Important Issues in the Translation of the Bible in the Indian Context
by T. Johnson Chakkuvarackal
T. Johnson Chakkuvarackal teaches New Testament subjects at Serampore College, Hooghly District, West Bengal, India. The following article appeared in the Bangalore Theological Forum, Volume 34, Number 1, June 2002, page. 163-175. Bangalore Theological Forum is published by The United Theological College, Bangalore, India. Used by permission. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
The message of the Bible has been distorted through human intervention during the long period of its transmission and translations. This issue of the presence of errors is proved by the historical, theological, linguistic, and critical analyses of different versions. In the modern age, several of the translations are being done without proper analyses of the textual evidences. The translators use translations of the Greek/Hebrew Bible as primary sources rather than the original language texts.
Most of the Indian translations are distorted due to the total dependence on the English versions, which provide messages different from the original sources. Thus there happens double and even more alienation from the original text. The different principles, colonial infiltration of English culture and language have created the tendency for Indians to rely on English versions as the primary sources. In the postcolonial period the Biblical message was corrupted extensively due to the strategies of decolonization of English language. and the attempts to make intertextuality between different religious traditions and scriptures. In such a context, this paper enables the translators, interpreters and the general public to give primary emphasis for the reliable Greek and Hebrew sources for translation and interpretation. It again gives suggestions for every translator to use appropriate principles and methods to bring the message closer to the original.
A. Translation of the Bible in the Indian Context
Modern Indian translators confront some of the major issues in the processes of translation. They are the following:
1. Linguistics and Translation 1
Language is one of the primary media of communication. The majority of the world population received the New Testament in their own language through its translations from the Greek language as well as translations of translations. A translator cannot neglect the role of language in the process of translation, especially in a pluralistic society like India, which includes different religious and political ideologies, languages and culture. Here, we will deal with some of the aspects of language in relation to translation.
a. Linguistic Barriers in Bible Translation
The plurality of languages in India presents many barriers in making the message of the Bible available for all in the same substance. Another important problem is the limitations of Indian languages to represent the Biblical Greek/Hebrew. The languages in which the early translations were made had several limitations to represent Greek language. For example, Syriac belongs to a completely different group of language, translations into it from Greek imposed considerable problems. There were syntactical, grammatical, phonetical. morphological and yet other problems which differentiated Greek New Testament from other early versions.2 In the same way Benjamin Jowett has found various Contrasts between Greek and English.3
In India, the languages mostly stemmed from Sanskrit, a language which is totally different from the Biblical Hebrew and Greek. The interrelation between the hegemonic, Sanskrit and the humble regional languages, or ‘vulgar tongues’ as the European Orientalists used to call them, is complex and intimate. Indian languages are not self-contained categories. There is much fluidity among them and they continue to interact with one another 4. Haug observes yet another problem in the usage of the language. He says, ‘the language barriers in relation to those who are outside the confines of theology and Christianity have consequently not been removed 5 Thus, the linguistic barrier is a problem not only between nations, but also a problem of a multilinguistic society like Indian. It affects the translations of the Bible in several ways.
b. Language and Culture
In dealing with the languages of India, especially tribal languages, social, political. cultural, and religious considerations come into play6 Hooper says. "rapid social changes are affecting the development of languages . . . political changes have affected the status of Certain languages."7 As James Barr observes:
There is long standing cultural conflict between American and Britain8 between us today and the men of the Bible, and between the men of the New Testament and the Old Testament, there was a problem not only of translation but of transculturation.9
Christianity began in a Jewish cultural environment, with a Hebrew or Aramaic vocabulary and a background of Semitic hopes and longings. When the first Christian laymen and missionaries began their proclamation to people of Greek cultural background in Antioch and later in Europe they had to use a different vocabulary.10 The interaction of culture in the language of the translated Bible creates the problem of different understanding of the message from the original. Modern Indian translators in the North Eastern and other parts of India are influenced by the tribal culture to bring different cultural languages in translations than the original.11 As Nida says, "there is every reason to believe that the revision (of the translated Bible) will be greatly welcomed by non-Christians with a Hindu cultural background."12 Thus the use of different cultural backgrounds with linguistic flavor in translations will provide a different worldview than the original text.
c. The Use of Linguistic Style in Translation
‘Style’ is notoriously difficult to define. It is used as a term to depict virtually anything related to language and language usage.13 During the transmission of the text the scribes intentionally made some corrections in spelling, grammar, and style. Frequent Semiticisms and solecisms afforded many temptations to style conscious scribes and in the later versions like ‘Diatessaron’ and others, style and structure were matters of importance in the translations.14
Rhetorical expressions with literary flavor, the rhythm, the variations of meter etc. of the literature in the original language are not regained in the later translations.15 The translation of the opening formulas in the Gospels gives divergent renderings through modem translations.16 Almost all early Eastern and Western languages were lagging behind in interpreting Greek language. The syntax, vocabulary and style are most wholly borrowed by King James Version from predecessors.
