational explications

The table below contains the same data as in the previous section (15.4.3.1.B.). However,

the numbers that follow the slashes are new: They indicate the number of translational

explications found in these data.

Translation Additional explication (1) Substitutional

explication

Additional explication (2)

Total

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other

Bambam 38/1 10/1 10 /8 1/0 4/1 63/11

Da’a 26/0 9/2 14/10 0/0 6/1 55/13

Moronene (*) 24/3 4/0 4/4 0/0 5/0 37/7

Muna 47/3 3/1 6/6 1/0 5/0 62/10

Uma 24/0 12/2 17/13 1/0 4/1 58/16

Dobel (*) - - 3/3 1/0 - 4/3

Galela 29/4 15/9 14/12 0/0 6/1 64/26

Luang 25/1 24/3 17/11 1/0 6/4 73/19

Abun 16/0 17/2 10/10 0/0 8/0 51/12

Bauzi (*) 9/4 12/9 7/7 1/1 3/1 32/22

Berik 29/1 17/10 14/10 2/2 4/2 66/25

Mairasi 39/2 8/2 7/5 2/1 5/2 61/12

Meyah 23/0 22/7 14/11 1/0 5/4 65/22

Anonym-1 27/1 22/9 11/11 1/0 5/3 66/24

Anonym-2 28/3 20/8 13/13 1/0 4/2 66/26

TOTAL 384/23 195/65 161/134 13/4 70/22 823/248

In the Gospel data the ground(s) of the metaphor were explicated in 248 out of 823 cases

(30.1 %). In 134 of these cases the explicated ground(s) substituted the image (16.3 %).

In the remaining 88 cases the explicated ground(s) were added to the image (10.7 %).

Explication of the grounds occurred much more frequently with similes (65 cases; 7.9 %)

than with metaphors (23 cases; 2.8 %).

There were eleven cases where more than one ground had been made explicit in the

translation. Four in Bauzi, three in Anonymous-1, two in Galela, one in Abun, and one in

Berik. In seven of these cases, the metaphor was rendered as a simile, and in the other

four cases it was rendered as a literal expression.

In some of the Gospel data explication of the ground(s) or of the topic was accomplished

by paratextual means (section headings or footnotes). There were ten cases where the

topic or ground was made explicit in an explanatory footnote.1106

1106 There were a total of fourteen footnotes in the data (related to the researched passages). Two of these

footnotes gave the literal rendering of the Greek source text. Three footnotes gave alternative

interpretations / renderings.

518

C. Conclusions with regard to explication

Based on the above figures, it may be concluded that vernacular translations in Sulawesi

are less explicative than vernacular translations in Papua and Maluku. Muna, Moronene,

Mairasi (Papuan!)1107

and Bambam are on the lower end of the explication scale, while

Bauzi, Anonymous-1, Anonymous-2, Berik, etc. are on the higher end of the scale. The

other translations are in the middle.

Explanatory footnotes were more often found in the selected portions of vernacular Bible

translations produced by Sulawesi teams (7x), than by Maluku teams (2x) and Papua

teams (2x).

These data confirm the conclusion drawn in the previous section that, generally speaking,

vernacular translations in Sulawesi keep closer to the forms of metaphors than vernacular

translations in Papua.

15.4.3.3. Additional observations

In the previous sections the researched data have primarily been presented from a

quantitative perspective. In this section and in the following one an attempt is being made

to further qualify the data. In this section a number of general observations will be

presented. In the next section (15.4.3.4.) a broad variety of specific data from the

researched back-translations will be presented.

In addition to the different ways of rendering metaphors (as discussed in 15.4.3.1.) and

differences with regard to the explication of grounds and topics (as discussed in

15.4.3.2.), the following observations can be made with regard the translation of

metaphors in the researched translations:

1. Translators have sometimes added a metalinguistic expression to signal the

presence of figurative language. This metalinguistic signalling occurred either

before or after the metaphorical expression (or other form of figurative language).

(E.g., “Jesus said these illustrative words” in Anonymous-1 Matthew 21:42).

2. Translators have sometimes added a metalinguistic expression to signal the

explication of the ground(s) and/or the topic of a preceding metaphorical

expression. (E.g. “That is explained like this: …..” in Bauzi Genesis 49:22).

3. In terms of Topic-Image linkage, our data showed that translated metaphors had

undergone various kinds of changes (“translation shifts”) in the translation

process. Implicit links between topics and images (pragmatic linkage) were

sometimes made explicit in the translations (syntactic or semantic linkage). In

other cases, however, the linguistic context (in interaction with the background

knowledge and interpretation skills of the native speakers) had apparently

1107 Abun is another Papuan language where translational explication of metaphors is on the low side.

519

provided enough clues for these speakers to draw the intended conclusions

regarding Topic-Image linkage, as no explication was added.1108

4. Translation shifts also occured with regard to the linguistic expression of the

metaphors. Some source language metaphors were rendered as similes in the

receptor language (figurative equation figurative comparison); other original

metaphors were “eliminated” as they were substituted by literal expressions

(elimination of the image); metaphors and similes were sometimes “expanded” by

propositionalization (phrase level clause level).

5. In terms of Image-Ground linkage, our data showed that ground(s) are linked to

images by attribution, comparison, addition or causal relation.

a. Image-Ground linkage by attribution occurred predominantly in

metaphor-to-metaphor renderings, which are relatively rare. The Ground-

term occurred as an adjective, or in a relative clause, or as the possessing

noun in a genitive construction. The advantage of this kind of explication

(as opposed to explications in metaphor-to-simile renderings) is that it is

more subtle and requires no syntactic transformation. (E.g., “the cup of

suffering that I will drink” in Moronene Mark 10:38).

b. Image-Ground linkage by comparison occurred in those cases where a

metaphor was rendered as a simile with explicated ground(s) or topic. This

is, in fact, a textbook solution for translating metaphors that pose

significant translation and/or comprehension problems.

c. Image-Ground linkage by addition occurred in a few cases. (E.g., Uma

Matthew 15:24 (“lost sheep of Israel): “Yesus said to that woman: "God

sent me here to help just the descendants of Israel, because they are like

lost sheep, they no longer follow the will of God."1109

)

d. Image-Ground linkage by causal relation does not appear in any of the

textbooks on translation and metaphor that I am aware of. But it seems to

be a natural way of expressing metaphors in at least some Papuan and

Austronesian languages from eastern Indonesia. (E.g., Anonymous-2

Matthew 15:24 (“lost sheep of Israel”): “Yesus turned and says to this

woman: "Allah [God] sent me to help only Israel people. They are like

domba [sheep] who keep going off the path, because they don't listen to

what Allah says.")

1108

In the synoptic Gospels, for example, topics seem to be often pragmatically linked to images by

question-answer, request-response, and statement-proof structures. In cases like these, the topics are linked to their corresponding images by the principle of relevance. Explication of Topic-Image linkage is needed

to the degree that cultural and pragmatic assumptions of the audience interfere with the principle of

relevance as it was understood by the original authors and audiences. 1109 Note that in this case the image (“they are like lost sheep”) is linked to the ground (“they no longer

follow the will of God”) in an asyndetic way (no connector; the clauses are separated by a comma).

520

6. The explication of the topic and/or ground(s) of a metaphor occurred either before

or after the image. Pre-image explication is perhaps a way of making the

explication more prominent than it would have been in a post-image position.

Renderings like these are often helpful in situations where unconditioned native

speakers focus so much on the image that they forget to think about the meaning

of the metaphor.

7. The explication of the topic and/or ground(s) of a metaphor occurred either in the

same syntactical unit (sentence) or in a different one.1110

8. In a number of cases a metaphor was “de-metaphorized” in a very subtle way

without eliminating the image at all. (E.g., in Genesis 15:1, the metaphor “I

[YHWH] [am] … your very great reward” was usually rendered as “I [YHWH]

will give you a great reward.”. In a sense, however, this particular rendering

seems to weaken the intended notion that it is ultimately YHWH himself who is

Abram’s reward (Compare Psalm 16:2).1111

9. Translators differ with regard to the way they treat parallel images from the same

image domain that occur in the same context and have same (similar) meaning.

Some translators preserved the different images, while others combined the

various images into one. (E.g., Genesis 49:9, where there are three related images

expressing similar meaning: “lion’s cub,” “lion,” and “lioness.”).1112

10. The translation of metaphors seems to be a matter of constantly avoiding the

Scylla of undertranslating (reduction of meaning) and the Charybdis of

overtranslating (skewing of focus, expansion of wording, loss of succinctness).

1110 For examples, see the next section. 1111 The same translation strategy was often followed in the rendering of metonymy-like metaphors such as

the ones in John 11:25 (“I am the resurrection and the life”) and in John 14:6 (“I am the way and the truth

and the life”). Rendering such metaphors as literal statements (“I am the one who resurrects people from

the dead and gives true life to them”) is fully legitimate, as long as it does justice to the exclusiveness of

these claims. 1112 It would be interesting to know what kind of factors play a role in translation decisions like these. Combining various closely related images into one more generic image may be particularly helpful when

translating for audiences who are not familiar with the image, and who are struggling to make sense of

these images. However, if (image) parallelism is a prominent feature in the use of the vernacular language,

translators would probably want to keep the images distinct. From a discourse perspective, the (climactic)

accumulation of images probably signals high prominence.

521

15.4.3.4. Examples of metaphor translations

In the context of this study sixty-six passages where studied in fifteen vernacular

translations. Even though not every vernacular translation contained all of the sixty-six

passages, the total number of translated passages that were studied was over six hundred.

There is no way, of course, to present all these data. In this section, an attempt is made to

present those data that exemplify a wide range of translation variants.

15.4.3.4.1. Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings

Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings can be divided into four categories:

A. Renderings without translational explication of topic and ground(s)

B. Renderings with ground(s) explication

C. Renderings with topic explication

D. Renderings with a combination of topic and ground(s) explication

A. Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings without translational explication

Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings without translational explication occurred mainly in

contexts where the topic and ground(s) of the metaphor had already been expressed in the

original context, or where they could be fairly easily deducted from the immediate

context.

In John 10:11, for example, a translational explication of the ground was usually not

expressed, since in the original text the sentence containing the metaphor is followed by a

sentence explaining the intended meaning of the metaphor. In other words: an original

(source text) explication makes a translational explication superfluous.

Bambam John 10:11

It is I who is the good shepherd. A good shepherd is willing to give himself to be killed so

that his sheep can live.

John 15:1 is another example where a translational explication of the metaphor was

usually not expressed, since the meaning of the vine metaphor is already expressed in the

linguistic context (especially in verse 4) of the original text.

Bambam John 15:1

Puang [Honorific] Yesus continued his words saying: “I am the true/real anggur [grape]

trunk and my Father is the worker of it.

There were other examples, however, where the linguistic context did not seem to give

any clear clues with regard to the intended meaning of the metaphor.

522

Muna Matthew 9:16-17

16 There is no-one who patches a new piece-of-cloth that has not yet shrunk on an worn-

shirt. Because a piece like that will tear the worn-shirt, so that the tear will become bigger. 17

Like that, new anggur [wine; Indonesian loan word] they do not put in old bags made from

animal skins. Because it could be a double loss: the container will split-open, all the anggur

will be spilt. But new anggur will certainly be put in new containers, so that both will remain

good.

This rendering of the parallel metaphors of cloth and wine keeps very close to the

wording of the original text and does not contain an explication of the topic (Jesus’

teaching as compared to the old teachings) and the grounds (incompatibility of two kinds

of teaching).1113

In cases like this, the translators probably tried to do justice to the text

genre (parable) and reproduce the indeterminacy of meaning/reference that is often

inherent to parables.

At this point it should be noted that metaphor-to-metaphor renderings were not only

found in vernacular translations that usually keep fairly close to the wording of the

original text. Even the more explicative translations contained metaphor-to-metaphor

renderings without explication, or with a very minor explication.

Anonymous-1 John 10:16 (Papua-Interior)

My sheep are in this enclosure, but I also have many other sheep that are not in this

enclosure. As for these sheep as well, I will get and bring them in also. These other sheep as

well, when I speak calling them, they will hear it and obey coming to me. When they have all

come thus, they will all be one herd/flock of sheep. As for me, I will be the one head man for

tending them all.

Anonymous-1 John 6:35 (Papua-Interior)

They said it and Yesus replied. “As for the bread food that is the basis for living forever, it is

me alone. It is no one/anything else. As for anyone at all who asks it of me and comes to me,

from now on until all the time coming later, they will not hunger anymore for food. Further,

as for anyone who believes in me, in all the time that is coming later, they will not be thirsty.

In the John 6:35 example above no attempt has been made to make explicit that the

hunger and thirst intended in the text is a spiritual hunger and thirst rather than a physical

hunger and thirst. But, the explication of ‘living bread’ as ‘the bread food that is the basis

for living forever’ certainly gives a subtle hint into this direction.1114

Another example of a metaphor-to-metaphor rendering without explication was found in

Anonymous-1 Luke 3:9. What is interesting in this case is the fact that, even though the

grounds of the metaphors (God’s judgment; sinful behavior of people) were not made

explicit in this verse, the presence of figurative speech was overtly signaled by a meta-

1113 It could also be that they had found out during comprehension checks that they could fully rely on the

background knowledge of the audience and/or their ability to figure out the intended meaning based on the

preceding context (about fasting). 1114 It is interesting to note that even at this subtle level of explication there are gradations of explication.

Bambam and Muna, for example, translate “I am the life/existence bread” and “I am the living bread”

without explicating the notion of “living bread” at all. Da’a and Uma, however, explicate its meaning by

translating “I am the bread that gives life” and “I am the food that gives life”. Anonymous-1 goes one step

beyond that by making explicit that Jesus is “the bread food that is the basis for living forever.”

523

linguistic expression at the end of the quote (“That is what Yohanes said in parable

words to all those people”).

Anonymous-1 Luke 3:9 (Papua-Interior) The head man for cutting down trees has already got his axe ready and is standing near the

base of the tree trunk ready to cut it down. As for all those trees which do not produce good

fruit, he is going to cut them down and throw them into the fire." That is what Yohanes said

in parable words to all those people.

Renderings like this demonstrate that even the more explicative translations tried to avoid

explication when the linguistic context already provided clear clues for the interpretation

of the metaphor.

There were two particular types of contexts where the topics and grounds of a metaphor

were not explicitly expressed in the original text, but where even the more explicative

vernacular translations usually tried to avoid, or at least minimalize, explication:

(a) contexts where the topic is expressed in an initial utterance (question, request), and

where the image is expressed in the responding utterance (answer; response);

(b) contexts where the topic is expressed in a statement, and where the image is expressed

in an Old Testament quote that forms the basis of the statement.

(a) Initial utterance (Topic) – responding utterance (Image) linkage: In Matthew

9:11-12 the topic (“tax collectors and sinners”) of the metaphorical proverb is

expressed in verse 11 in a question posed by the Pharisees. The image (sick

people who need a doctor as opposed to the healthy people who do not need a

doctor) of the metaphorical proverb is expressed in Jesus’ response. This

(implicit) pragmatic linkage between the topic and the image has been kept in all

the translations. None of the researched vernacular translations substituted the

pragmatic linkage with an explicit semantic-syntactic linkage.1115

Anonymous-1 Matthew 9:11-12 (Papua-Interior)

11 As they were eating there, there were some of the Parisi people there who saw these

money-gathering-putting people and these bad-living people eating together with Yesus, then

they asked Yesus's helpers. "Why is it that Yesus is eating together with people who collect

and put money and with bad-living people," saying it they rebuked him.

12 They rebuked like that and Yesus heard what they said then said to those men. "As for

people who are not sick but healthy, they do not go looking for a healer man/dokter. No not

that, rather, people who are sick and know it, they are the ones that need, and so go looking for a healer man/dokter.

Similarly, in Matthew 15:21-28 the topic (Canaanite woman and her daughter)

of the metaphor is expressed in a request made by a Canaanite woman in verse

22. The imagery of dogs (=pagans; non-Israelites) is expressed in Jesus’

response in verse 26. There is no explicit identification in the text that links the

Canaanite woman and her daughter with the imagery of dogs. None of the

1115 An example of a semantic-syntactic linkage would be: “As for these people who collect and put money

and these bad-living people, they are like sick people who are looking for a healer man/doctor. (…).”

524

researched vernacular translations substituted this (implicit) pragmatic linkage

with an explicit semantic-syntactic linkage.1116

Meyah Matthew 15:21-28

About a woman whose liver

truly believes in Yesus

15:21-28

(Mrk. 7:24-30)

21 When Yesus had finished saying those things, then he left that area and went to

the Tirus and Sidon town area. 22 A woman who was not a Jew who came from the Kana[an] area was there. Then she came to Yesus crying and said to him, “Lord, you who

are a descendant of king Daud, show a merciful liver towards me. Because an evil spirit has

entered my daughter’s liver. And that evil spirit is causing her to suffer a lot.”

23 But Yesus didn’t say anything to her. Then Yesus’ disciples came to Yesus and said to him, “Tell her to go away from us. Because she keeps following us and yelling

those things causing us to grow tired of it.”

24 Then Yesus said, “God has sent me to only help his Jewish people who are like lost lambs.”

25 Then the woman knelt before Yesus and said, “Sir, help me concerning me

daughter.”

26 Then Yesus said, “The children eat food first until they are satisfied. Because it not right that people would take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”

27 Then that woman said, “Sir, that is true. But even the dogs that sit under the table that their master eats at can eat the little bit of food that falls from the table.”

28 So Yesus said to him, “Woman, your liver truly believes in me. Therefore the

thing that you are asking for you will certainly receive.” Then at that moment the woman’s

daughter was healed.

(b) Statement (Topic) – Proof (Image) linkage: In Matthew 26:31 the topic (Jesus

and his disciples) of the metaphor is expressed in a prophetic announcement made

by Jesus; The imagery is expressed in the Old Testament quote from Zechariah

13:7 that supports the prophetic announcement. Again, no explicit linkage is made

between Jesus (topic) and the shepherd image, and between the disciples (topic)

and the scattered flock image.

Da’a Matthew 26:31-32

31 And Yesus said to his disciples, "This night you will all recede/ back-up believing and

will leave/ abandon Me, because it is written in the Holy Book like this:

'I will kill the shepherd until his sheep will be scattered.' 32 But when I live again, I will go ahead of you to Galilea area."

1116

What was made explicit in this particular translation (and in several others), however, was the fact that

the Canaanite woman was from a non-Jewish (non-Israelite) origin. This may sound trivial and redundant to most western Christians. But it is an important piece of information for a significant number of language

groups in eastern Indonesia where people often have a poor knowledge of biblical geography and where

they are not particularly familiar with the theological implications of Jewish and non-Jewish ethnicity in

Jesus’ days. In this particular translation, the explication sets the stage for a proper understanding of Jesus’

response in verse 24 (indirect refusal to fulfil the woman’s request).

525

In each of these cases, the topics are linked to the images by pragmatic (implicit;

contextual) linkage. The principle of relevance often helps readers and hearers to link the

topics with the corresponding images. But, since relevance is to a significant extent

governed by culture-specific factors, it cannot be assumed that native speakers from

eastern Indonesia (and from other parts of the world), in particular those who are

relatively unfamiliar with the content of the biblical texts, will automatically derive the

same conclusions as the original audiences of these texts would have drawn.

B. Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings with ground(s) explication

Grounds explication of metaphors may occur at to different levels. In some cases the

grounds explication may already have taken place at a lexical level. In many other cases

it takes place at a textual level.

In languages that have no single term for foreign concepts like ‘shepherd’, for example,

an analytical expression (descriptive phrase) is often used to translate the concept. This

analytical expression is in fact an explication at a lexical level. When these expressions

are being used in a metaphorical sense, they may already express a ground of the

metaphor. In the translation below, for example, the analytical expression ‘guard of the

sheep’ (for ‘shepherd’) does already contain a ground of the metaphor.

Muna John 10:11

I here am the good-hearted guard of the sheep. The good-hearted guard risks his life/soul for

his sheep

Descriptive phrases sometimes express multiple aspects of a concept. In Bauzi, for

example, the concept of shepherd is lexicalized as a ‘sheep watcher-after'er-and-taking-

care'er’ [‘a person who watches over the sheep and takes care of them’]. When these

expressions are used in a metaphorical sense, they often express multiple grounds of the

metaphor.

Grounds explications at the textual level are even more significant, since this kind of

explications are usually not required by the linguistic (lexical) structures of the target

language, but they are directly linked to the translation strategy followed by the

translators.

In Da’a Genesis 48:15, for example, a ground of the shepherd metaphor (personalized

guidance) is expressed in a relative clause (‘who has led me by the hand’) that follows the

image term (‘shepherd’).

Da’a Genesis 48:15

Then he blessed Yusuf. He said,

“God, He (emphatic) is the one who was worshiped by my grandfather Abraham and

my father Ishak,

and He (emphatic) is the shepherd who has led me by the hand up till now. (…)’

526

In another context, however, a different ground of the shepherd metaphor (power,

protection) is made explicit. In this case the ground occurs in the adjective slot (“strong”)

or in the relative clause (“who protects Israel”).1117

Da’a Genesis 49:23-24 23

Archers will persecute him and shoot at him [= Joseph]. 24

But he will always be strong, because God who is Most Powerful will help him,

that is the God of Yakub, the Strong Shepherd who protects Israel.

In other cases the explication of the grounds of the metaphor was accomplished by

making use of a genitive construction in which the image term (‘a heavy load’) occurred

as the possessed noun and the ground term occurred as the possessor noun (‘of traditions

related to religion’).

Bambam Matthew 11:28-30

28 “Come-here all of you who are tired and who carry a heavy load of traditions on their

head related-to religion and I will cause-you-to-rest.

29 Carry this yoke I place on you and learn from me. For I am gentle spirited and humble.

For if you do that, then your spirit will be refreshed like one who has experienced rest.

30 For that yoke I place on you is light/easy, and that load I place on your head is not heavy.”

Another example of explication by a possessed noun (image) – possessor noun (ground)

construction is found in Moronene Mark 10:38. The cup is explicated as a “cup of

suffering”.1118

Moronene Mark 10:38

Tetapi si Yesus itu menjawab katanya, “Kalian tidak tahu yang kalian inginkan. Sanggupkah

kalian minum di [=dari] tempat minum penderitaan yang akan kuminum atau sanggupkah

kalian dimandikan seperti saya akan dimandikan?”

[But Jesus answered saying, “You-plural do not know what you desire. Are you able to drink

from the cup of suffering that I will drink, or are you able to be baptized/bathed like I will be

baptized?”]

What is interesting in the above rendering is that a similar explication was not made with

regard to the metaphorical baptism of Jesus, which also refers to Jesus’ suffering (and

death). This could be due to the understanding of the audience that consecutive images

are parallel images that have similar meanings.1119

However, the Moronene translation

1117 The use of a capital letter in “Strong” could be an indication that this term was intended to substitute

the Rock metaphor in this text. Both metaphors have been conflated in one expression “the Strong

Shepherd who protects Israel”. The anthropomorphic image (shepherd) has been kept, while the

physiomorphic image (rock) has been substituted. 1118

A translational explication like this is often necessary, since native speakers tend to associate the cup,

mentioned in the context of baptism here, with participating in communion rather than with participating in the suffering and death of Jesus. This has at least been my experience when I was doing village checks of

Una Mark several years ago. And more recently (May 2003), when I did a consultant-check on Tehit Mark,

Tehit speakers had similar perceptions. 1119 The idea that different images occurring in the same linguistic context may have similar meaning is a

concept that cannot be taken for granted, at least not in the context of Papuan cultures.

527

advisor pointed out that this asymmetry in translation was probably caused by issues

related to naturalness.1120

In Galela the cup image1121

was also preserved, and explicated both in terms of suffering

and death. The baptismal image, on the other hand, was not preserved. It was substituted

by the ground of the image: ‘bear the grief/sorrow of suffering’.

Galela Mark 10:38 At that point He said to-them, “It is true! You(pl) don't know what your are requesting.

Because if you(pl) desire like that, you(pl) should desire to drink the drink of suffering and

death like I drink it and also you bear the grief/sorrow of suffering like I am made to

bear/carry-on-shoulders. So then I ask you, are you in fact able?”

C. Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings with topic explication

The topic of a metaphor is not always clearly expressed in the text. In those cases

explication of the topic may be necessary. Topic explication can be expressed either in

the text itself, or in the paratext (section headings, footnotes).

With regard to topic explications in the text, we need to distinguish between genuine

topic explications and topic corroborations. In John 10:11, for example, the topic (“I”) of

the metaphor is already expressed, and the preceding context (verse 7) makes it

sufficiently clear that the speaker is Jesus and nobody else. Nevertheless, the topic is

sometimes further explicated by adding the name of the speaker (“as for me Yesus”). In

cases like this, we are dealing with topic corroboration rather than genuine topic

explication.1122

Anonymous-1 John 10:11

“As for me Yesus, I am the head man for tending the sheep, the one who is very good. As for

the good tender of sheep, he does not think, ‘O my life/living is mine to keep,’ but he gives his life and his heart to his sheep

Genuine topic explication often occurs in the context of Old Testament quotes with

metaphorical content. In cases like this, the topic explication is usually found in the

metalinguistic introduction to the Old Testament quote, rather than in the quote itself.

Anonymous-2 Matthew 26:31 On that mountain Yesus says to his disciples: "This very night you all will leave me and run

away scared. In Allah's book, it is written about you like you were domba. It is written like

this:

"Allah says: 'I will kill the leader of the sheep, his sheep will be scattered around scared.'

1120 The Moronene translation advisor made the following comment: ‘I don’t think this was the reason,

because I don’t recall that we really checked their understanding of the baptism in detail. But perhaps one

reason we didn’t add in “suffering” in the second image, is that it seemed harder, in terms of naturalness and clarity, to add the attribute to a verb “be bathed” rather than a noun (cup). But it might be better if we

(…) could use something like “nibahoako karasai” “be bathed by suffering.” 1121 In Galela, the metonymic expression ‘drink the cup’ is fact replaced by ‘drink the drink’. 1122 Topic corroboration is often helpful to facilitate more instant understanding of a text for readers who

are relatively unfamiliar with the content of the text and have a relatively short attention span.

528

It is interesting to note that in many cases the metalinguistic introduction renders the

figurative expression as a simile, whereas the quote itself renders it as a metaphor (in

accordance with the form of the original).

Anonymous-2 Matthew 21:42 Because Yesus knew the people that had gathered there did not know Allah's book, he taught

them from Allah's book. In this section of the book Yesus is illustrated by a rock and the

Yahudi agama heads were illustrated by house builders. It is written like this:

'The stone that the knowledgeable ones who build houses threw out because it was not right,

Allah has made the most important stone in that house. We look at that like he did very

good.’

Topic explication is sometimes necessary to avoid misinterpretations whereby the image

term is interpreted as a topic term. By explicating the topic ‘He [God] is …’ in Da’a

Genesis 48:16 the reader is made aware of the fact that the term ‘angel’ in this context is

a metaphorical predicate of God (or: a salvific manifestation of God) rather than a literal

expression referring to a celestial servant of God.

Da’a Genesis 48:15-16

15 Then he blessed Yusuf. He said,

“God, He (emphatic) is the one who was worshiped by my grandfather Abraham and

my father Ishak,

and He (emphatic) is the shepherd who has led me by the hand up till now.

16 He (emphatic) is the angel who freed me from all evil.

May He bless these children.

In Bambam the topic is made explicit in a similar fashion. Here, the use of a capital letter

seems to underscore the fact that “Angel” in this context refers metaphorically to a divine

being rather than literally to an angelic being.

Bambam Genesis 48:16

16 He also is the Angel who freed me from all evil.

He also will bless these two children.

The explication of the topic is sometimes done in the section heading. In the example

below the section heading makes clear that the “you” refers to “believers of Jesus” rather

than, for example, the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples only, or the crowds that Jesus was

addressing. It is also interesting to note that in cases like these the section headings

sometimes give a simile rendering (‘… compared-to/likened-to …’), while the translated

text itself has a metaphorical rendering.

529

Da’a Matthew 5:13-16

Believers of Yesus compared-to/likened-to salt and light

13 "You (are) the salt of the world. But if salt becomes unsalty certainly (it) can't be caused-

to-be-salty again! That salt will no longer have use, (it) will only be thrown away and

trampled on by people.

14 You (are) the light of the world. A village on a mountain can't be-hidden. 15 Like that also there isn't a person who lights a lamp (and) covers it with a basket. But that

lamp will be stored at a high place until all people in a house are shined-on by the light.

16 Like that also the light that is inside of you (lit. inside your stomach) will be-shown to

other people so that they can see your good behavior and praise you Father in heaven."

The explication of the topic is sometimes given in a footnote.

Bambam Matthew 7:6

After that, Puang [Honorific] Yesus again told another illustration saying: “Don't give dogs

all that is holy because they may then quickly-turn on you and attack you. And do not give

pigs your pearl necklaces, lest they trample-them-under-their-feet.”

Footnote: 7:6. Those dogs and pigs were considered by the Yahudi as disgusting. In this

illustration those (…) people are compared to those dogs and pigs. For those (…) people

refuse to heed the Lord's Word because they do not honor it. And the Lord's Word is

compared to a pearl necklace and all that is holy.

D. Metaphor-to-metaphor renderings with topic and ground(s) explication

Biblical imagery sometimes shifts very abruptly from one image to another. In many

cases the shifting of imagery does not imply a shift in topic or meaning. But, similar

meaning is expressed by a different image.

Hearers and readers originating from eastern Indonesia are not always aware of the fact

that, despite the shifting imagery, the topic is still the same. In cases like this it is often

necessary to explicate the topic and the grounds of the second metaphor of a metaphor

pair.

In Matthew 9:36-38, for example, the imagery shifts abruptly from the sheep without a

shepherd simile (verse 36) to the harvest metaphor (verse 37-38). However, the topic

stays the same (crowds), and the ground(s) of both forms of imagery are pretty much

related (spiritual helplessness). This may not have been clear to the audience of the

Anonymous-2 translation, and the translator had probably very good reasons to make

explicit both the topic and the ground of the harvest metaphor.

Anonymous-2 Matthew 9:36-38 (Papua-Coastal)

36 When Yesus saw the many people, he loved them, because of the things put on them to

make them weak/tired. Those people were like sheep without a leader, they were not able to

save themselves.

37 Those people Yesus compared in a story to garden produce as he says to his disciples: "A

lot of produce is ripe, but there are only a very few people to harvest it."

38 For that reason ask Allah who is the garden head: 'Tell people to go to the garden and work. To those tired/weak people, teach them about the good life path.'"

530

In the above example, topic explication is found both before (“Those people Yesus

compared in a story to garden produce …”) and after the harvest imagery (“to those

tired/weak people …”), forming an inclusio. The explication of the grounds (“teach

people about the good life path [the Gospel]”) is tagged on to the end of the inclusio.

In some cases, the translator does explicate the topic and the grounds, but he does not

explicitly link these to the imagery, but he leaves it to the reader/hearer to draw the right

conclusions (e.g., the stone = Jesus; the builders of the house = the Pharisees; throwing

away of the stone = rejecting Jesus, in the example below.).

Uma Matthew 21:42 Yesus said saying to them: "Certainly you have read the words in the Holy Book which

foretell your denial of Me, its sound is like this:

‘The stone that is thrown away by the builders of the house,

That stone becomes the main foundation stone...’

That happens according to the will of the Lord God,

no kidding his goodness.'"

15.4.3.4.2. Metaphor-to-simile renderings

Metaphor-to-simile renderings can be divided into four categories:

A. Renderings without translational explication of topic or ground(s)

B. Renderings with ground(s) explication

C. Renderings with topic explication

D. Renderings with a combination of topic and ground(s) explication

A. Metaphor-to-simile renderings without topic or ground(s) explication

Metaphorical expressions are sometimes rendered as a simile by simply adding a

comparative marker “like”.

Luang John 10:7 (NT-35)

So Jesus again said to them saying: "These words of mine are true. I am like the real sheep's

gate itself.

The reason for rendering a metaphor as a simile may simply be the fact that a particular

type of metaphor is not normally used in a particular language (like equating a person

with a door), or that it would be more natural to use a simile than a metaphor.1123

1123 In the case of Luang, it is interesting to note that in John 10:11 a metaphor-to-metaphor rendering is

used (“I am the good shepherd himself.”). Another metaphor-to metaphor rendering is found in John 15:1:

[Then Jesus used a *parable to talk again saying]: "I am the true grape tree. And my Father is the true

owner of the garden/field.” But the section heading above chapter 15 uses a simile: Jesus is like the true

grape tree, and people are like the branches.” It would be interesting to know whether metaphors and

similes are in free variation with one another, or whether there is a preference for using similes if the topic

is a person and the image is an inanimate object.

531

Metaphorical expressions like “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” are often rendered as

a simile. Both the topic (“Israel”) and the image (“lost sheep”) are already given in the

original metaphor of the source text. The order of the image and topic is reversed in this

kind of rendering, and the genitive construction is substituted for a relative construction.

Da’a Matthew 15:24 Yesus answered, "I am sent to help just the descendants of Israel, who are lost the same as

sheep."

B. Metaphor-to-simile renderings with ground(s) explication

The expression “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” is sometimes rendered as a simile

plus explicated ground.

Luang Matthew 10:6

But go to the Israelites. Because the Israelites already turned their back on God like a sheep

that has already run from it's master.

Metaphor-to-simile renderings sometimes explicate multiple grounds. In Anonymous-1

Genesis 49:24b, for example, the shepherd metaphor is unpacked into a simile with three

more or less related grounds (have compassion, take very good care, watch over).

Similarly, the rock metaphor is unpacked into three grounds (impossible to move, always

be there, care for). Interestingly enough, in the latter case the grounds move progressively

from a highly impersonal quality (impossible to move) to a highly personal quality

(continually care for).

Anonymous-1 Genesis 49:24b (Papua-Interior)

Also, just as the caretakers of sheep having compassion on their sheep take very good care of

them, so too God will continually care for, and watch over/ guard the clansmen of Yusup

(unpacked ‘Shepherd’). Just as a huge rock is impossible to move and is always right there, so too God will always be there continually caring for the clan people of Yusup (unpacked:

‘Rock of Israel’).

Sometimes the multiple grounds that are expressed in the simile are so closely related that

they are near-synonyms. In Genesis 49:9, for example, the following related grounds of

the lion cub’s metaphor are made explicit: very courageous, strong, without fear,

powerful.

Anonymous-1 Genesis 49:9

As for the son of a lion [Indonesian loan word] he is very courageous and strong and just so

you also Yudah will be without fear and very powerful. Just as a lion (loan) intending to kill

and eat something goes out hunting, kills it, eats it and come back to his house/place

happily/in good condition, so too you will be like that. You are like a lion that sees an animal

prey and crouches down then pounces on it (implied). Just as no one of us because of fear of

it would poke at (=to rouse from sleep) a lion that is sleeping, so too who is there that

would/could do that to you?

In Genesis 16:12 a similar accumulation of near-synonyms is used to express the grounds

of the wild donkey metaphor used for Ishmael: (not … have soft hearts, doesn’t listen to

532

people, is very stubborn/strong minded, etc.). In this case some of the grounds are

mentioned before the image, and others occur after the expression of the image.

Anonymous-1 Genesis 16:12 However, as for this child you will birth, he will not be a man like others who have soft

hearts (=gentle/mild) and just live in regular/normal fashion (=unremarkable). He will be like

a wild donkey (loan) animal that doesn’t listen to people and is very stubborn/strong minded.

He will not listen/obey others, and stepping on their words (=resisting/ offending), (result) he

will not be living in harmony/well with others. Similarly, he and others hating one another

will fight against each other. Even those of his own clan, he and they, holding bad thoughts to

each other, will not be having one mind or living well together (=will not get along).” That is

what the angel said to Hagar.

The use of multiple grounds in metaphor-to-simile renderings may sometimes be a matter

of style, but in other cases it is an attempt to unpack multiple meanings that are

simultaneously active in a metaphor.

Metaphor-to-simile renderings are very similar to simile-to-simile renderings. In the

following simile-to-simile rendering (sheep among the wolves) part of the multiple

grounds are expressed before the image (as gentle people; people who are fierce) and part

of them are expressed after the image (like sheep who get charged and bitten by jungle

dogs). In the following snake simile, however, the image precedes the grounds (are

scared, carefully crawl away).

Bauzi Matthew 10:16 16 Now consider this. Regarding this present time that I am sending you out---I am sending

you out as gentle people towards/to people who are fierce. That is, I am sending you out like

sheep who get charged at and bitten by jungle dogs. Therefore whatever place you go to, act

similarly to snakes do when they are scared that people will kill them so they carefully crawl away to an empty area. And also when you go to those people and do the work I

commissioned you to do there, do it with a gentle heart."

The above rendering of the snake metaphor can be very helpful for translators who

struggle with cultural interference related to the snake simile. In Una, for example, a

literal rendering of the snake simile did not work, because Una native speakers tend to

associate snakes with the evil one (symbolism based on Genesis 3). Becoming ‘wise like

serpents’ was invariably interpreted as apostasizing and becoming a follower of Satan.

By explicating the grounds as ‘being scared’ and ‘crawling away’ it may be possible to

neutralize these negative connotations and keep the snake image in the translation.

533

C. Metaphor-to-simile renderings with topic explication

An example of metaphor-to-simile rendering with topic explication (“ya LORD, ya

LORD”) is found in Galela Genesis 48:16. This is a rendering of “The Angel who has

redeemed me from all evil”).

Galela Genesis 48:16

Ya, LORD! Ya, LORD!

You who-have-revealed-yourself as a Malaikat

people who-desire me dead

each one of them you-caused-me-to-avoid/evade.

The above example is also interesting, since it seems to involve a shift in genre, from a

blessing in the original text (which refers to God in the third person) to a prayer (which

addresses God in the second person and by vocatives) in the receptor language. A similar

shift was found in another vernacular translation too. A rendering like this is probably

caused by the absence of a blessing genre in the receptor language, and by the fact that

prayer as a genre is may be the closest natural equivalent for a blessing.1124

The Dobel rendering of Genesis 48:15-16 is another case where the blessing has been

cast in the form of a direct prayer to God. Here too, the agent is also made explicit: “(It

was) you [= God] who …”. But here the term ‘angel’ is interpreted as a literal expression

referring to a celestial servant of God rather than as a divine manifestation or as a

metaphorical expression for God himself (“using your servant who comes from your

presence”).

Dobel Genesis 48:15-16

15 Then after that he prayed/begged God that later he act-kindly-to these

Yusuf's children, saying: God, (it was) you whom my-grandfather Abraham and my-father Isak praised you. (It was)

you who cared for me from when I was little until now. 16 (It was) you who took me from all

of what is bad, using your servant who comes from your presence. So come act-kindly-to

these two children so that they multiply until they are very many in this world, and I with my-grandfather Abraham and my-father Isak our name/worth let-not finished.

D. Metaphor-to-simile renderings with topic and ground(s) explication

An example of metaphor-to-simile rendering with both topic explication (‘a savior’) and

grounds explication (‘will originate from Heaven’) is found in Luang Luke 1:78.

Luang Luke 1:78

And we will receive that salvation because our (inclusive) God's mercy (inside goodness) is

so great toward us (inclusive). Because from/because of His mercy therefore a savior will

originate from Heaven to come just like the sun that shines in the early morning.

1124 A blessing can often be rendered in the form of a wish (“May God bless you”) or an indirect prayer (“I

am praying that God will bless you”.). In this (and other) cases, however, the blessing is cast in the form of

a direct prayer and doxology.

534

Another example of both topic (‘God’) and grounds explication (‘prepared to punish’) is

found in Luang 3:9.

Luang Luke 3:9

Remember ee! God is actually already prepared to punish whoever doesn't repent (let go of

their sins). For it is just like He has prepared an ax to cut down His tree's trunk all the way

even to the roots. The tree that doesn't bear fruit well He will take an ax to them and then

throw them into the fire."

