Contextual Frames of Reference in Transl PDF

Contextual Frames of Reference
in Translation
A Coursebook for Bible Translators
and Teachers
Ernst Wendland
St. Jerome Publishing

Manchester, UK & Kinderhook (NY)
Published by
St. Jerome Publishing InTrans Publications
2 Maple Road West, Brooklands P. O. Box 467
Manchester, M23 9HH, United Kingdom Kinderhook, NY 12106, USA
Telephone +44 (0)161 973 9856 Telephone (518) 758-1755
Fax +44 (0)161 905 3498 Fax (518) 758-6702
stjerome@compuserve.com
http://www.stjerome.co.uk
ISBN 978-1-905763-02-3 (pbk)
© Ernst Wendland 2008
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either
the prior written permission of the Publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), 90 Tottenham Court Road, London,
W1P 9HE. In North America, registered users may contact the Copyright Clearance Center
(CCC): 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by

Alden Group Ltd, Osney Mead, Oxford, UK
Typeset by
Delta Typesetters, Cairo, Egypt
Email: hilali1945@yahoo.co.uk
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wendland, Ernst R.
Contextual frames of reference in translation : a coursebook for Bible translators and
teachers / Ernst Wendland.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-905763-02-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Bible--Versions. 3. Intercultural communication. 4.
Discourse analysis. I. Title.
P306.2.W43 2007
228’.05963918--dc22
2007038538
Dedication
For Katy Barnwell, Jake Loewen (), and Gene Nida – Bible scholars who
impressed upon me the importance of translator training and impressively
modeled their methods in the classroom as teachers.
Contextual Frames of Reference in Translation
A Coursebook for Bible Translators and Teachers
Ernst Wendland
Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation shows both the daunting

complexity of Bible translation and ways to deal with it, to reduce complexity
and make it manageable. By doing so the book is a tremendous help in teach-
ing students of Bible translation to make informed and balanced decisions.
(From the Foreword by Lourens de Vries)
Bible translation theory and practice rightly tend to focus on the actual text of Scripture.
But many diverse, yet interrelated contextual factors also play an important part in the
implementation of a successful translation program. The aim of this coursebook is to
explore, in varying degrees of detail, a wide range of these crucial situational variables
and potential influences, using a multidisciplinary approach to the task. Thus, in order
to expand and enrich the field of vision, a progressive study of this complex process
of intercultural, interlinguistic communication is carried out according to a set of
overlapping sociocultural, organizational and situational cognitive orientations. These
contextual factors provide a broader frame of reference for analyzing, interpreting and
communicating the original Scriptures in a completely new, contemporary setting of
transmission and reception. The three dimensions are then applied in a practical way
to explore the dramatic “throne-room” vision of the Apostle John (Revelation 4-5)
with reference to both the original Greek text and also a modern dynamic translation
in Chewa, a southeastern Bantu language of Africa.
A variety of exercises and assignments to stimulate critical and creative reflection
as well as to illustrate the theoretical development of Contextual Frames of Reference
is provided every step of the way. A valuable feature of this presentation is the num-
ber of other translation consultants, teachers and practitioners who have contributed
to the effort through quotations from their scholarly as well as pedagogical works.
This gives readers a much broader, more diverse perspective – or frame of reference
– with regard to the different text and context-related principles and problems that are
discussed in the coursebook. Not only is translation per se discussed, but the teach-
ing and evaluation of translated texts and versions are also considered from several
points of view in the final three chapters. An Appendix offers a foundational essay
by Professor Lourens de Vries on the subject of primary orality and the influence of
this vital factor in the crosscultural communication of the Bible.
This book has been prepared with advanced courses in Bible translation and transla-
tion studies in mind and as a teaching aid to accompany Bible Translation: Frames of
Reference (Wilt 2003). It could also function effectively as a background or reference
text for teachers and students of university or seminary courses in biblical exegesis
and crosscultural communication.
vi Ernst Wendland
Ernst Wendland is a Translation Consultant for the United Bible Societies, based
in Lusaka, Zambia, where he also teaches at the Lutheran Seminary. He is a Visiting
Professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at the University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa and is also affiliated there with the Centre for Bible Interpretation and
Translation in Africa (CEBITA). His research interests include structural, stylistic and
rhetorical studies in biblical texts and the Bantu languages.
Contents
List of Figures x
List of Tables x
Acknowledgments xi
Foreword xiii
Preface xv
1. Contextual frames of reference: The mind’s construction of meaning 1