The later translators have imposed their own linguistic and stylistic renderings in accordance with the time and context. In the Indian translations, the style and structure of colonial period have drastically changed during the post-colonial era.17 The recent emergence of post-colonial literature has given birth to English with distinctive flavor. Rather than mimicking or appropriating the metropolitan model, commonwealth writers such as Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy, Vikram Seth. Chinna Achebe and others have not only decolonized English but have re-created it, in fusing native perceptions, metaphors, similes, experiences, and speech patterns.18 K. Satchidanandan. the Indian literary critic, writer of the post-colonized English says, "English, in this context is decolonized through a nativization of theme, space and time, a change of canon from the Western to the Indian. . ."19 These stylistic changes in language influence the modern-biblical translation, especially in the Indian context.
d. Linguistics and Semantics 20
The meaning of words from the source language to the receptor language makes another problem in translation. In the Early Eastern and Western versions as well as the English versions of the New Testament, the meaning of most of the terms have not given the implied meaning of the original language text.21 The use of the Indian term avatara for the Biblical concept incarnation creates some kind of complications in meaning. Appasamy and Chakkarai are in favor of using the term avatara for incarnation.22 But Keshub Chandra Sen and Upadhyaya felt that to call Jesus an avatara was to reduce him to the level of one of many avatars of popular Hinduism.23 Upadhyaya, from his standpoint on the side of Sankara, rejected the use of the word avatara for Christ. Sen, standing within the Brahmo Samaj tradition was vehemently opposed to the custom of referring to Jesus an avatara.
Another term which makes the complications is Isvara for Christ. In Hinduism, Isvara, a lower manifestation of the Supreme Brahman, the personal God.24 We cannot equate the Biblical Father-Son relationship with the Hindu Brahman-Isvara relation, because of the differences in concepts.25
Most of the Indian Christian theologians pay more attention to equate biblical terms and concepts with the Indian. These attempts are reflected in many of the Indian translations. But Peter Cotterell and Max Turner comments, "One of Barr’s most important emphases was that it is not words which provide the basic unit of the meaning, but the larger elements of discourse, sentences and paragraphs".26 The attempt of using terminology and concepts without analyzing the text as a whole, will bring the literal translation of the text. This is the problem with most of the Indian translations as in the case of early Eastern and Western versions.
e. Some other Issues
Descriptive linguistics covers the study of all branches of language study: (1) phonology (sounds), (2) morphology (the words), (3) syntax (the arrangement of words), (A) Lexicon (The meaning of parts of words, words, and combinations of words). The translator cannot neglect any part of descriptive linguistic studies if he/she is to make an adequate translation.27 But because of the unsatisfactory knowledge of the source language (i.e., Gk.) most of the Indian translators are unable to take the descriptive linguistic studies into consideration.
A special feature of the current work of revising the Hindi New Testament is the use of ‘honorific’ forms of address. The Hindi language is sensitive to the status of the person addressed in conversation. It is also sensitive to the status of the third party about whom one may speak.28 New Hindi idioms, style, including honorific forms in the current versions of Hindi New Testament introduce a different linguistic approach, which take receptor language more seriously than the source language.
Since Greek and Hebrew have only simple ‘thou’ and ‘you’ without any complications in the second person pronouns, Marathi has 3: ‘tu’, ‘tumhi’, and ‘apan’. The problem for the translator is whether to use ‘tu’ always for the second person singular or sometimes also ‘tumhi’ and ‘apan’ depending on the occasion.29 In the case of the Bengali language also the personal pronoun ‘you’ has three forms (i.e., ‘tui’, ‘tum’ and ‘apni’), each having its own inflections for number and case.30 Therefore, in most cases the exact representation of the source language is difficult.31
A study of the linguistic principles of India in connection with Bible translation make clear that the New Testament Greek and the Indian languages stemmed from Sanskrit are two different kinds of languages. Moreover, the use of different stylistic, semantic and cultural factors, along with the barriers of language manufacture a different text, i.e., more distant from the intent of the authors of the original sources.