15.4.3.4.3. Metaphor-to-literal expression renderings

Metaphors are sometimes rendered as literal expressions in translations. Metaphor-to-

literal renderings consist of two main types:

A. Renderings where the image is substituted by a ground or topic term

B. Renderings where the image term is retained, but where it takes on a literal

meaning

A. Renderings where the image is substituted by a ground or topic term

The majority of the researched vernacular translations rendered the “I [YHWH] am your

shield” metaphor in Genesis 15:1 by substituting the image (“shield”) by a ground

(“protect”). In this way the metaphorical expression “I am your shield” became a literal

expression “I will protect you”.

Da’a Genesis 15:1

After that the LORD spoke to Abram in a vision of his. He said, “Abram, don't be afraid. I

will protect you (sg) and give to you (sg) many blessings.”

There may be several reasons for rendering a metaphor like this as a literal expression.

One reason might be that the metaphor is interpreted as a dead metaphor (but the

preceding context of war and payment in the preceding context seems to speak against

this). Another reason might be the fact that a shield is a foreign item in the receptor

culture, and that its meaning is not clearly understood. Another reason might be the idea

of native speakers of the target language that it is not appropriate to use a physiomorphic

image like this for God.

The “horn of salvation”, referred to in Zecharaiah’s Songs, is another case where a

metaphor (“horn”) is often substituted by a ground (“powerful”). At the same time, the

abstract reference to “salvation” is often rendered as “savior”. In Uma, the term “savior”

is rendered in political-military terms (“war chief”).

Uma Luke 1:69 He gives us a powerful War chief who brings salvation.

That War chief is the descendant of King Daud, his slave long ago.

535

The fox metaphor, used by Jesus as a derogatory term for King Herod in Luke 13:32, was

usually substituted by a ground term. Some translations used the ground term “schemer”

or “deceiver”. Others used a term like “evil person”.

Meyah Luke 13:32

31 At that time some Farisi came to Yesus and said to Him, "Don't stay here. Go to some

other place, because Herodes wants to kill You."

32 Then Yesus answered them saying, "Go and tell that evil person that today and tomorrow

I will chase out evil spirits from people and I will heal other as well. But in three days then I

will be finished.

In the particular case of Meyah, a ground substitution was used, because Meyah speakers

usually don’t make use of animal metaphors (see the comment of the Meyah translator in

section …). Another factor is, of course, the fact that there are no foxes in eastern

Indonesia. In some languages a cultural equivalent like “jungle dog” might be an option,

but the connotations associated with these dogs do not necessarily match the ones

intended in this context.

Sometimes the image term is substituted by the topic term. In the Uma rendering of

Matthew 11:30 (“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”), for example, the yoke

metaphor is substituted by the topic to which it is believed to refer (“my commands”). In

cases like this, where the imagery is expressed by two more or less parallel images, a

substitution like this can be done with very little loss of content.

Uma Matthew 11:30

“My commands are not hard, and the burden that I-put-on-your-back is just light.”

Another metaphor that is often substituted by a topic/ground term is the “cup” metaphor

in Mark 10:38 and its accompanying “baptize” metaphor. These are substituted by

“suffering” and “dying” respectively in Anonymous-1’s rendering of the verse.

Anonymous-1 Mark 10:38 (Papua-Interior)

They asked it and Yesus replied. "As for that which you have requested of me, you have not

understood/thought of the meaning of it. When they have put great heaviness upon me

and I am going to suffer, in this same way are you two able to also suffer like this? Further,

when they kill my body and I am going to die, in this same way are you two able to

die?" he said.

B. Renderings where the image term is retained, but where it takes on a literal

meaning

Metonymy-like metaphors are often rendered as literal expressions by adding a

component of causativity (give, cause). “I am the resurrection and the life”, for example,

is rendered as “I am the one who raises the dead, and who gives life.”

Uma John 11:25

Yesus said: “I am the one who raises the dead, and who gives life. People who believe in me,

even if they are dead, they will live again.”

536

In John 14:6, a triplet of similar metonymy-like metaphors are found (“I am the way and

the truth and the life”). In the Berik rendering, only the first metaphor (“I am the way”) is

kept as a metaphor, while explicating that Jesus is “the pathway for you to see/know

God”. The other two metaphors are rendered as literal expressions (“I am the truth”

“all that I say is true.” And “I am the life” “I give eternal life”.)1125

Berik John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the pathway for you to see/know God. All that I say is true, and I give

*eternal life (lit: good living forever) to persons. Persons can arrive by My Father, but only I

am their pathway to come.

15.4.3.4.4. Source-culture-image-to-target-culture-image substitutions

Source-culture-image-to-target-culture-image substitutions were relatively rare, but they

form an interesting part of the researched data. These substitutions may occur when the

image is an unknown animal in the target culture, or when the target culture image is a

better expression of the grounds of the metaphor.

The “sheep-among-the-wolves” simile of Matthew 10:16 is rendered as “sheep-among-

the-wolves” simile in the Uma New Testament. However, an earlier version of this

translation rendered it as a “rats/mice-between-cats” simile.1126

Uma Matthew 10:16

Be careful, because I command you to go in the midst/between evil people. You will be like

rats/mice between cats. You must be clever like the tarsier, but your hearts [must be]

gentle/smooth with no evil intentions.

Footnote: ‘In the original text ‘tarsier’ is a snake.’

In Berik, the same simile is rendered as “like chicks in the middle of chicken hawks”.

Berik Matthew 10:16

Jesus says more, “Listen, I am sending you to enemies, like chicks in the middle of chicken

hawks. Your enemies are like _ufwai_ (dangerous) snakes, they are very evil (lit: their livers

are very hot). Be careful of people who later will deceive you, but don't you do bad to

people.”

Another, very interesting, feature of the Berik translation is the fact that the “snake”

image is kept in the translation, but that it is no longer applied to the disciples who are

taught to be “wise as snakes”, but to the enemies, who are “very evil”, “like dangerous

snakes”. The reason for this is probably the fact, found in other Papuan languages too,

that snake imagery has strong negative connotations and cannot be linked to the disciples

without causing major misunderstandings. Even though not every translator will feel

1125 A similar transposition would have been possible for “I am the way” “I am the (only) one who leads

you to the Father”. 1126 The Abun translator indicated in the survey that this verse was rendered as “I send you out as young

pigs among wild dogs (sheep among wolves).” But the back-translation gives the following rendering: “I

say like this, I send you (pl). You (pl) are like young domba [sheep] that are not strong going in the midst

of wild dogs. So be observant/alert like a bam snake, and do things gently like a dove.”

537

comfortable to make such an adjustment, it must be said that the Berik solution of

keeping the image, but applying it to a different topic, is very creative. The other image

(about being gentle “as doves”) has been eliminated in both the Berik and the preliminary

Uma renderings.

In Bambam the “snake” image is substituted by a “mouse deer” image in the translation.

A footnote explains that the Greek source text says “snake” here. The “wolves” imagery

is substituted by a more generic “ferocious animals” imagery.

Bambam Matthew 10:16 And then he again gave-advice to his apostles saying: “Remember well, you must be like

sheep I command to go among the ferocious animals. You must continually take-guard like a

mouse deer. and be gentle like doves.”

Footnote: 10:16. mouse deer: in the Yunani [Greek] language it says “snake”.

Other translations, like Luang for example, keep the original imagery, while explicating

some of the grounds of the sheep among the wolves simile.

Luang Matthew 10:16

"Remember this! I am the one who is sending you [plural-all the way through section] to my

enemy/s' place therefore you are like goat-and-sheep which don't have power who come upon

wild animals that want to tear you up and eat you. Therefore be careful like snakes and show

good character like a dove.

Another animal term that is sometimes substituted is the term “camel”. In the Meyah

rendering of Matthew 19:24, for example, it is substituted by “cow”.

Meyah Matthew 19:23-24

Then Yesus said to his disciples, “Actually its very difficult for people who depend on their

many possessions to enter in with the people that God rules over. 24 I will say it again, it’s very difficult for a cow to go through the eye of a needle. But it is even more difficult for

people who depend on their own wealth to enter in with the people that God rules.”

In Muna, the term “camel” is rendered as “buffalo” in the Muna rendering of Matthew

19:24. A footnote is used, however, to indicate that the actual meaning of the underlying

term is “camel”.

Muna Matthew 19:23

23 Yesus spoke again to his pupils, 'I tell you, truly how difficult it is for a rich person to

enter the Rule of God. 21 Really it is easier for a buffalo [Footnote: actually a camel] to go through the hole of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the Rule of God. 25 When they

heard like that, the pupils were amazed and startled, saying 'If it is like that, who can possibly

be saved?' 26 Yesus looked at them and spoke, 'Yes indeed, for mankind it is impossible to

happen like that, but for God there is nothing which he cannot do.'

But not only animal images are substituted by images of the target language. Other

cultural items that are unknown or that do not communicate the intended grounds were

also substituted. In Luang, for example, the “shield” metaphor of Genesis 15:1 is

rendered as a “closed-fence” metaphor.

538

Luang Genesis 15:1 One day Abraham he-had-a-*vision {that} the *Lord He-opened-His-voice to Abram He-

said:

"Don't you-be-afraid Abram. This ME {is} your fortress [lit. closed-fence] onnila-because

you-follow ME myself your-balas {later} will be very big.”

In Anonymous-1 a combined strategy is used to render the “shield” metaphor: cultural

substitution (“big head man”) plus explication of the ground (“watch over you”, “so that

nothing will hurt you.”)

Anonymous-1 Genesis 15:1

Later on God gave to Abram these words by means of a dream/vision he (God) gave to him.

This is what God said to him and what Abram heard. “Abram, do not be at all afraid. I am to

you your big head man and so that nothing will hurt you, habitually watch out over you (=your ‘shield’). I alone am the one who will give to you that which is to make you wealthy.

That which you will receive like a reward/gift, it is I who’ll be giving it to you.” God said it

to Abram.

The expression of “those living in the land of the shadow of death” is sometimes

rendered in cultural equivalent terms. In Mairasi, for example, it is rendered as “those

who live in the malevolent spirit [demon’s] own village”.1127

Mairasi Matthew 4:16

People who live in darkness, already have seen tuberful [true] light which came up!

{Then too} they who live in death region, sitting in the shadow of death, the ones fearing

dying, it has already come up to brighten them.” says he. Already true light has arisen [and] they have seen it! {And then} they themselves who live in malevolent spirit [demon]'s own

village, already their enlightening [their being in light] has arisen.”

In some cases, a vernacular image is used instead of the original metaphor, since it may

be more appealing to the audience. This is probably the reason that the “dust” image

(indicating multitude) in Genesis 13:16 was substituted by the “tree flowers of the

jungle” image in the Bauzi rendering.

Bauzi Genesis 13:16

As for your descendants--I am going to make them many. Like the situation of being unable

to count all the tree's flowers of the jungle--I will make the situation of your descendants

many like that.

Likewise, the “sand” image in Genesis 22:17 – which also is an image for multitude –

was rendered as a “tree flowers of the jungle” image.

Bauzi Genesis 22:17

16-17 "God says like this. It is me. Because you have done what you have done this day--

1127 Cultural equivalents like this can be very attractive and communicative to native speakers. Sometimes,

however, there are problems with this kind of renderings. This is, for example, the case, when “those who

live in the evil spirit’s village” are not understood in a metaphorical sense, but are literally associated with

the souls of the dead. Another potential problem is that those who live in the village of the evil spirit are

seen as malevolent accomplices of the evil spirit rather than as victims who are in need of salvation.

539

concerning the fact that you have not withheld your one son which you have fathered—I will

definitely continue for a long time to cause good to happen to you. That is like this (fw).

I will cause your descendants to be many. They will be many like the stars are many. They

will be many like the tree flowers in the jungle are many. And also I will later help you (pl)

destroy your descendants' enemies (=those angry at them) and as for their land--I will cause

(it)to become your (pl) land.

The parallel image of “stars in the sky” has been kept in the translation. One reason for

keeping this image may have been that this image is known in the vernacular language

for indicating multitude. Another reason for keeping this image is that it is also anchored

in the narrative (Genesis 15:5: “He [YHWH] took him [Abram] outside and said, “Look

up at the heavens and count the stars – if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to

him, “So shall your offspring be”.). By keeping the “stars in the sky image” in Genesis

22:17 the translator has maintained a thematic link with the narrative in Genesis 15:5.

In addition to these above metaphorical substitutions, we also found all kinds of cultural

substitutions that operate at a more idiomatic level (dead metaphors). But, since the

borders between live and dead metaphors are often very fuzzy, I’ll add a few examples.

The expression “becoming one flesh” is rendered in Luang as “tie with wife as one, so

that they tie one insides”

Luang Genesis 2:24

This {therefore} a male {later will} leave [lit. put-away] his-father {with} mother {so} {with} his-wife they-go-tie as one, {so-that} they-two they-go-tie one insides

In Anonymous-1, this image is rendered as “being joined in heart, and live together”. But

then, after the grounds of the image have been explicated, the image term is kept, while

rendering the original metaphor (“one flesh”) as a simile (“like one body”).

Anonymous-1 Genesis 2:24

For this reason then, whatever man there is, he is to leave the household of his own father

and mother, and being joined in heart (=intimate relationship; all other “joinings” implicitly

understood) to the woman he takes, they two are to be living together. They two are going to

be like one body.

The imagery of “putting the enemies under your feet” is rendered by a vernacular idiom

in Dobel: “drag their stomach skins before you”.

Dobel Mark 12:35-36 35 Yesus was still teaching people in the Temple yard, then he said, "The Scribes say saying,

the Messiah [the important one that God appointed to come] is a descendent of Daud. 36 If that is so how come God's Holy Spirit made Daud say:

God said to my Lord saying:

Sit with me we rule my creation as one,

until I make those who oppose you drag their stomach skins before you.

540

15.4.3.4.5. Quantitative summary of the data

Table: Selected metaphor texts from Genesis Nr Passage Figurative expression Met Met-Plus Simile Sim-Plus Literal Met-Vnc Other Total

OT-1 Gn 2:24 Become one flesh 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 5

OT-2 Gn 3:15 Crush head, Strike heel 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5

OT-3 Gn 4:7 Crouching sin at door 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 5

OT-4 Gn 4:10 Crying blood 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 5

OT-5 Gn 4:11 Earth opened its mouth 0 0 0 1 3 1* 0 5

OT-6 Gn 13:16 Dust of earth 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 6

OT-7 Gn 15:1

Shield

Reward

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

6

1*

0

0

0

7

6

OT-8 Gn 16:12 Wild donkey 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 6

OT-9 Gn 17:1 Walk before 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 6

OT-10 Gn 18:27 Dust and ashes 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 6

OT-11 Gn 22:17 Stars, Sand 0;0 0;0 0;0 0;0 0;0 0;1 6;5 6;6

OT-12 Gn 27:40 Yoke 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 6

OT-13 Gn 48:15

Shepherd

Walk before

Angel

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

2

3

7

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

7

7

OT-14 Gn 49:5 Brothers 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7

OT-15 Gn 49:9 Lion’s cub 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 7

OT-16 Gn 49:17 Snake 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 7

OT-17 Gn 49:21 Female deer 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 7

OT-18 Gn 49:22 Fertile vine 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 7

OT-19 Gn 49:24

Shepherd

Rock

1

2

1

0

0

0

5

4

0

1

0

0

0

0

7

7

OT-20 Gn 49:27 Wolf 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 7

16 6 22 42 56 4 11 157

10.2 % 3.8 % 14.0 % 26.8 % 35.7 % 2.5 % 7.0 % 100 %

Table: Selected metaphor texts from the Gospels (I) Nr Passage Figurative expression Met Met-Plus Simile Sim-Plus Literal Met-Vnc Other Total

NT-1 Mt 2:6b Be the shepherd 2 0 0 3 8 1 0 14

NT-2 Mt 4:16 darkness, light 12 ;1 1 0;1 1;2 0;3 0;2 0 14;9

NT-3 Mt 5:6 hunger and thirst 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 13

NT-4 Mt 5:13

Salt

Light

4

4

0

0

5

7

5

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

14

NT-5 Mt 7:3-5 Speck and plank 7 1 0 5 0 1 0 14

NT-6 Mt 7:6 Dogs, pearls, pigs 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 14

NT-7 Mt 7:15

Sheep’s clothing

Ferocious wolves

0 1 4 7 2 0 0 14

NT-8 Mt 9:12

Healthy, sick, doctor 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 14

NT-9 Mt 9:16-

17

Patch / old garment

Wine / old wineskin

7 6;1 0 0;1 0 1;1 0 14;3

NT-10 Mt 9:36-

38

Sheep

Harvest, workers

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

13

0

13

12

NT-11 Mt 10:6 Lost sheep 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 14

NT-12 Mt 10:16

Sheep, wolves

Snakes, pigeons

0

0;0

0

0;0

0

0;0

0

0;0

0

3;3 3

0;0

11

5+6 2x

14

14;14

NT-13 Mt 11:28-

30 Yoke

Burden

1

11

1

0

0

1

0

0

11

1

1

0

0

1*

14

14

NT-14 Mt 12:48

Mother, brother, sister 8 0 5 1 0 0 0 14

NT-15 Mt 15:21-

28

Lost sheep, Children

Dogs

0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13

NT-16 Mt 19:23

Camel , eye of needle 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 13

NT-17 Mt 21:42 Stone 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 13

NT-18 Mt 23:16-

24

Blind (3x)

Guides (2x)

10 0 12 1 0 0 0 23*

NT-19 Mt 23:27 White-washed tombs

NT-20 Mt 26:31 Shepherd, sheep 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 13

120 16 47 40 55 11 60 349

541

Table: Selected metaphor texts from the Gospels (II) Nr Passage Figurative expression Met Met-Plus Simile Sim-Plus Literal Met-Vnc Other Total

NT-21 Mark 8:38 Adulterous generation 0 0 0 1 9 1 0 11

NT-22 Mark

10:38

Drink cup,

baptize

1 2 0 1 10 0 0 14

NT-23 Mark

12:36

Put enemies under feet 3 2 0 0 4 3 0 12

NT-24 Mark

14:36

Cup

(Mt 26:39)

1 1 0 0 12 0 0 14

NT-25 Luke 1:53 Hungry

Rich

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

NT-26 Luke 1:69 Horn of salvation 0 0 0 0 11 0* 0 11

NT-27 Luke

1:78-79

Dawn / rising sun 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 11

NT-28 Luke 3:7 Vipers / snakes 1 0 0 6 4 0 0 11

NT-29 Luke 3:9 Ax, fire, tree, fruit 6 0 0 6 1 0 0 13

NT-30 Luke 3:16 Baptize

Winnow

8

1

0

0

0

3

1

3

4

3

0

1

0

0

13

11

NT-31 Luke

6:43-45

Tree, fruits 0 3 5 2 0 0 0 10

NT-32 Luke

11:34

Light of the body 4 1 5 1 0 0 0 11

NT-33 Luke

13:32

Fox 1 0 0 0 9 1 0 11

NT-34 Luke

13:34

Hen and chicks 1* 0 0 0 0 0 10 11

NT-35 Jn 1:29 Lamb of God 7 2 0 3 0 0 0 12

NT-36 Jn 3:4 Born again 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 11

NT-37 Jn 4:10 Water 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 11

NT-38 Jn 6:35 Bread 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 11

NT-39 Jn 7:37-39 Drink, water 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 12

NT-40 John 10:6 Door 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 12

NT-41 Jn 10:11 Shepherd 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 11

NT-42 Jn 10:16 Shepherd, sheep 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

NT-43 John

11:25

Resurrection, life 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 13

NT-44 John 14:6 Way, truth, life 9 1 2 0 7 0 0 19

NT-45 Jn 15:1 Vine 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 12

NT-46 Jn 21:15-

16

Lambs, sheep 9 1* 2* 0 0 0 0 12

Subtotal NT (2) 139 15 36 31 86 6 10 323

Subtotal NT (1) 120 16 57 52 55 11 38 349

Total NT 259 31 103 86 141 17 35 672

38.5 % 4.6% 15.3% 12.8 % 21.0 % 2.5 % 5.2 % 99.9 %

542

15.5. Comparison with English and Indonesian versions

Now that we have seen how a number of vernacular translations in eastern Indonesia

have dealt with the translation of metaphor, the question arises as to how these vernacular

translations relate to commonly used Bible translations in languages of wider

communication (English and Indonesian).

The data from the vernacular translations were compared with fourteen or so English

translations and three Indonesian translations. These translations covered a broad scope

of translation types, ranging from fairly literal translations like the King James Version

(KJV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) to relatively free translations like

Today’s English Version (TEV), Kabar Baik (BIS), and paraphrases like The Message

(MES) and Firman Allah yang Hidup (FAH). Cultural adaptations like Clarence Jordan’s

Cotton Patch Version were not included in this comparison.

The conclusion of this comparative research is that, generally speaking, the vernacular

translations from eastern Indonesia were less form-bound than any of the English and

Indonesian versions. Metaphor-to-simile renderings and metaphor-to-literal expression

renderings occurred less frequently in TEV, BIS and MES than in the vernacular

translations. The explication of topics and grounds occurred less frequently in TEV, BIS

and MES than in the vernacular translations. All of the compared versions were much

more conservative (source text bound) in their metaphor renderings than the majority of

the vernacular versions were.

Based on this comparative research, it can be concluded that the translation of metaphor

is handled differently in common language versions on the one hand and in explicative

translations on the other. Some of the vernacular translations in Sulawesi are very similar

to common language versions like TEV and BIS in the way they handle metaphors, but

other translations from Sulawesi to Papua are progressively more explicative.

Explicative translations seem to hold a middle position between common language

versions on the one hand and between cultural adaptations on the other. As we have seen

in the previous section, cultural adaptation or substitution of biblical imagery plays a

marginal role in the explicative translations. In the explicative translations a serious

attempt is made to maintain historical fidelity. Cultural adaptations like those that are

found in the Cotton Patch Version1128

and in The Message1129

were largely absent from

the explicative translations. “Domestication” and “contextualization” of the biblical

message is not the goal of the explicative translations. Rather than ignoring the cultural

gap between the original text and the audience, they recognize this gap and try to bridge

it by explication.

1128 In Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Version of Paul’s Epistles, for example, “crucifying” is translated as “lynching”. Paul’s letter to the Romans is “translated” as “The Letter to the Christians in Washington”.

And differences between Jews and Greeks are contextualized as differences between white and black

people in the southern part of the United States of America. 1129 Psalm 23:5 is, for example, rendered as “You serve me a six-course dinner,” reflecting a modern

Western cultural practice rather than an ancient Israelite practice.

543

Old Testament data (English and Indonesian versions1130)

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

AMP 13 / 86.7 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 1 / 6.7 % 15 / 100.1 %

NIV 12 / 80.0 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

NET 12 / 80.0 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

NRSV 12 / 80.0 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

KJV 11 / 73.3 % 2 / 13.3 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

NASB 11 / 73.3 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 15 / 100.0 %

RSV 11 / 73.3 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 15 / 100.0 %

GW 10 / 66.7 % 1 / 6.7 % 1 / 6.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 15 / 100.1 %

NLT 9 / 60.0 % 1 / 6.7 % 3 / 20.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

REB 8 / 57.1 % 1 / 7.1 % 2 / 14.3 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 21.4 % 14 / 99.9 %

BBE 8 / 57.1 % 2 / 14.3 % 3 / 21.4 % 0 / 0.0 % 1 / 7.1 % 14 / 99.9 %

CEV 7 / 46.7 % 1 / 6.7 % 4 / 26.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 15 / 100.1 %

TB 5 / 33.3 % 6 / 40.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 99.9 %

TEV 4 / 26.7 % 4 / 26.7 % 4 / 26.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 15 / 100.1 %

NCV 4 / 26.7 % 6 / 40.0 % 3 / 20.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 100.0 %

BIS 3 / 20.0 % 5 / 33.3 % 5 / 33.3 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 13.3 % 15 / 99.9 %

MES - - - - - -

TOTAL 140 35 27 0 36 238

Percentage 58.8 % 14.7 % 11.3 % 0.0 % 15.1 % 99.9 %

Ranking 1 2b 3 -- 2a

Old Testament data (Vernacular translations)

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

Bambam 5 / 20.0 % 8 / 32.0 % 9 / 36.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 12.0 % 25 / 100.0 %

Da’a 8 / 32.0 % 6 / 24.0 % 9 / 36.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 8.0 % 25 / 100.0 %

Moronene - - - - - -

Muna - - - - - -

Uma - - - - -

Dobel (*) 0 / 0.0 % 7 / 63.6 % 4 / 36.4 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 11 / 100.0 %

Galela (*) 1 / 5.0 % 10 / 50.0 % 7 / 35.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 10.0 % 20 / 100.0 %

Luang 7 / 29.2 % 7 / 29.2 % 6 / 25.0 % 2 / 8.3 % 2 / 8.3 % 24 / 100.0 %

Abun - - - - - -

Bauzi 1 / 4.0 % 12 / 48.0 % 8 / 32.0 % 2 / 8.0 % 2 / 8.0 % 25 /100.0 %

Berik - - - - - -

Mairasi - - - - - -

Meyah - - - - - -

Anonym-1 0 / 0.0 % 14 / 58.3 % 8 / 33.3 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 8.3 % 24 / 99.9 %

Anonym-2 - - - - - -

TOTAL 22 64 51 4 13 154

Percentage 14.3 % 41.6 % 33.1 % 2.6 % 8.4 % 100.0 %

Ranking 3 1 2 5 4

1130

AMP=Amplified Bible; NIV=New International Version; NET=New English Translation; NRSV=New

Revised Standard Version; KJV=King James Version; NASB=New American Standard Bible; RSV=Revised Standard Version; GW=God’s Word; NLT=New Living Translation; REB=Revised English

Bible; BBE=Bible in Basic English; CEV=Contemporary English Version; TB=Terjemahan Baru

(Indonesian “New Translation”); TEV=Today’s English Version; NCV=New Contemporary Version;

BIS=Kabar Baik dalam Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (Indonesian “Good News” Bible); MES=The

Message; FAH=Firman Allah yang Hidup; JBP=J.B.Phillips’ translation.

544

New Testament data (English and Indonesian versions)

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

AMP 49 / 87.5 % 5 / 8.9 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.6 % 56 / 100.0 %

NIV 36 / 73.5 % 7 / 14.3 % 3 / 6.1 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 6.1 % 49 / 100.0 %

NET 39 / 76.5 % 6 / 11.8 % 3 / 5.9 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 5.9 % 51 / 100.1 %

NRSV 49 / 84.5 % 6 / 10.3 % 1 / 1.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.4 % 58 / 99.9 %

KJV 45 / 83.3 % 6 / 11.1 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 3 / 5.6 % 54 / 100.0 %

NASB 49 / 86.0 % 6 / 10.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.5 % 57 / 100.0 %

RSV 49 / 86.0 % 6 / 10.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.5 % 57 / 100.0 %

GW 41 / 77.4 % 6 / 11.3 % 4 / 7.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.8 % 53 / 100.0 %

NLT 36 / 72.0 % 8 / 16.0 % 4 / 8.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 4.0 % 50 / 100.0 %

REB 48 / 82.8 % 6 / 10.3 % 2 / 3.4 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.4 % 58 / 99.9 %

BBE - - - - - -

FAH 24 / 66.7 % 8 / 22.2 % 2 / 5.6 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 5.6 % 36 / 100.1 %

CEV 35 / 62.5 % 13 / 23.2 % 6 / 10.7 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.6 % 56 / 100.0 %

TB 45 / 83.3 % 7 / 13.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.7 % 54 / 100.0 %

TEV 32 / 64.0 % 11 / 22.0 % 5 / 10.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 4.0 % 50 /100.0 %

NCV 30 / 63.8 % 10 / 21.3 % 5 / 10.6 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 4.3 % 47 / 100.0 %

JBP 35 / 76.1 % 6 / 13.0 % 3 / 6.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 4.4 % 46 / 100.0 %

BIS 34 / 64.2 % 8 / 15.1 % 9 / 17.0 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.8 % 53 / 100.1 %

MES 39 / 75.0 % 5 / 9.6 % 6 / 11.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 2 / 3.8 % 52 / 99.9 %

TOTAL 715 130 53 - 39 937

Percentage 76.3 % 13.9 % 5.7 % 0.0 % 4.2 % 100.1 %

Ranking 1 2 3 - 4

New Testament data (Vernacular translations)

Metaphor

Metaphor

Metaphor

Simile

Metaphor

Literal

Metaphor

Vernac. Met

Other Total

Bambam 38 / 60.3 % 10 / 15.9 % 10 / 15.9 % 1 / 1.6 % 4 / 6.3 % 63 / 100.0 %

Da’a 26 / 47.3 % 9 / 16.4 % 14 / 25.5 % 0 / 0.0 % 6 / 10.9 % 55 / 100.1 %

Moronene (*) 24 / 64.9 % 4 / 10.8 % 4 / 10.8 % 0 / 0.0 % 5 / 13.5 % 37 / 100.0 %

Muna 47 / 75.8 % 3 / 4.8 % 6 / 9.7 % 1 / 1.6 % 5 / 8.1 % 62 / 100.0 %

Uma 24 / 41.4 % 12 / 20.7 % 17 / 29.3 % 1 / 1.7 % 4 / 6.9 % 58 / 100.0 %

Dobel (*) - - 3 / 75.0 % 1 / 25.0 % - 4 / 100.0 %

Galela 29 / 45.3 % 15 / 23.4 % 14 / 21.9 % 0 / 0.0 % 6 / 9.4 % 64 / 100.0 %

Luang 25 / 34.2 % 24 / 32.9 % 17 / 23.3 % 1 / 1.4 % 6 / 8.2 % 73 / 100.0 %

Abun 16 / 31.4 % 17 / 33.3 % 10 / 19.6 % 0 / 0.0 % 8 / 15.7 % 51 / 100.0 %

Bauzi (*) 9 / 28.1 % 12 / 37.5 % 7 / 21.9 % 1 / 3.1 % 3 / 9.4 % 32 / 100.0 %

Berik 29 / 43.9 % 17 / 25.8 % 14 / 21.2 % 2 / 3.0 % 4 / 6.1 % 66 / 100.0 %

Mairasi 39 / 63.9 % 8 / 13.1 % 7 / 11.5 % 2 / 3.3 % 5 / 8.2 % 61 / 100.0 %

Meyah 23 / 35.4 % 22 / 33.8 % 14 / 21.5 % 1 / 1.5 % 5 / 7.7 % 65 / 99.9 %

Anonym-1 27 / 40.9 % 22 / 33.3 % 11 / 16.7 % 1 / 1.5 % 5 / 7.6 % 66 / 100.0 %

Anonym-2 28 / 42.4 % 20 / 30.3 % 13 / 19.7 % 1 / 1.5 % 4 / 6.0 % 66 / 99.9 %

TOTAL 384 195 161 13 70 823

Percentage 46.7 % 23.7% 19.6 % 1.6 % 8.5 % 100.1 %

Ranking 1 2 3 5 4

545

15.6. Conclusions

In section 15.2.1. a number of research questions were formulated that have guided our

description of fifteen vernacular translations in eastern Indonesia. In this concluding

section, the answers to these research questions will be summarized.

1. How have metaphors been translated into Papuan and Austronesian languages?

a. the metaphor has been kept in the translation without any explication b. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile without explication

c. the metaphor has been rendered as a simile with additional explication

d. the metaphor of the source text has been replaced by a vernacular metaphor of

the target language

e. the metaphor has been replaced by a literal rendering in the target language

f. the metaphor has been rendered in a different way

Our research of selected passages from Genesis and the Gospels in these fifteen

vernacular translations showed that each of the above mentioned translation strategies

was actually employed. Sometimes the metaphor was kept without any explication; at

other times it was rendered as a simile without explication or as a simile with additional

explication. Sometimes the metaphor was rendered as a literal expression, and sometimes

the metaphor of the source text metaphor had been substituted by a vernacular metaphor.

In addition, a more specific metaphor in the source text was sometimes rendered as a

more generic metaphor in the vernacular translation. Also, when translators used a

vernacular metaphor, they sometimes combined this with an additional explication.

The use of paratextual means (section headings and footnotes) to explicate topic and

ground(s) of metaphors outside the text and the use of metalinguistic signalling of

figurative speech were two interesting features of metaphor translation.

2. Which ones of the above mentioned translation strategies occur most frequently? Which

ones occur less frequently?

Generally speaking, metaphor-to-metaphor renderings occurred more frequently than

metaphor-to-simile renderings; metaphor-to-simile renderings occurred more frequently

than metaphor-to-literal renderings; and metaphor-to-literal renderings occurred more

frequently than source-metaphor-to-vernacular-metaphor substitutions.

MetaphorMetaphor > MetaphorSimile > MetaphorLiteral > MetaphorVernacular Metaphor1131

Metaphors with topic and/or ground(s) explication occurred much less frequently than

metaphors without such a translational explication. Translational explication occurred

much more frequently with metaphor-to-simile renderings. In the Genesis data, the

number of explicated similes was even higher than the number of non-explicated similes.

1131 It is interesting to note that in the opinion of the translators (see section on survey above) gave a

different order: Metaphor Simile with explication > Metaphor Simile without explication > Metaphor

Vernacular Metaphor > Metaphor Literal rendering > Metaphor Metaphor (no explication).

546

In the Gospel data, however, the number of explicated similes was about one third of the

total number of researched similes.

Non-explicated Metaphor/Simile > Explicated Metaphor/Simile

In a number of translations (from Papua) the translators occasionally explicated multiple

grounds (two or three) of one and the same metaphor.

3. How much diversity is there in terms of translation strategies followed in the vernacular

translations? Are some translations more explicative than others? And if so, is there a

correlation between the degree of explication and geographical location?

Generally speaking, translations in Sulawesi tended to be more literal than translations in

Papua, while translations in Maluku (and some from Sulawesi) take a middle position.

Translations from Papua-Interior tended to be more explicative than translations from

Papua-Coastal. Mairasi (Papua-Coastal) was an exception in that it was far less

explicative than any of the other Papuan translations, and that it resembled the more

literal translations from Sulawesi.

4. How do the vernacular translations compare to translations in languages of wider

communication (English and Indonesian) with regard to the way they translate

metaphors?

The more literal vernacular translations from eastern Indonesia pretty much resembled

common language versions like TEV and BIS in the way they translated metaphors

(metaphor-to-metaphor renderings, metaphor-to-literal renderings, occasional metaphor-

to-simile renderings, minimal explication of topic and ground(s) of the metaphor). The

more explicative translations (especially those in Papua-Interior) showed a higher degree

of metaphor-to-simile renderings and a higher degree of explication.

5. What kinds of metaphors are usually explicated in the translation? Under what

conditions are metaphors usually explicated? (The meaning of the metaphor is not clear

to the audience, cultural interference, other?).

With regard to the higher degree of explication, it is important to note that this only

occurred in certain contexts where the meaning supposedly would otherwise not have

been clear to the vernacular audience. Explicatory expansions did not occur in passages

where the linguistic context provided enough clues to figure out the intended meaning.

Explication was used in situations where non-explication would probably have resulted in

non-communication or in severe misunderstandings (cultural interference).

6. What are some important conditions under which the explication of metaphor is usually

avoided? (Constraints of genre, context, theological sensitivity, perceived authenticity,

metaphor is peripheral to the theme of the section, other?).

547

This question is difficult to answer without doing a more in-depth survey among

translators. Context, genre, theological sensitivity, thematicity, and perceived authenticity

are important factors that play a role in translating metaphorical expressions. This study

has shown that translators are sensitive to context, genre and thematicity when they

translate metaphors. Translators have also indicated that they are sensitive to issues

related to perceived authenticity. But, more detailed research (related to the translation

process and not just the translation product) would be needed in order to further

determine the role of these factors in the translation process.

7. Do the topic-term, the image-term, and the ground(s)-term usually occur in the same

clause or sentence, or can they also be spread out over more than one clause or sentence?

Topics, images and ground(s) often occurred in the same clause or sentence, but

sometimes they were also spread out over more than one sentence.

8. If the ground (point of comparison) of the metaphor has been made explicit in the

translation, does it usually follow the clause/sentence with the topic-term and the image-

term, or can it also precede this clause/sentence?

Explication of ground(s) occurred both before the topic and the image were introduced,

and after these were introduced. In some cases where multiple grounds were made

explicit in the translation, some of the grounds preceded the topic and the image, while

others followed.

9. To what degree do translations show sensitivity to the fact that a metaphor may have

more than one (more or less related) point of similarity simultaneously?

The survey among translators indicated that the majority of translators are very much

aware of the fact that in a metaphor multiple meanings may be active simultaneously.

But, not every vernacular translation covered in this study explicated these multiple

meanings in the translation. Some translations kept the indeterminacy of the metaphor in

the translation. Other translations, however, explicated multiple meanings of metaphors

in the translation, presumably because during the testing process it had become evident

that the audience was not able to infer the intended meanings of the metaphor.

Multiple meanings of metaphors were explicated in a number of vernacular translations

from Papua-Interior (Bauzi and Anonymous-1 in particular).1132

1132

This predilection for giving analytical renderings of metaphors seems to be consistent with a general

tendency that Papuan translations are more analytical than Austronesian translations. Papuan translations often need to use descriptive phrases to refer to certain concepts, since their lexicon is usually rather limited

(5,000 – 6,000 words). Translators who translate from Greek, English or Indonesian into Papuan languages,

often have to unpack the original term into various, more specific, components. Papuan renderings of

Biblical key terms are often more analytical than Austronesian renderings of the same key terms. This

analytical approach seems to have extended to the translation of metaphors as well.

548

10. If a metaphor of the source text is not kept in the translation but rendered as a literal

expression, has there been any attempt to compensate for this loss of metaphoricity in the

immediate context?

So far, I have not been able to discover any clear evidence that translators compensated

for the loss of metaphor. I have not seen any evidence for either metaphorical

compensation1133

or pragmatic compensation.

11. To what degree is the translation of metaphor focused on:

a. communicating the (informative) meaning of the metaphor

b. communicating the expressive and pragmatic aspects of metaphor

c. preserving the potential indeterminacy of meaning of the metaphor

d. a combination of these factors

This is another question that cannot be adequately answered without doing some more in-

depth research. Generally speaking, it can be said that – in cases where the meaning of

the metaphor presumably was not clear to the audience – the more explicative

translations were primarily focused on the communication of the (informative) meaning

of the metaphor. But, so far, no clear evidence has been found that the explication of

metaphor at the content (informative) level interferes with the communication of these

metaphors at the expressive and pragmatic levels, nor that less explicative translations

necessarily communicate better at the expressive and pragmatic levels than explicative

translations do.

Less explicative translations did, of course, a better job in preserving the potential

indeterminacies of the metaphors.

12. To what degree is there a correlation between the way metaphors have been translated

(particularly the absence or presence of explication) and the education level of the

audience? And to what degree is there a correlation with the translation strategy that has

been followed?

There seems to be a clear correlation with the translation strategy on the one hand and the

educational level of the audience on the other. But linguistic and cultural factors also play

a major role. The wider the linguistic, cultural and educational gap is, the more

explicative the translation seems to be. Translators’ preferences for a certain translation

style may play a certain role too, but the bottom line is that unconditioned native speakers

will have a good understanding of the translated text. The underlying goal of both the

more explicative and less explicative vernacular translation is that the translated

1133

The concept of “compensation” is, in fact, questionable, if it means that the loss of a metaphor in a

certain context needs to be compensated by rendering a literal expression, occurring in the same context, as a metaphor or idiomatic expression. If metaphors are indeed a form or marked speech (prominence), then

the above interpretation of the concept of “compensation” could seriously skew the focus of a passage,

since it would not only remove prominence from a discourse unit that should be in focus, but it would also

add prominence to a discourse unit that is possibly not at all in focus.

549

Scriptures communicate the intended meanings to the intended audience in a way that is

accurate, clear and natural.