Analogy of an onion 1
The interaction of frames 6
Prominence, perspective, perceptibility 9
2. The context of the mind: Cognitive frames of reference 19

Dimensions of world-view: Cultural orientations 19
Cognitive filters 23
Cognitive environment 27
A grid-group perspective 31
3. Why we do things the way we do: Sociocultural frames 36

The constraint of “custom” 36
High-context versus low-context communication 37
Mental representations 40
Semantic domains 48
Discerning the fitting frame 51
Gender bias 57
Signs make meaning in context 59
4. The rights and responsibilities of allegiance: Organizational frames 68

What is an organization? 68
Empowering the organization 80
Competing organizations 85
5. Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances 92

A sociolinguistic model: S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G 92
Speech-act analysis 95
Addressing the audience 101
The underlying “text” of a situational context 106
6. Textual frames of reference: The pervasive influence of intertext 110

Intertextuality and genre markers 110
Examples of intertextual influence 112
The intertextual pressure of a prior translation 116
Primary versus secondary (and tertiary) translations 120
viii Ernst Wendland
Which “text”? The need for textual criticism 124

Textual support of the canon 128
7. Intratextuality: A text’s internal frame of reference 131

Literary hermeneutical clues 132
Genre specification 135
Compositional disjunction 143
Patterned recursion 148
Artistic-rhetorical accentuation 156
Phonic enhancement 160
Formatting the textual form 168
8. Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room (Rev. 4) 173

The general cognitive environment of Revelation 4 174
The ANE milieu of Revelation: Its sociocultural and organizational
frames 174
The situational setting of John: Apostle, pastor, prophet 179
The conceptual context presupposed by the throne room vision 180
The formal representation of Rev. 4: Textual frames 182
Co-text: Demarcating the pericope beginning at 4:1 185
A literary analysis of the text 186
Categorization: What is the genre of Revelation? 187
Articulation: How was the original text proclaimed? 192
Disjunction: How is the discourse demarcated into segments? 194
Recursion: What syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns appear? 196
Accentuation: How is the text artistically and
rhetorically heightened? 198
Varied intertextual notes and chords resound in Revelation 4 (5) 202
9. Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors 207

The current communication setting of the text 207
Textual techniques: Contextualizing the translation from within 212
A comparison of versions, old and new (Rev. 4:6b-11) 212
A literary rendition for oratorical equivalence 216
Paratextual and extratextual tools for enriching one’s frame of reference 222
10. Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation 226

Applying a multiple framework for qualitative assessment 226
Assessing a specific conceptual context of text reception 234
Problems with “the powers”: A case-study of recontextualization 240
An idiomatic translation of the biblical text 241
The provision of a situation-specific conceptual context 242
The need for a relevant contextualization 244
contents ix
11. Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation 259
Identifying the cotext and context of Rev. 5 259
Analyzing the source language text 261
Providing an appropriate and relevant paratext 265
Specifying, composing, and assessing the translation 268
12. Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning 272

Towards a more setting-sensitive pedagogy 272
Interactive 273
Inductive 273
Indigenized 274
Communal 274
Developmental 275
Comparative 276
Applied 276
The power of dialogue-based, student-centered education 279
A process model for translator training 286
Expanding the teaching-learning context through networking 291
Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality 297