2. The Use of Source Text for Translation
The first duty of every translator is to adopt the most accurate and reliable text of the work before him unless he/she to translate an autograph, i.e. manuscripts in the author’s own handwriting.32 Some translations are perverted due to the incorrect choice of text type, and it does not fit with the style, context and theology of the author.33 In the case of the early versions, while Palestinian Syriac and Georgian used Caesarean text type, Gothic and Old Church Slavonic used different Byzantine text types (i.e., Gothic used early Byzantine and old Church Slavonic, imperial Byzantine). Some others used Western type of texts. But the most reliable and early Alexandrian mss. were used by versions like Coptic and so on.34 But later, due to the lack of knowledge of Greek, translations have begun to translate from English and other language versions.
In spite of the great influence of the King James Version at the time when the first Indian versions were made, later versions have been made chiefly under the influence of the English revisers of the Bible which was published in 1885.35 The two Malayalam translations, the Bible Society of India Version and Hosanna version, are from the English translation.36 The use of translations other than the original source for translations created distorted meaning of the text. In today’s Indian context, most of the translators use English translations,37 which are not free from errors.38
3. The Use of Principles in Translation
There are certain general principles which apply to all translations of ancient books into modern languages. Some of these principles are particularly relevant to the translation of the Bible of ancient Hebrew and Greek into other languages.39 In a linguistically pluralistic country like India, various principles play vital role in different translations.
Most of the early versions, and even some of the major English versions of 20th century follow the method of literal renderings40 in translation. These translations actually distort the facts of a language rather than reveal them. As Nida says, "early Latin translations of the LXX and of Greek texts of the New Testament were for the most part quite literal.41 As such they were not in accordance with principles of translation."42 Until 19th century, the Christian Church of Kerala has used the literal translations like Syriac and Latin.43 Later, in the translation of the Bible into Malayalam, the translators used the literal Latin and Syriac versions along with the English translations. This is the case with most of the major translations in Indian languages.
Some translators have adopted as a basic principle a formula which may be stated as follows: ‘What would the author have said if he/she had been using the receptor language instead of Greek?’ This type of translation is very valuable at times, but it has some serious handicaps. Such a translation is likely to be based on the translator’s idea of a ‘gist’ of the text and consequently reflects his personal interpretation of it.44 The early translations for the newly converted believers keep this principle.45 In India, most of the translations among the tribals have a tendency of translating with a ‘general idea’.
The principle of closest equivalence is designed to avoid awkward literalness on the one hand and adjustified interpretations on the other. These translations are in the regular idiomatic form of the language. This principle also implies the avoidance of interpretive renderings.46 To obtain the closest equivalence in translation, it is necessary to consider three basic requirements (I) the translation must represent the customary usage of the receptor language, (2) the translation must make sense, and (3) the translation must conform to the meaning of the original.47 These type of translations are appropriate for every situations, especially in the context of India.
4. Postcolonial Strategy of Translation
Translation in a postcolonial context is not merely seeking dynamic equivalence or aiming for linguistic exactness, but desires to rewrite and retranslate the texts, as well as concepts against the grain. Sugirtharajah says, "rewriting and retranslating are not a simple dependence upon the past, but a radical remolding of the text to meet new situations and demands".48The translators of this period seek for a wider intertextuality49 which links Biblical texts with Asian scriptural texts. George Soares-Prabhu, the Indian Biblical scholar, has attempted to compare Buddhist and Christian texts despite the fact that both emerge from two different chronological, literary, and theological contexts.50 These receptor oriented translation strategies reduce Biblical terminologies, style, theological concepts, and the intent of the author in an extensive manner.51
B. The Problem for Interpretation of the Text in the Indian Context
In the above discussion we have dealt with various issues in relation to the translation of the text in the Indian context. Here, we will see problems of interpretation on the basis of our former discussions. For analyzing the problem, the Malayalam (i.e. a translation by the Bible Society of India) will be taken as the sample text.
1.During the colonial period52 Anglicist interpreters were vigorous in propagating English language, Western education and values. Most of the translators have used English versions as the source text for translation, and the majority of Indians received New Testament in their mother-tongue with more differences from the original. For example, Malayalam versions (BSI) translates, "one who sits in heaven" instead of one who is in heaven" in John 3:13.53 In Mk. 1:41 it takes "compassion", as incorrect reading of KJV for "indignation".54 Here, due to use of the secondary sources, the translator is hesitant to reflect the real intent of the author. This is one of the primary problems for an interpreter with Indian versions in hand.