15.7. Questions for further research and reflection

Our data have shown that the vernacular translations represent a wide variety of

translation results. They range from more literal translations in Sulawesi to more

explicative translations in Maluku and Papua. Despite these differences in form, the

underlying approach in most of these translations is very similar: The translated

Scriptures need to communicate the intended meanings in a way that is accurate, clear

and natural.

Generally speaking, it can be said that all these vernacular translations have been

produced based on the two following maxims: 1. Translate as literally as you can;

and 2. Translate as freely as you need to be. Translators usually start with a more literal

rendering of a text, but, when it becomes evident during the testing phase of the

translation that the more literal rendering does not communicate the intended meaning,

they will look for a less form-bound and more meaning-based rendering.

Differences between the researched translations have a lot to do with differences in the

cultural and institutional contexts in which these translations have been produced.

Differences in translation style (explication) primarily reflect differences in background

and understanding of the intended audiences. They do not reflect a difference in

translation principles followed by the translators, even though it is true that different

translators may differ in the way they apply these translation principles.

This study has answered some questions related to the translation of metaphor in a

number of vernacular translations from eastern Indonesia. But, there are still many

questions that have not been answered.

One set of the questions that have not been answered – at least not from a language-

specific perspective – are the following questions of how metaphors relate to similes.

1. Can metaphors be simply substituted by similes without any loss of meaning1134

,

intensity and/or pragmatic-rhetorical force, or do they always involve some kind

loss in one of these areas?

2. If a metaphor-to-simile conversion involves some kind of loss, how can this loss be

compensated for in the translation?

3. To what degree does a metaphor-to-simile conversion mark a subtle change in

genre (from expressive to explicative)?

1134 Note, for example, the difference between “I [Jesus] am the good shepherd” and “I am like a good

shepherd”. In the first example (metaphor), Jesus is portrayed as the unique prototype of a very special

caring and protective relationship. In the second example (simile), however, this prototypical aspect is

completely lost, as Jesus is now compared to a generalized prototype of good shepherding. He is no longer

portrayed as a unique prototype himself.

550

4. To what degree are similes used to signal the presence of figurative speech in

contexts where this may not be self-evident?

5. Are there any particular constraints or preferences related to the expression of

foreign imagery? Would it, for example, be more appropriate to express foreign

imagery by using a simile than a metaphor?

6. Are there any particular constraints or preferences related to the expression of a

particular kind of imagery in relation to a particular kind of topics? Would it, for

example, be more appropriate to use a simile instead of a metaphor for imagery

that portrays people as objects or as animals (to avoid negative connotations)?

Questions like these may help to more specifically describe certain linguistic-pragmatic

and translational patterns in the vernacular languages.

Another set of questions is related to the explication of grounds and topic of a metaphor.

The answers to these questions are no doubt determined by the underlying assumptions of

translators, commissioning agencies and audiences, and by the intended function (skopos)

of the translation.

1. To what degree does the understanding of unconditioned native speakers play a

major role in deciding what level of explication is needed in the translation?

2. To what degree do oral translation practices commonly followed by native

speakers play a role in deciding what level of explication needs to be adopted?

3. To what degree do the vernacular audience’s conceptions of historical fidelity and

communicative fidelity play a role in the decision-making process?

4. Under what circumstances (and to what degree) does the explication of grounds

and topics violate the principle of historical fidelity?

5. Under what circumstances (and to what degree) does the non-explication of

grounds and topics violate the principle of communicative fidelity?

A third set of questions for further research and reflection are a number of questions

related to the substitution of metaphors by literal expressions.

1. To what degree is substitution of metaphors by literal expressions limited to the

rendering of so-called “dead” metaphors in the source text?

2. To what degree is substitution of metaphors by literal expressions used for

rendering “live” metaphors?

3. To what degree does the substitution of metaphors by literal expressions destroy or

weaken intra-textual and intertextual coherence?

4. To what degree is the substitution of metaphors by literal expressions compensated

for by metaphorical compensation or pragmatic compensation (same degree of

prominence and intensity)?

5. To what degree do translators use footnotes to mark the substitution of metaphors

by literal expressions and to give the original metaphor of the source text?

A fourth set of questions is related to the substitution of original metaphors by vernacular

metaphors of the target language.

551

1. To what degree does the substitution of a source text metaphor by a vernacular

metaphor of the target language violate the culture-historical fidelity of the

translation?

2. To what degree does the non-substitution of a source text metaphor by a vernacular

metaphor of the target language violate the communicative fidelity of the

translation?

3. To what degree do translators use footnotes in order to mark the substitution of

source text metaphors by vernacular metaphors and to give the original metaphor

of the source text?

A fifth set of questions is related to the correlation between different types of Bible

translations and between the way metaphors have been translated.

1. What are the differences between metaphor translation in the translations

researched in this chapter and between translations produced by pioneering

missionaries and their translation teams and, more recently, by mother tongue

translators?

2. What kind of changes are being made in revisions of the New Testament that

sometimes take place twenty or more years after the initial publication of the New

Testament? Is there a tendency to reduce explication, metaphor-to-simile

renderings, metaphor-to-literal renderings and source language metaphor to

vernacular renderings, and to stick closer to the forms of the source text and/or the

forms of the predominant Bible translation in Indonesian (Terjemahan Baru)? If

this is the case, are these revisions primarily based on extensive comprehension

testing of representative audiences or are they rather based on expectations of the

church leadership that vernacular translations should be more in line with the

formal structures of the Terjemahan Baru?

The above questions show that a lot of work still remains to be done – both at the level of

descriptive language analysis and at the level of descriptive translation analysis. But,

hopefully the present chapter has shed some initial light on the way metaphors have been

translated in a significant segment of vernacular translations in eastern Indonesia.

552

16. Conclusions

In this final chapter the most important conclusions of the interdisciplinary research

presented in this dissertation will be summarized. In this research the exposition,

translation and comprehension checking of biblical imagery – the imagery of shepherd

and sheep in particular – played an important role. In addition to the descriptive sections

of this dissertation due attention was also paid to theoretical and methodological issues

related to the translation of metaphor.

The exegesis of the imagery of shepherd and sheep – as it is found in the ancient Near

East, the Old Testament and the New Testament – plays an important role in this

dissertation. The interpretation of shepherd imagery and other imagery in Psalm 23

formed the focal part of the exegetical exposition. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of

this study and its focus on translation, a full-blown exegetical approach fell outside the

parameters of this study. Instead, exegetical aspects that seemed to be most relevant to

translation were focused upon.

In terms of descriptive research this study has contributed by providing a description of

vernacular imagery in the Una language (chapter 10), a description of the Una translation

project in the context of a frames of reference approach (including skopos theory)

(chapter 11), and a description of native speaker comprehension of Una vernacular

translation (chapters 13-14) and in Bible translations from eastern Indonesia (chapter

15).

From a theoretical and methodological perspective, this study contained overviews of

metaphor theory (chapter 2) and translation theory (chapters 8 and 9). It also contributed

a number of suggestions to further theoretical and methodological reflection related to

metaphors and translation. In terms of the skopos theory of translation I proposed to

refine the concept of “translation with a missionary skopos” (L.J. de Vries). I distinguish

between the following three sub-types: missionary-contextualizing, missionary-

explicative and missionary-persuasive. In missionary-contextualizing translations there is

a tendency to “domesticate” (adapt) the content of the source text to what the readers and

hearers of the target culture know. In missionary-explicating translations, however, there

is a tendency to explicate implied meanings of the source text into the translation. In

missionary-persuasive translations – which were not attested in the translations that were

studied in this dissertation – the translation contains an appeal on the reader or hearer

which is not expressed explicitly in the source text. The function of these proposed

concepts is still heuristic to a large degree. More descriptive research would be needed to

further validate the use and value of these concepts.

Another methodological contribution of this study is the application of the concept of

frame within the field of Bible Translation studies to text and metaphor comprehension

by native speakers. The concept of frame helps to explain that misunderstandings of

native speakers are usually not anomalies, but that they are rather structural problems

caused by cultural interference between the frames of the biblical authors and the frames

of native readers of translated texts. Text-cognitive frames were presented as nested,

553

interlocking systems which are highly culture-dependent. Misunderstandings often occur

when these frames – which are often obvious to those who are governed by them – are

not clearly articulated in translated texts. Frame articulation helps to avoid or at least

diminish problems of understanding in situations of cross-cultural communication (Bible

translation). Frame articulation can be expressed at various levels of the scale of

explication presented in this study: It can be done in a very subtle way with minimal

explication of implied information. It can also be done in a more rigorous way by

explicating a significant amount of implied information. Ideally, a translator should try to

keep the amount of explicated information as low as possible.

Now that I have given an overview of the most salient results of this study, I will give a

summary of the various chapters of this dissertation.

Chapter 1 gave a general introduction to the topic of this dissertation. In this chapter I

observed that metaphor research is presently popular in a wide circle of academic

disciplines, but that metaphor (as a translation problem) has received relatively little

attention in translation studies. In the context of Bible translation studies the analysis and

translation of metaphor has received a relatively high degree of attention, but most of this

research dates back to the time before the heydays of metaphor (since the eighties of the

twentieth century), or does not pay a lot of attention to newer insights in metaphor theory.

This chapter also showed that the translation of metaphor poses a challenge to translators

who work in a missionary context. Translated metaphors often evoke misunderstandings

among speakers of the target language. This introductory chapter also gave an overview

of the problem, methods, relevance and content of this dissertation. Key concepts used in

this book were briefly explained.

The chapters 2 and 3 discussed the theoretical aspects of metaphor and other – more or

less – related forms of figurative language. In chapter 2 various views of metaphor were

presented (comparison view, substitution view, interaction view, conceptual view,

pragmatic view, functional view, classification view), and the most salient strong and

weak points of these theories were summarized. Most theories contain some aspect of

truth. Goatly’s typology of linguistic, ideological (cognitive), pragmatic and textual

functions of metaphor was briefly sketched. Since his approach was identified as being

particularly helpful to metaphor analysis in the context of translation work, a more

detailed overview of it was given in chapter 3 (section 3.7. “Pragmatic functions of

metaphor.”)

In chapter 3 an attempt was made to present a more or less integrated description of

those elements of metaphor that seem to be most relevant for translators. In addition to

metaphor, the following figurative forms of language were discussed: similes (figurative

comparisons), metonymies, parables, similitudes, symbolic language, poetic-mythical

language, anthropomorphic language in general. With regard to metaphors and similes a

distinction was made based upon the relationship between the image and the topic. This

relationship can be described in terms of physical correspondence, functional

correspondence, and arbitrary association. Many metaphors are culture-determined, but

554

this is especially the case with metaphors and similes that are based on arbitrary

association.

With regard to the relationship between a metaphor and its corresponding simile it was

observed that metaphors are often a stronger form of expression than their corresponding

similes. Similes are viewed as downtoned (hedged) metaphors in which the pragmatic-

rhetorical diction (force) has been weakened. In addition, metaphors often suggest a more

total and radical form of similarity between the image and the topic than is usually the

case with similes. In contrast with similes, metaphors are not marked (as figurative

language) at a segmental (linguistic) level. As a result, metaphors are usually more

readily misunderstood (in a literal sense) than similes are. Both metaphors and similes as

well as other forms of figurative language are marked forms of language which are more

prominent than forms of literal language.

The chapters 4-7 gave an overview of pastoral imagery as it occurs in the ancient Near

East (4), the Old Testament (5), Psalm 23 (6) and the New Testament (7). Chapter 4

dealt with the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the ancient Near East. This chapter

showed how pastoral imagery was already in use among the ancient people of Sumer,

Ashur, Babel, Egypt and the Western Semitic world. The imagery was usually applied to

the relation between the king and his people, and between a god and the people who

worshiped him. The imagery was used in a positive sense as the care and protection that a

king and/or god provided for his people. At the end of the chapter some differences – as

observed by other researchers – are mentioned between pastoral imagery as it occurred in

Mesopotamia and in ancient Egypt.

Chapter 5 gave an overview of the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the Old Testament.

Here, the imagery of the shepherd is primarily applied is primarily applied to YHWH, the

God of Israel, who takes care of his people (both collectively and as individuals). The

imagery of shepherd and sheep occurs two times in the stories of the patriarchs,

especially those that are related to Jacob/Israel (Genesis 48 and 49). The imagery also

occurs in the writings of the prophets (Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 34) and in the Psalms (23,

80, 95, 100, 110, etc.). It is remarkable that pastoral imagery occurs most frequently in

texts that are related to the restoration of the people of Israel and the return from the

Exile. The imagery does not occur – at least not explicitly – in historical texts which

describe the exodus out of Egypt and Israel’s subsequent journey through the wilderness.

Instead, guidance imagery occurs in these texts. In later Psalms , however, the exodus

and the subsequent journey through the wilderness are described in terms of pastoral

imagery.

Chapter 6 contained a number of aspects that are most relevant for the explanation of

Psalm 23. Various interpretations were discussed. Some of these are harmonizing, in the

sense that the whole Psalm is explained in terms of shepherd and sheep imagery. Other

interpretations are differentiating, in the sense that they view the Psalm as a combination

of two (shepherd, host) or three (shepherd, guide, host) images that have been woven

together by the author of the Psalm. In my own analysis, I chose for a differentiating

view, according to which the Psalm is seen as a combination of three different images

555

(shepherd, host, house of the LORD), which overlap in terms of the meanings they imply.

The image of the shepherd has the broadest application and expresses the notions of

abundant care, guidance and protective presence of YHWH. The image of host overlaps

with the image of shepherd with regard to the notion of abundant care. It also expresses

hospitality and friendship. The third major image, the image of the house of the LORD,

expresses the notion of continuing house fellowship between the believer and the LORD.

The imagery used in this Psalm contains a certain intensification of thoughts: The relation

between the poet and his God ascends from the human-animal relationship of shepherd

and sheep via the temporary relation between a host and his guest to a continuing relation

between people who live in the same house. The threat of deadly danger and the threat of

enemies recurs gradually into the background, and has vanished completely at the end of

the psalm. The polarity of rest and motion, which plays an important part in this Psalm

(Tromp), has a chiastic structure: the motion is embedded into the rest, which is

expressed at the beginning, the middle and the end of the Psalm.

Despite the fact that the imagery and its meaning is more or less clear in general terms,

the exact reference (and the specific historical context in which this Psalm originated) is

far from clear. This relative indeterminacy of the Psalm makes it fitting for a broad scale

of application (Schuman). This chapter also contained a verse-by-verse exegesis of Psalm

23, a formal analysis of the various parts of the imagery, and a frame analysis which

points out some structural correspondences between the shepherd frame, the host frame,

and the frame of the exodus and its subsequent journey through the wilderness.

Chapter 7 gave an overview of the imagery of shepherd and sheep in the New

Testament. In the New Testament the imagery of shepherd and sheep was primarily

applied to Jesus the Messiah, and in the second place to apostles and elders. Pastoral

imagery occurs predominantly in Matthew, John, 1 Peter and Revelation. Old Testament

texts that play an important role are Ezekiel 34, Zechariah 13 and Psalm 2. It is

remarkable that pastoral imagery hardly occurs in the Corpus Paulinum. In the Gospel of

John the shepherd metaphor occurs in a self-revelation word of Jesus (in an “I am …”

expression). In the Synoptic Gospels the fact that Jesus is a shepherd remains much more

implicit. Other differences between John and the other Gospels are related to his

universal role as a shepherd (as opposed to the concentration on the lost sheep of the

house of Israel in the Synoptic Gospels) and the fact that the death of the shepherd is

described as being voluntary and as something that unites the flock from Israel and the

flock from the nations (as opposed to the scattering of the flock of disciples as a result of

the slaying of their shepherd). In Revelation the Son of Man is pictured as a shepherd

who rules with an iron fist over the nations (as a sign of his victory). However, he is also

pictured as the benefactive shepherd who leads his followers and takes care them. The

lamb is portrayed as the lion from the tribe of Judah and as the shepherd of his followers.

The chapters 8 and 9 contained an overview of theoretical and methodological

contributions to translation in general (8) and to the translation of metaphors in particular.

In chapter 8 various theories of translation were discussed (dynamic equivalence,

functional equivalence, relevance theory, skopos theory, frames of reference approach).

Translation theory in general was discussed first (Holmes, before Holmes, after Holmes),

556

and then theoretical and methodological contributions from the field of Bible translation

were discussed (Nida, after Nida). In addition, attention was paid to some relevant

insights from the disciplines of cognitive psychology and (intercultural) communication.

Chapter 9 gave an overview of theoretical and methodological contributions to the

translation of metaphor. The chapter opened with a discussion of the problem of

translatability in general. Then the perspectives of various researchers were presented in

details. The contributions of Nida & Taber, Loewen and Wendland to the analysis and

translation of figurative language in general (including metaphors) were discussed. And

the contributions of De Waard, Beekman & Callow, Crofts, Stienstra and Hermanson to

the translation of metaphor were described. Attention was also paid to the insights of

Newmark and Baker – who wrote in the context of translation in general. This chapter

concluded with a discussion of the insights of relevance theory with respect to the

translation of metaphor.

Chapter 10 formed the transition to the description of metaphors and the translation of

metaphors in the Una language. This chapter gave a short summary of the Una culture,

language and language use, which form the context of the Una imagery that was

described in the next chapter.

In chapter 11 a systematic overview was given of Una imagery, as it is used among

speakers of the Central Dialect (Eiduman) in the village of Langda. Various forms of

figurative language were discussed. In addition an overview was given of lexicalized

(including partonymic) metaphors and conventional metaphors. We found that

partonymic metaphors are based on the underlying metaphors of “Objects are People

(with Body Parts)” and “Objects are Trees/Plants”. With regard to the conventional

metaphors, the following types of metaphors were discussed: “Humans are Animals,”

“Humans are Natural Objects,” and “Humans are Cultural Objects”. This chapter

concluded with a short overview of introduced metaphors and a brief comparison

between Una metaphors and English metaphors.

Chapter 12 contained an overview of the history of the Bible translation project in the

Una language. It also contained a discussion of the translation strategy that was followed,

the intended function (skopos) of the translation, issues related to quality control (the

method of checking the translation), and a method of describing translations. The frames

of reference approach of Wilt and others was used to describe the institutional,

sociocultural and textual aspects of translation in a systematic way. A short overview was

given of the salient differences between the pioneering translation of part of the New

Testament (which was produced between 1975 and 1983) and between the newer Una

translation, which has been worked on since 1989. In the light of the sociolinguistic

profile of the Una people (oral culture, 75 % illiterate, 85 % monolingual), their Bible

use, their relatively poor knowledge of the Bible, and the misunderstandings that non-

explicative translations systematically evoke by Una readers (hearers), the choice for a

translation with a missionary-explicative skopos was defended. However, I also argued

that the explication of implicit information should be limited as much as possible. During

future revisions the translators should consider how much explicated information can be

557

removed from the translation. I argued that a rather literal translation with explanatory

footnotes is not a good option for the Una people at this stage, since this lies outside the

scope of what the vast majority of the Una population is able to do. The more developed

Una people will have permanent access to the Terjemahan Baru – the more or less

official church Bible. This translation keeps rather close to the forms of the source text,

but due to its rather high language register, it is not always understood by native speakers

of Una.

With regard to the Una Bible translation project it was also made clear that this project is

embedded in an educational process of intensive literacy work (including fluent reading

with understanding). Over 900 people (adults, youth, children) out of a total of 5000

Una’s are involved in this program. Training in critical thinking, Bible use, and Bible

knowledge is also included in this program. In this way the Bible is not only brought

towards the Una people by means of a missionary-explicative translation; but the Una

people are also brought towards the Bible by means of literacy work, training in critical

thinking and reading skills.

In chapter 13 four different versions of Psalm 23 in Una were discussed: a pioneering

translation, a translation produced by a mother tongue translator, a relatively non-

explicative translation, and a relatively explicative translation. The intended functions

(skopos) of these translations were different: the pioneering translation, for example, is a

rather literal translation, but has also a missionary-contextualizing tendency. The

translation produced by a mother tongue translator and the relatively non-explicative

translation are examples of translations with a liturgical function. The relatively

explicative translation had a missionary-explicative character. These four versions were

analyzed and compared. In addition, comprehension checking was done with native

speakers of Una to check their understanding of the various versions. Based on analysis

of the translation and on this comprehension checking suggestions were made for

improving the translation. Frame analysis was applied in order to analyze and explain

misunderstandings related to the imagery in Psalm 23. I found that misunderstandings

could be avoided or diminished by frame articulation. The four versions were evaluated

based on the following more or less external criteria: succinctness, precision, coherence,

natural language use (idiomatic language), the preservation of indeterminacy,

comprehension of native speakers, explication, contextualizing, translation errors,

interpretative character of translation, translation of imagery, poetic rendering. At the end

of the chapter a poetic version of Psalm 23 (Una) was presented.

In chapter 14 the results of further comprehension testing with native speakers of Una

were reported. A wide range of translated biblical metaphors (both in isolation and in

context) were presented to the native speakers. In the first part of the chapter several

Bible texts with imagery related to shepherd and sheep were presented. In the second part

of the chapter imagery taken from the book of Psalms were discussed (including “God is

a sun and shield” and “God is a (my) rock”). In the third part of the chapter the imagery

in the story of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28) was discussed. The imagery

contained in this story not only contains the imagery of shepherd and sheep (“I have only

been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”), but also the imagery of dogs (= non-

558

Jews), children (= Jews), and the eating of the bread of the children (= partaking in the

blessings of the Kingdom of God). During the comprehension checks with native

speakers of Una it turned out that a literal translation of the imagery regularly caused

misunderstandings. These misunderstandings were often caused by the fact that the Una

people understood the imagery from a frame that was different from the one that was

originally intended. However, here again frame articulation proved to be helpful in terms

of preventing or diminishing this kind of misunderstandings. It turned out that

information that was explicitly given in the translation was not necessarily used to

interpret the text (imagery), unless frame articulation helped to put this information into a

meaningful context. On the other hand, information that was not expressed explicitly in

the translated text, but which apparently formed part of the frame of reference with which

the Una readers approached the translated text, did play a role in the interpretation of the

text. Based on this phenomenon – which is probably characteristic of hermeneutic

processes in general, but which seems to stand out in intercultural communication – I

made a distinction between “strong” context (internal, cognitive, culture-determined) and

“weak” context (external, textual).

In chapter 15 I extended the scope of my research beyond the translation of metaphor

into the Una language. Based on more or less literal back translations into English or

Indonesian I compared the translation of imagery in fifteen different languages of eastern

Indonesia (Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua) in twenty texts from the Old Testament and forty-

six texts from the New Testament. This chapter also contained a section in which the

results of a survey among Bible translators is reported. At the end of the chapter the

fifteen vernacular translations from eastern Indonesia are compared with a number of

Bible translations in English and Indonesian. Based on this research, it was concluded

that the vernacular translations from eastern Indonesia were relatively more explicative

than even the common language versions, like the Good News Bible and the Kabar Baik.

Generally speaking, the vernacular translations produced in Sulawesi were less

explicative than the vernacular translations that were produced in Maluku and Papua.

Vernacular translations that were produced in the interior of Papua were generally

speaking the most explicative ones. This is no doubt related to the missionary skopos of

many of these translations, with their relatively short tradition of Christianity, and with

their relatively low level of education. Explications are usually made when the topic and/

or the meaning of the imagery is not clear to the native speakers. However, even in the

most explicative translations, the topic and/or the grounds (meaning) of the imagery was

not always made explicit. This is a clear indication that explication was primarily done in

cases where it was necessary to avoid misunderstandings.

559

APPENDIX A: Pastoral Imagery in the Bible Summarized in

Figurative Statements

Note: The following figurative statements do not necessarily reflect the expressed

meanings of the biblical texts; they sometimes reflect assumptions and implicatures that

are not explicitly stated in the texts.

Old Testament:

1. GOD IS A SHEPHERD WHO HAS GUIDED AND PROTECTED JACOB/

ISRAEL (Genesis 48:15; 49:24)

2. YHWH’S PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST PEOPLE IS ANNOUNCED BY THE

ROARING OF THE LION (Amos 1:2)

3. YHWH’S PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST HIS PEOPLE IS LIKE A LION

TEARING AT A FLOCK ANIMAL AND DEVOURING IT (Hosea 5:14)

4. PUNISHED PEOPLE ARE PREY (Hosea 5:14)

5. YHWH IS A LION WHO DEVOURS THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (Hosea 5:14)

6. YHWH IS A LION WHO IS NOT FRIGHTENED BY SHEPHERDS WHO TRY

TO DEFEND THEIR FLOCK (Isaiah 31:4)

7. YHWH IS A PREDATOR WHO SCATTERS THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL

(Jeremiah 31:10)

8. YHWH IS A LION WHO CHASES EDOM AND BABEL AS HIS PREY

(Jeremiah 49:19-20; 50:44-45)

9. YHWH’S SALVIFIC ACTION IS ANNOUNCED BY HIS ROARING LIKE A

LION TO GATHER HIS WHELPS (Hosea 11:9-11)

10. THE KINGS OF ASSYRIA AND BABEL ARE LIONS WHO HAVE

DEVOURED AND CRUSHED THE BONES OF THE FLOCK OF ISRAEL

(Jeremiah 50:17-19)

11. YHWH’S PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST PEOPLE IS LIKE THE

SLAUGHTERING OF LAMBS (Jeremiah 51:40)

12. YHWH’S PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST THE SHEPHERDS OF ISRAEL IS

SLAUGHTERING OF FLOCK ANIMALS (Jeremiah 25:34)

13. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL ARE GOD’S SHEEP (Psalm 100:3; 95:7; 79:13;

74:1) / YHWH’S FLOCK (Jeremiah 13:17; 20)

14. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL ARE LOST SHEEP (Jeremiah 50:6-8)

15. DISOBEYING YHWH IS STRAYING LIKE A SHEEP (Isaiah 53:6-7; Psalm

119:176)

16. PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW IDOLS ARE WANDERING SHEEP (Zechariah 10:2-

3)

17. BEING STUBBORNLY DISOBEDIENT TO YHWH IS BEING A HEIFER

(Hosea 4:16)

18. BEING DOCILE IS BEING A LAMB (Hosea 4:16)

560

19. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO RESCUES PART OF HIS PEOPLE FROM

THE LION’S MOUTH (Amos 3:12)

20. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO SAVES HIS FLOCK (Zechariah 9:16) AND

RESCUES THE LAME (Zephaniah 3:19-20)

21. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO FEEDS HIS PEOPLE (Hosea 13:6; Psalm 23:2)

22. EXPERIENCING BLESSINGS IS FINDING PASTURE (Isaiah 49:9-10;

Zephaniah 2:6-7)

23. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO GUIDES AND PROTECTS HIS PEOPLE

(Psalm 23:3-4; 78:20 [21])

24. YHWH IS THE SHEPHERD WHO LED/LEADS HIS FLOCK TO THE LAND

OF CANAAN (Psalm 78:51-54; 80:1;)

25. THE LAND OF CANAAN IS THE RESTING PLACE OF THE FLOCK OF

ISRAEL (Jeremiah 50:6-8).

26. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO BRINGS ISRAEL BACK TO ITS OWN

PASTURE (Jeremiah 50:19; Ezekiel 34:13)

27. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO RULES OVER HIS PEOPLE (Micah 7:14)

28. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO WATCHES OVER HIS PEOPLE (Jeremiah

31:10)

29. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO GATHERS THE SCATTERED PEOPLE OF

ISRAEL (Micah 2:12; Ezekiel 34:13)

30. YHWH WILL SEARCH FOR HIS SCATTERED SHEEP AND TAKE CARE

OF THEM (Ezekiel 34:11-12)

31. YHWH IS A SHEPHERD WHO TENDERLY TAKES CARE OF SHEEP THAT

NEED SPECIAL CARE (Isaiah 40:11)

32. YHWH WILL BIND UP THE INJURED SHEEP OF HIS FLOCK (Ezekiel

34:16)

33. PASSING UNDER THE SHEPHERD’S ROD IS OBEYING YHWH’S RULING

(Ezekiel 20:36-38)

34. YHWH WILL REMOVE THE FALSE SHEPHERDS FROM TENDING THE

FLOCK (Ezekiel 34:10)

35. YHWH WILL DESTROY THE STRONG SHEEP OF THE FLOCK (Ezekiel

34:16)

36. YHWH WILL BE THE JUDGE BETWEEN FLOCK ANIMALS (Ezekiel 34:17)

37. YHWH WILL PLACE HIS SERVANT DAVID AS SHEPHERD OVER HIS

FLOCK (Ezekiel 34:23)

38. YHWH WILL STRIKE THE WORTHLESS SHEPHERD WHO DESERTS THE

FLOCK (Zechariah 11:17)

39. YHWH WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD WHO IS CLOSE TO HIM AND THE

FLOCK WILL BE SCATTERED (Zechariah 13:7)

40. YHWH WILL TURN HIS HAND AGAINST THE LITTLE ONES (Zechariah

13:7)

41. MOSES WAS A SHEPHERD WHO LED THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (Isaiah

63:11)

561

42. KING DAVID RULED AS A SHEPHERD OVER THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL

(Psalm 78:71-72)

43. A GREAT RULER FROM JUDAH WILL SHEPHERD THE PEOPLE OF

ISRAEL (Micah 5:2-5 [1-4])

44. THE SON OF YHWH IS A RULER WHO SHEPHERDS THE NATIONS

WITH AN IRON SCEPTER (Psalm 2:9)

45. THE LEADERS OF ISRAEL ARE SHEPHERDS WHO DESTROY AND

SCATTER THE FLOCK (Jeremiah 23:1-4)

46. THE LEADERS OF ISRAEL ARE SHEPHERDS WHO LEAD ASTRAY THE

FLOCK OF ISRAEL (50:6-8)

47. FALSE SHEPHERDS FEED THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE

FLOCK (Ezekiel 34:3)

New Testament:

1. JESUS IS THE PROMISED RULER-SHEPHERD (Matthew 2:6)

2. FALSE TEACHERS PRETEND THAT THEY ARE SHEEP, BUT THEY ARE

WOLVES WHO WANT TO DESTROY THE FLOCK (Matthew 7:15)

3. THE CROWDS ARE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD (Matthew 9:36; Mark

6:34)

4. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL ARE LOST SHEEP (Matthew 10:16)

5. THE APOSTLES ARE SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL (Matthew

10:6)

6. PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE THE GOSPEL ARE HOSTILE

WOLVES TOWARDS THE PEOPLE WHO BRING THE GOSPEL (Matthew

10:16)

7. THE APOSTLES ARE SENT ON A MISSION AS SHEEP (LAMBS) AMONG

THE WOLVES (Matthew 10:16; Luke 10:3)

8. JESUS HAS ONLY BEEN SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL

(Matthew 15:24)

9. LAPSED BELIEVERS ARE LOST SHEEP (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:1-7)

10. GOD (JESUS) SEEKS LOST SHEEP AND REJOICES OVER THEM WHEN

THEY ARE FOUND (Matthew 18:12-14)

11. THE SON OF MAN WILL SEPARATE THE RIGHTEOUS FROM THE

NON-RIGHTEOUS LIKE A SHEPHERD SEPARATES THE SHEEP FROM

THE GOATS (Matthew 25:32)

12. GOD WILL STRIKE JESUS THE SHEPHERD, AND THE FLOCK OF

DISCIPLES WILL BE SCATTERED (Matthew 26:31-32; Mark 14:27)

13. THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS ARE A LITTLE FLOCK, BUT THE FATHER

WILL GIVE HIS KINGDOM TO THEM (Luke 12:32)

14. JESUS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE

WORLD (John 1:29)

15. JESUS IS THE GATE OF THE SHEEP THROUGH WHOM THE SHEEP

ARE SAVED (John 10:7)

562

16. JESUS IS THE GOOD SHEPHERD WHO GIVES HIS LIFE FOR HIS SHEEP

(John 10:11)

17. JESUS IS THE SHEPHERD OF BELIEVERS FROM ISRAEL AND FROM

THE NATIONS (John 10:16)

18. JESUS IS THE SHEPHERD WHO WILL UNITE THE FLOCK OF

BELIEVERS FROM ISRAEL AND FROM THE NATIONS (John 10:16)

19. JESUS COMMISSIONED (REINSTATED) PETER TO TAKE CARE OF HIS

SHEEP (John 21:15-17)

20. JESUS IS THE LAMB WHO WAS LED TO SLAUGHTER (Acts 8:32-33)

21. ELDERS ARE SHEPHERDS WHO NEED TO GUARD THEMSELVES AND

THE BELIEVERS (Acts 20:28-29)

22. PERSECUTED BELIEVERS ARE SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED (Romans

8:36)

23. SHEPHERDS TAKE CARE OF THE SPIRITUAL NEEDS OF BELIEVERS

(Ephesians 4:11)

24. JESUS, THE GREAT SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP, WAS BROUGHT TO

LIFE AGAIN BY GOD THE FATHER (Hebrews 13:7)

25. THE BELIEVERS USED TO BE SHEEP THAT WERE GOING ASTRAY (1

Peter 2:25)

26. ELDERS ARE SHEPHERDS OF GOD’S FLOCK (1 Peter 5:2-4)

27. JESUS IS THE CHIEF SHEPHERD OF GOD’S FLOCK WHO WILL

REWARD THE UNDER-SHEPHERDS (1 Peter 5:2-4)

28. THE DEVIL IS A ROARING LION WHO WANTS TO ATTACK THE

BELIEVERS (1 Peter 5:8)

29. FALSE TEACHERS FEED THEMSELVES (Jude 1:12)

30. PERSISTING BELIEVERS WILL BE SHEPHERD-RULERS OVER THE

NATIONS (Revelation 2:27)

31. THE LAMB IS THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH (Revelation 5:5)

32. THE LAMB IS THE SHEPHERD OF HIS PEOPLE (Revelation 7:17)

33. THE SON WILL RULE-SHEPHERD THE NATIONS WITH AN IRON

SCEPTER (Revelation 12:5)

34. THE RIDER ON THE WHITE HORSE WILL RULE-SHEPHERD THE

NATIONS WITH AN IRON SCEPTER (Revelation 19:15)

563

APPENDIX B: Intertextuality of Figurative Shepherd and

Sheep Texts in the New Testament

The imagery of shepherd and sheep, as it is found in the New Testament, does not stand

on its own. It often occurs in the context of the pastoral imagery of the Old Testament.

Old Testament quotes and background texts1135

:

Micah 5:2 is quoted in Matthew 2:6, and is introduced by a quote formula in

Matthew 2:51136

)

Zechariah 13:7b is quoted in Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27. In both cases it is

introduced by a quote formula.

Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted in Acts 8:32 (where it is identified as a passage of

Scripture).

Psalm 44:22 is quoted in Romans 8:36. It is introduced by a quote formula.1137

Psalm 2:9 is quoted in Revelation 2:27. But no quote formula is used here.

Numbers 27:17 (cf. also 2 Chronicles 18:16;), is a close OT parallel (but no

verbatim agreement) of Matthew 9:36 and Mark 6:34. There is no quote formula

Jeremiah 50:6 and Ezekiel 34:11, 16 form the background of the expression “the

lost sheep of Israel” in Matthew 10:6 and 15:24

Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 23:1-4, Isaiah 53:6 and Psalm 119:176 form the

background of the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:12 and in Luke 15:1-7,

and of 1 Peter 2:25.

Zechariah 13:7c (“and I will turn my hand against the little ones”) could be the

background of Luke 12:32.1138

Isaiah 53:7, Jeremiah 11:9, and/or Genesis 22:8 could be the background of John

1:29, while Ezekiel 34:11-16 and Jeremiah 23:1-4 form the background of John

10:1-16.1139

Ezekiel 34:8 may form the background of Jude 1:12.

Isaiah 49:10 and perhaps Psalm 23 form the background of Revelation 7:17.

Psalm 2:9 forms the background of Revelation 19:15.

1135 The following is not an exhaustive account of all the OT texts – inasmuch as they exhibit shepherd and

sheep imagery – that may have formed the background of the New Testament passages related to shepherd

and sheep imagery. The term “quote” is used here in a loose sense that the general meaning of the OT text

and the NT are the same. It does not necessarily imply that there is verbatim agreement between the NT

text and the Vorlage text of the LXX (or of the Hebrew text) that was used. The terms “quote” and

“background text” are used here to indicate various degrees of similarity. 1136 1137 1138 Cf. Marshall (1978:530). 1139 Cf. Carson (1996:381): “It is hard to read these words [John 10:1-5] without thinking of several back-

grounds. By far the most important is Ezekiel 34.

564

APPENDIX C: Analysis of the Discourse Structure of Psalm 23

In terms of the discourse structure of Psalm 23 the following comments can be made:

The Psalm is structured by an alternation between the third person singular and the

second person singular in reference to YHWH. The use of the second person (the core of

the Psalm) is embedded in the use of the third person (the outer ring).

vs. 1-3: 3rd

person (YHWH; Verb prefix 3rd

person subject)

vs. 4-5: 2nd

person (you [YHWH])

vs. 6: 3rd

person (goodness and love; the house of YHWH)

The first person singular is used throughout the psalm as a self-reference to the

poet/singer. First person sg. suffixes occur very frequently in this short psalm: 13x.

vs. 1 possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘my shepherd’

vs. 2 object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘he makes me lie down’

object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘he leads me’

vs. 3 possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘my soul’

object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘he guides me’

vs. 4 object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘with me’

object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘they comfort me’

vs. 5 object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘before me’

possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘my enemies’

possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘my head’

possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘my cup’

vs. 6 object pronoun suffix 1 sg in: ‘they will follow me’

possessive suffix 1 sg in: ‘all the days of my life’

Most of the verbs have 3rd

person singular (or: plural) subject markers. There are only

three verbs with a 1st person sg subject marker. These occur at the beginning and in the

middle of the psalm.1140

vs. 1: ‘I shall lack nothing’ (+ negation)

vs. 4: ‘even if I walk”

‘I will not fear evil’ (+ negation)

1140 The form in verse 6 is ambiguous.

565

Full pronouns only occur twice in the Psalm:

vs. 4: personal pronoun 2 sg ‘you’ (refers to YHWH)

personal pronoun 3 pl ‘they’ (refers YHWH’s goodness and love)

The Psalm contains two verbless clauses, both of which express information that is

thematically prominent:

1b ‘YHWH [is] my shepherd’

4c ‘for you [are] with me’

Tenses of the verbs:

most verbs are of the yiqtol (ipf.) type. The verb of the final line is ambiguous: It

could be a weqatal (pf. consec.) form: ‘and I will dwell’ (from ), or “and I

will return’. But it could also be a waw plus infinitive construction (‘and my

dwelling’).

The verbs in the second part of verse 5 are of the qatal (pf.) type:

, ‘you anoint my head with oil; my cup

overflows.’

Word order: Some exegetes have suggested – based on the word order – that in

verse 1b could be the predicate rather than the subject of the clause. “My shepherd is

YHWH” [as opposed to any other gods who might be called shepherds1141

]. However, the

content of the Psalm does not seem to warrant an interpretation like this.

1141 Dahood, for example, interprets this as a polemical confession of the first people who returned from the

exile against the people who had stayed behind in Babylon, where Tammuz was worshipped as ‘shepherd’.

566

APPENDIX D: Rhetorical Structure Analysis of Psalm 23

In this section a presentation is given of the rhetorical structure of Psalm 23. An analysis like this can be

helpful to detect the logical and rhetorical relations between clauses, sentences and paragraphs. A potential disadvantage is that the relationships between the various elements can easily result in an oversimplified

representation. This is especially the case with poetic texts, where the relations between textual elements

are often more associative than strictly logical or rhetorical, and where there is a considerable degree of

indeterminacy.

However, the analysis of the rhetorical structure can be a helpful tool for exegetes who try to understand

the relations between the textual elements at different levels and for translators who are faced with the

challenge to express this kind of ancient poetry in other languages which often have very different

conventions related to the language and style used in poetry.