Introduction 297
Primary orality according to Ong 297
Primary orality in transcribed texts from New Guinea 300
Oral genres and Bible translation 303
Conclusion 308
References 311
Index 317
Ernst Wendland
List of Figures
Figure 1: Onion layers
Figure 2: A “nested” Russian doll set
Figure 3: Mighty Fortress Retirement Community
Figure 4: Cline of referential generality
Figure 5: Prioritizing contextual frames during communication
Figure 6: Four cultural orientations according to grid/group theory
Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in Christianity
Figure 8: Four cultural perspectives on “faith”
Figure 9: High versus low context communication
Figure 10: Representative high- versus low context cultures
Figure 11: SDBH entry for Hebrew ’ab ‘father’
Figure 12: Where are Ruth and Boaz?
Figure 13: The performance management cycle
Figure 14: Philip and the Ethiopian
Figure 15: Layered communication setting of Revelation
Figure 16: Variables that affect the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation
Figure 17: Lampstand
Figure 18: A scroll with seven seals
Figure 19: The Lamb of Rev. 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Idioms related to “a cross to bear”
Table 2: Framing a funeral oration
Table 3: Ancient versus modern Western personalities compared
Table 4: Aspects of organizational frames in Bible translation
Table 5: Comparison of roles – “coach” and “consultant”
Table 6: Cognitive contextual possibilities
Table 7: Grid of text-types and translation priorities
Acknowledgments
I must acknowledge the enlightenment from many minds that I gained during the
preparation of the present coursebook. Indeed, such a significant input during vari-
ous stages of the writing made the entire process also a great learning experience for
me. This coursebook in fact features not so much my work, but rather the diverse
contributions of a number of expert scholars and practitioners in the field of secular
as well as biblical translation studies. I made an effort to mention all those whom I
have explicitly quoted as well as those whose ideas I have less specifically referred or
alluded to. Let me note in particular the scholarship of Prof. Lourens de Vries (whom
I also thank for his Foreword) and Dr. Robert Bascom, who have generously allowed
me to cite several longer portions of published materials or research and writing in
progress. I have also benefited indirectly from the works of many other translation
colleagues, past and present, over the years. I therefore thank all concerned most
sincerely; however, at the outset I should also express my sincere apologies if I have
inadvertently misrepresented or misused your material in any way. While engaged in
this project, I much appreciated the great support and guidance that I received from
Prof. Mona Baker (St. Jerome Press).
In closing, I wish to acknowledge the following for granting permission to quote as-
sorted or more extensive published selections:
Roger Omanson, Editor of the Bible Translator (Technical Series) – general

permission.
Donald Slager, Editor of the UBS Translator’s Handbook and Monograph series
– general permission.
Mary Molegraaf of the Baker Publishing Group for permission to cite selections by
Charles Campbell (“Apocalypse now: Preaching Revelation as narrative”) in Joel B.
Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading, narrative preaching:
Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation.
Sheo Prasad of Augsburg-Fortress Publishers for permission to cite selections from

Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-science commentary on the Syn-
optic Gospels.
The Scripture quotations used in this publication, when not my own literal or con-
cordant translation of the Hebrew or Greek text, are in the main taken from the
following English and Chewa versions: New International Version (NIV) © 1984
by the International Bible Society; Revised Standard Version (RSV) © 1973 by the
Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches in the USA;
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) © 1989 by the Division of Christian Educa-
tion of the National Council of Churches in the USA; Good News Translation (GNT;
xii Ernst Wendland
formerly Good News Bible), second edition © 1994 by the American Bible Society;
Contemporary English Version (CEV) © 1995 by the American Bible Society; Eng-
lish Standard Version (ESV) © 2001 by Crossway Bibles; New English Bible (NET),
second beta edition © 1996-2003 by Biblical Studies Press; Buku Lopatulika (BL
– ‘Sacred Book’) © 1923 by the British & Foreign Bible Society; Buku Loyera (BY
– ‘Holy Book’) © 1998 by the Bible Society of Malawi. All these versions are used
by permission, for which I am grateful.
Foreword
Translating is an extremely complicated and ultimately intuitive decision-making
process involving very many factors, perspectives, uncertainties and pluralities.
Translators have to make decisions fast and consistently, under all sorts of pressures
and constraints.
This is especially true for translators of sensitive, sacred texts. They are very
closely watched while making their decisions, by scholars, believers, publishers, com-
missioners. All these critical observers have different perspectives and they confront
translators with often conflicting demands. Bible translators have to think of many
things at the same time, so many in fact that they may easily feel overwhelmed and
intimidated. The usefulness of a coursebook for Bible translators and teachers of
Bible translation stands or falls with how well it meets the challenge to provide tools
to deal with the complexity of the task of Bible translating, tools that translators can
rely on when making decisions.
Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation shows both the daunting
complexity of Bible translation and ways to deal with it, to reduce complexity and
make it manageable. By doing so the book offers tremendous help in teaching students
of Bible translation to make informed and balanced decisions. Students learn to look
at Bible translation from multiple perspectives at the same time, called contextual
frames of reference in the book. These contextual frames are presented in an ordered
fashion, from the most abstract to the most concrete.
The book thus starts with the most abstract and encompassing frames, the cogni-
tive contexts of the mind as shaped by deep, often unconscious cultural orientations
that are at work behind source and target texts. This is followed by sociocultural,
organizational, and textual frames, and the book ends with the most concrete internal
frames formed by the text of Scripture itself, with its patterns of genre specification,
recursion, disjunction, rhetorical accentuation, and phonic enhancement. The course-
book does not argue for a particular theoretical standpoint nor does it tacitly assume
one, and this is a strength for a book aimed at teaching Bible translation.
By naming these contextual frames and ordering them from the most abstract to the
most concrete, students have a wonderful analytical tool to distinguish and label the many
kinds of multiplicity and plurality they inevitably encounter and to gradually zoom in on
the text itself without losing sight of the wider cognitive, sociocultural, organizational
and situational contexts in which those texts function and are communicated.
Perhaps the most significant and lasting contribution of Ernst Wendland to the
field of Bible translation is the strong bridges he built between the academic world of
literary and rhetorical study of the Bible and the world of practising Bible translators,
teaching translators not only to understand the literary features of the Hebrew and
Greek texts but also to work those insights in a correspondingly “literary” (artistic,
poetical, rhetorical) manner into their translation. This special expertise and passion
of Ernst Wendland is reflected in many places in the coursebook, especially in the
chapter on internal frames and in the grand application of the frames approach to the
translation of Revelation 4 and 5 into Chewa, a beautiful Bantu language of Malawi
xiv Ernst Wendland
and Zambia. This literary-rhetorical aspect finds a natural, integrated place in the
coursebook, and this is important because the literary-rhetorical perspective should
have an integrated place in every translation project alongside the other perspectives,
and not just in special niche translations for highly educated audiences that want to
enjoy the Bible as literature.
Translators can only move from complexity and plurality to single translation
decisions in a responsible manner when they do two things: first, they have to reduce
the complexity and plurality by analyzing, listing and labelling the pros and cons
of each decision from the perspectives of the various contextual frames. This is the
descriptive, analytical aspect of the decision-making. Second, they have to weigh
the pros and cons of decisions from the perspective of the skopos of the translation,
the goal of the project as determined by the commissioners and communities they
serve. In this weighing of factors from the perspective of the goals of the translation
project, intuition as shaped by wisdom, prayer and experience is the ultimate guide
of Bible translators. In the skopos of Bible translations theological and hermeneutical
aspects of the traditions of communities find a place. It is not the task of scholars or
coursebooks to prescribe the goals of Bible translation projects; they emerge from
the traditions and needs of communities. That is why the coursebook is neutral with
respect to the various types of Bible translations. But the contextual frames offered
as a tool in this book help students both with the first task of analyzing, listing and
labelling pros and cons of translation decisions, and with the second aspect of un-
derstanding what communities expect from Bible translations and how the Bible
functions in the various communities, the theological and hermeneutical side of the
decision-making process.
The tools offered in this book are not meant to replace that wonderful faculty of
the human brain we call intuition, a faculty that helps us to weigh the many, often
competing and contradictory factors that are involved in decision-making in all aspects
of our lives. Rather, the book serves the ultimately intuitive decision-making process
in the heads and hearts of translators by creating awareness of contextual frames of
reference, by helping competent translators to explicate and critically reflect on their
intuitions and to engage in informed dialogues with their partners in the translation
project. That, after all, is the ultimate frame of reference: a community of individuals,
working together cooperatively in the multifaceted effort to communicate the Word
of God meaningfully unto themselves.
Prof. Lourens de Vries

Faculty of Arts
Dept. of Language and Communication
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Preface: The plan and purpose of this coursebook
Communicative Bible translation is at the same time a science, a technology, and an
art. Thus it is (or should be) based on generally accepted knowledge derived from
interdisciplinary sources as well as extended observation, study, and experimenta-
tion; it operates according to specific, experience-based principles and practical
procedures; and equally important if not always recognized, it is at some point also
carried out intuitively, in response to the artistic genius and sensitivity of the transla-
tor. It is the primary aim of Contextual frames of reference in Bible translation to
provide translators and their trainers alike with a heuristic framework for exploring all
three of these key dimensions of translation, with primary reference to the Christian
Scriptures. I thereby wish to encourage a more broadly-based perspective on this
multifaceted task and, to this end, also provide translation staff with the opportunity
to progressively practice as well as to reflect upon these insights in relation to their
own specific sociocultural setting and work situation.
This coursebook offers a practical, step by step way to follow up on some of the
main ideas that are presented in the influential text Bible translation: Frames of
reference (Wilt 2003). The collection of studies proposed a more diverse and flex-
ible “holistic” approach to Bible translation, as summarized by the following critical
points of view (ibid:xii):
• 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 func-
tions, especially the aesthetic and ritual functions of scriptural texts.
The present coursebook seeks to investigate these basic perspectives in somewhat