2. With regard to the use of the Old Testament quotations in the New, most Indian translators have used distant texts (i.e., English and other translations), without consulting the original Hebrew sources, its Greek renderings in the LXX, and the usage in the Greek New Testament. For example, the syntactical usage with force in both Hebrew and Greek Testaments (Ex. 21:17; cf. Mk. 7:10b) has the meaning "let him surely die". i.e., ‘a death of murder’. But in some of the English translations it implies a natural death.55 In the Malayalam versions also the construction is not forceful as it is in original sources. In most cases, Indian translations keep these types of distinction from the original sources in representing Old Testament quotations. Here, the interpreter confronts severe problems. If he/she neglects the original sources, the interpretation will be distorted one.
3. The English versions like KJV and ‘Living Bible’ have created severe problems for the interpretation of Jn. 20:17. These versions have translated the negation of Jesus without analyzing the grammatical construction. Here, the Malayalam version also has the incorrect translation, which implies a wrong interpretation and theology. In Eph. 4:9, the Malayalam version does not decipher the cosmological understanding of the original text.56 Thus, the theological understanding of the Indian translations differs from the original source, due to incorrect translation approaches.
4. The inclusion of the ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark is yet another problem for the interpretation of Indian versions. The textual critical analysis (of both internal and external) reveal the fact that Mk. 16:9-20 is not part of the Gospel.57 Following the English versions, majority of the Indian versions include the ‘Longer Ending’ in the text.58 These types of inclusions may affect the larger context of the Gospel as a whole as well as its interpretation.
5. The English versions have not retained the rhythm, the variation of meter, the stylistic flavor, grammatical constructions, the rhetorical expressions, the use of alliterations and other kinds of linguistic renderings in the Greek New Testament.59 In the Malayalam Bible, the rhetorical expression in Heb. 1:1-4 is translated with simple constructions. For the use of opening formulas and connecting particles by the Gospel writers in the Greek New Testament, there is no consistent renderings in any of the English as well as in most of the Indian versions.60 Therefore, the Indian versions, which are translated from English, lag behind to reflect the artistic mind of the author as well as the literary character of the narratives in the original source.
6. The limitations of Indian language to represent Hebrew, Greek as well as English create the problem of a distorted text. There are drastic changes in the text due to the use of Hindu terminology for Christian renderings without analyzing the implied meanings. Moreover, the various factors such as cultural, political, social and religious impact upon languages necessitate the need for innovative translations and revisions. These translations reflect the worldview of the translator or the receptor rather than the author’s. Thus the Indian translations present a totally different worldview and interpretations on that basis.61
7. The use of divergent theological and theoretical concerns in translations introduce yet another obstacle for interpretation of the text in India. For instance, in the context of Kerala the Catholic Hosanna Version (like ‘Jerusalem Bible’ and ‘New Jerusalem Bible’ in English) has emerged with different theological outlook rather than the Bible Society of India Version. The principles of translation62 also differ from version to version. These differences in versions divide the Christian community on the basis of divergent theologies and interpretations.
8. The postcolonial translation strategies63 such as rewriting, retranslating and textual interweaving discard the identity of Christian scriptures in a certain extent. As a receptor-oriented strategy, it stands in contrast with the equivalence theory.64 Through this, the receivers get interpretations with distorted ideas, i.e., other than the original.
9. The translations into the tribal languages (i.e., languages without scripts) use improper tools and methods to equate Biblical terms, concepts and figures with the cultural patterns of the tribe. As the initial effort, the newly converted people grasp the message as it is without wider understanding of the text and its context. Thus, the whole community receives a wrong interpretation away from the intent of the author.
10. In recapitulation, various other factors such as the existence of different kinds of people on the basis of caste, color and sex, the pluralistic nature of the country, the modern developments of the society, the lifestyle of the people, personal interests etc. may influence and compel the translators to think and reflect differently. In certain cases the translator has to consider the demand of the higher authorities (e.g., the prescriptions from the church authorities etc.) and the presuppositions about the community. Thus, the Indian translations have more complexity in nature than any other translations of the world. It reflects through various interpretations of the text.
C. Some Suggestions for Translators
The foregoing study make clear that for a closer equivalent translation, the translators of New Testament must consider the following suggestions.
1. The first and foremost obvious requirement of any translator is that he/she should have a satisfactory knowledge of the source languages (i.e., the Greek and the Hebrew).