1a TITLE A Psalm of/for () David

1b IMAGE-1/GROUND The LORD is my shepherd

1c CONSEQUENCE of 1b I shall lack nothing [NEG]

2a specifies 1b+c PARST He makes me lie down in green pastures [REST] 2b specifies 1b+c PARST He leads me beside quiet waters [MOTION]

3a result of 2a+2b He restores my soul

3b specifies 1b+c PARST He guides me in paths of righteousness [MOTION]

3c post-PURPOSE of 3b for ( ) his name’s sake

4a CONCESSION Even though ( ) I walk through the

valley of the shadow of death [MOTION]

4b CONTRA-EXPECTATION to 4a I will fear no evil [NEG]

4c post-GROUND of 4b PART for () you are with me

4d post-GROUND of 4b PART your rod and your staff, they comfort me

5a IMAGE-2/AMPLIFICATION of 2a+b You prepare a table before me [REST]

5b post-circumstance in the presence of my enemies

5c specifies 5a You anoint my head with oil [ALLUSION?]

5d specifies 5a My cup overflows

6a IMAGE-3/POSSIBLE INCLUSIO with 1b

PART Surely () goodness and love will follow

me all the days of my life [MOTION]

6b IMAGE-4/AMPLIFICATION of 5 PART

And () I will dwell in the house of the

LORD forever [REST]

Note: PAR = Parallelism; _S = structural; _T = thematic.

567

APPENDIX E: Translational Notes on Psalm 23

Introduction

The translational notes presented in this Appendix are intended to be a help for translators

who are translating Psalm 23 into a Papuan language or into another language from

eastern Indonesia. These notes are perhaps most helpful for translators who are producing

a translation with a missionary skopos. However, they can also be used by translators

who translate with a different skopos in mind (e.g. liturgical skopos or Bible study

skopos). The notes do not contain an exhaustive list of all the possible translation choices.

But an attempt has been made to mention those options that seem to be most relevant in

the context of Papuan languages and other languages from eastern Indonesia.1142

Verse 1:

A Psalm of David. This expression can be understood as “a Psalm for David” or as “a

Psalm made by David”. The latter interpretation would be consistent with the fact that

King David was both a musician and a shepherd before he became a king and shepherd of

the people of Israel. It is also possible that this expression classifies the Psalm as “a

Psalm belonging to a Psalm bundle of David”. It is best to leave the exact interpretation

indeterminate in the translation: “A Psalm of David”.

The LORD. This translates the name YHWH. The same name is also found at the end of

the Psalm in verse 6 (in the expression “the house of the LORD”). Since people were not

supposed to pronounce YHWH’s holy Name, it was pronounced as ’adonay (“Lord”) in

the Jewish tradition. This usage is also reflected in the Septuagint, where the name

YHWH is translated as “Lord” (kurios). Many translations follow this usage. The

rendering of this name is often capitalized (“the LORD”). In some translations a

transliteration of the name YHWH (“Yahwe’) is used. In other translations, the name

YHWH has been translated as “the eternal One”. Translators in minority languages in

Indonesia often use a loan word from Indonesian (“TUHAN”; “LORD”) or use a

descriptive phrase in the vernacular, like “The One who Rules (Gives Orders),” “The One

who is Most Powerful,” “The Big Head Man Who Dwells in Heaven,” etc. Since the

name YHWH occurs frequently in the Old Testament, translators should try to avoid a

rendering that is too long.

Shepherd. If there is no specific term for “shepherd” in the target language, a descriptive

phrase like “guard of sheep” or “caretaker of sheep” can be used. If there is no vernacular

term for “sheep”, a loan word, like the Indonesian term “domba”, is perhaps the best

option. Using the term “pig” instead of “sheep” should be avoided, since this is not

consistent with the culture of ancient Israel, where pigs were viewed as being “unclean”.

In cases where the term for “pig” has adopted the more general sense of “animal” in

1142 For a more general discussion of translational suggestions related to Psalm 23, see Bratcher and

Reyburn (1991:230-236).

568

addition to its original and more specific meaning, it may still be better to use a loan word

for “sheep” than to use the more general term which is related to the concept of “pig”.

The LORD is my shepherd. The figurative language used in this verse is a metaphor.

Translators should try to keep the metaphor in the translation. Translators into Papuan

languages often have the option of using a quotative construction to express a metaphor.

For example, “The LORD takes care of me, thinking, “My sheep.” If aspect is normally

marked in the language, the habitual aspect or the continuous present should be used

here. Literal renderings should be checked carefully for misunderstandings like “The

LORD is the one who takes care of my sheep”. If the metaphor cannot be maintained in

the translation, a simile can be used (“The LORD is like a shepherd to me”). The point of

the metaphor is the provision of the LORD for all the needs of the poet/singer. It is best

to leave the point of comparison implicit, since the following context (“I will not be in

need”) points already into the intended meaning.

If, however, the intended meaning is not clear at all, translators have the option of

spelling out the ground of the metaphor: “Just like shepherds take care of their sheep, the

LORD takes care of me.” In cases like this, it is important to remember that Psalm 23 is a

poem and that even explicit renderings like this should adapt to poetic patterns. The use

of parallelism and repetition may help to adapt long and explicit renderings to poetic

patterns of the target language. (For example: “The LORD takes care of me // He takes

good care of me // Just like shepherds take care of their sheep.”)

I shall not be in need. The LORD’s provision for the poet/singer includes all his basic

needs. The immediate context (verse 2) shows that this provision includes the provision

of food (“he makes me lie down in green pastures”), drink (“he leads me beside quiet

waters”) and rest (“he makes me lie down”). However, the wider context shows that the

LORD’s provision also includes his guidance (verse 3), protection (verse 4), fellowship

with the LORD (verse 5), and goodness and love that follow the poet/singer all the days

of his life (verse 6). It is best to keep the translation as general as possible: “I shall not be

in need of anything”. The intended implicature is that the LORD will abundantly take

care of all his needs. Instead of a future tense, a present continuous tense is also possible

(“I am continuously not in need”). However, the use of the future tense marks this Psalm

more clearly as a Psalm of trust and confidence than when a present continuous tense is

used. If a future tense is used, the translator should double-check that the target audience

understands the implicature that the poet/singer’s not being in any need includes the

present.

The expression “I shall not be in need” is not linked to first part of the verse (“The LORD

is my shepherd”) by a connector. If the asyndetic relationship between the sentences is

duplicated in the translation, the translator should check if the target audience

understands the relationship between the sentences: “The LORD is my shepherd [and as a

result of that] I shall not be in want.” If the relationship between these sentences is not

well understood, a connector can be included.

569

Verse 2:

He makes me lie down in green pastures. The source text does not make explicit that the

shepherd makes the sheep lie down in green pastures in order to eat grass. Audiences that

are not familiar with pastoralism could easily misunderstand this verse in the sense that

the sheep is tired and is put to rest in green grass places, without picking up on the

intended meaning that the green grass places are food for the sheep. If misunderstandings

like this arise, it is best to make the goal of the action explicit: In order to feed me he

makes me lie down in green pastures. The expression “he makes me lie down” may also

result in the wrong understanding that the shepherd has been carrying the sheep all the

way to the green pastures. It is important to choose the most appropriate lexical item

here. Sometimes an expression like “he makes me sit down” is a better rendering than “he

makes me lie down”.

Green pastures. If there is no specific term for “pasture”, it may be good to describe this

as “a grassy place [where sheep, goats, cows etc. graze]”. Green pastures can be

described as “places where there is good grass in abundance”.

He leads me beside quiet waters. Here again the intended goal of the action is left

implicit. The translator needs to check if the audience understand that the shepherd leads

the sheep to the quiet water so that it can drink. The Indonesian translation (Terjemahan

Baru) has “He leads me towards quiet waters”. Mother tongue translators who use this

translation as a base text should carefully check that a rendering like this is not

misunderstood in the sense that the shepherd leads the sheep towards the quiet waters, but

without actually leading them to the waters.

Verse 3:

He restores my soul. This expression forms the conclusion of verse 2. As a result of the

eating, drinking and rest, the poet/singer (sheep) is refreshed. The translator should be

careful to choose a natural expression that expresses the notion of physical refreshment.

The term for “soul” should be avoided, if this is not natural in the target language. “He

makes my inside strong” would be an alternative rendering.

He guides me in paths of righteousness. The figurative language (metaphor) used in this

verse is still part of the metaphor of the shepherd. However, the ground of the metaphor

has shifted from the shepherd taking care of the sheep’s needs (provision; verse 1-3a) to

the shepherd’s guidance of the sheep. The LORD leads the poet/singer in paths of

righteousness. The walking in paths of righteousness refers to doing the right things,

especially doing the right things in the eyes of the LORD. The expression “paths of

righteousness” could be a reference to the poet/singer’s obedience of the Law of the

LORD, but this is not made explicit. “He guides me in good paths so that I do things that

are good [in the eyes of the LORD].”

For his name’s sake. The name that is intended here is God’s name, especially the name

that occurs in verse 1 and 6: YHWH, “the LORD”. Not every translation keeps the

570

expression “his name”. However, “the name” of the LORD is connected with the

LORD’s covenant and his faithfulness to the people of Israel. If it all possible, the

translator should try to keep it in the translation. This sentence can also be translated as

“in order that his name will be glorified” or “in order that people will glorify his name.”

A rendering like this is more satisfying that the rendering of BIS: “sesuai dengan janji-

Nya,” “according to His promise”.

Verse 4:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. The figurative language

(metaphor) that is used here is still part of the metaphor of the shepherd. But now, the

ground of the metaphor shifts again. In verse 3 it shifted from the shepherd’s provision to

the shepherd’s guidance. In this verse the ground shifts from the shepherd’s guidance to

his protection. “The valley of the shadow of death” can also be translated as “the valley

that is pitch dark”. Valleys like that were dangerous places for sheep, due to the difficult

terrain or due to the danger of wild animals that would attack the sheep. The valley of the

shadow of death is the place where the threat of death is present.

I will fear no evil. The term that is used for evil (danger) contrasts with the term

“goodness” that is mentioned in verse 6. Note that the negative expression in this verse

mirrors the negative expression in verse 1 (“I shall not be in want”).

For you are with me. Several exegetes have pointed out that this verse forms the center of

the Psalm. It is, however, most closely linked with verse 4, which expresses the notion of

the LORD’s protection of the poet/singer. It should be noted that the poet/singer shifts

from the 3rd

person singular to the 2nd

person singular. In the face of danger, the

poet/singer no longer talks about the LORD in the 3rd

person, but he directly addresses

Him in the 2nd

person. The language in the center of the Psalm is even more intimate than

at the beginning and the end of the Psalm. If participant reference is not clear to the target

audience, the translator can add YHWH’s name as a vocative (For you, LORD, are with

me).

In Papuan languages where a reason-clause normally precedes a result-clause, the order

of the clauses may need to be reversed: “But you, LORD, are with me. Therefore I will

not be afraid.”

Your rod and your staff they comfort me. Here the imagery of shepherd and sheep is still

active. The rod is the shepherd’s weapon with which he fends off wild animals that try to

attack the sheep. The staff is used to guide the sheep. Both tools are used to symbolize

the protective and guiding presence of the shepherd. The expression “they comfort me”

means “they make me feel strong and happy”. Note that this expression is similar to verse

3a (“He restores my sole”), which in a similar way marks a closure of the preceding

verses.

571

Verse 5:

You prepare a table before me. The metaphor of the shepherd and his sheep shifts to

another metaphor, i.e., the metaphor of a host who prepares a meal for a guest. The

ground of the host metaphor (provision of food and drink; cf. 5c “my cup overflows”)

parallels the metaphor of the shepherd and sheep in the verses 1-3a (green pastures and

quiet waters). A similar meaning is expressed in this new metaphor, but the role of the

LORD has changed from a shepherd into a host, and the role of the poet/singer has

changed from a sheep into a honored guest. The translator should try to avoid renderings

like “You prepare a meal for me” since this does not express the special occasion. “You

prepare a special (festive) meal for me” would be a better rendering.

In the presence of my enemies. The enemies mentioned in this verse do not form a threat

to the poet/singer who enjoys the hospitality of the LORD. The enemies have been

subjugated or are at least harmless. They are not invited, but are witnesses of the special

treatment that the poet/singer enjoys. The translator should avoid the misunderstanding

that the enemies are ready to attack the poet/singer while he is enjoying the hospitality of

the LORD.

You anoint my head with oil. This expression is found right in the middle of the

mentioning of eating (“You prepare a table before me”) and drinking (“My cup

overflows”). The anointing of the head was a special treatment for special guests. It could

also be an allusion to the anointing of David as a king, but this is not certain. The

intention of the action of anointing (“honor as a guest”) is not explicit in the source text.

“You pour good smelling oil on my head in order to welcome me” would be a good

rendering. Explicating the intention of the action will – especially in the context of

Papuan translations – help to avoid misunderstandings that disconnect the symbolic act

from the meal and/or that interpret the anointing of the head as a sign that the poet/singer

has a headache or is undergoing some kind of initiation rite.

My cup overflows. This image refers to the drinking that is offered during the banquet. It

also expresses that the poet/singer receives abundant blessings and does not lack

anything. A more explicit rendering would be: “You fill my cup with good drinking

water until it overflows. This sentence forms the closure of the imagery of the host and

the guest (banquet scene).

Verse 6:

Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life. This sentence forms the

reverse of verse 2 and 3, where the LORD is portrayed as the shepherd who leads and

guides (goes before) the poet/singer. Here the LORD’s goodness and (steadfast) love are

portrayed as following the poet/singer. The lexical terms used in this verse are not

connected to the domain of shepherd and sheep. It is therefore not likely that the imagery

of shepherd and sheep is sustained in this verse. However, the possibility should not be

excluded that goodness and (steadfast) love are portrayed here as assistant-shepherds who

follow the sheep in addition to the LORD himself who goes before the sheep, or that

572

goodness and steadfast love are a personification of the shepherd’s attributes (rod and

staff) mentioned in verse 4. However, it is more likely that goodness and steadfast love

are pictured here as messengers who accompany royal people. The special treatment that

the poet/singer has enjoyed at the table of the LORD is extended during his journey

through life.

The use of the term “follow” in the Hebrew source text is also noteworthy. The term is

often used in the sense of enemies that are on the heels of people in order to do harm to

them. In this verse, however, it is not enemies that are on the poet/singer’s heels, but

rather the LORD’s goodness and steadfast love.

Some exegetes have pointed out that the dynamics of rest and motion form an important

motif in this Psalm. The beginning, middle and end of the Psalm are characterized by

rest. In between the notion of motion plays an important role. Translators do well if they

try to capture this dynamics of rest and motion in the translation. However, it is not

always possible to duplicate the personification of goodness and steadfast love in a

translation. But even if this is the case, the translator can still express the aspect of motion

in this verse: “You [LORD], who are good to me and who love me, will follow me all the

days of my life.” In Papuan languages it may be more natural to reverse the order: You

[LORD], who love me and who are good to me, will follow me all the days of my life.”

And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. Some exegetes think that the verb

form in the source text needs to be interpreted as “and I will return to the house of the

LORD forever.” Other exegetes maintain that it should be interpreted as “and I will

dwell”. Many translations, including the Terjemahan Baru and the Kabar Baik (BIS)

follow the latter exegesis. One exegete has suggested that the best rendering would be “I

will return to the house of the LORD and dwell in it forever.” There are good reasons for

including the notion of dwelling either as the main focus of this verse or as an implicature

of the expression “return forever to the house of the LORD”.

The expression “the house of the LORD” may refer to the tent/tabernacle in Shiloh where

the ark was kept before the temple was built. It may also refer to the temple. The

expression “dwell in the house of the LORD” is also used as a figurative expression for

having close fellowship with the LORD. Both the literal and figurative meaning are

probably active in this context. Dwelling in the house of the LORD is a symbol for

uninterrupted fellowship with the LORD.

In Papuan languages a literal translation of “the house of the LORD” is often wrongly

understood as “heaven”. Rendering the Hebrew expression “in length of days” as “during

all the days of my life” (instead of “forever” which may be primarily associated with

eternal life in heaven) may help to steer away from the wrong interpretation that the

poet/singer primarily refers to “heaven” rather than to the LORD’s sanctuary on earth

during the Old Testament period.

573

APPENDIX F: Exegetical Notes on Tested Metaphors

In this section some exegetical notes are presented on a number of metaphors that were

tested in chapter 15. Exegetical notes on the imagery of shepherd and sheep are included

in the chapters 5-7.

1. God is a Sun and a Shield

These metaphors are found in Psalm 84:11 (12).

“For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor; no

good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.” (NIV)

‘Blessing’ seems to be the overarching theme of this song of pilgrimage. The theme of

blessing is primarily linked to the temple and to God’s kingship: ‘Blessed’ ( ) are

those who dwell in God’s house (verse 4), whose strength is in God (verse 5), and who

trust in the LORD Almighty (verse 12). The theme of blessing is also implied in the

mentioning of the ‘autumn rains’ (verse 6), and of God giving strength to his people (

in verse 5 and in verse 7).

This Psalm is packed with metaphors1143

. Some of these refer to the temple (‘dwelling

place’ in verse 1; ‘courts’ in verse 10). Others refer to God (‘Lord Almighty’ in the

verses 1, 3, 8, and 12; ‘my king’ in verse 3; ‘sun and shield’ in verse 12), and to the king

of Israel (‘our shield’ and ‘anointed one’ in verse 91144

).

The divine metaphors of sun () and shield () are expressed in a sentence that

motivates () the author’s choice to be in the house of the LORD Almighty rather than

in the tents of the wicked people (verse 11).

Both metaphors seem to blend in very well with the theme of the Psalm. The sun, as a

source of life, is related to blessing, just like the image of the autumn rains is (verse 6).

And the shield, as an image of protection, fits in well with the imagery of the LORD as

the ‘LORD Almighty’ ( , ‘the LORD of hosts’) and who gives strength –

related to blessing – to his people ( in verse 5 and in verse 7).

1143 Tate (1990:358) even sees the sparrows and swallows – mentioned in verse 3 – in metaphorical light:

“The birds are like the temple singers, whose hallels to Yahweh Sabaoth – King and God – are never

ending …” It should be noted, though, that this is not expressed or necessarily implied in the Psalm. 1144 Cf. Tate (1990:360).”The references to “our shield” and “your anointed” are usually understood as

applying to the king.”

574

In ancient Near Eastern mythology, the sun is the god of justice, lawgiver and judge of

gods and humans.1145

The sun was believed to “see” everything that happens on earth,

while it crosses the heavens every day. This concept is also found in psalm 19, where the

sun – which together with other created things declares the glory of God – is related to

the theme of the law of the LORD, and where the notion of the sun as “God’s eye in the

sky” is also present (verse 6: “nothing is hidden from its heat.”). The sun metaphor was

also related to the notion of protection.1146

In Psalm 84, the sun metaphor seems to primarily refer to God as “the ultimate source of

life”.1147

However, the notion of justice and righteousness may also be implied, as justice

and righteousness is normally an attribute of the king (cf. the king metaphor in verse 6;

and cf. Psalm 89:14), and it is also implied in the following context: “The LORD bestows

favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is

blameless.”1148

And, the fact that the sun metaphor is combined with the shield metaphor

in this context could be based on the fact that both metaphors share protection as their

common ground.

The shield metaphor was also known in the ancient Near East. In an Assyrian oracle the

goddess Ishtar assured King Esarhaddon that she would protect him: “I am your reliable

shield.”1149

In the Old Testament the metaphor occurs for the first time when the LORD

appeared to Abram, following the victory won over the kings of the East (Genesis 14),

and reassured him, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.”

(Genesis 15:1). The shield metaphor occurs frequently in the Psalms (for example in

Psalm 3:3; 18:2; 91:4-5). It is sometimes used for the kings (Psalm 47:9; 84:9; 89:18),

who were responsible for protecting their subjects.1150

The discussion above makes it clear that the meaning of the shield metaphor is rather

straightforward (protection), but that the sun metaphor may have a variety of

implicatures: source of life (blessing), justice/righteousness and protection. In the light of

the theme of the Psalm (blessing), the notion of source of life (blessing) is probably most

in focus, but the other aspects may also be active.1151

1145 Cf. Ryken (1998:827). 1146 Cf. Ryken (1998:785): “Ancient Near Eastern kings frequently compared themselves to the sun when

speaking of their sovereignty and responsibility to protect their people. For example, Ashur-nasir-apli II of

Assyria described himself as “whose protection spreads like rays of the sun over his land”.” It would be

interesting to know, if this idea of protection was based on the perception that the rays of the sun are like

wings (protective image). Cf. Malachi 4:2, quoted in note 1130 below. 1147 Ryken (1998:827). 1148 In Malachi 4:2, the sun metaphor is related to righteousness and healing/salvation: “But for you who

revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise, with healing in its wings.” 1149

ANET, 605, quoted in Ryken (1998:785). 1150 Ryken (1998:785). 1151 Note for translators: If there is a need for explicating the grounds of doublet metaphors with

overlapping grounds, translators should perhaps try to diversify the grounds rather than unifying them. This

would mean that in the case of the metaphors in Psalm 84:11 the ground of the ‘sun’ metaphor would not

be explicated as ‘protection’, since this is already covered in the ‘shield’ metaphor, but rather as ‘source of

life’ (‘blessing’).

575

2. Images of Protection in Psalm 91

The ‘God’s Protection is a Hiding Place’ metaphor is found in Psalm 91:1-2:

“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust.”

Four parallel images are used in these verses: shelter (), shadow/shade ( ), refuge

( ) and fortress ( ). All of these express the notion of protection.1152

The latter

two metaphors occur in an utterance where God is addressed in the 2nd

person (rather

than being referred to in the 3rd

person) and have a possessive pronoun of the 1st person

singular.

In the following verses other images of protection are used: bird/wings metaphor (verse

4), shield and rampart metaphor (verse 4), dwelling and refuge (verse 9).

“He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge;

his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.” (verse 4)

“If you make the Most High your dwelling – even the LORD, who is my refuge – then

no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.” (verse 9)

The notion of protection (and of deliverance) is not only expressed in metaphorical terms,

but also in literal terms. This is, for example, the case in verse 3 (‘save you’), verse 10

(‘no harm will befall you’), verse 11 (‘guard you’), verse 14 (‘rescue’, ‘protect’), verse 15

(‘be with him in trouble’, ‘deliver’). It is also implied by expressions like ‘you will not

fear’ (verse 5). The metaphors of protection and deliverance, expressed in this Psalm,

seem to culminate in the metaphor of victory (subjugation) in verse 13: “You will tread

upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.”

1152 It should be noted that the notion of protection is explicitly linked to the notion of trust (“my God, in

whom I trust”) in verse 2.

576

The metaphor of shade/shadow as protection is common in the ideology of ancient Near

eastern kingship.1153

The expression the “shade of the king” is widespread. This concept

is also found in Lamentations 4:201154

, Isaiah 49:2 and 51:16.

The notion of kingship is not explicit in Psalm 91, but it may be implied by the use of the

divine names “the Most High” ( ) and “the Almighty” ( ) in verse 1 and “the

LORD” ( ) in the verses 2 and 9. It may also be implied by the “shield” imagery

(verse 4), the battle scene imagery (king-warrior) in verse 7, and the fact that God

“commands his angels” in verse 11.

In psalm 17:8 the metaphor of shade/shadow is combined with the metaphor of wings and

with the notion of hiding/sheltering: “Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the

shadow of your wings.” ( ). The wings probably refer to the image

of a bird/eagle (cf. Exodus 19:4), but they could also allude to the wings of the cherubim

on the ark of the covenant.1155

The image of wings is also used in Ruth 2:12.1156

The images of ‘refuge’ and ‘fortress’ refer to a safe place where people could run to in

times of war or of other danger. The term ‘refuge’ seems to be a more general term for

hiding place, while ‘fortress’ is primarily a hiding place from the enemies. Related

images are: ‘tower’ (cf. Psalm 18:2) and ‘rock’ (cf. Psalm 18:2; Isaiah 32:2).

3. Unexpected Hostile Action is a Fowler’s Snare (Psalm 91:3)

The metaphor of the fowler’s snare is found in Psalm 91:3.

“Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.”

The metaphor implies that those who trust God are like birds that are in danger of being

caught by a fowler, but who are rescued by God. In the following verse (4), God is

portrayed as a mother bird, who protects her young. Both metaphors belong to the same

source domain of avifauna. The metaphor in this verse also belongs to the source domain

of hunting/trapping, while the one in verse 4 (protective mother bird) does not.

1153 Cf. Tate (1990:453). 1154 “The LORD’s anointed, or very life breath, was caught in their traps. We thought that under his shadow

we would live among the nations.” 1155 Ryken (1998:779). It should be noted, though, that the specific context in which this metaphor occurs

(right after a metaphor of the fowler’s snare in verse 3) makes it very plausible that bird imagery is

primarily intended. 1156 For the meaning of the wings metaphor, see also Ryken (1998:954). “The ancient Near Eastern

imagination was fascinated with winged creatures, as evidenced by examples in art and statuary of winged

deities, monsters, sphinxes, humans and disks. Some of the same fascination is reflected in the Bible, where

the primary meanings of the image are protection (based on wings’ ability to cover), escape (based on the

flight of birds) and spirit (inasmuch winged creatures are beyond the limitations of gravity).”

577

According to Ryken, “the image of trapping occurs often in the Bible and is linked with

both physical and spiritual peril. Images accompanying it include snares, nets and pits.

The image itself comes primarily from hunting and may include the killing of birds, wild

animals such as deer or antelope, or fish. The traps used in the ancient Near East were

often pits covered with camouflaged nets, and this was one of the chief methods of

hunting at the time.”1157

The topic of this metaphor is unspecified.1158

In other places in the Psalms, the imagery

of trapping is often associated with wicked people oppressing weak people. (Psalm 10:9;

35:7; 119:85; 140:5). However, the wicked will fall into their own pit or net (Psalm 7:15;

9:15; 35:8; 57:6; 59:12).1159

In the context of this Psalm, where the imagery of trapping is found in the context of

battle imagery (verse 7), it is interesting to note that “many Mesopotamian kings

described battles as hunting scenes in which their armies successfully casted the hunting

net to entrap their captors. Thus the act of hunting something demonstrated their

complete mastery over their inferiors, a motif repeated in the accounts of the Egyptian

gods and pharaohs, who were said to cast their net over all the earth’s living things.”1160

This does not prove, however, that the imagery of the fowler’s snare, as it is used in this

Psalm, refers to enemies. Leaving the topic of the fowler’s snare indeterminate seems to

be the best solution.

4. Images of Blessing in Psalm 92

The metaphor of ‘Being Blessed by God is Flourishing and Growing’ is found in Psalm

92:12-13 (13-14).

“The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, they will grow like a cedar of Lebanon;

planted in the house of the LORD, they will flourish in the courts of our God.”

The related metaphor of ‘Being Blessed by God is Bearing Fruit’ found in Psalm 92:14

(15).

“They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green.”

1157 Ryken (1998:885). 1158 Cf. Tate (1990:454): “The “fowler’s trap” and the “threat of destruction” (v 3) are not specifically

defined; the language is metaphorical for all kinds of traps and threats from enemies and natural causes.” 1159 Ryken (1998:886). 1160 Ryken (1998:885).

578

The imagery of growing and flourishing trees that continue to bear fruits is all connected

to the imagery of the righteous who have been planted1161

in the house of the LORD. It

contrasts with the imagery of the wicked, who spring up like grass and flourish, but who

will be destroyed forever (verse 7)1162

. The imagery is similar to that in Psalm 1, where

the righteous is compared to “a tree planted by the streams of water, which yields its fruit

in season and whose leaf does not wither.” However, in Psalm 1, the contrast between the

righteous and the wicked is cast in terms of a contrast between a tree and chaff rather than

between trees and grass, as in Psalm 92.

The imagery of trees seems to imply the notion of sturdiness and perpetuity, in addition

to the notions of growing, flourishing and fruitfulness that are explicitly expressed. The

images of grass and chaff, on the other hand, imply transience and fragility. In the

context of the contrast between the righteousness and the wicked, the tree imagery is also

an expression of God’s blessing upon the righteous, and the grass and chaff imagery

expresses God’s ultimate punitive action against the wicked.

The imagery of flourishing fruitful trees, as it is found in Psalm 92, functions in the

context of another metaphor: ‘God’s Temple is a Fruitful Garden’ (cf. verse 13: ‘planted

in the house of the LORD’).1163

5. God is the Believer’s Rock

The metaphor of ‘God is the believer’s rock’ (or: ‘God is the rock of the righteous’) is

found in Psalm 92:15 (16).

“proclaiming, “The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in

him.”

1161 Van Ek (2002:109), following Dahood (1968:338), makes the point that the expression

can be interpreted as ‘transplanted in the house of the LORD’. He refers to Ezekiel

17:22, Exodus 15:17 and Psalm 80:12, where verbs of planting are used in the sense of ‘transplanting’. In

Van Ek’s (2002:107) interpretation, the fact that the righteous have been transplanted into the house of the

LORD “totally excludes the idea that the growing process referred to in this verse is a physical growing

process.” This is no doubt true with regard to the topic and ground side of the metaphor (its reference and

meaning). However, the image side of the metaphor does seem to focus on the physical aspects of the

growing. At the image level, the contrast of the righteous versus the wicked does not seem to be a matter of

‘physical growth’ versus ‘spiritual growth’, but rather as a matter of quick and temporary growth (without

fruits) versus steady and continuous growth (with fruits). 1162 Tate (1990:466) remarks that “the force of the simile is greater, of course, in climates where grass shoots up in luxuriant growth after a rain and then dies back quickly.” 1163 Cf. Tate (1990:468): “Vv 14-15 probably allude to the idea of the courts of the temple as a paradise, a

garden of God with ample water and highly productive trees (Gen. 2:46-3:24; Ezek. 28:13-14; cf. Ps. 36:7-

10) … Those who are “planted in the house of Yahweh have enduring vitality, even when old they will be

like trees full of sap and with green foliage (v. 15). The primal fertility of creation will mark their lives.”

579

Tate1164

sees the meaning of the rock metaphor primarily in terms of “lack of failure”,

that is “in terms of his reliability and consistency (16b, traditional,

“injustice/unrighteousness/ wrongdoing”).” This interpretation seems to be supported by

the fact that verse 15 (16) can be viewed as forming an inclusio with verse 2 (3):

“to proclaim your [steadfast] love in the morning and your faithfulness at night.”

Both verse 2 (3) and verse 15 (16) contain the verb ‘proclaim’ ( hi.). And, if Tate’s

interpretation is valid, the steadfast love ( ) and faithfulness ( ) in verse 2

(3) would then correspond with the rock metaphor () in verse 15 (16)1165

.

Psalm 92:15 (16) seems to be an echo of Deuteronomy 32:3-4, where the ‘God is my

rock’ metaphor is also used in the context of ‘proclaiming’ – here expressed by the verb

– and of the LORD being faithful ( ), righteous1166

and just ( ),

and doing no wrong ( ):

“I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and al his ways are just.

A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.”

The rock metaphor, as it occurs in other places in the Old Testament, is also often related

to the notion of deliverance. In Psalm 62, for example, God is called ‘my rock and my

salvation’ (verse 2 (3) and 6 (7)): “He

alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I shall never be shaken.” And in

verse 7 (8), God is called ‘my mighty rock’.1167

And in Psalm 95:1, the LORD is

called ‘the rock of our salvation’ ( ).

1164 Tate (1990:468). 1165 Tate (1990:464) mentions the chiastic structure of the Psalm suggested by R.M. Davidson, “The

Sabbatic Chiastic Structure of Psalm 92,” paper delivered at ABL meeting, Chicago, IL, Nov. 1988. In this

chiastic structure the verses 1-3 (1-4) correspond with the verses 12-15 (13-16): “The confident testimony

regarding the future of the righteous in vv 13-16 complements the testimony of praise in vv 1-4.” However,

Tate does not mention the possibility of interpreting the verses 2 (3) and 15 (16) as an inclusio. 1166 Note that in Psalm 92 the term ‘righteous’ ( ) is also used, but here it is used for God’s people who

are planted in his house (verse 12 (13)), rather than for God himself. The concept of righteousness as a

character feature of God is, however, clearly implied by the expression “there is no wickedness in him”

( ) (verse 15 (16)). Since these expressions occur right at the beginning and the

end of a thematically highly coherent section, we may have another inclusio here, which underscores the

unity of the verses 12-15 (13-16). 1167 Cf. also Psalm 18:46: “The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!.’ (NIV)

580

The metaphor ‘rock of our salvation’ parallels another important metaphor that is related

to deliverance, namely ‘horn of my salvation’. In Psalm 18:2, for example, where the

author praises God for rescuing him from his enemies, God is called ‘the horn of my

salvation’ ( ). The ‘God is a rock’ metaphor occurs in the same verse twice

( and ).

It is interesting to note that the metaphor of the rock (verse 15) and of the horn (verse 10)

are both present in Psalm 92. In verse 10 (11), the author praises God saying, “You have

exalted my horn like that of a wild ox.”1168

This is mentioned in the context of the

perishing and scattering of God’s enemies (verse 9 (10)). But, despite the fact that the

metaphors of ‘horn’ and ‘rock’ share a common ground (deliverance) in many contexts,

the aspect of ‘deliverance’ does not seem to be active in the rock metaphor in the

particular context of Psalm 92:15 (16).1169

The main aspect of this metaphor seems to be

God’s faithfulness and righteousness.

1168 The notion of protection and deliverance is also implied by the metaphor ‘high place’ in Psalm 92:8 (9):

. . Tate (1990:460) translates this as ‘but you are the One-who-is-on-High’. Van

Ek (2002:84-88) not only associates this metaphor with the notions of refuge, victory and exaltation, but he

also contrasts the highness of God with the ‘down-to-earth-ness’ and the wickedness of the wicked.

According to Van Ek (2002:87) – who reads this Psalm primarily in the context of the fourth Psalms bundle (90-106), the exile and the sabbath, – this verse has also consequences for the place on earth were God is

to be worshipped: “Since He [God] himself is the high place, the temple cannot be the only place where

God is worshipped.” 1169 However, it could very well be that the notion of ‘deliverance’ still plays a role as a weak implicature in

this context.

581

APPENDIX G: ‘GOD IS A SUN AND A SHIELD’

A Sample Interview of Checking the Comprehension of Biblical Metaphors (Similes)

Informant: Derber Nabyal (UNS) Venue: Translation office, Langda

Sex: Male Date interview: April 3rd , 2003

Age: 45 Language of communication: Una

Interviewer: Dick Kroneman (IVW) Transcript: Una with back-translation in English

[After some small talk the interviewer explains the purpose and the procedure of the interview to the Una

informant.]

IVW: [Reads the Una rendering of Psalm 84:12:] ‘The Lord God is like a sun and like a shield. Thinking,

“my sons, my daughters” he accepts us and he lifts us up.’ [After reading it a second time in Una, he asks

the informant:] ‘Tell me what these words say about God’.

UNS: ‘God is like the sun. He is like a bright light.’ [Understands first image]

IVW: ‘Why do you think it says, “God is like the sun”? [Checks comprehension of the ground of the

image]

UNS: ‘It is because the word of God is a light. Our insides are dark. Our insides used to be dark when we

did evil things in the past, but now our insides are light. [Gives cultural interpretation of metaphor, and

applies the metaphor to the Word of God rather than to God himself]

IVW: ‘Would there be any other reason why it says, “God is like the sun”? [Checks for further grounds]

UNS: [Thinks for a few moments] ‘God is the One who sees everything.’ [Gives additional interpretation]

IVW: ‘It also says, “God is like a person who shield us from arrows (mar lilisina atonyi)”.’ [Checks

comprehension of the second image]

UNS: ‘Are you perhaps talking about war vests? [UNS gets the general picture, but expresses some

confusion about the expression that has been used in the translation.]

IVW: ‘Yes, it is like a war vest’.

UNS: ‘I know about war vests (ting), but we usually don’t call it ‘arrow shields’ (mar lilina). We Langda people never used anything else than war vests. War vests were made of rattan, and people used to wear

them during war time, just like people wear pakaian (‘western clothes’) nowadays.’ [Explains the use of

‘war vest’ in traditional Una culture.]

IVW: ‘For what purpose (‘thinking what?’) did Langda people use war vests in the past?’

UNS: ‘People used to wear during war time, thinking, “May arrows not hit me”.

IVW: In the past the people of Israel used to hold an arrow shield in their hand, while they were waging

war. Thinking, “May arrows not hit us,” they were holding those arrow shields’. The Israel people in the

past used arrow shields, just like the Langda people used to wear war vests. [Explains OT/ancient custom]

UNS: That’s amazing, how can you shoot arrows, if you hold an arrow shield in one hand?

582

IVW: That’s a good point. The soldiers that were holding arrow shields perhaps used another weapon for

killing people, like a spear (te balang) or a sword (ninyi on ya; ‘people killing axe/machete’). Soldiers in

the past also used war vests (ting), but those were made of iron (besi) or animal skins, but usually not of

rattan.

IVW: ‘The words “God is like a person who shields us from arrows” is probably not a clear enough rendering. “God is like a war vest” is probably a better rendering. [Provides an alternative rendering that

makes sense in receptor culture]

UNS: [Correcting] ‘God is the One who puts a war vest on me.’ [Gives a more natural, or at least

theologically more acceptable rendering; ‘God is like a war vest’ would God make like an inanimate

object.]

IVW: ‘Why do you think the author of this Mazmur (‘Psalm’) said this regarding God?’ [Checks

comprehension of the ground of the war vest metaphor]

UNS: ‘Because God thinks regarding us people who follow him, “May the evil spirit [= Satan] not hit/kill

them.”’ [Understands the ground of the metaphor as: protection from the evil spirit]

IVW: ‘What would happen, if the arrows of the evil spirit would hit/kill us?’ [Tries to find out if physical

or spiritual killing is intended]

UNS: ‘We would no longer obey God’s words, but do evil things.’ [Gives a spiritual interpretation of the

ground of the metaphor]

IVW: ‘Would the evil spirit be the only one who shoots arrows at us?’ [Tries to find out if protection from

physical threats / enemies is included]

UNS: ‘Yes, he is our main enemy. He wants to make us fall and hit/kill us.’ [Keeps focusing on the spiritual]

IVW: ‘Would humans [tukwe nang, ‘earth people’] also shoot arrows at us?’ [Tries again]

UNS: ‘Yes, earth people sometimes help Satan to make people fall.’ [Keeps focusing on the spiritual].

583

APPENDIX H: Una Text with Morpheme Glosses and Free

Translation

The following text constitutes the first part of “The Story of the Fool and the Man-eating Female Spirit”.

This story was told by Saulus Bitibalyo from the village of Wasmuryi in 1996. The story is about two

brothers – ancestors of the Wasmuryi people – who unexpectedly (and independently from each other) experience a sky journey1170 which ends up in the village of a man-eating female spirit. In the first part of

the story, the younger brother – who is the normal man – arrives at the village of the man-eating female

spirit. He rescues the maid of the female spirit, runs off with her and marries her. In the second part of the

story, the older brother – the fool – arrives at the village of the female spirit. The unexpected part of the

story is that the fool overpowers the man-eating female spirit and that he even wins her heart. The fool

takes her home as his bride, and she who used to devour people becomes the mother of the Wasmuryi

people.

1. Wasmuryi atei asi ninyi diba ton lub-nyi ton ku-ran-dei. Wasmuryi village LOC person real one fool-NOMZ one be-HAB-3DL.FPST

FT1171

: “In the village of Wasmuryi there used to live a normal man and a fool

(abnormal man).”

2. Sun wa i- -ran -dei ara Wasmuryi mutuk nirya i- -ran -dei ani, 3DL1172 garden work-HAB-3DL.FPST TOP Wasmuryi area all work-HAB-3DL.FPST after.SS

uki tentok tum aryi er weit ya dak-eib-mou ura, day one time ABL 3SG younger.brother stone.axe break-CAUSE-3SG.FPST after

atei ya-na mab-mou. village come-DEPV sleep-3SG.FPST

FT: “The gardens they used to cultivate were in the whole area of Wasmuryi. Then,

one day, after the younger brother broke his stone axe, he came to the village and spent

the night there.”

