Doing / Teaching Theology & Di Jamiekan Baibl

Lynette Mullings' Teaching Black Biblical Studies in the UK: Special Issues for Consideration and Suggested Hermeneutical Approaches makes for an interesting read. And this is why: In her paper, Mullings seeks to outline how "Black vernacular" and "Black Hermeneutics" – not so clearly defined, unfortunately - could contribute to the expression of "Black Theology." She writes from the perspective of Blacks in the UK so she uses the BSWI's translation of the Scriptures into JamC as a case study, seeing it is the most influention Creole spoken by persons of African descent in Britain. In her own words, she sets out "to address...the need for the development of a form of biblical scholarship that applies a reading strategy that is distinct to a particular aspect of Black culture...to make a case for the use of Black vernacular and vernacular hermeneutics for critical dialogue and interpretation of the Scriptures through an assessment of the Bible Society of the West Indies' work, 'A Who Run Tings?'...and subsequently the Bible Society's effort to build upon this seminal work in a bid to translate the entire Bible into Jamaican."

Mullings does not stop there, however; she suggests a rather radical course of action (something she acknowledges several times): provide theological education from a Black perspective, utilising "Black vernacular" and Black Hermeneutics" – after all, all theologies are culturally conditioned (and one of the problems is that the theological education persons get in most seminaries are, for the most part, largely formulated and handed down to us by non-blacks).

What are your thoughts?

Mieri Briid?

One of the things which amazes us is this: most of us Jamaicans use Jamaican Creole most of the time; however, whenever many of us hear about the Jamaican Bible, for some reason or another, we associate the language, and hence the translation project, with vulgarity! This association was illustrated in one of our newspapers' editorial cartoons of a pastor reading, in absolute horror, the Jamaican translation of the Christmas Narrative. This is what the minister read: "An' memba de prophet sey de virgin a goh breed an' a bwoy pickney a goh bawn! Dem a goh call him JEEZAS..."

As one would expect, the congregation was equally horrified when they heard the word "breed"!

We are not aware of one speaker of Jamaican Creole who uses the Jamaican to express nothing but vulgarity. In fact, our impression is that we express vulgarity less than 5% of the time. It seems unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that the Jamaican Bible will be replete with vulgarity. Nonetheless, in order to put your fears to rest, the Bible Society assures you that:

"The text in Jamaican will not be loose, laughable, vulgar or slangy; at the same time, it will not be rigid and unnatural."

The Text Behind the Patois Bible

INTRODUCTION:

It is very likely that when the Jamaican Bible is published, Jamaicans will compare it with the Bible version they revere most – the Authorised Version (AV) also known as the King James Version (KJV). The careful listener/reader will notice several textual differences or variances between the translations. In my experience, a lack of awareness of the issues pertaining to textual differences has led well-meaning persons to accuse most modern Bible translators of "taking away" (i.e. deleting words or, alas, entire sections!) from the word of God. Consequently, on not a few occasions, translators have been warned that "God will take away" their "share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Rev.22:19)!

This is a charge that must not be taken lightly; therefore our Translation Team needs to be able to respond to the concern appropriately. Seeing that, for the immediate future, the JCTP is concerned with the New Testament (NT), I shall limit our discussion to the text-form for the NT that BSWI has decided upon.

ILLUSTRATION & DISCUSSION
To illustrate a textual difference between the AV and the Jamaican Bible (JB) would look like, let's have a look at the Lukan Temptation Narrative - Luke 4:1-13. Of particular concern to us in this passage is v.4

First, let's parallelise the AV and JB translations of the verse:

AV: "And Jesus answered him, saying, 'It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'"

JB: "Jiizas ansa, 'It rait dong iina Gad buk se, man kyaahn liv pan bred wan.'"

Have you noticed a major difference? I'm sure you have! It's the last phrase of the AV rendering – "but by every word of God."

The textual note of the standard Greek text, the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament in its 4^th edition (GNT4), indicates that many of the Manuscripts (MSS) available to us, including A (D) Q Y (0102) ¦^1, ¦¹³ 33, complete the citation with avllV evpi. panti. r`h,mati qeou/ (all' epi panti rheÒmati theou, "but by every word of God"). The quoted text shared by both translations is: Ouvk evpV a;rtw mo,nw zh,setai o` a;nqrwpoj.

The NET Bible's textual note on the verse concludes: "The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the original wording in Luke."

But, you might ask – and rightly so - if the adversative phrase is witnessed to by so many MSS, why, then, is it not included in the vast majority of modern translations, including the JB? Well, this is where the science (and art) of Textual Criticism has influenced Bible translators. In the view of most NT textual critics the shorter reading, found in a B L W 1241 syr^s cop^{sa, bo}, is original and the longer reading is the handy work of copyists who had a tendency to assimilate texts. In the case Luke 4:4, scribes are believed to have assimilated the Matthean parallel (Matthew 4:4) which is a quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3 in the Septuagent, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was widely used in the New Testament period.

I've brought up the issue for this very reason: most Jamaicans are unaware that the text-form underlying the AV is different from that which underlies most modern translations, including the JB!

So, what is the text-form of the AV and most modern translations of the Scriptures? Answer: It is known as the Textus Receptus (TR), a compilation of very few MSS that were copied by scribes no earlier than the 10^th century. The TR it is also the underlying text of most translations until the 20^th century. The textual basis of the JB and of most modern translations of the Bible is an Eclectic Greek Text (EGT) as is found in GNT4. The EGT is believed to be superior to the TR as it draws on thousands of NT MSS, some of which were in existence from as early as the 2^nd century.

Whilst differences between the TR and GNT4 are many, it's worth being reminded that of the disparities are of little theological significance – i.e. "No major doctrine of the Christian faith is affected because of textual differences."

CONCLUSION:

The JCTP's Translation Team does not seek to "take away" from God's word; rather, it endeavours to add nothing to Scripture that, based on its translator's best understanding today as to its original form, should not be there.

REFERENCE:

1. Aland, B., Aland, K., etal The Greek New Testament 4th Ed (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2001)
   
2. ------------------------------ Nouvum Testamentum Graece 27th Ed (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2001)
   
3. Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd Ed (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994)
   
4. ----------------------- The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration 2nd Ed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).
   
5. Omanson, R., (ed) Discover the Bible – A Manual of Biblical Studies (Colombia: United Bible Societies, 2001)
   
6. The Sea Island Translation Team in co-operation with Wycliffe Bible Translators, De Nyew Testament (New York: American Bible Society, 2005)
   
7. Wegner, Paul D., The Journey from Texts to Translations – The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999).