2. He/she must consider the original sources as the primary tool for translation.
3. A translator should be an expert in the textual critical approach to the sources (i.e., to accumulate, distribute, and evaluate the evidences, and to analyze the transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities).
4. A wider theological understanding of the Bible is expected from the translator to evaluate the variant readings with internal evidences (i.e., the vocabulary, style and theology of the author).
5. He/she must be trained in linguistics, anthropology and the principles and procedures of translation.
6. In translation, he/she can use the following criteria: prefer the reading supported in widely separated geographical areas; prefer the reading attested by oldest manuscripts; and prefer the reading supported by the greatest number of text types.
7. A translation should reflect the author’s intention (i.e., the vocabulary, style, theology etc.); a receptor-oriented translation brings cultural, theological and linguistic bias.
8. The theology and interpretation of the original text should be reflected exactly through translations.
9. The translator should not neglect any part of descriptive linguistic studies (i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon), if she/he is to make an adequate translation.
10. Before the act of translation, a translator must take the issue of omissions, additions, transposition of words, substitutions etc. seriously.
These suggestions may be helpful for a translator to make the translation meaningful for the community, to whom he/she endeavors for a good task. Here it is worthy to quote from Norlie: "the good translator is a rare man, patient and industrious, painstaking to the last degree, willing to give his life to a task."65
In recapitulation, the texts of the Bible and their interpretations in the Indian context are with much-complexity than any other translations in other parts of the world. It is because of the plurality of cultures, religions and languages which make impact upon the text. As a result, alterations and perverted interpretations occur. The Indian translations are further corrupted due to the incorrect selection of text types (i.e., the use of English and other vernacular translations as the basic tools). The use of different kinds of principles, the colonial and postcolonial strategies, the adoption of Indian terms and concepts for the extremely different Biblical terms etc. created more changes in translation approaches in the present day context. Due to these various reasons Indian people get more distorted interpretations of the Bible.
Modern Indian translators do not pay careful attention for the right selection of text types for Old Testament quotations in the New. The negligence of important aspects such as, the grammatical constructions, rhythm, meter, stylistic flavor, rhetorical expressions etc. create problems for an interpreter of Indian versions of the Bible and it is more evident in tribal languages. Moreover, the improper use of connecting particles, the use of receptor-oriented principles, and the third world strategies (i.e., intertextuality etc.) bring a message different from author’s worldview. In such a situation, the translator as well as the interpreter must go back to the original and most acceptable sources for proof. The mere dependence upon the vernacular versions may lead us to distant conclusions, different from the original sources. Therefore, translations and interpretations at anytime should be on the basis of textual critical approaches and must be centered on the reliable Greek/Hebrew sources.
1. For more details with regard to language and science of translation, see Eugene A. Nida, Towards a Science of Translating (Leiden: E .J. Brill, 1964).
2. Cf. T. Johnson, Errors in New Testament Translations and the Problem for interpretation: A Comparative Study of a Few Selected Passages in Different Versions". Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Reg. No. 507/99, Senate of Serampore College, Serampore, 2001, 11ff.
3. The structure, formation of sentences and paragraphs, the use of genders, representation in various parts of sentence, style, use of idioms etc differentiate English language from Greek. Cf. F.C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Connecticut: The Seaburg Press, 1961), 139-141.
4. R.S. Sugirtharajah, "Thinking About Vernacular Hermeneutics Sitting in a Metropolitan Study", Vernacular Hermeneutics. The Bible and Postcolonialism, 2 (Sheftield: Academic Press, 1999), 95.
5. Hellmut Haus, "The New Testament in Today’s German Version", The Bible Translator Vol. 19, No. I (Jan., 1968), 171f.
6. Geoffrey E. Marrison, "Tribal Language and Christian Usage", The Bible Translator Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1968), 21.
7. J.S.M. Hooper, The Bible Translation in India, Pakistan. and Ceylon (Oxford: University Press, 1963), 8f.
8. T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, 34ff.
9. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: University Press, 1961), 4.
10. Robin Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1989), 255.
11. Eugene A. Nida, "Diglot Scriptures", The Bible Translator Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), 3.
13. J. Eugene Botha, "Style in the NT: Need for Serious Reconsideration", in NT Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1977), 114.
14. The Style and Structure of ‘Persian Harmony’ differ from Diatessaron, see T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, 12f..
15. Ibid., 72ff.
16. Ibid., 75ff.
17. See, for more details, R.S. Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism: Contesting the Interpretations (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999).