1170 Sky journeys are usually reported to have been experienced by Una clairvoyants (asing ketket nang).

One of those clairvoyants (the late Diman Balyo) told me in an interview in 1997 that he used to fly to the

southern lowlands all the way to Senggo in order to steal food, kill men and chase women. He also told me

that he had seen ‘smoky mountains’ (vulcanoes) in the far west. In this particular story, the sky journey is

inadvertedly set into motion by the eating of a cuscus and by contact with the cuscus tail. The sky journey

is portrayed as a jumping from one tree to another (like cuscus / tree marsupials do). In other stories about

sky journeys, the ritual men’s house is usually the point of departure. The shaman usually swings on a vine

from the men’s house towards his destination. 1171 FT stands for “free translation”. A “free translation” is a rendering that is not bound by the forms of the

source language (in this case Una), but which represents the meanings expressed in the source language as

accurately as possible in another language (in this case English). 1172 In Una there is no distinction between plural and dual in the free personal pronouns. The glossing of the

free personal pronouns (3PL or 3DL) is based on its context-dependent meaning.

584

3. Mab- -mou ani, berek-mou ura, ya dob-oka Sleep-3SG.FPST after.SS dawn-3SG.FPST after stone.axe take-DEPV.SS fall-

sak-kweteb-mou. descend-3SG.FPST

FT: “After he slept and after it dawned (= the next day), he took a [new] stone axe and

left [the village].”

4. Er kanya ara, "Ya kete- -r -bin-kwa-n" teneb-oka 3SG inside TOP stone.axe sharpen-GOAL-go-FUT-1SG think-DEPV.SS

anab-dob-mou. depart-away-3SG.FPST

FT: “He left, thinking, "I will go in order to sharpen my stone axe."”

5. Bin-mou ani, me si Nongme kin bi-na kete-n-mou go-3SG.FPST after.SS water name Nongme brook go-DEPV sharpen-PROGR-3SG.FPST

uca, dalak-dalak eb-mou. CEXP fail do-3SG.FPST

FT: “After he went, he arrived at the Nongme brook and was polishing [his stone axe]

for a while, but it failed (remained dull).”

6. Ya yo dalak-dalak eb-mou ura, mutuk Kwasok dinib-mou ura, Stone.axe grinding.stone fail do-3SG.FPST after area Kwasok cross-3SG.FPST after

me Murok asi bi-na kete-n-mou. water Murok LOC go-DEPV sharpen-PROGR-3SG.FPST

FT: “When the grinding stone was not good, he crossed over to the Kwasok area, and

he went near the Murok stream and was polishing [his stone axe].”

7. Kete-n-mou uca, tubto dalak-dalak ebmou. grind-PROGR-3SG.FPST CEXP again fail do-3SG.FPST

FT: “Although he polished [the stone axe] [with a grinding stone from the Murok

stream], [this grinding stone] was not good either.”

8. Bin-mou ani, mutuk si Cengceng dinib-mou ura, me Minyo kin asi go-3SG.FPST after.SS area name Cengceng cross-3SG.FPST after water Minyo brook LOC

bin-mou. go-3SG.FPST

585

FT: “Then he went for a while, and after going over to the area named Cengceng, he

went to the Minyo brook.”

9. Bi-na kete-n-mou uca, nunum-nunum ebmou ura, Go-DEPV sharpen-PROGR-3SG.FPST CEXP sharp be-3SG.FPST after

kiting ururuk eb-mou. sun zenith be-3SG.FPST

FT: “He went and was polishing [his stone axe] again, but now it became sharp,

before noon time.”

10. Ura, saboka ata-n-mou ba, "Sekna ab-kwa-n" teneb-oka Then cigarette be.hungry-PROGR-3SG.FPST while fire.saw kindle-FUT-1SG think-DEPV.SS

ilima ken ulungna da-ng-mou uca, winya si Weya dry.grass red.pandanus leaves cut-PROGR-3SG.FPST CEXP cuscus name Weya

buk-mou asi ob-mou. sit-3SG.FPST OBJ kill-3SG.FPST

FT: “Then, while he was longing for a cigarette, he thought, "I will kindle a fire", and

while he was collecting dry grass and pandanus leaves, he found a cuscus and killed it.”

11. Sirya ara uk sek-mou. Finally TOP fire cut-3SG.FPST

FT: “Finally, he made a fire.”

12. Uk sek-oka saboka yib-we ura, winya dab-mou. Fire cut-DEPV cigarette smoke-3SG.FPST after cuscus roast-3SG.FPST

FT: “After he made the fire and smoked a cigarette, he roasted the cuscus.”

13. Kalib-oka yi-n-mou ani, yan taruk nirya yib-mou, cut-DEPV.SS eat-PROGR-3SG.FPST after.SS leg arm all eat-3SG.FPST

kisok nirya yib-mou. head all eat-3SG.FPST

FT: “He cut it in parts and after he had been eating it, he [finished] eating all [the

meat] of its forelegs, hind legs, and head.”

14. Amwe asi aminda yin-mou asi "Amwe sila a loub-ku-n" ten-nyi tail OBJ last eat-PROGR CEXP tail end this save-NFUT-1SG think-DEPV

k(u)-ou uca, "Kibyal lelem Wabum lelem" eb-oka im-tam bo-wele-ban-mou. be-3SG.FPST CEXP Kibyal top Wabum top say-DEPV sky-place carry-climb-go-3SG.FPST

586

FT: “He intended to eat its tail later on as a leftover, but then it carried him high up in

the sky, saying, "Climbing the Kibyal tree, climbing the Wabum tree."

15. Bo-wele-ban-mou ani, Meirkon co Om taruk asi ting-bin-mou. Carry-climb-go-3SG.FPST after.SS Meirkon tree Om branch LOC stand-go-3SG.FPST

FT: “After it carried him high through the sky, he landed on a branch of the Om tree

on the Meir mountain.”

587

Bibliography

Aaron, David H. (2001). Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine

Imagery (The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism, 4), Leiden: Brill.

Abernathy, C. David. An Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter. Dallas, Texas: Summer

Institute of Linguistics.

Ackroyd, P.R. & C.F. Evans (Eds.). (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible.

Volume I: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge, London, etc.:

Cambridge University Press.

Adriani, N. `Eenige principes bij het vertalen van den Bijbel.’ In: Adriani, N. (1932).

Verzamelde Geschriften. Deel I. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., p. 1-9.

Adriani, N. `Evangelie-prediking in de landstaal.’ In: Adriani, N. (1932). Verzamelde

Geschriften. Deel I. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., p. 58-75.

Adriani, N. `Overzicht van mijn werk in dienst van het Nederlandsch Bijbel-

genootschap.’ In: Adriani, N. (1932). Verzamelde Geschriften. Deel I.

Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., p. 267-287.

Adriani, N. `De uitgave van Bijbelsche Leesboeken als voorbereiding tot

Bijbelgebruik en Bijbelvertaling.’ In: Adriani, N. (1932). Verzamelde

Geschriften. Deel I. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., p. 413-415.

Adriani, N. `Het Christianiseeren eener taal.’ In: Adriani, N. (1932). Verzamelde

Geschriften. Deel II. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., p. 112-132.

Albright, W.F. & C.S. Mann. (1971). The Anchor Bible. Matthew. Introduction,

Translation and Notes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.

Allen, Jerry. (1986). Handbook for Mother Tongue Translator Programs. Dallas,

Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Allen, Leslie C. (1983). Word Biblical Commentary (21). Psalms 101-150. Waco,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Allert, Craig D. `Is a Translation Inspired?’ The Problems of Verbal Inspiration for

Translation and a Proposed Solution.’ In: Porter, Stanley E. & Richard S. Hess

(Eds.). (1999). Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects (JSNTSup 173).

Sheffield Academic Press, p. 85-113.

Alter, Robert. (1985). The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

Publishers.

Andersen, David. (1998). ‘Perceived Authenticity: The Fourth Criterion of Good

Translation.’ In: Notes on Translation 12 (3):1-13.

Anderson, Richard C. (1985). “The Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension,

Learning, and Memory.” In: Singer, Harry & Robert B. Ruddell. (1985)

Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. (Third Edition), p. 372-386.

Ankersmit, F. R. (1994). History and Tropology. The Rise and Fall of Metaphor.

Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. ‘Thick Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002).

The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 417-

429.

Aristoteles. (1999). Poëtica. Vertaald en toegelicht door N. van der Ben & J.M.

Bremer. Amsterdam: Athenaeum – Polak & Van Gennep.

588

Arno, Andrew. (1985-1986). ‘Impressive Speeches and Persuasive Talk: Traditional

Patterns of Political Communication in Fiji’s Lau Group from the Perspective

of Pacific Ideal Types.’ In: Oceania, Volume LVI (1985-1986), p. 124-137.

Aune, David E. (1997). Word Biblical Commentary (52A). Revelation 1-5. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Aune, David E. (1998). Word Biblical Commentary (52B). Revelation 6-16. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Aune, David E. (1998). Word Biblical Commentary (52C). Revelation 17-22. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Austin, J.L. (1978, 1975, 1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Bailey, Kenneth E. (1976). Poet and Peasant. A Literary-cultural Approach to the

Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

Bailey, Lloyd R. (ed.). (1982). The Word of God. A Guide to English Versions of the

Bible. Atlanta: John Knox Press.

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New

York: Routledge.

Baker, Mona & Kirsten Malmkjaer. (2001, [1998]). Encyclopaedia of Translation

Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

Baldridge, Kenneth P. (1979). Seven Reading Strategies. Greenwich CT: Baldridge

Reading Instruction Materials, Inc.

Banawiratma, J.B. a.o. (2001). Alkitab dan Komunikasi. Jakarta: Lembaga Alkitab

Indonesia.

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (Ed.) (1971). Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht

(Holland) and Boston (U.S.A.): D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Barnwell, Katharine. (1984, [1974]). Introduction to Semantics and Translation.

Horsleys Green, England: The Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Barnwell, Katherine. (1994). ‘Supplementary Helps in Scripture Publications.’ In:

Notes on Translation 8.2. (1994), p. 8-13.

Barnwell, Katherine. (1997). ‘Translating the Tetragrammaton YHWH.’ In: Notes on

Translation 11.4. (1997), p. 24-27.

Barr, James. (1978, 1961). The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1992). Cognitive Psychology. An Overview for Cognitive

Scientists. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Barton, John (Ed.). (2002, 1998). The Cambridge Companion to Biblical

Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bax, M.M.H. (1995). Een spiegel van de geest. Over taal, communicatie en cognitie.

Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers.

Beale, G.K. (1999). The Book of Revelation. A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand

Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: The Paternoster Press.

Beardsley, Monroe C. (1974). ‘Figurative Language.’ In: Anderson, Wallace L. &

Norman C. Stageberg (eds.). Introductory Readings on Language. New York,

etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p. 418-431.

589

Bearth, Thomas. “Should We Tell the Solution Together with the Riddle?” NOT No.

77 (December 1979): 11-14.

Beasley-Murray, George R. (1999). Word Biblical Commentary (36). John. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Beaucamp, E. (1976). Le Psautier. Ps 1-72. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Editeurs.

Beekman, John. (1969). ‘Metaphor and Simile.’ In: Notes on Translation (1969) 31:1-

22.

Beekman, John & John Callow. (1978, [1974]). Translating the Word of God. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Beekman, John, John C. Callow & M. Kopesec. (1981). The Semantic Structure of

Written Communication. 5th edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Benjamin, Walter. `The Task of the Translator.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002).

The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 15-25.

Bennett, David W. (1993). Metaphors of Ministry. Biblical Images for Leaders and

Followers. Cumbria UK: Paternoster Press.

Berger, Klaus. (1988). Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments. Gerd Mohn: Gütersloher

Verlagshaus.

Berman, Antoine. ‘Translation and Trials of the Foreign.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.).

(2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p.

284-297.

Bernard, J.H. (1942, [1928]). The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Vols. 1 and 2.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Beutler, SJ, Johannes & Robert T. Fortna. (1991). The Shepherd Discourse of John 10

and its Context. Studies by members of the Johannine Writings Seminar.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beyerlin, Walter. (1976). Godsdienst-historisch tekstboek rond het Oude Testament.

Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting.

Biezeveld, Kune. (1996). Spreken over God als Vader. Hoe kan het anders? Baarn:

Ten Have.

Bigg, Charles (1910). The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T.

& T. Clark.

Black, Max. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Blakemore, Diane. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell Ltd.

Blakemore, Diane. (2001, [1992]). Understanding Utterances. Oxford UK &

Cambridge USA: Blackwell.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. ‘Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.’ In:

Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and

New York: Routledge, p. 298-313.

Bolton, Rosemary Ann. (1999). Nuaulu and Biblical world view, ritual symbolism,

and the translation of baptize and Lord’s supper. Ph.D. dissertation Fuller

Theological Seminary.

590

Booth, A.D. a.o. (1958). Aspects of Translation. Studies in Communication 2. London:

Secker and Warburg.

Bosetti, Elena. (1993). YAHWEH. Shepherd of the People. Pastoral Symbolism in the

Old Testament. Middlegreen, UK and Kildare, Ireland: St. Pauls.

Box, Harry. (1992). Communicating Christianity to oral, event-oriented people.

Miss.D. dissertation Fuller Theological Seminary.

Boys-Stones, G.R. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition.

Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, Virginia. (1991). ‘Assumptions Involved in Interpretative Decisions.’ In:

Notes on Translation 5.3. (1991), p. 23-33.

Bradley, Virginia. (1991). ‘Determining Limitations for Explication of Meaning.’ In:

Notes on Translation 5.3. (1991), p. 34-50.

Bratcher, Robert G. & John J. Kijne & William A. Smalley (Eds.). (1974).

Understanding and Translating the Bible. Papers in honor of Eugene A. Nida.

American Bible Society.

Bratcher, Robert G. & William D. Reyburn. (1991). A Handbook on Psalms. New

York: United Bible Societies.

Braude, William G. (1959). The Midrash on Psalms I. New Haven: Yale University

Press, p. 327-335 (Psalm Twenty-Three).

Brenner, Athalya & Jan Willem van Henten (Eds.). (2002). Bible Translation on the

Threshold of the Twenty-First Century. Authority, Reception, Culture and

Religion. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Brettler, Marc Zvi. (1989). God is King. Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. (JSOT,

Supplement Series 76). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Briggs, Charles August & Emilie Grace Briggs. (19163, [1906]). The International

Critical Commentary. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of

Psalms. Volume I. Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Brinkman, J.M. (1995). Psalmen I. Een praktische bijbelverklaring. Tekst en

Toelichting. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok.

Brislin, Richard W. (ed.). (1976). Translation. Applications and Research. New York,

London, Sydney, Toronto: Gardner Press, Inc.

Brisset, Annie. ‘The Search for a Native Language: Translation and Cultural Identity.’

In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London

and New York: Routledge, p. 343-375.

Brouwer, Cornelis. (1949). Wachter en Herder. Een exegetische studie over de herder-

figuur in het Oude Testament, inzonderheid in de pericopen Zacharia 11 en

13:7-9. Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Wageningen: H. Veenman en

Zonen.

Brower, Reuben A. (Ed.) (1966, [1959]). On Translation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Brown, Raymond E. (1970). The Anchor Bible. The Gospel according to John (xiii-

xxi). Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.

Bruce, F.F. (1964). The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Bruce, F.F. (1989). The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Eerdmans

Publishing Company.

591

Brümmer, Vincent. (1993). Liefde van God en mens. Kampen: Kok Agora.

Bullinger, E.W. (1971, 1898). Figures of Speech in the Bible. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House.

Byatt, Anthony. (1996, [1995]). New Testament Metaphors. Illustrations in Word and

Phrase. Edinburgh, Cambridge, Durham, USA: The Pentland Press.

Caird, George Bradford. (1980). The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Worcester

and London: The Trinity Press (Duckworth).

Callow, Kathleen. (1998). Man and Message. A Guide to Meaning-Based Text

Analysis. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America.

Carson, D.A. (1979). The King James Version Debate. A Plea for Realism. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Carson, D.A. (1987). ‘The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation.’ In:

Notes on Translation 121 10-87:1-15. !?

Carson, D.A. (1996, [1991]). The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-

Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

Carson, D.A. (1996). Exegetical Fallacies. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster / Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Books.

Casse, Pierre. (1980.) Training for the Cross-cultural Mind. A Handbook for Cross-

Cultural Trainers and Consultants. Washington, DC: The Society for

Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR).

Catford, J.C. (1969, [1965]). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied

Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

Catford, J.C. `Translation Shifts’. In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation

Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 141-147.

Chamberlain, Lori. ‘Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 314-329.

Chao, Yuen Ren. (1968). Language and Symbolic Systems. Cambridge University

Press.

Charles, R.H. (1950, 1920). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation

of St. John. Vol. I and II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Civikly, Jean M. (ed.). (1977, [1974]). Messages. A Reader in Human

Communication. Second Edition. New York: Random House.

Clark, D.J. (1982). ‘Sex-related imagery in the prophets.’ In: The Bible Translator

33.4 (1982), p. 409-413.

Clines, David J.A. (2001). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Volume V. -.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Cole, Peter (ed.). (1981). Radical Pragmatics. New York, London etc.: Academic

Press.

Collins, C.J. (1995). ‘Death will be their Shepherd.’ In: The Bible Translator 46.3

(1995), p. 320-324.

Condon, John C. & Fathi S. Yousef. (1975). An Introduction to Intercultural

Communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Education Publishing.

Cooper, J.C. (2001, 1978). Geïllustreerde encyclopedie van de traditionele symbolen.

Den Haag: Mirananda Uitgevers B.V.

592

Copi, Irving M. (1978, 1953). Introduction to Logic. Fifth Edition. New York &

London: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. & Collier MacMillan Publishers.

Costello, Nancy. (1992). ‘On Translation Theories.’ In: Notes on Translation 6.2.

(1992), p. 15-20.

Craigie, Peter C. (1983). Word Biblical Commentary (19). Psalms 1-50. Waco, Texas:

Word Books, Publisher.

Crenshaw, James L. (2001). The Psalms. An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan /

Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Crick, Malcolm. (1978, 1976). Explorations in Language and meaning. Towards a

Semantic Anthropology. Malaby Press.

Crisp, Simon. (2002). `Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its

Implications for Bible Translation.’ In: Brenner, Athalya & Jan Willem van

Henten (Eds.). (2002). Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First

Century. Authority, Reception, Culture, and Religion. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, p. 36-49.

Croft, W. (1993). ‘The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and

Metonymies.’ In: CL 4 (1993) 335-370.

Crofts, Marjorie. (1994). ‘Metaphors in the Five Ts.’ In: Notes on Translation 8.4.

(1994), p. 35-52.

Crofts, M. (n.d.a.). The Interpretation and Translation of Metaphors. Unpublished

M.A. Thesis.

Crofts, Marjorie. (n.d.b.). New Testament Metaphors. SIL: Pre-published copy.

Cruse, D.A. (1997, [1986]). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Cruse, D. Alan. (2000). Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, David. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 3rd

edition. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Dahood, Mitchell. (1966). The Anchor Bible. Psalms I. 1-50. Introduction, Translation

and Notes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Dalman, G. (1928-1942). Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Band 6 (1939): Zeltleben,

Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang, p. 146-287. Hildesheim.

Davies, W.D. & Dale C. Allison. (1988). The Critical and Exegetical Commentary on

the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Edinburgh: T. & T Clark limited. In

three volumes: I (1988): Matthew 1-7; II (1991): Matthew 8-18; III (1997):

Matthew 19-28.

de Blois, Kees. (1985). ‘Metaphors in Common Language Translations of Joel.’ In:

The Bible Translator 36.2 (1985), p. 208-216.

de Blois, Kees F. (1997). ‘Functional Equivalence in the Nineties: Tendencies in the

Application of Functional Equivalence Principles in Different Parts of the

World. In: Rebera, Basil, et al. Current Trends in Scripture Translation. UBS

Bulletin 182/183, p. 21-29.

de Blois, Reinier. (2000). Towards a Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on

Semantic Domains. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit (Academisch proefschrift).

593

de Bruin, C.C. & F.G.M. Broeyer. (1993). De Statenvertaling en zijn voorgangers.

Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen vanaf de Reformatie tot 1637. Haarlem:

Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap / Brussel: Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap.

de Fraine, J. (1963). Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. De Boeken van

het Oude Testament.

Deibler, Ellis W., Jr. (1971). “Sememics And Translation”, in: Notes on Translation

No. 39, (March 1971):12-16.

Deibler, Ellis. (1984). “Supplying the Missing Parts of Extended Metaphors and

Parables” in: Notes on Translation No. 101 (June 1984):39-42.

Deibler, Ellis. (1993). An Index of Implicit Information in the Gospels. Preliminary

Edition, Not for review. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

del Corro, A. (1991). ‘The Use of Figurative Language.’ In: The Bible Translator 42.1

(1991), p. 114-127.

den Hertog, C.G. (2000). ‘De betekenis van de Septuaginta voor de bijbelwetenschap.’

In: Theologia Reformata, jaargang 43, no. 4 (december 2000), p. 208-225.

Woerden: Zuijderduijn Druktechnieken B.V.

den Heyer, C.J. & P. Schelling. (2000). Symbolen in de bijbel. Woorden en hun

betekenis. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema.

den Hollander, A.A. & U.B. Schmid & W.F. Smelik (Eds.). (2003). Paratext and

Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual

Markers of Contextualization. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

de Moor, Johannes C. (1982). ‘De goede herder. Oorsprong en vroege geschiedenis

van de herdersmetafoor.’ In: G. Heitink, et. Al. (eds.). Bewerken en bewaren.

Studies aangeboden aan prof. Dr. Klaas Runia vijfentwintig jaar na zijn

inauguratie als hoogleraar in the theologie, te Geelong, Australië. Kampen:

Uitgevers-maatschappij J.H. Kok, p. 36-45.

de Robert, Philippe. (1968). Le Berger d’Israël. Essai sur le thème pastoral dans

l’Ancien Testament. Cahiers Théologiques 57. Neuchâtel (Suisse): Éditions

Delachaux et Niestlé.

de Vries, Anneke. (1994). Zuiver en onvervalscht? Een beschrijvingsmodel voor

bijbelvertalingen, ontwikkeld en gedemonstreerd aan de Petrus Canisius

vertaling. Academisch proefschrift Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam.

de Vries, Lourens. (1991). Studies in Wambon and Kombai. Aspects of two Papuan

languages of Irian Jaya. Ph.D. dissertation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

de Vries, Lourens. (1992). ‘Quotative Constructions.’ In: The Bible Translator. 43.3

(1992), 333-342.

de Vries, Lourens. (1993). Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of

Irian Jaya. Pacific Linguistics Series B-108. Canberra: The Australian

National University.

de Vries, L.J. (1996). Bijbelvertaling en primaire oraliteit. Inaugurele rede.

Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

de Vries, Lourens. (1999). ‘The Notion of Genre and the Nature of Bible

Translations’. In: Notes on Translation 13.2. (1999) 2, p. 26-42.

de Vries, Lourens. (2000). ‘Bible Translation and Primary Orality.’ In: The Bible

Translator. 51.1 (2000), p. 101-114.

594

de Vries, Lourens. (2001). ‘Bible Translations: Forms and Functions.’ In: The Bible

Translator. Technical papers Vol. 52, No. 3 (July 2001), p. 306-319.

de Vries, Lourens. (2002). ‘Van Dordrecht naar Nieuw-Guinea: bijbelvertalingen als

tekstsoort.’ In: Gillaerts, Paul. (Ed.). (2002). ). Talita koem: Genres in bijbel en

vertaling. Leuven, Leusden: Acco. p. 195-210.

de Vries, Lourens. (2003). ‘Paratext and Skopos of Bible Translations.” In: Den

Hollander, A.A. & U.B. Schmid & W.F. Smelik (Eds.). (2003). Paratext and

Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual

Markers of Contextualization. Leiden, Boston: Brill, p. 176-193.

de Vries, Lourens. (n.d.) ‘A survey of the history of Bible translation in Indonesia.’

Unpublished paper.

de Waard, Jan. (1974). ‘Biblical Metaphors and their Translation.’ In: The Bible

Translator Vol. 25; No. 1 (January 1974): 107-116.

de Waard, Jan & Eugene A. Nida. (1986). From One Language to Another:

Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

de Waard, Jan (1990) ‘Old Greek Translation Techniques and the Modern Translator.’

In: The Bible Translator. 41.3. (1990), p. 311-319.

Dorn, L. (1994). ‘Philippine Poetry and Translation.’ In: The Bible Translator 45.3

(1994), p. 301-315.

Dorn, L.O. (1999). ‘Untranslatable features in the David and Bathsheba Story (2

Samuel 11-12).’ In: The Bible Translator 50.4. (1999), p. 406-411.

Draaisma, Douwe. (1995). De metaforenmachine. Een geschiedenis van het geheugen.

Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.

Dupriez, Bernard. (1991, [1984]). A Dictionary of Literary Devices. Translated and

adapted by Albert W. Halsall. New York, London, Toronto, etc.: Harvester

Wheatsheaf.

Duranti, Alessandro. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Dye, T. Wayne. (1985, 1980). Bible Translation Strategy. Dallas, Texas: Wycliffe

Bible Translators.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus, Wulf Schiefenhövel & Volker Heeschen (Andechs). (1989).

Kommunikation bei den Eipo. Eine humanethologische Bestandsaufnahme. 19.

Beitrag zur Schriftenreihe ‘Mensch, Kultur und Umwelt im zentralen Bergland

von West-Neuguinea.’ Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Eidevall, Göran. (1996). Grapes in the Desert. Metaphors, Models and Themes in

Hosea 4-14. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Elmer, Duane. (1993). Cross-cultural Conflict. Building Relationships for Effective

Ministry. Downers Grove (IL): Intervarsity Press.

Epstein, Marcelo. (1995). ‘On the “Original” Septuagint.’ In: The Bible Translator,

Vol. 45, No. 3 (July, 1995), p. 322-329.

Evans, Craig A. (2001). Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 34 B. Mark 8:27-16:20.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. ‘The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary

Polysystem.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies

Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 192-197.

595

Fahner, Chr. (1999). Het Oude Testament van de Jonge Kerk. Over ontstaan, aard en

betekenis van de Septuaginta. Utrecht: De Banier.

Farr, Cynthia J.M. (1999). The Interface between Syntax and Discourse in Korafe, a

Papuan Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (C-

148).

Farrell, Tim. (1996). “We All Ate from the Same Soul”, in: Notes on Translation Vol.

10 No. 1 (1996): 20-26.

Fawcett, Peter. (1997). Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained.

Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1985). The Anchor Bible. The Gospel according to Luke (10-24).

Introduction, Translation and Notes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday &

Company, Inc.

Fokkelman, Jan & Wim Weren (Eds.). (2003). De Bijbel Literair. Opbouw en

gedachtegang van de bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties.

Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema & Kapellen: Uitgeverij Pelckmans.

Foley, William A. (1986). The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Foley, William A. (1997). Anthropological Linguistics. An Introduction. Malden

(USA) and Oxford (UK): Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Foley, William A. (1998). ‘Toward understanding Papuan languages.’ In: Miedema,

Jelle a.o. (eds.). Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia.

Proceedings of the Conference Leiden, 13-17 October 1997. Amsterdam,

Atlanta: Rodopi. P. 503-518.

Forsberg, Vivian. (1978).“Understanding of Metaphors”: in: Notes on Translation No.

68 (March 1978), p. 30 ff.

Frawley, William. ‘Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence

(Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:

Routledge, p. 250-263.

Fueter, Paul D. (1984). ‘Translating Signs and Symbols in the Gospels.’ In: The Bible

Translator 35.3 (1984), p. 321-329.

Fueter, Paul D. (1986). ‘The Therapeutic Language of the Bible.’ In: The Bible

Translator 37.3 (1986), p. 309-319.

Gabel, John B. & Charles B. Wheeler & Anthony D. York. (2000). The Bible as

Literature. An Introduction. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gazdar, Gerald. (1979). Pragmatics. Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form.

New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.

Gentzler, Edwin. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories. (Second revised

Edition). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Gerhardt, Ida G.M. & Marie H. van der Zeyde. (1997). De Psalmen. Uit het Hebreews

vertaald. ‘s-Hertogenbosch & Brugge: Katholieke Bijbelstichting & Uitgeverij

Tabor.

Gerstenberger, Erhard S. (1988). Psalms, Part I. With an Introduction to Cultic

Poetry. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XIV (Rolf

Knierim & Gene M. Tucker, eds.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing House.

596

Gesenius, Wilhelm. (1962). Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das

Alte Testament. (Bearbeitet von Dr. Frantz Buhl). Unveränderter Neudruck der

1915 erschienenen 17. Auflage. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer

Verlag.

Gillaerts, Paul (Ed.). (2002). Talita koem: Genres in bijbel en vertaling. Leuven,

Leusden: Acco.

Glassman, Eugene H. (1981). The Translation Debate. What Makes a Translation

Good? Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Goatly, Andrew. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London & New York:

Routledge.

Goddard, Cliff. (1998). Semantic Analysis. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Godschalk, Jan A. (1993). Sela Valley. An Ethnography of a Mek Society in the

Eastern Highlands, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Academisch Proefschrift Vrije

Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Goldman, L.R. & C. Ballard (Eds.). (1998). Fluid Ontologies. Myth, Ritual and

Philosophy in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Westport, Connecticut &

London: Bergin & Garvey.

Good, Robert McClive. (1983). The Sheep of His Pasture. A Study of the Hebrew

Noun ‘Am(m) and its Semitic Cognates. Harvard Semitic Monographs 29.

Goossens, Louis, Paul Pauwels, a.o. (1995). By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy

and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gould, Ezra P. (1912). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel

according to St. Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Green, Joel B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge,

U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Grice, H. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’, in: Cole, P., and J. Morgan, (eds.). Syntax

and Semantics. Vol. 3, p. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

Grimes, J.E. (1988). A Field Guide to Words. Unpublished manuscript. Ithaca, New

York: Cornell University.

Grimes, Barbara Dix. (1993). The Pursuit of Prosperity and Blessing: Social Life and

Symbolic Action on Buru Island, Eastern Indonesia. Ph.D. dissertation. The

Australian National University.

Grimes, Barbara F. (Ed.). (1988). Ethnologue. Languages of the World. Eleventh

edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL.

Gross, C.D. (1996). ‘Translation by Omission.’ In: The Bible Translator 47.2 (1996),

p. 211-217.

Grundmann, Walter. (1980, [1977]). Das Evangelium nach Markus. Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Grundmann, Walter. (1981). Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Berlin: Evangelische

Verlagsanstalt.

Gudykunst, William B. (1992, [1984]). Communicating with Strangers. An Approach

to Intercultural Communication. New York etc.: MacGraw-Hill, Inc.

Guelich, Robert A. (1989). Word Biblical Commentary (34A). Mark 1-8:28. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

597

Gundry, Robert H. (1982). Matthew. A Commentary on His Literary and Theological

Art. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Gunkel, Hermann. (1926). Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gunkel, Hermann. (1966, 1933). Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der

religiösen Lyrik Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.

Gunkel, Hermann. (1966). Genesis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gutt, ErnstAugust. (1988). ‘From Translation to Effective Communication.’ In: Notes

on Translation 2.1. (1988), p. 24-40.

Gutt, Ernst-August. (1992). Relevance Theory. A Guide to Successful Communication

in Translation. Dallas and New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics and

United Bible Societies.

Gutt, Ernst-August. (2000, [1991]). Translation and Relevance. Cognition and

Context. Manchester & Boston: St. Jerome Publishing.

Gutt, Ernst-August. ‘Translation as Interlingual Interpretive Use.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 376-396.

Haenchen, Ernst. (1971). The Acts of the Apostles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hagner, Donald A. (1993). Word Biblical Commentary (33A). Matthew 1-13. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Hagner, Donald A. (1995). Word Biblical Commentary (33B). Matthew 14-28. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Hall, Edward T. (1989, [1976]). Beyond Culture. New York, London, Toronto, etc.:

Doubleday.

Hall, Edward T. & Mildred Reed Hall. (1990, [1987]). Understanding Cultural

Differences. Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural

Press, inc.

Hallo, William W. & K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (1997). The Context of Scripture.

Volume I. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden, New

York, Köln: Brill.

Hallo, William W. & K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2000). The Context of Scripture.

Volume II. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden, New

York, Köln: Brill.

Hallo, William W. & K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2002). The Context of Scripture.

Volume III. Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Leiden, New York,

Köln: Brill.

Ham, Patricia. (1965). “Figures of Speech in Apinayé”, in: Notes on Translation

No.16 (August, 1965):2–2

Hamilton, Victor P. (1995). The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hamp, V. (1949). ‘Das Hirtenmotiv im Alten Testament.’ In: Professorenkollegium

Hochschule Freising, Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber zum 80. Geburtstag.

München, p. 7-20.

Harley, Trevor. (2001). The Psychology of Language. Hove and New York:

Psychology Press Ltd.

598

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London and

New York: Routledge.

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. (1998, 1990). Discourse and the Translator. London and

New York: Longman.

Hayakawa, S.I. (1972, [1941]). Language in Thought and Action. New York etc.:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Haverkamp, Anselm (ed.). (1983). Theorie der Metapher. Wege der Forschung Band

389. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Healey, Alan & Phyllis. (1992). Doing Semantics. South Pacific Summer Institute of

Linguistics – Australia.

Healey, Christopher J. (1998). ‘Political economy in the Kepala Burung region of old

western New Guinea.’ In: Miedema, Jelle a.o. (eds.). Perspectives on the

Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Proceedings of the Conference Leiden,

13-17 October 1997. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. P. 337-350.

Heeschen, Volker. (1978). ‘The Mek languages of Irian Jaya with Special Reference

to the Eipo Language.’ In: Irian 7 (No. 2):3-46.

Heeschen, Volker. (1990). Ninyi bún. Mythen, Erzählungen, Lieder und Märchen der

Eipo im zentralen Bergland von Irian Jaya (West-Neuguinea), Indonesien. 20.

Beitrag zur Schriftenreihe ‘Mensch, Kultur und Umwelt im zentralen Bergland

von West-Neuguinea. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Heeschen, Volker (1992). A Dictionary of the Yale (Kosarek) Language. Berlin:

Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Heeschen, Volker. (1998a). An Ethnographic Grammar of the Eipo Language. Spoken

in the central mountains of Irian Jaya (West New Guinea), Indonesia. Berlin:

Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Heeschen, Volker. (1998b). ‘New Guinea myths and fairy tales seen from the Irian

Jaya mountains.’ In: Miedema, Jelle a.o. (eds.). Perspectives on the Bird’s

Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Proceedings of the Conference Leiden, 13-17

October 1997. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. P. 291-312.

Henle, Paul. (1965). Language, Thought and Culture. The University of Michigan

Press.

Hermanson, Eric A. (1996, [1995]). Metaphor in Zulu: Problems in the Translation of

Biblical Metaphor in the Book of Amos. Ph.D. dissertation University of

Stellenbosch. (Compact, electronic version).

Hermanson, E.A. (1999). ‘Kings are Lions, but Herod is a Fox: Translating the

metaphor in Luke 13.32.’ In: The Bible Translator 50.2 (1999), p. 235-240.

Hess, H. Harwood. (1989). ‘Fidelity Equivalence.’ In: Notes on Translation 3.3.

(1989), p. 1-30.

Hiebert, Paul G. & R. Daniel Shaw & Tite Titénou. (1999). Understanding Folk

Religion. A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books.

Hiebert, Robert J.V., Claude E. Cox & Peter J. Gentry (eds.). (2001) The Old Greek

Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOTS, 332), Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press.

Hildum, Donald C. (ed.). (1967). Language and Thought. New York, Chicago, San

Francisco: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

599

Hill, Harriet Swannie. (2000). The Role of Context in Relevant Communication (Alias:

RT for Dummies). A Tutorial Presented to Ernst-August Gutt in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in

Intercultural Studies.

Hill, Harriet Swannie. (2001). Communicating the Biblical Message in a Relevant

Way: The Role of Context. (Applying Relevance Theory to Bible Translation).

A Tutorial Presented to Ernst-August Gutt in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Intercultural Studies.

Holmes, James S. (Ed.). (1970). The Nature of Translation. Essays on the Theory and

Practice of Literary Translation. Mouton, The Hague, Paris: Publishing House

of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava.

Holmes, James S. ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 172-185.

Hong, J. (1997). ‘Chapter and Verse Divisions in the Bible: their origins, and their use

in today’s common language translations.’ In: The Bible Translator 48.4

(1997), p. 401-410.

Hoogendoorn, G. (1993). De missionaire arbeid van de Zending der Gereformeerde

Gemeenten in Irian Jaya. Westzaan.

Hooley, Bruce A. (1992). ‘Figures of Speech.’ Unpublished manuscript. SIL.

Hope, Edward R. (1997). ‘Redefining a Functional Theory of Translation.’ In: Rebera,

Basil, et al. Current Trends in Scripture Translation. UBS Bulletin 182/183, p.

7-19/

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. (1997, [1993]). Grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hossfeld, F.-L. & E. Zenger. (1993). Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1-50. NEB 29. Würzburg.

House, Juliane Marie Louise (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.

Tübingen: TBL Verlag Gunter Narr.

Houtkoop, Hanneke & Tom Koole. (2000). Taal in actie. Hoe mensen communiceren

met taal. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.

Hulst, Jacqueline. (1995). De doeltekst centraal. Naar een functioneel model voor

vertaalkritiek. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine. (2001). Hirt und Herde. Ein Beitrag zum

alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln: W. Kohlhammer

GmbH.

Hylkema, S. (1974). Mannen in het draagnet. Mens- en wereldbeeld van de Nalum

(Sterrengebergte). ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. (Studies in Cognitive Systems, 13).

Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jacobson, Thorkild. (1939). The Sumerian King List. Chicago, Illinois: The University

of Chicago Press.

Jacquet, Louis. (1975). Les Psaumes et le coeur de l’homme. Étude textuelle, littéraire

et doctrinale. Introduction et Premier Livre du Psautier (Psaumes 1 à 41).

600

Jakobson, Roman. ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.).

(2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p.

113-118.

Janssen, Theo. (1997). Communiceren. Over taal en taalgebruik. Den Haag: Sdu

Uitgevers / Standaard Uitgeverij.

Janssen, Theo. (Red.). (2002). Taal in gebruik. Een inleiding in de taalwetenschap.

Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

Jauss, Hannelore. (1991). Tor der Hoffnung. Vergleichsformen und ihre Funktion in

der Sprache der Psalmen. (Europäische Hochschulschriften, 23/412).

Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang.

Jenni, Ernst & Claus Westermann. (1978). Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten

Testament. Zwei Bände. I (1978), II (1976). München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag;

Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

Jeremias, Joachim. (1962, 1947). Die Gleichnisse Jesu. (6., neu bearbeitete Auflage).

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.

Johns, Donald A. (2000). ‘“Who do We Translate for?” Or, “For Whom do We

Translate?” Looking at the Possibilities for a Liturgical and Literary

Translation.’ Unpublished paper presented at the Triennial Translation

Workshop of the United Bible Societies, in Malaga, Spain, 2000.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind : the bodily basis of meaning. Chicago,

IIIinois: University of Chicago Press.

Jobes, Karen H. & Moises Silva. (2000). Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Academic – Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

Jordan, Clarence. (1970). The Cotton Patch Version of Paul’s Epistles. New York:

Association Press.

Jost, Wilhelm. (1939). Das Bild vom Hirten in der biblischen Überlieferung

und seine christologische Bedeutung. Gießen: Münschowsche

Universitätsdruckerei Otto Kindt GmbH.

Kamma, Freerk C. (1975). Religious texts of the oral tradition from western New-

Guinea (Irian Jaya). Part A: The origin and sources of life. Religious texts

translation series Nisaba, vol. 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Kamma, F.C. (1976). Dit Wonderlijke Werk. Het probleem van de communicatie

tussen Oost en West gebaseerd op de ervaringen in het zendingswerk op

Nieuw-Guinea (Irian Jaya) 1855-1972. Een socio-missiologische benadering.

Deel I en II. Oegstgeest: Raad voor de Zending der Nederlandse Hervormde

Kerk.

Kamma, Freerk C. (1978). Religious texts of the oral tradition from western New-

Guinea (Irian Jaya). Part B: The threat to life and its defense against ‘natural’

and ‘supernatural’ phenomena. Religious texts translation series Nisaba, vol.

8. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Kaplan, Michael Matthew. (1981). The Lion in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of a

Biblical Metaphor. University Microfilms International.

Keel, Othmar. (1972). Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte

Testament am Beispiel der Psalmen. Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln, Neukirchen:

Benziger Verlag, etc.

601

Keller, Phillip. (1979, 1970). Hoe een herder Psalm 23 ziet. Vereeniging tot

Verspreiding der Heilige Schrift.

Kelly, Louis. G. (1979). The True Interpreter. A History of Translation Theory and

Practice in the West. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Kittay, Eva Feder. (1989, 19871). Metaphor. Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic

Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Klem, Herbert V. (1982). Oral Communication of the Scripture. Insights from African

Oral Art. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library.

Knauf, Ernst Axel. (2001). Psalm xxiii 6, In: VT 51, p. 556. (short note)

Knauft, Bruce M. (1985). Good Company and Violence. Sorcery and Social Action in

a Lowland New Guinea Society. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of

California Press.

Knight, Douglas A. (Ed.). (1993, [1985]). The Hebrew Bible and its Modern

Interpreters. Minneapolis & Atlanta: Fortress Press & Scholars Press.

Koeler, Ludwig & Walter Baumgartner. (1990). Hebräisches und Aramäisches

Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Dritte Auflage, neu bearbeitet von Johann Jakob

Stamm unter Mitarbeit von Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Benedikt Hartmann under

Philippe H. Reymond. Lieferung IV: …. Leiden, New York, København,

Köln: E.J. Brill.

Koller, W. (1987). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg &

Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.

König, Eduard. (1927). Die Psalmen eingeleitet, übersetzt unde erklärt. Gütersloh: C.

Bertelsmann.

Koole, J.A. (1996). Het Oude Testament in de NBG-vertaling 1951. Academisch

proefschrift Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam.

Koper, J. (n.d.). Enkele aspecten van het vraagstuk der missionaire Bijbelvertaling, in

het bijzonder in Indonesië. Den Haag: J.H. Voorhoeve.

Korpel, M.C.A. (1990). A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the

Divine. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Kranendonk, W.B. & A.F. van Toor. (2002). Al ‘t heidendom Zijn lof getuigen. Ds. G.

Kuijt, een pionier onder de Papoea’s. Houten: Den Hertog B.V.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. (1978). Psalmen 1-59. Psalmen 1. Teilband. 5., grundlegend

überarbeitete under veränderte Auflage. Biblischer Kommentar Altes

Testament, Band XV/I. Neukirchener Verlag.

Kroneman, Dick. (1989). Local Level Background Study of the Una Language

Program. Unpublished manuscript. Abepura: SIL.

Kroneman, Dick & Andrew Sims (1988). Una Survey Report. Unpublished

manuscript. Abepura: SIL.

Kubo, Sakae & Walter F. Specht. (1983, [1975]). So Many Versions? 20th

Century

English Versions of the Bible. Grand rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing

House.

Kuhn, Hanni. (1989). ‘Footnotes – Yes or No?: A Question Concerning Old

Testament Translations into Minority Languages.’ In: Notes on Translation

3.2. (1989), p. 39-45.

Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories

Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

602

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to

Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lam, H.J. & P.J. Vergunst (Eds.). (2002). Kanttekeningen bij de [Nieuwe Bijbel-

vertaling]. Heerenveen: Uitgeverij Groen.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical

Prerequisites. Stanford.

Lane, William L. (1974). The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Lane, William L. (1991). Word Biblical Commentary (47B). Hebrews 9-13. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books Publisher.

Langeveld, Arthur. (1986). Vertalen wat er staat. Amsterdam, Antwerpen: Uitgeverij

De Arbeiderspers.

Larsen, Iver. (2001). “The Fourth Criterion of a Good Translation.” Notes on

Translation Vol.15 No.1 (January, 2001), p. 40-53

Larson, Mildred. (1975). A Manual for Problem Solving in Bible Translation. Dallas,

Texas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Larson, Mildred L. (1984). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language

Equivalence. University Press of America.

Leaders, Martin. (1991). ‘Eliciting Figures of Speech.’ In: Notes on Translation 5.4.

(1991), p. 31-45.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins B.V.

Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

le Roux, C.C.F.M. (1946-1950). De bergpapoea’s van Nieuw Guinea en hun

woongebied. Deel 1-3. Leiden.

Levi, Peter. (1974). The English Bible 1534-1859. From Wycliff to William Barnes.

London: Constable.

Levinson, Stephen C. (1997, [1983]). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized

Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT

Press.

Levý, Jirí. ‘Translation as a Decision Process.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002).

The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 148-

159.

Lewis, Jack P. (1982, [1981]). The English Bible From KJV to NIV. A History and

Evaluation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Lewis, Phlip E. ‘The Measure of Translation Effects.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.).

(2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p.

264-283.

Likeng, P.B. (1998). ‘The Use of Animal Imagery in Proverbs.’ In: The Bible

Translator 49.2 (1998), p. 225-232.

LoCastro, Virginia. (2003). An Introduction to Pragmatics. Social Action for

Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

603

Loewen, Jacob A. (1975). ‘Non-literal Meanings. How to recognize them and use

them effectively in translation.’ In: The Bible Translator (1975) Vol. 26; No.

2:223-234.

Loewen, Jacob A. (1975). ‘Non-literal Meanings. What makes them so difficult to

translate?’ In: The Bible Translator (1975) Vol. 26; No. 4:434-440.

Loewen, Jacob A. (1985). ‘A New Look at Section Headings in West African

Translations.’ In: The Bible Translator 36.2 (1985), p. 237-241.

Lorein, G.W. (ed.). (1994). Naar een nieuwe bijbelvertaling? Leiden: Uitgeverij J.J.

Groen en Zoon.

Louw, Johannes P. & Eugene A. Nida (and others). (1989, [1988]). Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Volume 1

(Introduction & Domains) and Volume 2 (Indices). New York: United Bible

Societies.

Louwerse, John. (1987). Una (West-New Guinea) Worldview and a Reformed Model

for Contextualizing Cross-Cultural Communication of the Gospel. Ph.D.

Dissertation Fuller Theological Seminary.

Louwerse, John. (1988). The Morphology of Una in Relation to Discourse Structure:

A Descriptive Analysis. Pacific Linguistics Series B no. 100, A.N.U. Press.

Luther, Martin. (1960). ‘On Translating: An Open Letter, 1530.’ Translated by

Charles M. Jacobs; Revised by E. Theodore Bachman. In: Bachmann, E.

Theodore (ed.). (1960). Luther’s Works. Volume 35.1 (Word and Sacrament),

p. 181-202. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press.

Luther, Martin. (1960). ‘Defense of the Translation of the Psalms, 1531.’ Translated

by Charles M. Jacobs; Revised by E. Theodore Bachman. In: Bachmann, E.

Theodore (ed.). (1960). Luther’s Works. Volume 35.1 (Word and Sacrament),

p. 209-223. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press.

Luz, Ulrich. (1990). Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 2. Teilband. Mt 8-17. Zürich und

Braunschweig: Benziger Verlag / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Lyons, John. (1979, 1977). Semantics. Vols. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Maag, V. (1958). ‘Der Hirte Israels. Eine Skizze von Wesen und Bedeutung der

Väterreligion.’ In: Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 28 (1958), p. 2-28.

MacCormac, E. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Macky, Peter W. (1990). The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought. Edwin

Mellen Press.

MacLean, Alistair. (1972, [1968]). Force 10 From Navarone. Fontana: Collins.

Magonet, Jonathan. (1994). A Rabbi Reads The Psalms. London: SCM Press, p. 52-68

(chapter 4 - Through Rabbinic Eyes: Psalm 23).

Maillot, Alphonse & André Lelièvre. (1961). Les Psaumes. Commentaire – Première

Partie. Psaumes 1 à 50. Genève (Suisse): Éditions Labor et Fides.

Mann, C.S. (1986). The Anchor Bible. Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. New York etc.: Doubleday.

Marcus, Joel. (2000). The Anchor Bible. Mark 1-8. A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney,

Auckland: Doubleday.

604

Margolis, Joseph & Tom Rockmore (eds.). (2000, 1999). The Philosophy of

Interpretation. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Marshall, I. Howard. (1978). Commentary on Luke. New International Greek

Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

Martin, Troy W. (1992). Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. Atlanta, Georgia:

Scholars Press.

Massyngberde Ford, J. (1975). Revelation. Introduction, Translation and

Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday &

Company, Inc.

Matthews, Victor H. & Don C. Benjamin. (1993). Social World of Ancient Israel

1250-587 BCE. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

McFague, Sally. (1982). Metaphorical Models of God in Religious Language.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. (1988). In Search of God. The Meaning and Message of the

Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. (1988). Word Biblical Commentary (49). 1 Peter. Waco, Texas:

Word Books, Publisher.

Miedema, Jelle. (1998). ‘Culture hero stories and tales of tricksters. The Bird’s Head

peninsula of Irian Jaya in a comparative perspective (II).’ In: Miedema, Jelle

a.o. (eds.). Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia.

Proceedings of the Conference Leiden, 13-17 October 1997. Amsterdam,

Atlanta: Rodopi. P. 193-234.

Mikre-Selassie, G.A. (1993). ‘Metonymy in the Psalms.’ In: The Bible Translator

444.4 (1993), p. 418-425.

Mikre-Selassie, G.A. (1995). ‘Figures of Speech in Genesis.’ In: The Bible Translator

46.2 (1995), p. 219-225.

Millard, Matthias. (1994). Die Komposition des Psalters. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul

Siebeck).

Mittmann. S. (1980). ‘Aufbau und Einheit des Danklieds Psalm 23. ZThK 77, p. 1-23.

Mojola, A.O. (1993). ‘Theories of Metaphor.’ In: The Bible Translator 44.3 (1993), p.

341-347.

Mooij, Jan Johann Albinn. (1976) A Study of Metaphor. On the Nature of

Metaphorical Expressions, with Special Reference to their Reference.

Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Mounce, Robert H. (1977). The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, Michigan /

Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. (1962). The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Volume I. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Muijen, Heidi S.C.A. (2001). Metafoor tussen magie en methode. Narratief leren in

organisaties en therapie. Kampen: Uitgeverij Agora.

Müller, D. (1961). ‘Der gute Hirt. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte ägyptischer Bildrede.’

In: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86 (1961), p. 126-

144.

605

Nabokov, Vladimir. `Problems of Translation: “Onegin” in English. In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 71-83.

Naudé, J.A. & C.H.J. van der Merwe. (2002). Contemporary Translation Studies and

Bible Translation. A South African Perspective. Bloemfontein: UFS.

Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap (1934). Honderd en Vier Verhalen uit de Bijbelsche

Geschiedenis in het Maleisch. Met Platen. / Lima Poeloeh Doewa Tjerita dari

dalem Perdjanjian Lama. Amsterdam: Druk De Bussy.

Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap. (2000, 1999). Project [Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling] Tegen

het Licht Gehouden. Reacties en voortgaande discussie na de verschijning van

de deeluitgave. Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap.

Newmark, Peter. (1995, [19881]

). A Textbook of Translation. New York, London, etc.:

Phoenix ELT.

Ng, Sik Hung & James J. Bradac. (1993). Power in Language. Verbal Communication

and Social Influence. Newbury Park, London & New Delhi: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Nida, Eugene A. (1961, [1947]). Bible Translating. London: United Bible Societies.

Nida, Eugene A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Nida, Eugene A. (1977). Good News for Everyone. How to Use the Good News Bible

(Today’s English Version). Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publishers.

Nida, Eugene. ‘Principles of Correspondence.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002).

The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 126-

140.

Nida, Eugene A. & Charles R. Taber. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation.

Helps for Translators, volume VIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill (Published for the United

Bible Societies).

Nida, E.A. & J.P. Louw & A.H. Snyman & J. v. W. Cronje. (1983). Style and

Discourse. With special reference to the text of the Greek New Testament.

Cape Town: The Bible Society (BSSA).

Nida, Eugene A. & William D. Reyburn. (1981). Meaning Across Cultures. American

Society of Missiology Series, no. 4. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Nielsen, Kirsten. (2002). ‘The Variety of Metaphors about God in the Psalter:

Deconstruction and Reconstruction?’ In: SJOT 16, p. 151-159.

Nogales, Patti D. (1999). Metaphorically Speaking. Stanford, California: CSLI

Publications (Center for the Study of Language and Information).

Nolland, John. (1993). Word Biblical Commentary (35B). Luke 9:21-18:35. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publishers.

Nord, Christiane. (1991). Text analysis in translation: theory, methodology and

didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Nord, Christiane. (2001, [1997]). Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist

Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome

Publishing.

Noss, Philip A. (2002). ‘Translators’ Words and Theological Readings.’ In: The Bible

Translator 53.3. (2002), p. 331-343.

606

Ogden, C.K. & I.A. Richards. (1946, 1923). The Meaning of Meaning. New York:

Harbourt, Brace and Company.

Ogden, G.S. (1988). ‘Figurative language in Malachi 2.10-16.’ In: The Bible

Translator 39.2 (1988), p. 223-230.

Ogden, Graham S. (2002). ‘Translation as a Theologizing Task.’ In: The Bible

Translator 53.3 (2002), p. 308-316.

Olofsson, Staffan. (1990). The LXX Version. A Guide to the Translation Technique of

the Septuagint. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Olofsson, Staffan. (1992). God is My Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and

Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell

International.

Omanson, R.L. (1996). ‘Translation as Communication.’ In: The Bible Translator 47.4

(1996), p. 407-413.

Ortega y Gasset, José. ‘The Misery and the Splendor of Translation.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 49-63.

Ortony, Andrew (Ed.). (1996, [1979]). Metaphor and Thought. Second Edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Osborn, N.D. (1982). ‘Basic Types of Footnotes for Old Testament Translations

(based mainly on RSV and GNB).’ In: The Bible Translator 33.4 (1982), p.

414-418.

Osborne, Grant R. (1991). The Hermeneutic Spiral. A Comprehensive Introduction to

Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Ott, Willis. (1990). ‘Section Titles in Printed Scripture.’ In: Notes on Translation 4.3.

(1990), p. 34-49.

Paul, M.J. and others. (2003). Vertaling en Vertolking van de Bijbel. Goudriaan:

Uitgeverij De Groot in samenwerking met Christelijke Hogeschool De Driestar

(Gouda).

Payne, Thomas E. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide For Field Linguists.

Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, Brook W.R. (1999). ‘Remainderless Translations? Implications of the

Tradition Concerning the Translation of the LXX for Modern Translational

Theory.’ In: Porter, Stanley E. & Richard S. Hess (Eds.). (1999). Translating

the Bible: Problems and Prospects (JSNTSup 173). Sheffield Academic Press,

p. 63-84.

Peels, H.G.L. (1992). De wraak van God. De betekenis van de wortel NQM en de

functie van de NQM-teksten in het kader van de oudtestamentische

Godsopenbaring. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum B.V.

Pieterman, K.G. (Ed.). 1992. Elementen van Bijbelvertalen. Lezingen en voordrachten

onder redactie van ds. K.G. Pieterman. Haarlem: Nederlands

Bijbelgenootschap.

Polanyi, Michael & Harry Prosch. (1975). Meaning. Chicago & London: The

University of Chicago Press.

Pritchard, James B. (1969). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

607

Pritchard, James B. (1954). The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old

Testament. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Pym, A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Quine, Willard V.O. ‘Meaning and Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002).

The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 94-112.

Reesink, Ger P. (1987). Structures and their Functions in Usan, a Papuan language of

Papua New Guinea. Amsterdan: John Benjamins.

Reicke, Bo. (1964). The Anchor Bible. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Garden

City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Reiss, K. & H.J. Vermeer. (1984). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik.

München: Max Hüber.

Reiss, Katharina. ‘Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in

Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies

Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 160-171.

Reiss, Katharina. (2000). Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations.

Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. New York:

American Bible Society & Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.

Renck, Günther. (1990). Contextualization of Christianity and Christianization of

Language: A Case Study from the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Erlangen:

Verlag der Evangelisch-Lutherische Mission.

Rener, Frederick M. (1989.) Interpretatio. Language and Translation from Cicero to

Tytler. Amsterdam – Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.

Reyburn, William D. & Euan Mcg. Fry. (1997). A Handbook on Genesis. New York:

United Bible Societies.

Richards, I.A. (1964, [1936]). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Richards, Larry. (2001). Every Name of God in the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson

Publishers.

Ricoeur, Paul (1976). Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning.

Fort Worth, Texas: The Texan Christian University Press.

Ricoeur, Paul. (1979). The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the

Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ridderbos, J. (1955). De Psalmen vertaald en verklaard. Deel I: Psalm 1-41. Kampen:

N.V. Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok.

Rienecker, Fritz. (1976). Das Evangelium des Lukas. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus

Verlag.

Robbins, Vernon K. (1996). Exploring the Texture of Texts. A Guide to Socio-

Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press

International.

Robinson, Douglas. (2001, 1997). Becoming a Translator. An Accelerated Course.

London: Routledge.

Rogerson, J.W. & J.W. McKay. (1977). Psalms 1-50. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rossiter, Charles M. Jr. & W. Barnett Pearce. (1977, 1975). Communicating

Personally. A Theory of Interpersonal Communication and Human

Relationships. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing.

608

Rountree, S. Catherine. (2001). Testing Scripture Translation for Comprehension.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World

Mission.

Rupp, James. (1974). “On Eliciting Metaphors.” In: Notes on Translation No.53

(September 1974):17-33.

Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit & Tremper Longman III (eds.). (1998). A Dictionary

of Biblical Imagery. An encyclopedic exploration of the images, symbols,

motifs, metaphors, figures of speech and literary patterns of the Bible.

Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press.

Sanneh, Lamin. (1998). Translating the Message. The Missionary Impact on Culture.

New York: Maryknoll (Orbis Books).

Sapir, J. David & J. Christophor Crocker (eds.). (1977). The Social Use of Metaphor.

Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and

Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Schank, Roger C. (1984, 1982). Dynamic Memory. A Theory of Reminding and

Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge, London, New York, etc:

Cambridge University Press.

Scharbert, J. (1986). Genesis 12-50. Die Neue Echter Bibel Kommentar zum Alten

Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung. Echter Verlag.

Schart, Aaron. (1999). `Die „Gestalt“ YHWHs: Ein Beitrag zur Körpermetaphorik

alttestamentlicher Rede von Gott.’ TZ 55, p. 26-41.

Schenkeveld, Margaretha H. & Maria A. Schenkeveld-van der Dussen (eds.). (1999).

Het is begonnen met David. De honderdvijftig psalmen in het Nederlands

berijmd, vertaald, bewerkt door 47 Nederlandse dichters uit vijf eeuwen.

Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meineman.

Schiefelin, Edward L. (1976). The Sorrow of the Lonely and the Burning of the

Dancers. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Schotroff, Willy. (1999). `Zur Methode sozialgeschichtlicher Bibelauslegung.’ In:

Idem, Gerechtigkeit lernen: Beiträge zur biblischen Sozialgeschichte

(Theologische Bücherei, 94), Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher

Verlagshaus, p. 19-51.

Schott, Albert. (1929). Die Vergleiche in den akkadischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig:

J.C. Hinrichs.

Schuman, Niek. (2002). Pastorale. Psalm 23 in bijbel en liturgie verwoord en

uitgebeeld. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema.

Searle, John R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.

Cambridge: University Press.

Seebass, Horst. (1996). Genesis I. Urgeschichte (1,1-11,26). Neukirchener Verlag.

Seebass, Horst. (2000). Genesis III. Josephsgeschichte (37,1-50,26). Neukirchener

Verlag.

Seibert, I. (1969). Hirt, Herde, König. Zur Herausbildung des Königtums in

Mesopotamien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Shaw, R. Daniel. (1988). Transculturation. The Cultural Factor in Translation and

Other Communication Tasks. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library.

609

Shibles, Warren A. (1971). Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History.

Shuttleworth, Mark & Moira Cowie. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies.

Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.

Silva, Moisés. (1983). Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical

Semantics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Silzer, Pete J. & Heljä Heikkinen Clouse. (1991). Index of Irian Jaya Languages. A

Special Publication of Irian Bulletin of Irian Jaya. 2nd

edition. Jayapura:

Program Kerjasama Universitas Cenderawasih & Summer Institute of

Linguistics.

Sims, Andrew & Anne Sims. (1992). Ritual and Relationships in the Valley of the

Sun. The Ketengban of Irian Jaya. Jayapura: Cenderawasih University / Dallas,

Texas: International Museum of Cultures (Summer Institute of Linguistics).

Slager, D.J. (2000). ‘The Figurative Use of Terms for “Adultery” and “Prostitution” in

the Old Testament.’ In: The Bible Translator 51.4. (2000), p. 431-438.

Smalley, William A. (1991). Translation as Mission. Bible Translation in the Modern

Missionary Movement. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press.

Snell-Hornby, Mary & Franz Pöchhacker & Kalus Kaindl (Eds.) (1994). Translation

Studies. An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Soesilo, Daud H. (2001a, [1984]). Mengenal Alkitab Anda. Edise ke-4. Jakarta:

Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia.

Soesilo, Daud. (2001b). ‘Names of God in Malaysia.’ In: The Bible Translator 52.4.

(2001), p. 414-423.

Sollamo, Raija and Seppo Sipilä. (Eds.) (2001). Helsinki Perspectives on the

Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Proceedings of the IOSC Congress in

Helsinki 1999. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (The Finnish Exegetical

Society in Helsinki).

Soskice, Janet Martin. (1985). Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. (2001, [1986]). Relevance. Communication and

Cognition. Second Edition. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. ‘The Politics of Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence

(Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:

Routledge, p. 397-416.

Spoler-van den Hombergh (Ed.). (2000). Communicatie en sociale vaardigheden.

Baarn, The Netherlands.

Statham, Nigel. (2003). ‘Dynamic Equivalence and Functional Equivalence: How Do

They Differ?’ In: The Bible Translator 54.1. (2003), p. 102-111

Steen, Gerard. (1994). Understanding Metaphor in Literature. London & New York:

Longman.

Steiner, George. (1977, [1975]). After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steiner, George. ‘The Hermeneutic Motion.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The

Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p. 186-191.

Sterk, Jan P. (1990). ‘Translating for Impact?’ In: The Bible Translator 41.1. (1990),

p. 109-121.

610

Stern, Gustaf. (1931). Meaning and Change of Meaning. With special reference to the

English language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Stern, Josef. (2000). Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London,

England: The MIT Press.

Stienstra, Nelly. (1993). YHWH is the Husband of His People. Analysis of a Biblical

Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos

Publishing House.

Stine, Philip C. (1988). Issues in Bible Translation. UBS Monograph Series, no. 3.

London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies.

Stroik, Thomas S. (1988). The Pragmatics of Metaphor. Bloomington, Indiana:

Indiana University.

Stutterheim, C.F.P. (1941). Het begrip metafoor. Een taalkundig en wijsgerig

onderzoek. Academisch Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam:

H.J. Paris.

Swellengrebel, J.L. (1974). In Leijdeckers Voetspoor. Anderhalve Eeuw

Bijbelvertaling en Taalkunde in de Indonesische Talen. Deel I. Amsterdam:

Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap.

Swellengrebel, J.L. (1978). In Leijdeckers Voetspoor. Anderhalve Eeuw

Bijbelvertaling en Taalkunde in de Indonesische Talen. Deel II. Amsterdam:

Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap.

Tate, Marvin E. (1990). Word Biblical Commentary (20). Psalms 51-100. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Taylor, John R. (1995, [1989]). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic

Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tenney, Merrill C. (1966, [1963]). The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Terry, Milton S. (1968). Biblical Hermeneutics. A Treatise on the Interpretation of the

Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing

House.

Thiselton, Anthony C. (1977). ‘Semantics and New Testament Interpretation.’ In:

Marshall, I. Howard (ed.). New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Principles

and Methods, p. 75-104. Exeter, England: The Paternoster Press Ltd.

Thomson, Greg. (1988). ‘What Sort of Meaning is Preserved in Translation?’ In:

Notes on Translation 2.1. (1988), p. 1-24.

Thomson, Greg. (1989). ‘What Sort of Meaning is Preserved in Translation? Part

Two: Sense.’ In: Notes on Translation 3.1. (1989), p. 26-49.

Thomson, Greg. (1989). ‘What Sort of Meaning is Preserved in Translation? Part

Three: Pragmatic Meaning’ In: Notes on Translation 3.4. (1989), p. 30-54.

Thomson, Greg. (1990). ‘What Sort of Meaning is Preserved in Translation? Part

Four: Presupposition’ In: Notes on Translation 4.1. (1990), p. 21-32.

Titrud, Kermit. (1994). ‘Translation Philosophies.’ In: Notes on Translation 8.2.

(1994), p. 19-29.

Toury, Gideon. ‘The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence

(Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:

Routledge, p. 198-211.

611

Trask, R.L. (1999). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London and New

York: Routledge.

Tromp, N.J. (1992). ‘Beeldspraak in de Bijbel.’ In: Pieterman, K.G. (red.). Elementen

van Bijbelvertalen, p. 119-132. Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap.

Tromp, Nico. (2000). Psalmen 1-50. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Katholieke Bijbelstichting.

Tsur, Reuven. (1987). On Metaphoring. Jerusalem: Israel Science Publishers.

Tuggy, David. (1998). ‘The Literal-Idiomatic Bible Translation Debate from the

Perspective of Cognitive Grammar.’ Unpublished paper (SIL).

Turbayne, Colin Murray. (1962). The Myth of Metaphor. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Turner, Denys. (1995). Eros & Allegory. Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs.

Kalamazoo, Michigan – Spencer, Massachusetts: Cistercian Publications.

Turner, Mark. (1987). Death is the Mother of Beauty. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

van Baal, Jan. (1981). Man’s quest for partnership. Assen: Van Gorcum.

van Boven, Erica & Gillis Dorleijn. (1999). Literair Mechaniek. Inleiding tot de

analyse van verhalen en gedichten. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.

van Bruggen, J. (1975). De toekomst van de Bijbelvertaling. Amsterdam: Ton Bolland.

van Bruggen, Jakob. (1978). The Future of the Bible. Nashville, New York: Thomas

Nelson Inc., Publishers.

van Bruggen, Jakob. (2003, [2002]). Het kompas van het christendom. Ontstaan en

betekenis van een omstreden bijbel. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok.

van der Auwera, Johan. (1980). Indirect Speech Acts Revisited. Indiana: Indiana

University Linguistics Club.

van der Louw, Th.A.W. (2000). ‘Theologie, vertaalmethode en vertaalpraktijk.

Overwegingen rond de nieuwe bijbelvertaling.’ In: Theologia Reformata,

jaargang 43, no. 4 (december 2000), p. 193-207.

van der Marel, M.P. (1980). `Kritiek op Bijbelvertalingen.’ In: Gereformeerd

Theologisch Tijdschrift 80, 1980, nr. 3/4, p. 161-171.

van der Meij, Frits. (2002). ‘Metaforen en genres in de bijbel: zijn ze te vertalen?’ In:

Gillaerts, Paul (2002), p. 129-158.

van der Spek, Erik. (1993). Taalmaskerade. Over beeldspraak, metaforen &

vergelijkingen. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Kosmos-Z&K Uitgevers.

van der Toorn, K., B. Becking & P. van der Horst (eds.). (1995). Dictionary of Deities

and Demons in the Bible. Leiden, New York, London.

van Dijk, Teun A. (1976). Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and

pragmatics of discourse. London & New York: Longman.

van Ek, G. (2002). Tijd en ruimte. Een studie over Psalm 92. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij

Meinema.

van Enk, Gerrit J. and Lourens de Vries. (1997). The Korowai of Irian Jaya. Their

Language in Its Cultural Context. New York and Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

van Hecke, Pierre. (2000). ‘Koppig als een koe is Israël, en JHWH zou het moeten

weiden als een schaap in het open veld?’ (Hos 4,16). Een cognitief-

linguïstische analyse van de religieuze pastorale metaforiek in de Hebreeuwse

612

bijbel. (Deel I: Theorie en Methode; Deel II: Analyse en Synthese).

Ongepubliceerd proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

van Hecke, Pierre. (n.d.). ‘Are People Walking After or Before God? On the

Metaphorical Use of and .’ To appear in: Orientalia

Lovaniensia Periodica.

van Herck, Walter. (1999). Religie en metafoor. Over het relativisme van het

figuurlijke. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.

van Heusden, Barend & Els Jongeneel. (1993). Algemene literatuurwetenschap. Een

theoretische inleiding. Utrecht: Het Spectrum B.V.

Vanhoozer, Keven J. (1998). Is There Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader,

and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Publishing House.

Van Kleef, Sjaak & Jacqueline. (n.d.). The Use of Metaphors in Siroi. Unpublished

manuscript. Ukarumpa, PNG: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Van Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. (1992). Vertaalwetenschap: ontwikkelingen en per-

spectieven. Muiderberg: Coutinho BV.

van Noppen, J.P. (1985). Metaphor: A Bibliography of Post-1970 Publications.

Amsterdam Studies in the Theory & History of Linguistic Sciences, Series V,

Vol. 17.

van Noppen, J.-P. (1990). Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publications.

1985-1990. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory & History of Linguistic

Sciences, Series V, Lib. !

van Oosterhout, Dianne. (1998). ‘Fertility and the mediating body in Inanwatan, south

coastal Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya.’ In: Miedema, Jelle a.o. (eds.). Perspectives

on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Proceedings of the Conference

Leiden, 13-17 October 1997. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. P. 127-161.

van Orman Quine, Willard. (1961, [1953]). From a Logical Point of View. Logico-

Philosophical Essays. Second Edition, revised. New York, Hagerstown, San

Francisco, London: Harper Torchbooks.

van Ruler, A.A. (1973). Over de psalmen gesproken: Meditaties over de psalmen,

Nijkerk: Callenbach p. 79-91.

van Selms, A. (1967). Genesis. Deel I en II. Serie: Prediking Oude Testament.

Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach, N.V.

van Uchelen, N.A. (1971). Psalmen. Deel I (1-40). Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F.

Callenbach N.V.

Shelden, Deidre Lee. (1999). Training Southeast Asians to Test Translation for

Comprehension. M.A. Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary.

van Woudenberg, René. (2002). Filosofie van taal en tekst. Budel: Uitgeverij

DAMON.

Veale, Tony. (1995). Metaphor, Memory and Meaning. Symbolic and Connectionist

Issues in Metaphor Interpretation. Dublin: School of Computer Applications,

Dublin City University (Ph.D. dissertation).

Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. London and

New York: Routledge.

Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2002, [2000]). The Translation Studies Reader. London and

New York: Routledge.

613

Venuti, Lawrence. ‘Translation, Community, Utopia.’ In: Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.).

(2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, p.

468-488.

Vermeer, Hans J. ‘Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 221-232.

Verschueren, Jef. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney,

Auckland: Arnold.

Verstegen, Peter. (1993). Vertaalkunde versus vertaalwetenschap. Amsterdam: Thesis

Publishers.

Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. ‘A Methodology for Translation.’ In: Venuti,

Lawrence (Ed.). (2002). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New

York: Routledge, p. 84-93.

von Soden, W. (1965-1981). Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden.

Waaijman, Kees. (n.d.). Psalmen over recht en onrecht. Verklaring van een

bijbelgedeelte. Kampen: Uitgeverij J.H. Kok Kampen.

Wallis, G. (1993). Article ‘r‘h’. In: Botterweck, G. Johannes & Helmer Ringgren.

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Band VII. … Stuttgart,

Berlin, Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Watson, Wilfred G.E. (1995, [1984]). Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to its

Techniques. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Watzlawick, Paul & Janet Helmick Beavin & Don D. Jackson. (1989, 1970). De

pragmatische aspecten van de menselijke communicatie. Deventer: Van

Loghum Slaterus.

Weiner, James F. (1987). ‘Men, Ghosts and Dreams among the Foi: Literal and

Figurative Modes of Interpretation.’ In: J.R. Beckett and L.R. Hiatt, Oceania,

Volume LVII (1986-1987), p. 114-127.

Weiner, James F. (1988). The Heart of the Pearl Shell. The Mythological Dimension

of Foi Sociality. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California

Press.

Weiner, James F. (1991). The Empty Space. Poetry, Space, and Being among the Foi

of Papua New Guinea. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University

Press.

Weiser, A. (1962). The Psalms. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Weiser, Arthur. (1963). Die Psalmen: Erster Teil: Psalm 1-60.

Wendland, Ernst R. (1987). The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. A Study of

Communicating the Word of God in a Central African Cultural Context. UBS

Monograph Series, No. 2. London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible

Societies.

Wendland, Ernst. R. (1995). “Seeking the Path Through a Forest of Symbols: A

Figurative and Structural Survey of The Song of Songs.” In: JOTT Volume 7

No. 2 (1995) 13–59.

Wendland, Ernst R. (1996). ‘On the Relevance of “Relevance Theory” for Bible

Translation.’ In: The Bible Translator 47.1 (1996), p. 126-137.

614

Wendland, Ernst R. (1998). Analyzing The Psalms – With Exercises for Bible Students

and Translators. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics / Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns.

Wendland, Ernst R. (2000). “Stand Fast in the True Grace of God!” A Study of 1

Peter. In: JOTT Volume 13 (2000): 14-24.

Wendland, Ernst R. (2002). ‘“Theologizing” in Bible Translation.’ In: The Bible

Translator 53.3. (2002), p. 316-330.

Wenham, Gordon J. (1994). Word Biblical Commentary (2). Genesis 16-50. Dallas,

Texas: Word Books, Publisher. #

Werk in Uitvoering. Deeluitgave van de Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling. Met verantwoording

en toelichting. Deel 1. (1998) Haarlem en ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Nederlands

Bijbelgenootschap en Katholieke Bijbelstichting.

Werk in Uitvoering. Deeluitgave van de Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling. Met verantwoording

en toelichting. Deel 2. (2000) Haarlem en ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Nederlands

Bijbelgenootschap en Katholieke Bijbelstichting.

Werth, Paul. (1984). Focus, Coherence and Emphasis. London, Sydney, Dover (New

Hampshire): Croom Helm.

Westermann, Claus. (1982). Genesis III (37-50)). Biblischer Kommentar Altes

Testament. Neukirchener Verlag.

Whang, Y.C. ‘To Whom is a Translator Responsible – Reader or Author?’ In: Porter,

Stanley E. & Richard S. Hess (Eds.). (1999). Translating the Bible: Problems

and Prospects (JSNTSup 173). Sheffield Academic Press, p. 46-62.

White, R. (1996). The Structure of Metaphor. The Way the Language of Metaphor

Works. (Philosophical Theory). Oxford. +

Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin

Lee Whorf. Ed. J.B. Carroll. New York: Wiley.

Wierenga, Lambert. (1996). De macht van de taal, de taal van de macht. Over

literatuurwetenschap en bijbelgebruik. Kampen: Kok Voorhoeve.

Wilt, Timothy (Ed.). (2003). Bible Translation. Frames of Reference. Manchester, UK

& Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.

Wonderly, William L. (1968). Bible Translations for Popular Use. Helps for Bible

Translators, volume VII. Ann Arbor, Michigan: United Bible Societies.

Wonderly, William L. (1987). ‘Poetry in the Bible: Challenge to Translators.’ In: The

Bible Translator 38.2 (1987), p. 206-213.

Wurm, Stefan A. (1971). The Papuan Linguistic Situation. Current Trends in

Linguistics. Vol. 8: Linguistics in Oceania, edited by J.D. Bowen, et al. The

Hague: Mouton.

Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.). (1975). New Guinea area languages and language study, vol.

1: Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. Pacific Linguistics

Series C-38. Canberra: Australian National University.

Wurm, Stephen A. (1982). Papuan Languages of Oceania. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Yri, K. (1998). My Father Taught Me How to Cry, but Now I have Forgotten. The

Semantics of Religious Concepts with an Emphasis on Meaning, Interpretation

and Translatability (Acta Humaniora, 29) Oslo.

Zahniser, A.H. Matthias. (1997). Symbol and Ceremony. Making Disciples Across

Cultures. Monrovia, California: MARC.

615

Zehnder, Markus Philipp. (1999). Wegmetaphorik im Alten Testament. Eine

semantische Untersuchung der alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Weg-

Lexeme mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer metaphorischen Verwendung.

New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Zimmerli, Walter. (1969). Ezechiel. 2 Teilband. Ezechiel 25-48. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag.

Zimmermann, Ruben. (2000). `Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache: Ein

methodologischer Versuch.’ In: TZ 56, p. 108-133.

Zogbo, Lynell & Ernst R. Wendland (2000). Hebrew Poetry in the Bible. A Guide for

Understanding and for Translating. United Bible Societies.

Zöllner, Siegfried. (1988). The Religion of the Yali in the Highlands of Irian Jaya.

Translation and synopsis by Jan A. Godschalk. Point Series No. 13. The

Melanesian Institute for Pastoral and Socio-Economic Service.

616

Samenvatting

De HEERE is mijn herder. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de theorie en praktijk van het

vertalen van bijbelse beeldspraak. Academisch proefschrift Vrije Universiteit Amster-

dam (2004).

Dit proefschrift gaat over het vertalen van bijbelse beeldspraak in bijbelvertalingen in de

Una-taal (Papua; Irian Jaya) en in bijbelvertalingen in vijftien andere minderheidstalen

die gesproken worden in Oost-Indonesië (Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua).

1. Probleemstelling

Het vertalen van beeldspraak is op zich al een hele uitdaging voor literaire vertalers die

– bijvoorbeeld – engelstalige gedichten vertalen in het Duits of Nederlands. Het vormt

echter in het bijzonder een probleem voor vertalers die de Bijbel vertalen in niet-westerse

minderheidstalen. In een groot aantal van deze talen – met name op Papua – is een

belangrijk deel van de bevolking nog analfabeet en ééntalig, en zijn de achtergronden en

betekenissen van bijbelse beeldspraak vaak onbekend. Een letterlijke (ongewijzigde)

weergave van bijbelse beeldspraak in de ontvangende taal wordt door veel sprekers van

deze minderheidstalen vaak niet begrepen en roept soms zelfs ernstige misverstanden op.

Deze misverstanden zijn veelal te herleiden tot het feit dat beeldspraak in het algemeen

voor een belangrijk deel cultureel bepaald is. Bijbelse beeldspraak roept soms heel andere

betekenissen op binnen het kader van de denkwereld van – bijvoorbeeld – Papua-

culturen dan betekenissen die de schrijvers van het Oude en Nieuwe Testament

oorspronkelijk bedoeld kunnen hebben.

Een bijbelvertaler wordt door de enorme culturele verscheidenheid tussen de brontaal

cultuur en de doeltaalcultuur voortdurend voor een dilemma geplaatst: Moet ik in de

vertaling de vormen van de brontekst nu zoveel mogelijk handhaven zonder verdere

verduidelijking toe te voegen, met als gevolg dat de doelgroep voor wie de vertaling

bedoeld is de tekst verkeerd begrijpt? Of moet ik de bijbelse beeldspraak zodanig

vertalen dat de betekenis zonder meer duidelijk is voor de hoorders en lezers van deze

vertaling?

Dit dilemma wordt verder gecompliceerd door het feit dat de betekenis van beeldspraak

vaak meerduidig is in de zin dat mogelijkerwijs meer dan één betekenis gelijktijdig een

rol speelt. In hoeverre is het dan de taak van de vertaler om al deze betekenissen uit te

drukken in de vertaling? Wordt een vertaling op deze manier niet topzwaar en teveel

uitleggerig, en worden de mogelijke betekenissen van beeldspraak daardoor niet teveel

ingeperkt?