18. Ibid., 93.
19. Ibid., 95, quoting K. Satchidanandan, "On Indian Writing in English", in Indian Literature 38 (1995), 6.
20. The aspect of linguistics which deals with meaning in language.
21. Cf. the discussions about the early Eastern and Western versions as well as the English Versions in Chs. 1 and 2, T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis.
22. Boyd, Indian Christian Theology, 127, 167-72.
23. Ibid., 127.
25. There are some other concepts, like ‘Satchidananda’, ‘Prajapati’ etc. are equated by some Indian Christian Theologians with Biblical ‘Trinity’, ‘Jesus’ and so on. For more See J.S.M. Hooper, Greek New Testament Terms in Indian Languages (Bangalore : The Bible Society of India and Ceylon, 1957).
26. Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1987), 28.
27. Eugene A. Nida, Bible Translation: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, With Special Reference to Aboriginal Language (London: UBS, 1961), 62.
28. C.S. Thoburn, "In Revised Hindi NT", The Bible Translator, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), 180.
29. F.W. Schelander, "In the Marathi NT", The Bible Translator Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), 178ff.
30. A. M. Agnus, "In the Bengali NT", The Bible Translator, Vol. 14, No.4 (Oct., 1963), 183ff.
31. It was one of the major problems with the early versions too; See T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Ch. 1, Sec. B.
32. Grant, Translating the Bible, 116
33. See Mk. 1:41; Jn 3:13; and Rev. 1:5 in different texts and translations.
34. Cf. T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Ch. 1, Sec. B.
35. Hooper, Bible Translation in India, Pakistan, and Ceylon, 6.
36. Cf. K.G. Jose, "A Study of the Words Used for Salvation in Deutero-Isaiah and Their Equivalence in Malayalam Translations of the Bible", Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Reg. No. 487/89, Senate of Serampore College, Serampore, 1991, 11. Also see M.J. Joseph, "Malayala Vedapustakatinte Charitram" (Mal.), in Vedapustaka Bhashyam, revised edition, ed. E.C. John (Tiruvalla: Daivasastra Sahitya Samiti, 1983), 24ff.
37. The conclusion is made on the basis of personal interviews with Varghees John and Mathews M. Kurian, who are Bible Translators working among the tribal groups in states of Orissa, and Bihar.
38. See the issue in the whole of Ch. 2, T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis.
39. Grant, Translating the Bible, 130.
40. It is the use of the same Hebrew or Greek word by the same word in the receptor language, and similarly for many types of grammatical constructions.
41. Cf. T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, 20ff.
42. Nida. "Theories of Translation", in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 513.
43. Cf. M.J. Joseph, "Malayala Vedapustakatinte Charitram" (Mal.), in Vedapustaka Bhashyam,, 24ff.
44. Nida, Bible Translating, 12.
45. Cf. Armenian Version, T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, 17f.
46. The closest principle, avoids the renderings, ‘made different by holiness’ for ‘transfigured’, and ‘I should take sin away from them’ for ‘I should heal them’ etc. See Nida, Bible Translating,
47. Nida calls this method of translations, ‘dynamic equivalence’ or ‘functional equivalence’. See Nida, Towards a Science of Translating, 159.
48. Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism, 96f.
49. Also called ‘textual interweaving’.
50. Cf. George M. Soares-Prabhu, "Two Mission Commands: An Interpretation of Matthew 28:16-20 in the Light of the Buddhist Text", Biblical Interpretation. A Journal of Contemporary Approach 2, Vol. 3 (1994), 264-82.
51. Also see Sec. A, 3.
52. Most of the major Indian translations were completed during colonial period.
53. Cf. T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Ch. 2, Sec. B, 1, b.
54. Ibid., Ch. 2, See. B. 1a and compare Mk. 1:41 with the Indian versions.
55. Ibid., Ch. 2. Sec. B, 2b.
56. Compare the discussion with: T. Johnson, Unpublished M. Th. Thesis, Ch. 2, Sec. B, 3.
57. Ibid., Ch. 2, Sec. B, 4a.
58. The Malayalam Bible also includes this section in the text, but uses parentheses.
59. For example, see the translation of Heb. 1:1-4 in different English versions.
60. See, T. Johnson, Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Ch. 2, Sec. B, 5b.
61. Compare with Sec. A, 1 of this article.
62. Cf. Sec. A, 3 of this article.
63. See, Sec. A, 4 of this article.
64. Ibid., Sec. A, 3.
65. O.M. Norlie (ed.), The Translated Bible 1534-1934 (Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House, 1934), 43.