Een aantal leidinggevende bijbelvertalers en vertaalconsulenten heeft zich in de tweede

helft van de twintigste eeuw bezig gehouden met deze problematiek. De meesten van hen

kwamen tot de aanbeveling dat bijbelvertalers bij het vertalen van metaforen om te

beginnen zoveel mogelijk aansluiten bij de vormen van de grondtekst. Als tijdens het

controleren van de vertaling met moedertaalsprekers echter blijkt dat de beeldspraak niet

617

of onvoldoende begrepen wordt, dan mogen vertalers de beeldspraak stap voor stap

verduidelijken in de vertaling. Als – bijvoorbeeld – de metaforische uitspraak “De

HEERE is mijn herder” niet begrepen wordt, dan mogen vertalers de metaforische

uitspraak omzetten in een figuurlijke vergelijking (“simile”) als “De HEERE is als een

herder voor mij”. Als de vertaling ook dan nog niet duidelijk is, mogen vertalers ook het

zogenaamde “punt van vergelijking” (tertium comparationis) uitdrukken in de vertaling.

Het resultaat is dan een uitgebreide figuurlijke vergelijking. De beeldspraak van Psalm

23:1 wordt dan bijvoorbeeld weergegeven als “Zoals een herder zorgt voor zijn schapen,

zo zorgt de HEERE voor mij.”

Behalve deze drie mogelijkheden om metaforen te vertalen, kan het oorspronkelijke beeld

in sommige gevallen ook vervangen worden door een beeld uit de doeltaalcultuur of door

een niet-figuurlijke (letterlijke) uitdrukking. Hoe vertaal je bijvoorbeeld “De HEERE is

mijn schild”, als er in de doeltaalcultuur nooit schilden hebben bestaan? Vertalers kunnen

in zulke gevallen overwegen om een beeld te gebruiken uit de doeltaalcultuur dat

ongeveer dezelfde functie heeft als het oorspronkelijke beeld. “De HEERE is mijn schild”

kan dan bijvoorbeeld worden weergegeven in de vertaling met “De HEERE is mijn

schutting/omheining” of “De HEERE is mijn harnas/oorlogsvest”. Een niet-figuurlijke

weergave zou dan kunnen luiden “De HEERE is mijn beschermer”.

Bovenstaande vertaalprincipes hebben de afgelopen decennia goede diensten bewezen

aan bijbelvertalers die werkten in een missionaire context, en die zorgvuldig omgingen

met de gegeven vertaalprincipes. Bij de weergave van een beeld uit de brontaal met een

beeld uit de doeltaal is het bijvoorbeeld niet alleen belangrijk dat het beeld uit de doeltaal

ongeveer dezelfde functie heeft als het beeld uit de brontaal, maar ook dat het beeld uit de

doeltaal niet in strijd is met de historische en culturele context van de Bijbel. Het bijbelse

beeld van een herder met zijn schapen en geiten mag je bijvoorbeeld niet weergeven als

een beeld van een zwijnenhoeder met zijn varkens, ook al zou zo’n beeld heel goed

passen in Papua culturen. Een dergelijke weergave zou in strijd zijn met de historische en

culturele context van de Bijbel, waarin varkens als “onreine dieren” worden beschouwd

(negatieve gevoelswaarde), en waarin gedomesticeerde varkens niet of nauwelijks

voorkomen in cultuur en beeldspraak.

De afgelopen jaren is er echter vanuit de relevantie-theorie (met name door Ernst August

Gutt) nogal flink kritiek geuit op het vertaalmodel van de dynamische equivalentie

waarin de bovenstaande vertaalprincipes voor het vertalen van metaforen tot stand zijn

gekomen. Gutt heeft kritiek op het coderingsmodel van communicatie waar deze theorie

op gestoeld is. Hij benadrukt dat communicatie voor een belangrijk deel indirect is.

Sprekers zeggen in de regel niet alles wat ze bedoelen, maar verwachten ondertussen wel

dat hun hoorders begrijpen wat ze bedoeld hebben. Als moeder rond etenstijd zegt “De

tafel is gedekt” dan is bedoelt ze “Laten we gaan eten” en verwacht ze dat ook de rest van

het gezin hun handen wast en aan tafel komt. Gutt pleit ervoor dat in directe vertalingen

het uitleggen van betekenis in de vertaling zoveel mogelijk wordt vermeden. In indirecte

vertalingen kan er overigens nog wel sprake zijn van het uitleggen van betekenissen.

Deze onderscheiding correspondeert min of meer met het onderscheid dat Reiß maakt

tussen Übersetzung en Übertragung.

618

Wat het vertalen van beeldspraak betreft benadrukt Gutt dat beeldspraak vaak meerduidig

is. Meerdere betekenissen spelen tegelijkertijd een rol. Sommige van deze context-

bepaalde betekenissen (implicatures) zijn “sterk” en andere zijn “zwak”.

Gutt’s kritiek op het vertaalmodel van de dynamische equivalentie (inclusief de meer

gematigde variant van functionele equivalentie) vraagt om een nadere doordenking van

de theoretische en methodische aspecten van het vertaalwerk in het algemeen en van het

vertalen van beeldspraak in het bijzonder. Daarnaast vragen ook nieuwere inzichten

vanuit de zogenaamde skopos-theorie (Vermeer, Nord, De Vries) en vanuit de frames of

reference benadering (Wilt en anderen) om een nadere doordenking van de vertaal-

strategie en -principes.

2. Voorwerp en methode van onderzoek

In dit proefschrift ga ik nader in op de bovenstaande problematiek aan de hand van de

vertaling van de Bijbelse beeldspraak van herder, schaap en kudde. Drie vragen spelen

een belangrijke rol: 1. Wat is de betekenis (of: zijn de context-bepaalde betekenissen) van

de bijbelse beeldspraak van herder en schapen, zoals die voorkomt in de teksten van het

Oude en Nieuwe Testament? 2. Hoe is de bijbelse beeldspraak van herder en schapen

vertaald in de Una-taal (Papua; Indonesia) en in andere Papua talen en niet-Papua

(Austronesische) talen in Oost-Indonesië? 3. Hoe kan de bijbelse beeldspraak van herder

en schapen het best worden vertaald in een geïsoleerde taal als het Una, waar de

meerderheid van de bevolking (70 %) nog analfabeet is, en waar de doorsnee

moedertaalspreker niet of nauwelijks bekend is met de culturele context van het Oude

Nabije Oosten (Oude en Nieuwe Testament) waar het beeld van herder en schapen

vandaan komt?

Deze studie draagt een interdisciplinair karakter en is in die zin min of meer

representatief voor het werk van bijbelvertalers en vertaalconsulenten in het algemeen.

Het onderwerp van pastorale beeldspraak wordt benaderd vanuit de volgende disciplines:

metafoor-theorie (hoofdstukken 2 en 3), exegese van pastorale beeldspraak in de Bijbel

(hoofdstukken 4-7), vertaaltheorie (hoofdstukken 8, 9, 11), kennis van Papua-talen en

-culturen, toegespitst op de beschrijving van inheemse beeldspraak in de Una-taal

(hoofdstukken 10 en 12), het vertalen van bijbelse metaforen in de Una-taal

(hoofdstukken 13-14) en in andere talen van Oost-Indonesië (hoofdstuk 15). Daarnaast

wordt het vertalen van metaforen ook benaderd vanuit de cognitieve psychologie, de

taalkundige pragmatiek en de communicatieleer.

In de hoofdstukken 13-14 wordt verder speciale aandacht besteed aan de vraag, in

hoeverre doorsnee moedertaalsprekers van de Una-taal de pastorale beeldspraak en

andere bijbelse beeldspraak begrijpen, welke factoren mogelijk een rol spelen bij

misverstanden, en hoe deze problemen het best kunnen worden opgelost. Heel veel

misverstanden blijken het gevolg te zijn van culturele interferentie, waarbij de bijbelse

beeldspraak – bezien door de bril van de sociaal-culturele frames of reference van Una

hoorders/lezers – heel andere betekenissen oproept dan de betekenissen waarvan

619

uitleggers min of meer overtuigd zijn dat ze oorspronkelijk bedoeld waren. Verschillende

moedertaalsprekers van het Una begrepen de vertaling van Psalm 23:6b (“En ik zal voor

altijd wonen in het huis des HEEREN”) als een verwijzing naar de hemel in plaats van

een verwijzing naar de tempel of de tent (tabernakel) waar de ark van het verbond werd

bewaard. Door middel van een subtiele frame-articulatie (“En ik zal wonen in het huis

des HEEREN voor de rest van mijn leven”) werd de dubbelzinnigheid van het begrip

“huis des HEEREN” opgeheven, en begrepen de Una sprekers dat het hier om een

verwijzing naar het huis van God op aarde ging en niet om een verwijzing naar de hemel.

Frame-articulatie kan plaatsvinden op verschillende niveaus van explicatie, maar dient bij

voorkeur plaats te vinden met zo min mogelijk explicatie. De skopos van de vertaling

speelt ook een belangrijke rol met betrekking tot de vraag hoeveel explicatie is toegestaan

in de vertaling.

De frames of reference benadering van Wilt en anderen bleek – met een enkele

aanpassing en aanvulling – een heel goed kader te vormen voor het integreren van

institutionele, sociaal-culturele en textuele aspecten van vertaalwerk die in dit

proefschrift aan de orde komen. Niet alleen de skopos-theorie, cognitieve taalwetenschap,

cultuurstudie, literaire analyse, maar ook descriptief onderzoek van vertaalde teksten en

van het begrip van deze teksten door moedertaalsprekers van de beoogde doelgroep

kunnen binnen dit kader op een min of meer geïntegreerde manier aan de orde komen.

Een belangrijk deel van deze dissertatie heeft het karakter van descriptief onderzoek. Niet

alleen het hoofdstuk (11) over beeldspraak in de Una-taal is daarvan een voorbeeld, maar

ook de hoofstukken over de geschiedenis en de institutionele context van het Una

vertaalproject (12) en over het vertalen van pastorale en andere metaforen in de Una-taal

(13-14) en andere talen uit Oost-Indonesië (15) zijn vooral beschrijvend van aard. Deze

nadruk op beschrijvend onderzoek reflecteert een trend op het gebied van de vertaal-

wetenschap in het algemeen, welke nog maar nauwelijks heeft doorgewerkt binnen de

discipline van de Bijbelvertaalkunde, voorzover deze beoefend wordt door onderzoekers

die zich vooral richten op contemporaine missionaire bijbelvertalingen in niet-westerse

talen. Er is in de vakliteratuur bijvoorbeeld meer aandacht voor de vraag hoe metaforen

het best vertaald kunnen worden (methodische aspecten) dan voor de vraag hoe

metaforen in de praktijk vertaald zijn.

De beschrijvende aspecten van deze studie zijn echter ingebed in een breder theoretisch

en methodologisch kader, en monden ten dele ook uit op een theoretische en/of

methodische verfijning. Gebaseerd op mijn vergelijking van vier verschillende Una

vertalingen van Psalm 23, stel ik bijvoorbeeld voor om het begrip “vertaling met een

missionaire skopos” (De Vries) verder te verfijnen. Wat betreft vertalingen met een

missionaire skopos kunnen we – op grond van min of meer dominerende tendensen – in

principe drie soorten onderscheiden: missionair-contextualiserend, missionair-explicatief

en missionair-persuasief. In missionair-contextualiserende vertalingen is er een zekere

tendens om de inhoud van de brontekst op bepaalde punten te ‘domesticeren’ (aan te

passen) aan wat er in de doelcultuur bekend is bij lezers. In missionair-explicatieve

vertalingen ligt de nadruk veel meer op het uitleggen van impliciete betekenissen in de

vertaling. In missionair-persuasieve vertalingen – welke overigens niet werden

620

aangetroffen in de in deze dissertatie onderzochte vertalingen – wordt er in de vertaling

een appèl gedaan op de lezer of hoorder, dat in de brontekst op die manier niet expliciet

wordt uitgedrukt. De voorgestelde terminologische verfijning is overigens vooral van

heuristische aard, en dient in descriptief onderzoek verder te worden getoetst op zijn

bruikbaarheid en waarde.

Een andere methodische bijdrage van deze studie is de toepassing van het begrip frame

binnen het veld van Bijbelvertaalstudies op het begrijpen van vertaalde teksten en

metaforen door moedertaalsprekers. Het begrip frame vormt de basis voor de verklaring

van het feit dat misverstanden bij moedertaalsprekers gewoonlijk geen anomalieën zijn,

maar dat ze eerder een structureel probleem vormen dat veroorzaakt wordt door culturele

interferentie tussen de frames van de Bijbelschrijvers en de frames van

moedertaalsprekers van de vertaalde teksten. Tekst-cognitieve frames werden

gepresenteerd als hiërarchisch geordende systemen met meervoudige inbedding die in

belangrijke mate cultureel bepaald zijn. Misverstanden ontstaan wanneer deze frames –

welke gewoonlijk duidelijk zijn voor degenen die er door bepaald worden – niet duidelijk

gearticuleerd zijn in vertaalde teksten. Frame-articulatie in de vertaling helpt om

misverstanden te voorkomen of in ieder geval te verminderen in situaties van

interculturele communicatie (bijbelvertalen). Frame-articulatie kan worden uitgedrukt op

verschillende niveaus van de schaal van explicitering die in deze studie werd

gepresenteerd: Het kan gestalte krijgen op een heel subtiele manier waarbij minimale

explicatie van impliciete informatie plaatsvindt. Het kan ook gerealiseerd worden op een

meer rigoreuze manier waarbij een belangrijk deel van de impliciete informatie wordt

geëxpliciteerd. Een goed vertaler zal proberen om niet meer informatie expliciet te maken

dan echt nodig is voor een goed verstaan.

3. Overzicht van belangrijkste onderzoeksresultaten

Na deze algemene inleiding volgt nu een beknopte samenvatting van de diverse

hoofdstukken van dit proefschrift over het vertalen van Bijbelse beeldspraak, dat is

toegespitst op het vertalen van pastorale beeldspraak in de Una-taal (Papua; Indonesia).

Hoofdstuk 1 geeft een algemene inleiding tot de thematiek die in deze studie aan de orde

komt. Ik constateer dat metafooronderzoek tegenwoordig weliswaar populair is in breed

wetenschappelijke kring, maar dat de aandacht voor metaforen (als vertaalprobleem)

binnen de vertaalwetenschap in het algemeen tot nu toe vrij gering is geweest. Binnen de

bijbelvertaalkunde is naar verhouding nog de meeste aandacht besteed aan de analyse en

vertaling van metaforen, maar veel van dit onderzoek dateert van voor de hausse van het

metafooronderzoek sinds de jaren tachtig van de twintigste eeuw, of gaat daar maar zeer

beperkt op in. Dit hoofdstuk laat verder zien hoe het vertalen van metaforen een

uitdaging vormt voor bijbelvertalers die werken in een missionaire context. Vertaalde

metaforen blijken in zulke gevallen vaak misverstanden op te roepen bij sprekers van de

doeltaal. Hoofdstuk 1 geeft verder een uiteenzetting van de probleemstelling, methode,

relevantie en inhoud van dit proefschrift. Verder wordt een korte toelichting gegeven op

de belangrijkste begrippen die gebruikt worden in dit boek.

621

De hoofdstukken 2 en 3 gaan in op theoretische aspecten van metaforen en andere – min

of meer – verwante vormen van figuurlijke taalgebruik. In hoofdstuk 2 passeren

verschillende visies op metaforen de revue (vergelijkingstheorie, vervangingstheorie,

interactietheorie, conceptuele theorie, pragmatische theorie, functionele theorie,

classificatietheorie, enz.), en worden de meest in het oog springende sterke en zwakke

punten van deze theorieën kort op een rijtje gezet. De meeste theorieën bevatten

belangrijke waarheidselementen. Goatly’s functionele typologie van taalkundige,

ideologische (cognitieve), pragmatische en textuele functies van metaforen gooit daarbij

hoge ogen als een model dat van belang kan zijn voor exegeten en vertalers. In hoofdstuk

3 (sectie 3.7. over ‘Pragmatische functies van metaforen’) wordt hier nader op ingegaan.

In hoofdstuk 3 wordt een poging gedaan om tot een min of meer geïntegreerde

beschrijving te komen van die aspecten van metaforen die het meest relevant lijken te zijn

voor vertalers. Behalve metaforen komen ook figuurlijke vergelijkingen, metonymie,

parabels, gelijkenissen, symbolisch taalgebruik, poëtisch-mythisch taalgebruik en

anthropomorf taalgebruik in het algemeen aan de orde. Een belangrijke onderscheiding

die gemaakt wordt met betrekking tot metaforen en figuurlijke vergelijkingen is

gebaseerd op de relatie tussen het beeld (“image”) en de afgebeelde zaak (“topic”): Deze

relatie kan worden beschreven in termen van fysieke correspondentie, functionele

correspondentie of arbitraire associatie. Veel metaforen zijn sterk cultureel bepaald,

maar dit geldt in bijzondere mate voor metaforen die gebaseerd zijn op arbitraire

associatie.

Wat de relatie tussen metaforen en figuurlijke vergelijkingen betreft is het vaak zo dat de

metafoor een sterkere vorm van uitdrukking is dan de corresponderende figuurlijke

vergelijking. Figuurlijke vergelijkingen zijn in feite vaak metaforen waarvan de

pragmatisch-rhetorische dictie min of meer is afgezwakt. Daarbij suggereren metaforen

vaak een meer radicale en totale vorm van overeenkomst tussen het beeld en de

afgebeelde zaak dan het geval is met figuurlijke vergelijkingen. In tegenstelling tot

figuurlijke vergelijkingen worden metaforen niet gemarkeerd (als figuurlijk taalgebruik)

op het segmentele niveau van taaluitingen. Daardoor bestaat er over het algemeen meer

kans dat metaforen verkeerd worden verstaan (in letterlijke zin) dan figuurlijke

vergelijkingen. Zowel metaforen als figuurlijke vergelijkingen en andere vormen van

niet-letterlijk taalgebruik zijn overigens gemarkeerde vormen van taalgebruik die als

zodanig meer prominent zijn dan letterlijk taalgebruik.

De hoofdstukken 4-7 geven een overzicht van de pastorale beeldspraak zoals die

voorkomt in respectievelijk het Oude Nabije Oosten (4), het Oude Testament (5), Psalm

23 (6) en het Nieuwe Testament (7). Hoofdstuk 4 over pastorale beeldspraak in het Oude

Nabije Oosten laat zien dat de beeldspraak van herder en schapen ook al in gebruik was

bij de oude Sumeriërs, Assyriërs, Babyloniërs en Egyptenaren. Deze beeldspraak werd

vaak toegepast op de relatie tussen de koning en zijn volk, en tussen een god en het volk

dat hem vereerde. Deze beeldspraak werd overwegend gebruikt in positieve zin als

uitdrukking van de zorg en bescherming die de koning of god aan de dag legt voor zijn

onderdanen. Het hoofdstuk sluit af met een vergelijking tussen pastorale beeldspraak in

Mesopotamië en het oude Egypte (gebaseerd op secundaire literatuur).

622

In hoofdstuk 5 wordt ingegaan op de beeldspraak van herder en schapen in het Oude

Testament. Hier wordt de beeldspraak van herder in de eerste plaats toegepast op

YHWH, de God van Israel, die zorg draagt voor zijn volk (collectief en als individuen).

De beeldspraak van herder en schapen komt enige malen voor in aartsvaderverhalen die

gerelateerd zijn aan Jakob/Israel (Genesis 48 en 49). Verder komt het vooral voor in

profetische geschriften (Jeremia 23, Ezechiël 34) en in de Psalmen (23, 80, 95, 100, 119,

enz.). Opvallend is daarbij dat pastorale metaforiek voor een belangrijk deel voorkomt in

teksten die te maken hebben met het herstel van Israel en de terugkeer uit de

ballingschap. In de historische teksten die verslag doen van de uittocht uit Egypte komt

pastorale metaforiek daarentegen niet of nauwelijks voor. In plaats daarvan is er vooral

sprake van gidsmetaforiek. In latere Psalmen worden de uittocht en de woestijnreis van

het volk Israel naar het land Kanaän echter wel beschreven in termen van pastorale

metaforiek.

Hoofdstuk 6 geeft een overzicht van een aantal aspecten die relevant zijn voor de uitleg

van Psalm 23. Verschillende interpretaties worden besproken. Sommige van deze

interpretaties zijn harmoniserend, in de zin dat de hele Psalm wordt uitgelegd als

betrekking hebben op de beeldspraak van herder en schapen. Andere interpretaties zijn

differentiërend, in de zin dat de Psalm wordt gezien als een combinatie van twee (herder,

gastheer) of drie (herder, gids, gastheer) verschillende beelden die door de dichter tot één

geheel zijn verweven. Ik kies zelf voor een gedifferentieerde benadering, waarbij de

Psalm wordt gelezen als een samenstelling van drie verschillende beelden (herder,

gastheer, huis des HEEREN), die overlappen wat betreft de betekenissen die ze

uitdrukken. Het beeld van de herder heeft de breedste toepassing en drukt de noties uit

van overvloedige zorg, leiding en beschermende aanwezigheid van YHWH. Het beeld

van de gastheer overlapt met het beeld van de herder wat de overvloedige zorg betreft, en

drukt verder gastvrijheid en vriendschap uit. Het beeld van het huis des HEEREN,

tenslotte, drukt de notie van blijvende huisgemeenschap met de HEERE uit. Er is wat de

beeldspraak betreft sprake van een zekere opklimming in gedachten: De relatie tussen de

dichter en zijn God klimt op van een relatie van de mens-dier relatie van herder en schaap

via een tijdelijke relatie van gastheer en gast tot een blijvende relatie van huisgenoten.

Dreiging van doodsgevaar en vijanden komt gaandeweg op de achtergrond, en is aan het

einde van de Psalm geheel uit het blikveld verdwenen. De polariteit van rust en

beweging, die een belangrijke rol speelt in deze Psalm (Tromp), heeft een chiastische

structuur: de beweging is ingebed in de rust die wordt uitgedrukt aan het begin, in het

midden en aan het einde van de Psalm.

Ondanks het feit dat de betekenis van de beeldspraak over het algemeen duidelijk is, is de

precieze referentie (alsook de specifiek historische context waarin deze Psalm is

ontstaan) verre van éénduidig. Deze relatieve ongedetermineerdheid van de Psalm maakt

deze Psalm geschikt voor toepassing in een brede zin (Schuman). Dit hoofdstuk bevat

verder nog een vers-voor-vers uitleg van Psalm 23, een formele analyse van de

onderlinge relaties tussen de verschillende delen van de beeldspraak, en een frame

analyse waarbij gewezen wordt op structurele overeenkomsten tussen het frame van de

623

herder, het frame van de gastheer, en het frame van de uittocht en de woestijntocht uit

Egypte.

Hoofdstuk 7 geeft een overzicht van pastorale metaforiek in het Nieuwe Testament. In

het Nieuwe Testament wordt de beeldspraak van herder in de eerste plaats toegepast op

Jezus de Messias, en in de tweede plaats ook op apostelen en ouderlingen. Pastorale

metaforiek komt vooral voor in Mattheüs, Johannes, 1 Petrus en Openbaring.

Oudtestamentische teksten die vooral een rol spelen zijn Ezechiël 34, Zacharia 13 en

Psalm 2. Opvallend is het feit dat pastorale metaforiek nauwelijks voorkomt in het

Corpus Paulinum. In het Johannes evangelie komt de herder metafoor (evenals de deur

van de schaapskooi metafoor) voor in een zelfopenbaringswoord van Jezus (“Ik ben …”

uitspraak). In de synoptische evangeliën blijft het herder zijn van Jezus veel implicieter.

Andere verschillen tussen Johannes en de andere evangeliën betreffen de universele rol

van Jezus’ herder zijn (tegenover de concentratie op de verloren schapen van Israel) en

het feit dat de dood van de herder wordt beschreven als vrijwillig en als iets dat de kudde

van Israel en de heidenen verbindt (tegenover de aanvankelijke verstrooiïng van de kleine

kudde van discipelen tengevolge van het slaan van de herder). In het boek Openbaring

wordt het herder-zijn van de Zoon des mensen enerzijds beschreven als een heersen met

harde hand over de heidenen (als teken van overwinning), maar anderzijds ook als een

welwillend leiden en verzorgen van zijn volgelingen. Het Lam wordt daarbij getekend als

de leeuw uit de stam van Juda en als de herder van zijn volgelingen.

In de hoofdstukken 8 en 9 wordt een overzicht gegeven van theoretische en methodische

bijdragen tot respectievelijk het vertalen in het algemeen (8) en het vertalen van

metaforen in het bijzonder (9). In hoofdstuk 8 passeren verschillende vertaaltheorieën de

revue (dynamische equivalentie, functionele equivalentie, relevantie-theorie, skopos-

theorie, frames of reference benadering). Daarbij wordt eerst gekeken naar de

vertaaltheorie in het algemeen (Holmes, voor Holmes, na Holmes) en daarna naar de

vertaaltheorie en methodologie zoals die ontwikkeld is binnen de bijbelvertaalkunde

(Nida, na Nida). Daarnaast wordt er aandacht besteed aan enkele relevante inzichten

vanuit de cognitieve psychologie en (interculturele) communicatieleer.

Hoofdstuk 9 over de theorie van het vertalen van metaforen opent met een uiteenzetting

van het vertaalbaarheidsprobleem in het algemeen. Daarna worden de visies van

verschillende onderzoekers in detail op een rijtje gezet. De visies van Nida & Taber,

Loewen en Wendland op figuurlijk taalgebruik in het algemeen (inclusief metaforen)

worden besproken. Daarnaast worden de visies van De Waard, Beekman & Callow,

Crofts, Stienstra en Hermanson op het vertalen van metaforen in het bijzonder

weergegeven. Verder wordt ook aandacht besteed aan wat er door Newmark en Baker –

binnen het kader van vertaalwerk in het algemeen – te berde is gebracht over het vertalen

van metaforen en idiomatische uitdrukkingen. Het hoofdstuk sluit af met een bespreking

van de inzichten van de relevantie-theorie wat betreft het vertalen van metaforen.

Hoofdstuk 10 vormt de overgang naar de beschrijving van het vertalen van metaforen in

de Una-taal. De Una-taal wordt gesproken door ongeveer 5200 Papua’s die wonen in het

Centrale Bergland van Papua (Irian Jaya). De Una-bevolking kwam in 1973 voor het

624

eerst in aanraking met het evangelie. Binnen enkele jaren ging een groot deel van de

bevolking over tot het Christendom. In dit inleidende hoofdstuk wordt een beknopt

overzicht gegeven van de Una-taal en -cultuur. Deze vormen de context van de Una

beeldspraak zoals die beschreven wordt in het volgende hoofdstuk.

In hoofdstuk 11 wordt een systematisch overzicht gegeven van Una beeldspraak, zoals

dat gebruikt wordt door sprekers van het Centrale Dialect (Eiduman) in het dorp Langda.

Een beschrijving als deze opent in feite een venster op de cultuur en de wereld-

beschouwing van de Una-bevolking. Ze is ook bijzonder nuttig vanuit het perspectief van

Bijbelvertaalwerk, omdat vertalers op deze manier inzicht krijgen in de vraag op welke

punten de inheemse beeldspraak qua betekenis congruent is met Bijbelse beeldspraak, en

op welke punten er sprake is van incongruentie. Verschillende vormen van figuurlijk

taalgebruik passeren de revue. Daarna volgt een overzicht van gelexicaliseerde metaforen

(o.a. partonymische metaforen) en conventionele metaforen. Partonymische metaforen

zijn gebaseerd op de “Objecten zijn mensen (met lichaamsdelen)” metafoor of op de

“Objecten zijn bomen/planten” metafoor. Wat de conventionele metaforen betreft, komen

de volgende metaforen aan de orde: “Mensen zijn Dieren”, “Mensen zijn Natuurlijke

Voorwerpen”, “Mensen zijn Culturele Voorwerpen”. Het hoofdstuk sluit af met een korte

beschrijving van van buiten af geïntroduceerde (vooral bijbelse) metaforen en met een

beknopte vergelijking tussen Una metaforen en metaforen uit het Engels.

Hoofdstuk 12 geeft een overzicht van de geschiedenis van het Una bijbelvertaalproject,

de gevolgde vertaalstrategie, beoogde functie (skopos), kwaliteitsbewaking (de methode

van het controleren van de vertaling), en de methode om vertalingen te beschrijven. De

frames of reference benadering van Wilt en anderen wordt gebruikt om de institutionele,

sociaal-culturele en textuele aspecten van de vertaling systematisch te beschrijven. Er

wordt kort ingegaan op de belangrijkste verschillen tussen de pioniervertaling van een

gedeelte van de Nieuwe Testament, welke tot stand kwam tussen 1975-1983, en de

nieuwere Una bijbelvertaling waaraan sinds 1989 wordt gewerkt. In het licht van het

sociolinguistische profiel van de Una-bevolking (orale cultuur, 75 % analfabeet, 85 %

ééntalig), hun bijbelgebruik, hun relatief geringe bijbelkennis, en de misverstanden die

niet-explicatieve vertalingen konsekwent oproepen bij lezers (hoorders), wordt in

principe gekozen voor een vertaling met een missionair-explicatieve skopos. De

explicatie van impliciete betekenissen dient echter wel zoveel mogelijk beperkt te

worden. Bij een revisie in de toekomst kan dan gekeken worden in hoeverre explicatieve

elementen kunnen worden verwijderd uit de vertaling. Een vrij letterlijke vertaling met

verklarende voetnoten is wat de Una vertaling betreft geen goede optie, omdat het op een

goede manier gebruik maken van voetnoten voorlopig nog buiten het bereik ligt van het

merendeel van de bevolking. Voor de meer ontwikkelde Una’s die het Indonesisch

beheersen blijft de Terjemahan Baru – de min of meer officiële kerkbijbel – beschikbaar.

Deze vertaling blijft vrij dicht bij de vormen van de grondtekst, maar wordt door het vrij

hoge taalgebruik lang niet altijd begrepen.

Het Una bijbelvertaalproject is overigens ingebed in een educatief proces van intensief

alfabetiseringswerk (begrijpend en vloeiend lezen), waarbij momenteel meer dan 900 van

de 5200 Una’s betrokken zijn. Training in kritisch denken en in Bijbelgebruik en

625

Bijbelkennis zijn ingebed in het alfabetiseringswerk, maar zouden nog meer aandacht

kunnen krijgen. Op deze manier wordt de Bijbel – door middel van een missionair-

explicatieve vertaling – enerzijds dichter bij de Una mensen gebracht, maar worden er

anderzijds ook heel concrete (en arbeidsintensieve!) stappen ondernomen om de lezers

dichter bij de Bijbel te brengen.

In hoofdstuk 13 worden vier verschillende versies besproken van Psalm 23 in de Una-

taal: 1. een pioniervertaling; 2. een vertaling gemaakt door een moedertaalvertaler; 3.

relatief niet-explicatieve vertaling; en 4. een relatief explicatieve vertaling. De beoogde

functie (skopos) van deze vertaling verschilt: de pioniervertaling is een voorbeeld van een

vrij letterlijke vertaling, maar heeft daarnaast ook duidelijk een missionair-

contextualiserende tendens. De vertaling van de moedertaalvertaler en de relatief niet-

explicatieve vertaling zijn voorbeelden van een vertaling met een kerkelijk-liturgische

skopos. De relatief explicatieve vertaling heeft een missionair-explicatief karakter. Deze

vertalingen worden geanalyseerd en onderling vergeleken. Verder wordt het begrip van

deze vertalingen getest met verschillende Una informanten. Op grond van de analyse en

begripstesten worden er voor elke vertaling suggesties voor verbetering gedaan. Frame

analyse wordt gebruikt om ontstane misverstanden te analyseren en te verklaren. De

nadruk ligt daarbij op misverstanden die te maken hebben met de beeldspraak in Psalm

23. Door middel van frame-articulatie in de vertalingen wordt verder een poging gedaan

om de ontstane misverstanden te voorkomen of de kans daarop aanzienlijk te

verminderen. De vier genoemde vertalingen worden geëvalueerd aan de hand van de

volgende min of meer externe criteria: beknoptheid, precisie, begripsmatige samenhang,

natuurlijk (idiomatisch) taalgebruik, het bewaren van ongedetermineerde betekenis, het

begrip van native speakers, explicatie, contextualisering, vertaalfouten, (te) interpretatief

karakter, weergave van beeldspraak, poëtische weergave. Aan het slot van het hoofdstuk

wordt een poëtische weergave van Psalm 23 in het Una gepresenteerd.

In hoofdstuk 14 wordt verslag gedaan van begripstesten met Una informanten aan wie

allerlei metaforen (zowel in context als in isolatie) werden voorgelegd. In het eerste deel

van het hoofdstuk wordt een aantal bijbelteksten besproken waarin beeldspraak van

herder en schapen voorkomt. In het tweede deel wordt een aantal teksten uit de Psalmen

besproken waarin andere beeldspraak voorkomt (o.a. “God is een zon en schild” en “God

is een rots”). In het derde deel wordt de beeldspraak in de het verhaal van de

Kanaänitische vrouw (Mattheüs 15:21-28) besproken. In deze laatste geschiedenis komt

niet alleen de beeldspraak van herder en schapen voor (“Ik ben alleen gezonden tot de

verloren schapen van het huis van Israel”), maar ook de beeldspraak van honden (= niet-

Joden), kinderen (= Joden), en het eten van het brood der kinderen (= deelhebben aan de

zegeningen van het Koninkrijk Gods). Ook met betrekking tot de beeldspraak in al deze

teksten bleek dat een letterlijke (ongewijzigde) vertaling regelmatig misverstanden

oproept bij Una sprekers. Misverstanden hebben vaak te maken met het feit dat Una

sprekers bepaalde teksten en beeldspraak begrijpen vanuit een verkeerd frame. Door

middel van frame-articulatie in de vertaling kunnen deze misverstanden echter voor een

belangrijk deel worden voorkomen. Informatie die expliciet wordt uitgedrukt in een tekst

wordt niet automatisch verwerkt (begrepen) door Una sprekers, tenzij er sprake is van

duidelijke frame-articulatie waardoor deze informatie in een voor hen zinvol kader wordt

626

geplaatst. Aan de andere kant is het zo, dat informatie die niet expliciet in de tekst is

weergegeven, maar die wel onderdeel vormt van het frame (referentiekader) waarmee

hoorders en lezers teksten benaderen, wel wordt meegenomen in de interpretatie van een

tekst. Op grond van dit gegeven – dat wellicht kenmerkend is voor hermeneutische

processen in het algemeen, maar dat in interculturele communicatie extra sterk naar voren

komt – maak ik onderscheid tussen “sterke” context (intern, cognitief, cultureel bepaald)

en zwakke context (extern, tekstueel).

In hoofdstuk 15 trek ik de kring van mijn onderzoek veel breder dan in de voorgaande

hoofdstukken. Op grond van min of meer letterlijke terugvertalingen in het Engels of

Indonesisch vergelijk ik de vertaling van beeldspraak in vijftien verschillende talen in

Oost-Indonesië (Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua) aan de hand van twintig teksten uit het Oude

Testament en zesenveertig teksten uit het Nieuwe Testament. Daarnaast bevat dit

hoofdstuk een samenvatting van een survey onderzoek onder Bijbelvertalers, en worden

de vijftien vertalingen ook vergeleken met een aantal engelse en indonesische

bijbelvertalingen en parafrases. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat over het algemeen de in het

oosten van Indonesië geproduceerde vertalingen meer impliciete informatie expliciet

maken dan zelfs de common language versions, zoals de Good News Bible. Over het

algemeen gesproken zijn de vertalingen op Sulawesi minder expliciet dan de vertalingen

in Maluku en Papua. Bijbelvertalingen in het binnenland van Papua zijn over het

algemeen het meest expliciet. Dat heeft ongetwijfeld te maken met de sterk missionaire

skopos die veel van deze vertalingen hebben, en met de relatief korte kerkelijke traditie

en met het relatief lage ontwikkelingspeil van de doelgroepen. Explicaties worden

meestal gemaakt, als tijdens begripstesten met de bevolking blijkt dat bepaalde zaken

verkeerd begrepen worden. Maar zelfs in de meest expliciete vertalingen wordt de

betekenis of de referentie van de beeldspraak lang niet altijd duidelijk gemaakt. Dat

laatste is een aanwijzing dat er in principe alleen tot explicatie is overgegaan als dat

nodig was om misverstanden te voorkomen.

In hoofdstuk 16 worden, tenslotte, de conclusies getrokken van dit onderzoek. In een

aantal aanhangsels wordt verder nog aanvullende informatie gegeven met betrekking tot

enkele onderwerpen die relevant zijn voor deze studie. De dissertatie wordt afgesloten

met een bibliografie, samenvattingen in het Nederlands en Indonesisch, en een

zakenregister.

627

Ringkasan di dalam Bahasa Indonesia

TUHAN adalah gembalaku. Sebuah penelitian mengenai teori dan praktek penerjemahan

metafora alkitabiah. Disertasi Sarjana-3 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2004).

Disertasi ini menyelidiki soal penerjemahan bahasa kiasan di dalam terjemahan Alkitab

Bahasa Una (Papua; Irian Jaya) dan di dalam berbagai terjemahan Alkitab di dalam

bahasa-bahasa daerah yang dipakai di kawasan Indonesia Timur (Sulawesi, Maluku,

Papua).

1. Soal yang diteliti

Penerjemahan bahasa kiasan merupakan tantangan yang benar bagi penerjemah sastra

yang – umpamanya – menerjemahkan puisi dari Bahasa Inggris ke dalam Bahasa Jerman,

Bahasa Belanda atau Bahasa Indonesia. Tetapi penerjemahan bahasa kiasan merupakan

soal yang lebih besar lagi bagi penerjemah Alkitab yang menerjemahkan Alkitab ke

dalam bahasa-bahasa daerah yang terdapat di luar dunia Barat. Di dalam banyak bahasa

daerah – khususnya di Tanah Papua – sebagian besar dari masyarakat masih hidup dalam

keadaan buta aksara dan memakai satu bahasa saja, yaitu bahasa daerah. Banyak orang di

antara mereka belum tahu latar belakang dan arti yang dimaksudkan di dalam bahasa

kiasan yang terdapat di dalam Alkitab. Jikalau penerjemah menerjemahkan secara harfiah

bahasa kiasan dari teks sumber, penutur bahasa daerah seringkali tidak mengerti arti yang

dimaksudkan, atau mereka salah mengerti apa yang dimaksudkan. Kesalahpengertian

seperti ini biasanya terkait dengan fakta bahwa bahasa kiasan pada umumnya ditentukan

oleh kebudayaan masing-masing. Jikalau bahasa kiasan yang berasal dari Alkitab

diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa daerah Papua, bahasa ini seringkali menimbulkan arti-arti

yang berbeda dari arti-arti yang semula dimaksudkan oleh penulis-penulis kitab masing-

masing dari Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru.

Ketidaksamaan antara kebudayaan dari teks asli dan kebudayaan dari kelompok sasaran

terjemahan mengakibatkan penerjemah selalu merasa bahwa dia harus memilih antara

dua hal yang cukup rumit: Apakah di dalam tugas penerjemahan kita perlu mengikuti

bentuk-bentuk dari teks sumber tanpa menambah penjelasan apapun, tetapi dengan risiko

bahwa kelompok sasaran akan mengerti salah? Atau lebih baik untuk menerjemahkan

bahasa kiasan yang terdapat di dalam Alkitab di dalam cara yang cukup jelas untuk

pembaca dan pendengar terjemahan ini?

Soal ini menjadi lebih rumit lagi, jikalau kita menyadari bahwa arti yang dimaksudkan di

dalam bahasa kiasan seringkali cukup kompleks dalam arti bahwa lebih dari satu arti

mungkin sekaligus dimaksudkan. Sampai di manakah tugasnya penerjemah untuk

menjelaskan semua arti ini di dalam terjemahan? Apakah terjemahan seperti itu tidak

terlalu berat dan terlalu bersifat penjelasan? Dan, apakah arti-arti yang mungkin

dimaksudkan di dalam bahasa kiasan tidak terlalu dipersempit dan dibatasi?

Beberapa penerjemah Alkitab dan konsulen penerjemahan yang memberikan bimbingan

dalam teori penerjemahan telah menyelidiki soal penerjemahan bahasa kiasan.

628

Kebanyakan di antara peneliti-peneliti ini mengusulkan bahwa penerjemah yang

menerjemahkan bahasa kiasan sebaiknya mengikuti bentuk-bentuk bahasa sumber sebaik

mungkin. Tetapi, kalau di dalam proses pengecekan terjemahan telah menjadi jelas

bahwa penutur bahasa sasaran tidak mengerti bahasa kiasan yang diterjemahkan,

penerjemah boleh menjelaskan bahasa kiasan ini di dalam terjemahan dengan cara

langkah demi langkah. Jikalau – umpamanya – metafora “TUHAN adalah gembalaku”

tidak dimengerti dengan baik, penerjemah boleh mengubah metafora ini menjadi

perbandingan figuratif (simile), seperti “TUHAN adalah seperti gembala bagiku”.

Kemudian, jikalau terjemahan ini juga kurang jelas, penerjemah boleh menjelaskan “titik

perbandingan” antara pokok dan gambar. Terjemahan yang dibuahkan seperti ini adalah

perbandingan figuratif yang diperluas. Contohnya, bahasa kiasan dari Mazmur 23:1

diterjemahkan seperti ini: “Seperti gembala memelihara domba-dombanya, TUHAN

memelihara saya.”

Selain ketiga cara penerjemahan metafora yang tadi disebut, masih ada dua cara lain

untuk menerjemahkan metafora: Gambaran yang dipakai di dalam metafora dari teks

sumber juga bisa diganti dengan gambaran dari kebudayaan bahasa sasaran atau dengan

ucapan yang bukan-figuratif (harfiah). Contohnya, bagaimana penerjemah akan

menerjemahkan metafora “TUHAN adalah perisaiku”, jikalau di dalam kebudayaan

bahasa sasaran konsep “perisai” sama sekali tidak dikenal? Dalam situasi seperti itu,

penerjemah bisa mempertimbangkan untuk memakai gambaran dari kebudayaan sasaran

yang memiliki fungsi yang kira-kira sama dengan fungsi gambaran yang dipakai di dalam

teks sumber. Metafora asli “TUHAN adalah perisaiku” bisa diterjemahkan dengan

“TUHAN adalah pagar (bagi) saya” atau “TUHAN adalah baju baja / baju perang (bagi)

saya”. Contohnya terjemahan bukan-figuratif adalah “Tuhan adalah pelindungku”.

Prinsip-prinsip penerjemahan yang tersebut telah sangat menolong penerjemah-

penerjemah Alkitab yang melayani di dalam konteks misioner, dan yang memakai

prinsip-prinsip ini dengan kebijaksanaan. Waktu penerjemah mengganti bahasa kiasan

dari teks sumber dengan gambaran dari bahasa sasaran, dia sebaiknya perhatikan bahwa

gambaran di dalam bahasa sasaran memiliki kira-kira fungsi yang sama dengan gambaran

di dalam bahasa sumber. Selain itu, gambaran dari bahasa sasaran tidak boleh melawan

konteks sejarah dan kebudayaan Alkitab. Contohnya, gambaran gembala dan kawanan

domba dan kambing tidak boleh diganti dengan gambaran penjaga babi dengan babi-babi,

walaupun gambaran seperti itu sangat cocok dengan kebudayaan di Papua. Tetapi,

terjemahan seperti itu melawan konteks sejarah dan kebudayaan Alkitab, karena babi

adalah “binatang yang najis” (perasaan negatif), dan babi peliharaan juga hampir tidak

ditemukan di dalam kebudayaan dan bahasa kiasan yang terdapat di dalam Alkitab.

Belakangan ini adalah peneliti penerjemahan yang telah mengucapkan kritik terhadap

teori penerjemahan ekwivalensi dinamis yang merupakan dasar untuk prinsip-prinsip

penerjemahan metafora yang disebut di atas. Terutama Ernst August Gutt yang

mengutamakan teori relevansi, mengucapkan kritik terhadap teori komunikasi yang

merupakan dasar untuk teorie penerjemahan ekwivalensi dinamis. Gutt melawan teori

komunikasi yang memandang komunikasi sebagai kode yang selalu diucapkan. Menurut

Gutt, komunikasi seringkali memiliki sifat tidak langsung. Penutur bahasa biasanya tidak

629

selalu mengucapkan semua hal yang mereka maksudkan, tetapi mereka mengharapkan

bahwa pendengar mengerti dengan baik apa yang telah dimaksudkan. Contohnya, jikalau

ibu rumah tangga berkata “Makanan sudah siap” waktu jam makan, dia maksudkan

“Mari kita makan” dan dia harapkan bahwa semua anggota keluarga cuci tangan mereka

dan datang untuk makan. Gutt membedakan “terjemahan langsung” dari “terjemahan

tidak langsung”. Di dalam terjemahan langsung penjelasan tambahan sebaiknya

dihindari. Di dalam terjemahan tidak langsung penerjemah boleh menjelaskan arti di

dalam terjemahan. Perbedaan ini kira-kira sama dengan perbedaan yang diusulkan oleh

Reiß antara Übersetzung dan Übertragung.

Mengenai penerjemahan bahasa kiasan Gutt menekankan bahwa bahasa kiasan seringkali

memiliki arti majemuk. Seringkali lebih dari satu arti main peranan sekaligus. Sebagian

dari arti itu (implicatures) adalah “kuat” dan yang lain adalah “lemah”.

Kritik yang diucapkan oleh Gutt terhadap teori penerjemahan ekwivalensi dinamis

(termasuk teori ekwivalensi funktional yang lebih lunak) mengundang pemikiran kembali

mengenai aspek penerjemahan yang teoretis dan metodis, khususnya yang terkait dengan

penerjemahan bahasa kiasan. Selain itu, pengertian baru yang muncul dari teori skopos

(Vermeer, Nord, De Vries) dan dari pendekatan frames of reference (Wilt dan lain-lain)

juga mengundang pemikiran kembali mengenai strategi penerjemahan dan prinsip-prinsip

penerjemahan.

2. Obyek dan metode penelitian

Di dalam disertasi ini saya menyelidiki persoalan penerjemahan bahasa kiasan dari segi

penerjemahan bahasa kiasan alkitabiah mengenai gembala, domba, dan kawanan domba.

Tiga pertanyaan diutamakan: 1. Apa artinya bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan

kawanan domba di dalam teks-teks Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru? 2. Bagaimana

caranya bahasa kiasan alkitabiah mengenai gembala dan domba telah diterjemahkan ke

dalam Bahasa Una (Papua; Indonesia) dan ke dalam bahasa-bahasa daerah yang lain

(baik bahasa rumpun bahasa Papua maupun rumpun bahasa Austronesia) yang terdapat di

dalam kawasan Indonesia Timur? 3. Bagaimana caranya yang paling baik untuk

menerjemahkan bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan kawanan dombanya ke dalam

bahasa Una? Kebanyakan masyarakat bahasa Una (70 %) masih di dalam keadaan buta

aksara, dan tidak tahu baik latar belakang kebudayaan Timur Tengah yang Kuno

(Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru) dari mana bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan

domba berasal.

Penyelidikan yang disajikan di sini memiliki sifat interdisipliner, sesuai dengan tugas

penerjemah dan konsultan penerjemahan yang biasanya melibatkan berbagai bidang studi

akademis. Pokok studi disertasi ini (bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba)

didekati dari berbagai bidang studi: teori mengenai metafora (bab 2 dan 3), tafsiran

bahasa kiasan alkitabiah mengenai gembala dan domba (bab 4-7), teori penerjemahan

(bab 8, 9 dan 11), pengetahuan ilmu mengenai bahasa dan kebudayaan Papua, yang

dipusatkan pada deskripsi bahasa kiasan yang terdapat di dalam bahasa Una (bab 10, 12),

penerjemahan metafora alkitabiah ke dalam bahasa Una (bab 13 dan 14) dan bahasa-

630

bahasa lain di dalam kawasan Indonesia Timur (bab 15). Selain itu, penerjemahan bahasa

kiasan juga didekati dari segi psikologi kognitif, pragmatik bahasa, dan ilmu komunikasi.

Di dalam bab 13-14 disajikan hasil penyelidikan mengenai pengertian penutur bahasa

Una akan bahasa kiasan alkitabiah yang telah diterjemahkan. Faktor-faktor yang mana

mungkin mengakibatkan kesalahpengertian? Dan bagaimana caranya untuk memecahkan

soal kesalahpengertian yang seringkali ditemukan? Rupanya, kesalahpengertian

seringkali diakibatkan oleh interferensi kebudayaan. Bahasa kiasan alkitabiah dimengerti

di dalam rangka (frame) sosio-kultural penutur bahasa Una dan bukan dari rangka sosio-

kultural Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru. Akibatnya, pengertian penutur bahasa Una

kadang-kadang sangat berbeda dari pengertian yang dimaksudkan oleh pengarang asli.

Contohnya, penutur bahasa Una telah mengerti Mazmur 23:6b (“dan aku akan selalu

diam dalam rumah TUHAN”) dalam arti bahwa pengarang akan hidup dengan TUHAN

di surga, walaupun kata “rumah TUHAN” menunjukkan kepada Bait Allah atau kemah

suci di mana Tabut Perjanjian disimpan. Kesalahpengertian seperti ini bisa dihindari

melalui artikulasi frame (“dan aku akan diam di dalam rumah TUHAN seumur

hidupku”). Di dalam terjemahan yang telah diperbaiki sudah jelas bahwa arti “surga”

tidak dimaksudkan di sini, karena frame waktu (seumur hidupku) tidak memungkinkan

interpretasi seperti itu.

Pendekatan frames of reference yang diusulkan oleh Wilt dan kawan-kawannya dari

United Bible Societies telah dibuktikan merupakan rangka yang baik untuk

mengintegrasikan berbagai aspek institutionil, sosio-kulturil dan tekstual yang

dikemukakaan di dalam disertasi ini. Hanya beberapa hal saja yang saya mengubah atau

menambah untuk mencocokkan teori ini dengan data-data. Di dalam rangka pendekatan

frames of reference banyak bidang studi terapan bisa dimasukkan: teori skopos, ilmu

linguistik kognitif, studi kebudayaan, analisis sastra. Selain itu, penelitian deskriptif

mengenai hasil penerjemahan dan mengenai pengertian punutur bahasa sasaran juga bisa

disajikan dengan cara yang terintegrasi.

Sebagian besar dari disertasi ini bersifat penyelidikan deskriptif. Penyelidikan deskriptif

tidak saja terdapat di dalam bab (11) mengenai bahasa kiasan di dalam bahasa Una, tetapi

juga ditemukan di dalam bab-bab mengenai sejarah dan kontekst institutionil proyek

penerjemahan bahasa Una (12), mengenai penerjemahan bahasa kiasan mengenai

gembala dan domba dan bahasa kiasan yang lain (13-14), dan mengenai penrejemahan

bahasa kiasan di dalam limabelas bahasa daerah di dalam kawasan Indonesia Timur (15).

Tekanan atas penelitian deskriptif ini mencerminkan pendekatan di dalam bidang ilmu

penerjemahan yang umum. Tetapi, sampai sekarang metode ini jarang dipakai secara

dalam dan sistematis di dalam kalangan peneliti penerjemahan yang memusatkan

perhatian pada terjemahan-terjemahan Alkitab di luar dunia barat yang bersifat misioner

dan dibuat pada masa kini. Di dalam buku-buku dan artikel-artikel yang ditulis oleh ahli

penerjemahan Alkitab tekanan biasanya terletak pada aspek-aspek metodis (bagaimana

caranya untuk menerjemahkan) dan jarang terletak pada deskripsi (bagaimana

penerjemah sebenarnya menerapkan teori dan metode penerjemahan di dalam praktek).

631

Aspek-aspek deskriptif yang dikemukakan di dalam disertasi ini sebenarnya diteliti dalam

rangka teoretis dan metodis, dan sebenarnya juga membuahkan beberapa usulan

(pengilangan) yang bersifat teoretis dan metodis. Contohnya, berdasarkan pembandingan

empat hasil terjemahan Mazmur 23 di dalam bahasa Una, saya usulkan untuk mengilangi

konsep “terjemahan dengan skopos (tujuan) missioner” (L.J. de Vries). Saya usulkan

untuk membedakan antara terjemahan dengan tujuan missioner-kontekstual, misioner-

explikatif, dan misioner-persuasif. Di dalam terjemahan missioner-kontekstual adalah

kecenderungan yang tertentu untuk mengadaptasi arti dari teks sumber kepada hal yang

terkenal bagi penutur bahasa sasaran. Di dalam terjemahan misioner-eksplikatif terdapat

kecenderungan untuk menjelaskan arti yang tersirat. Di dalam terjemahan misioner-

persuasif – yang sebenarnya tidak terdapat di dalam terjemahan-terjemahan yang

diselediki di dalam studi ini – penerjemah menambah atau mengutamakan ajakan di

dalam terjemahan yang sebenarnya tidak terdapat di dalam teks sumber atau yang bersifat

latar belakang atau tersirat saja.

Sumbangan metodis lain yang disajikan di dalam studi ini adalah penerapan gagasan

frame (kerangka) di bidang studi penerjemahan Alkitab, khususnya pada pengertian

penutur bahasa sasaran akan teks dan metafora yang telah diterjemahkan. Gagasan frame

ini merupakan dasar untuk menjelaskan bahwa kesalahpahaman penutur bahasa sasaran

akan teks dan metafora yang diterjemahkan biasanya bukan hal yang aneh yang tidak bisa

dijelaskan, tetapi merupakan soal secara struktural yang diakibatkan oleh interferensi

(ketidaksesuaian) antara frame-frame penyusun Alkitab dan frame-frame penutur bahasa

sasaran. Frame-frame tekstual-kognitif ini disajikan sebagai sistem yang teratur secara

hierarkis dengan susunan dalam yang jamak dan yang ditentukan oleh kebuadayaan.

Kesalahpahaman diakibatkan kalau frame-frame ini – yang biasanya jelas untuk orang

yang ditentu oleh frame-frame itu – tidak dijelaskan di dalam terjemahan. Artikulasi

(penjelasan) frame di dalam terjemahan bisa menolong untuk menghindari atau

mengurangi kesalahpahaman di dalam situasi komunikasi lintas budaya (penerjemahan

Alkitab). Artikulasi frame ini bisa dijelaskan pada berbagai tingkat dari derajat eksplikasi

yang disajikan di dalam studi ini. Itu bisa dibuat secara subtil dengan eksplikasi minimal,

tetapi juga bisa dibuat dengan cara yang menjelaskan lebih banyak informasi yang

tersirat. Penerjemah sebaiknya berusaha untuk membatasi jumlah informasi tersirat yang

akan dijelaskan di dalam terjemahan.

3. Uraian hasil penelitian

Sekarang kata pengantar umum mengenai pokok disertasi ini sudah selesai, dan waktunya

sudah tiba untuk meringkaskan isi buku ini secara bab demi bab. Pokok disertasi ini

adalah penerjemahan bahasa kiasan – khususnya bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan

domba – ke dalam bahasa Una (Papua; Indonesia).

Bab 1 merupakan pengantar umum ke dalam pokok yang diselidiki di dalam studi ini.

Penyelidikan mengenai metafora sebenarnya sangat populer di dalam dunia ilmu masa

kini. Tetapi di dalam bidang ilmu penerjemahan umum penyelidikan metafora (sebagai

soal penerjemahan) belum diterima perhatian yang sepantasnya. Di dalam bidang ilmu

penerjemahan Alkitab analisis dan penerjemahan metafora dapat lebih banyak perhatian,

632

tetapi kebanyakan perhatian ini diberikan sebelum tahun delapan puluhan abad

keduapuluh waktu banyak peneliti menyelidiki metafora. Di dalam bab ini dijelaskan

bagaimana penerjemahan metafora merupakan tantangan besar untuk penerjemah yang

menerjemahkan Alkitab di dalam konteks misioner. Metafora yang diterjemahkan

seringkali dimengerti salah. Di dalam bab ini juga terdapat penjelasan mengenai soal

yang diteliti, metode penelitian yang dipakai, relevansi, dan isi disertasi ini. Konsep-

konsep yang paling penting yang dipakai di dalam buku ini juga dijelaskan.

Bab 2 dan 3 membicarakan aspek-aspek teoretis mengenai metafora dan bahasa kiasan

yang lain. Di dalam bab 2 berbagai pandangan terhadap metafora dibahas (teori

bandingan, teori substitusi, teori interaksi, teori konseptual, teori pragmatis, teori

fungsional, teori klasifikasi, d.l.l.), dan dievaluir secara ringkas. Kebanyakan teori

tersebut memiliki unsur-unsur yang benar dan yang berguna untuk pengertian akan

metafora. Di antara teori tersebut, pengelompokan fungsional yang dipakai oleh Goatly

sangat berguna bagi penafsir dan penerjemah. Pengelompokan fungsi-fungsi metafora

yang dikemukakan oleh Goatly bersifat linguistis, ideologis (kognitif), pragmatis dan

tekstuil.

Di dalam bab 3 diberikan suatu usulan untuk menjelaskan bentuk, arti dan fungsi

metafora secara terintegrasi dari segi penerjemah. Selain metafora, perbandingan

figuratif, metonimi, perumpamaan (baik parabel maupun similitude), bahasa simbolis,

bahasa puisi-mitis dan bahasa antropomorf. Perbedaan istilah yang penting yang dibuat

mengenai metafora dan perbandingan figuratif didasarkan hubungan antara gambar

(“image”) dan pokok (“topic”): Hubungan ini bisa berupa korespondensi fisik,

korespondensi fungsional atau asosiasi arbitrer. Banyak metafora ditentukan oleh

kebudayaan dari mana mereka berasal, tetapi itu khususnya halnya dengan metafora yang

berdasarkan asosiasi arbitrer.

Mengenai hubungan antara metafora dan perbandingan figuratif boleh dikatakan bahwa

metafora seringkali merupakan ucapan yang lebih kuat daripada perbandingan figuratif.

Perbandingan figuratif sebenarnya adalah bahasa kiasan yang diksinya pragmatis-retoris

telah diperlemah. Selain itu, metafora seringkali rupanya mengemukakan persamaan

yang lebih radikal dan total daripada bandingan figuratif. Metafora juga tidak ditandai

sebagai bahasa kiasan di tatar segmentil ucapan bahasa, seperti sebenarnya halnya dengan

bandingan figuratif yang ditandai sebagai bahasa figuratif melalui kata “seperti,”

“bagaikan,” d.l.l. Karena itu, biasanya lebih gampang untuk mengerti salah metafora

(dalam arti harfiah) daripada mengerti salah bandingan figuratif. Tetapi, baik metafora

maupun bandingan figuratif dan bahasa bukan-harfiah yang lain adalah bahasa yang

ditandai (“marked language”) yang lebih menonjol (prominen) daripada bahasa yang

harfiah.

Bab 4-7 memberikan peninjauan mengenai bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba,

seperti ditemukan di dalam dunia Timur Tengah Kuno (4), di dalam Perjanjian Lama (5),

Mazmur 23 (6), dan di dalam Perjanjian Baru. Bab 4 mengenai bahasa kiasan gembala

dan domba di dalam dunia Timur Tengah Kuno menjelaskan bahwa bahasa kiasan

tersebut sudah terdapat di tengah-tengah masyarakat kuno di Sumer, Asyur, Babilon dan

633

Mesir. Bahasa kiasan ini seringkali diterapkan kepada hubungan antara raja dan

bangsanya dan antara dewa dan kaum penganut dewa. Bahasa kiasan ini biasanya dipakai

di dalam arti yang positif, sebagai ucapan pemeliharaan dan perlindungan yang diberikan

oleh raja dan/atau dewa terhadap masyarakat.

Bab 5 menguraikan bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba yang terdapat di dalam

Perjanjian Lama. Bahasa kiasan ini pertama-tama dipakai untuk YHWH, Allah dari orang

Israel, yang memelihara umatNya (sebagai kolektif dan individu). Bahasa kiasan yang

menggambar Allah sebagai gembala ditemukan beberapa kali di dalam cerita bapak

leluhur orang Israel, yaitu Yakub/Israel (Kejadian 48 dan 49). Selain itu, bahasa kiasan

gembala dan domba juga terdapat di dalam kitab-kitab nabi (di dalam Yeremia 23 dan

Ezekiel 34, d.l.l.) dan di dalam kitab Mazmur (23, 80, 95, 100, 119, d.l.l.). Hal yang

menarik adalah fakta bahwa bahasa kiasan seperti ini seringkali ditemukan di dalam

konteks pemulihan bangsa Israel dan kepulangan dari pembuangan. Bahasa kiasan ini

tidak ditemukan di dalam teks-teks historis yang menceritakan keluaran orang Israel dari

Mesir. Di dalam teks-teks ini YHWH digambar sebagai penuntun jalan, bukan sebagai

gembala. Tetapi di dalam beberapa mazmur yang menyebut keluaran dari Mesir dan

perjalanan orang Israel ke Tanah Kanaan YHWH juga digambar sebagai gembala yang

menunun dan memelihara umatNya.

Bab 6 memberikan peninjauan mengenai beberapa aspek tafsiran yang paling relevan

untuk mengerti isi berita Mazmur 23. Beberapa interpretasi dibicarakan. Beberapa

interpretasi Mazmur ini bersifat berpadu, dalam arti bahwa keseluruhan Mazmur ini

dipandang dari segi bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba. Interpretasi yang lain

bersifat membedakan, dalam arti bahwa keseluruhan Mazmur ini dilihat sebagai

kombinasi dua (gembala, tuan rumah yang mengundang tamu di pesta makan) atau tiga

(gembala, penuntun jalan, tuan rumah yang mengundang tamu di pesta makan) gambaran

yang ditenun menjadi satu oleh pengarang Mazmur. Pengarang disertasi ini memilih

pendekatan yang bersifat membedakan dan membaca Mazmur ini sebagai kombinasi tiga

gambaran (gembala, tuan rumah yang mengundang tamu untuk ikut serta dalam pesta

makan, dan rumah TUHAN). Ketiga gambaran ini memiliki arti dan maksud yang saling

menindih. Gambaran gembala memiliki terapan yang paling luas dan mengucapkan

gagasan pemeliharaan yang berlimpah-limpah, penuntunan dan kehadiran pelindung

YHWH. Gambaran tuan rumah pesta makan menindih dengan gambaran gembala, karena

gambaran ini juga memaksudkan gagasan pemeliharaan yang berlimpah-limpah. Selain

itu, gambaran ini juga memaksudkan gagasan keramah-tamaan dan persahabatan.

Gambaran mengenai rumah TUHAN, akhirnya, memaksudkan gagasan hubungan

keluarga yang tetap antara pengarang dan TUHAN. Di dalam ketiga gambaran ini

terdapat kenaikan pikiran: Hubungan antara pengarang dan TUHAN semula-mula

digambar sebagai hubungan antara manusia dan hewan (gembala dan domba); kemudian

hubungan ini dilukiskan sebagai hubungan antara manusia dan manusia yang bersifat

sementara (tuan rumah dan tamu); akhirnya, hubungan ini digambar sebagai hubungan

tetap antara orang yang tinggal di satu rumah tangga. Bahaya kematian dan musuh-

musuh makin lama makin lenyap, dan tidak terdapat lagi di bagian terakhir Mazmur ini.

Polaritas (sifat berlawanan) antara istirahat dan perjalanan, yang memainkan peranan

penting di dalam mazmur ini (Tromp), memiliki susunan yang bersifat kiasmus:

634

perjalanan yang terdapat di dalam Mazmur ini “dipeluk” oleh istirahat yang terdapat di

bagian permulaan, tengah dan terakhir Mazmur ini.

Walaupun maksud Mazmur 23 pada umumnya cukup jelas, situasi historis dan fakta-

fakta yang kongkrit yang membuahkan Mazmur ini sama sekali tidak jelas.

Ketidaktentuan yang relatif ini mengakibatkan bahwa Mazmur ini bisa diterapkan di

dalam banyak situasi yang berbeda-beda (Schuman). Bab ini juga mengandung tafsiran

ayat-demi-ayat mengenai Mazmur 23, dan analisis formal mengenai berbagai bagian

bahasa kiasan di dalam Mazmur ini. Selain itu, juga terdapat analisis frame yang

menunjukkan bahwa ada persamaan struktural antara frame gembala, frame tuan rumah

yang mengundang tamu ke pesta makan dan frame keluaran dari Mesir dan perjalanan

dari Tanah Mesir menuju ke Tanah Kanaan.

Bab 7 membicarakan bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba di dalam Perjanjian

Baru. Di dalam Perjanjian Baru bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala terutama diterapkan

kepada Mesias Yesus, dan kemudian juga kepada rasul-rasul dan penatua-penatua.

Bahasa kiasan ini terutama terdapat di dalam Injil Matius dan Yohanes dan di dalam surat

1 Petrus dan Kitab Wahyu. Teks-teks dari Perjanjian Lama yang memainkan peranan

penting adalah Ezekiel 34, Zakharia 13 dan Mazmur 2. Hal yang menarik perhatikan

adalah fakta bahwa bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba hampir tidak ditemukan

di dalam surat-surat rasul Paulus. Di dalam Injil Yohanes bahasa kiasan mengenai

gembala (dan mengenai pintu kandang domba) terdapat di dalam kata penyataan

mengenai diri sendiri yang diucapkan oleh Yesus (perkataan “Saya adalah …”). Di dalam

injil-injil sinoptis peranan Yesus sebagai gembala lebih tersirat. Selain itu ada perbedaan

lain juga: di dalam Injil Yohanes peranan Yesus sebagai gembala adalah universal, kalau

dibandingkan dengan injil-injil sinoptis di mana Yesus berkonsentrasi pada domba

kehilangan dari Israel. Di dalam Injil Yohanes kematian gembala dilukiskan sebagai hal

yang sukarela dan yang menggabungkan kawanan domba. Di dalam injil sinoptis tekanan

terletak pada gembala yang dipukul oleh Allah, dan pada penyebar-sebaran kawanan

kecil pengikut Yesus. Di dalam kitab Wahyu, Anak Manusia digambar sebagai raja/

gembala yang memerintahkan dengan tangan keras atas bangsa-bangsa. Tetapi Dia juga

dilukiskan sebagai gembala yang baik hati dan yang membimbing dan memelihara orang

yang mengikutiNya. Anak Domba dilukiskan sebagai singa dari suku Yehuda dan

sebagai gembala pengikut-pengikutNya.

Bab 8 dan 9 mengandung peninjauan mengenai sumbangan-sumbangan pikiran yang

bersifat teoretis dan metodis mengenai penerjemahan pada umumnya (8) dan

penerjemahan metafora (9). Di dalam bab 8 berbagai teori penerjemahan dibicarakan

(ekwivalensi dinamis, ekwivalensi fungsional, teori relevansi, teori skopos, pendekatan

frames of reference). Teori penerjemahan umum diuraikan lebih dahulu (Holmes,

sebelum Holmes, sesudah Holmes); kemudian teori dan metode penerjemahan Alkitab

diuraikan (Nida, sesudah Nida). Selain itu, diberikan perhatian kepada berbagai

pengertian yang relevan yang berasal dari psikologi kognitif dan ilmu komunikasi (yang

lintas budaya).

635

Bab 9 mengenai penerjemahan metafora membuka dengan penguraian mengenai soal

kemungkinan penerjemahan pada umumnya. Kemudian beberapa visi dari berbagai pakar

dibicarakan secara terperinci. Pandangan Nida & Taber, Loewen dan Wendland, yang

telah menulis mengenai bahasa kiasan pada umunya (termasuk metafora), diuraikan.

Selain itu, pandangan De Waard, Beekman & Callow, Crofts, Stienstra dan Hermanson

mengenai analisis dan penerjemahan metafora diuraikan. Kemudian pandangan Newmark

dan Baker – yang meneliti penerjemahan secara umum – dibicarakan. Bab ini selesai

dengan pembicaraan pandangan-pandangan teori relevansi mengenai penerjemahan

metafora.

Bab 10 merupakan transisi ke bagian deskriptif mengenai metafora-metafora yang

terdapat di dalam bahasa Una. Bahasa Una dipakai oleh kira-kira 5200 orang Papua yang

tinggal di daerah terpencil Pegunungan Jayawijaya di Tanah Papua (Irian Jaya). Penutur

bahasa daerah telah mendengar injil untuk pertama kalinya pada tahun 1973. Di dalam

waktu beberapa tahun sebagian besar dari suku Una menjadi orang kristen. Di dalam bab

yang bersifat pengantar ini diberikan informasi singkat mengenai bahasa dan kebudayaan

Una. Bahasa dan kebudayaan Una sebenarnya merupakan konteks untuk bahasa kiasan

yang diuraikan di dalam bab yang berikut.

Bab 11 mengandung sebuah tinjauan sistematis mengenai bahasa kiasan di dalam bahasa

Una yang dipakai di logat bahasa pusat (Eiduman) di kampung Langda. Tinjauan seperti

ini membuka sebenarnya jendela atas kebudayaan dan pandangan dunia orang suku Una.

Pandangan ini juga berguna dari segi penerjemahan Alkitab, karena memalui penelitian

seperti ini penerjemah menerima pengertian dalam mengenai persamaan dan perbedaan

arti antara bahasa kiasan Una dan bahasa kiasan alkitabiah. Berbagai macam bahasa

kiasan dibicarakan. Kemudian metafora leksikal (termasuk metafora partonimi) dan

metafora konventional dibicarakan. Metafora partonimi berdasarkan metafora dasar

“Benda adalah Manusia (dengan bagian tubuh)” atau metafora dasar “Benda adalah

Pohon/Tanaman”. Metafora konventional yang diuraikan adalah “Manusia adalah

Binatang”, “Manusia adalah Benda Alamiah”, “Manusia adalah Benda Kebudayaan”.

Bab 12 menguraikan sejarah proyek penerjemahan Alkitab bahasa Una. Kemudian

strategi penerjemahan, fungsi (skopos) terjemahan yang dimaksudkan dibicarakan, dan

penjagaan kwalitas (caranya untuk mengecek terjemahan), dan metode untuk

memberikan deskripsi terjemahan dibahas. Pendekatan frames of reference yang

dikemukakan oleh Wilt d.k.k. dipakai untuk menjelaskan secara sistematis aspek

institutionil, sosiokulturil dan tekstual yang terkai dengan terjemahan. Perbedaan-

perbedaan antara terjemahan perintis bagian Perjanjian Baru yang dibuahkan antara tahun

1975 dan 1983 dibandingkan dengan terjemahan Baru bahasa Una yang mulai dikerjakan

sejak tahun 1989. Berdasarkan profil sosiolinguistik orang Una (kebudayaan lisan, 70 %

masih buta aksara, 85 % hanya kenal bahasa daerah), pemakaian Alkitab yang masih

lemah, pengetahuan Alkitab yang masih sangat terbatas, dan kesalahpengertian yang

seringkali muncul berkait dengan terjemahan yang bukan eksplikatif, terjemahan dengan

fungsi (tujuan) misioner-eksplikatif dipilih sebagai terjemahan yang paling cocok bagi

masyarakat Una. Tetapi eksplikasi (penjelasan) informasi yang tersirat sebaiknya

terbatas. Dan kalau terjemahan ini akan direvisi dalam masa depan, unsur-unsur

636

eksplikatif ini mungkin bisa dikeluarkan dari terjemahan. Terjemahan Alkitab yang

harfiah yang dilengkapi dengan catatan kaki yang menjelaskan arti tidak merupakan

pilihan yang baik bagi orang suku Una, karena kebanyakan orang Una tidak mampu

untuk membaca dan untuk memakai catatan kaki dengan baik. Bagian masyarakat Una

yang berpendidikan dan yang menguasai Bahasa Indonesia dengan baik tetap bisa

memakai Terjemahan Baru – yang adalah terjemahan Alkitab yang berfungsi sebagai

terjemahan gerejani yang resmi. Terjemahan ini mendekati bentuk-bentuk bahasa di

dalam teks sumber, tetapi juga memakai bahasa yang tinggi yang tidak selalu dimengerti

oleh penutur bahasa Una.

Proyek penerjemahan Alkitab bahasa Una sebenarnya dilaksanakan di dalam rangka

program pemberantasan buta aksara yang intensif (membaca lancar dengan pengertian).

Sekarang ini ada kira-kira 900 orang (anak, remaja, dewasa) dari 5200 orang Una yang

terlibat di dalam program ini. Pelatihan dalam pemikiran kritis, pemakaian Alkitab dan

pengetahuan Alkitab sudah terintegrasi di dalam program buta aksara ini, tetapi aspek-

aspek ini perlu ditingkatkan lagi. Dengan cara begini, Alkitab – melalui terjemahan

misioner-eksplikatif – dibawa menuju orang suku Una, sambil orang Una – melalui

program buta aksara dan pelatihan yang lain – dibawa menuju Alkitab.

Di dalam bab 13 empat terjemahan Mazmur 23 diteliti: terjemahan perintis, terjemahan

yang dibuat oleh penerjemah bahasa ibu, terjemahan yang bukan eksplikatif, terjemahan

yang eksplikatif. Tujuan (skopos) yang dimaksudkan di dalam setiap terjemahan ini

berbeda-beda: Terjemahan perintis adalah terjemahan yang cukup harfiah, tetapi juga

memiliki kecenderungan misioner-kontekstuil. Terjemahan yang dibuat oleh penerjemah

bahasa ibu dan terjemahan yang bukan-eksplikatif adalah contoh terjemahan dengan

tujuan (skopos) gerejani-liturgis. Terjemahan yang relatif eksplikatif memiliki skopos

yang misioner-eksplikatif. Terjemahan-terjemahan tersebut dianalisis dan dibandingkan.

Kemudian pengertian penutur bahasa akan setiap terjemahan ini dicek. Berdasarkan

analisis dan pengecekan pengertian penutur bahasa Una diberikan usulan untuk

memperbaiki terjemahan-terjemahan tersebut. Untuk mengerti kesalahpahaman yang

seringkali muncul saya memakai frame analysis. Frame analysis ini terfokus pada

kesalahpahaman yang terkait dengan bahasa kiasan yang terdapat di dalam Mazmur 23.

Melalui frame articulation kesalahpahaman di dalam terjemahan bisa dihindari atau

dikurangi. Keempat terjemahan Mazmur 23 dievaluasi berdasarkan kriteria-kriteria

ekstern yang berikut: kesingkatan, kesaksamaan, pertalian gagasan, pemakaian bahasa

wajar (idiomatis), pertahanan arti yang tidak ditentukan, pengertian penutur bahasa

sasaran, eksplikasi informasi yang tersirat, kontekstualisasi, kesalahan-kesalahan di

dalam terjemahan, unsur-unsur yang (terlalu) interpretatif, terjemahan bahasa kiasan,

penerjemahan secara puisi. Bab ini diselesaikan dengan penyajian terjemahan Mazmur 23

yang bersifat puisi.

Di dalam bab 14 diberikan laporan mengenai pengecekan pengertian penutur bahasa Una

akan berbagai bahasa kiasan (baik dalam konteks maupun dalam isolasi). Di dalam

bagian pertama penertian akan bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan domba dibahas. Di

dalam bagian kedua berbagai bahasa kiasan dari kitab Mazmur dibicarakan (termasuk

“Allah adalah matahari dan perisai” dan “Allah adalah gunung batu”). Di dalam bagian

637

yang ketiga bahasa kiasan di dalam cerita wanita Kanaan yang percaya dibicarakan

(Matius 15:21-28). Di dalam cerita ini terdapat bahasa kiasan mengenai gembala dan

domba (“Aku diutus hanya kepada domba-domba yang hilang dari umat Israel”). Selain

itu juga ditemukan bahasa kiasan mengenai anjing (= orang buka Yahudi), anak-anak (=

orang Yahudi), dan makan roti yang disediakan bagi ana-anak (= mengambil bagian

dalam berkat-berkat Kerajaan Allah). Terjemahan harfiah bahasa kiasan ini seringkali

mengakibatkan kesalahpahaman bagi penutur bahasa Una. Kesalahpahaman ini

diakibatkan oleh fakta bahwa penutur bahasa mengerti teks dan bahasa kiasan dari segi

(frame) yang salah. Melalui artikulasi frame di dalam terjemahan kesalahpahaman bisa

dihindari atau dikurangi. Informasi yang dijelaskan di dalam tejemahan tidak dimengerti

oleh penutur bahasa Una secara automatis, kecuali kalau informasi itu disajikan di dalam

rangka (frame) yang jelas bagi mereka. Dari segi lain, informasi yang tidak diucapkan di

dalam teks tetapi yang merupakan bagian dari frame pendengar dan pembaca dipakai

dalam interpretasi teks. Berdasarkan fakta ini – yang mungkin merupakan ciri penting

dalam proses hermeneutis pada umumya, tetapi yang mungkin lebih menonjol dalam

komunikasi lintas budaya – saya membedakan antara konteks kuat (intern, kognitif,

ditentukan oleh kebudayaan) dan konteks lemah (ekstern, tekstuil).

Di dalam bab 15 lingkaran penelitian saya diperluas, karena tidak terbatas lagi pada satu

bahasa (bahasa Una) saja. Berdasarkan tejemahan balik yang cukup harfiah di dalam

Bahasa Inggris atau bahasa Indonesia limabelas terjemahan Alkitab yang terdapat di

dalam kawasan Indonesia Timur (Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua) dibandingkan. Cara

penerjemahan bahasa kiasan di dalam duapuluh teks dari Perjanjian Lama dan

empatpuluh enam teks dari Perjanjian Baru diteliti. Selain itu, data-data survei di antara

penerjemah mengenai penerjemahan bahasa kiasan dilaporkan, dan terjemahan dari

Indonesia Timur dibandingkan dengan berbagai terjemahan di dalam Bahasa Inggris dan

Bahasa Indonesia. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terjemahan-terjemahan bahasa

daerah yang dibuat di Indonesia Timur biasanya lebih eksplikatif daripada terjemahan

bahasa sehari-hari (common language versions) seperti Good News Bible dan Kabar

Baik. Pada umumnya, terjemahan-terjemahan yang terdapat di Maluku dan Papua lebih

ekplikatif daripada terjemahan-terjemahan yang terdapat di Sulawesi. Terjemahan-

terjemahan yang berasal dari pedalaman Papua adalah terjemahan yang paling

eksplikatif. Hal ini berhubung dengan fungsi (skopos) misioner yang diutamakan, dan

tradisi gerejani yang relatif pendek, dan tingkat pendidikan yang masih rendah.

Eksplikasi biasanya dibuat sesudah pengecekan akan pengertian menunjukkan bahwa ada

hal-hal tertentu yang salah dipahami. Tetapi juga dalam terjemahan yang paling

eksplikatif arti atau pokok gambar bahasa kiasan tidak selalu dijelaskan. Itu merupakan

petunjuk bahwa eksplikasi hanya dibuat kalau perlu untuk menghindari kesalahpahaman.

Bab 16 adalah bab terakhir. Di dalam bab ini konklusi-konklusi penelitian ini ditarik.

Beberapa lampiran memberikan informasi tambahan mengenai beberapa pokok yang

relevan untuk studi ini. Indeks topikal, bibliografi dan ringkasan-ringkasan di dalam

Bahasa Belanda dan Bahasa Indonesia melengkapi studi ini.

638