greater detail by means of both additional information regarding the different topics
involved and also through interspersed exercises, which invite readers to apply the
material contextually to the particular circumstances in which they themselves are
either translating or training and guiding translators to do the job. Bible translation
focuses upon a single text, but the process is influenced and thus also coloured by
a host of interrelated sociolinguistic and cultural variables that pertain to the many
different settings in which this communicative activity is being conducted throughout
the world today. Thus this coursebook intends to broaden translators’ field of vision
– their “frames of reference” – with regard to the conceptual and pragmatic scope of
their task in relation to the original text and, on the other hand, to lead them to apply
this vision with more focused clarity and conviction to their specific work situation,
ideally in close interaction with colleagues in a “team” approach to the task. This text
is itself very much the product of teamwork, as the many quotations and exercises
contributed by others clearly indicate.
xvi Ernst Wendland
I will discuss, largely from a practical translator’s standpoint, several important

aspects of the overall cognitive, emotive, and volitional “context” that converge to
influence the interpretation of an ancient religious text and its re-wording in a con-
temporary language-culture. In some ways, this hermeneutical procedure is analogous
to unpeeling the thick leaves of an onion bulb – a compressed, composite whole,
the essence and significance of which is much greater than the sum of its individual
parts. Each segment contributes to the essential corporate unity and, while it can be
examined in isolation, one component cannot really be understood without reference
to each of the others. But this analogy does not take one very far. The difficulties of
comprehension and integration increase exponentially when one attempts to dismantle
a creative literary text in a particular language-culture and to reassemble it again in an
entirely new communication setting. In this coursebook, I offer one possible method
of approaching this challenge in a progressive, systematic manner. My context-sensitive,
function-oriented, “frames of reference” approach is certainly not the only way to
accomplish this, but it does offer a practical set of tried-and-tested procedures that
are compatible with many other translation tactics and techniques.
First, a general introduction is made to the concept of frames, that is, distinct
culturally-conditioned cognitive perspectives which serve to orient as well as to con-
textualize all our perception, evaluation, integration, and organization of data (Chapters
1-2). Four distinct, but closely interrelated conceptual domains (sociocultural, insti-
tutional, situational, and textual) are then individually described and exemplified to
provide a more detailed introduction to the subject (Chapters 3-6). The original biblical
author presumably accommodated these varied mental viewpoints, prioritizing them
according to the manifold principle of relevance in order to localize a given passage of
Scripture when composing it for an envisioned audience in a particular Ancient Near
Eastern situational setting. Special attention is given in Chapter 7 to the overt textual
frame of reference as this applies to the study of biblical documents, especially from
a literary perspective. A sequence of examples and exercises has been incorporated
into the coursebook as these different issues are presented in an effort to render the
discussion more “interactive” and contextually relevant for Bible translators and
team supervisors or instructors. These projects may be assigned for individual study
or, more profitably perhaps, as corporate tasks to be discussed and responded to as a
group (2-3 participants).
The same four culturally-specific frames of reference must also be accessed dur-
ing the re-compositional activity of Bible translation, first when analyzing the source
text for “meaning” (Chapter 8), and then when extracting this from its linguistic form
(whether Hebrew or Greek) in order to regenerate it in a new communicative envi-
ronment and sociocultural setting. As an example of the latter set of circumstances,
the case of translating meaningfully into Chewa (Nyanja), a south-eastern Bantu
language of Malawi and Zambia, is selectively considered (Chapter 9). The pressing
challenge here concerns the complex process of conceptual engineering whereby a
sacred literary text is expressed in a way that is relevant as well as acceptable to a
specific target audience and also supplemented by suitable techniques of extratextual
cognitive enrichment. By way of illustration, John the Divine’s graphic depiction
of what he saw behind the “open door” in heaven (Revelation chapter 4) is given
preface xvii
more detailed attention with respect to how to produce a more adequately framed
representation of the original document in Chewa, using a combination of textual
and paratextual strategies.
It is one thing to reproduce a text in translation; it is another to ascertain whether
or not this rendition has achieved its aim(s) with regard to a particular target audience
and setting. This important topic is taken up in Chapter 10 as I summarize a diversified
method for assessing a translation, that is, evaluating the overall quality of communica-
tion with regard to how much of the original unpeeled “onion” of meaning (sense and
significance) was lost or distorted during its linguistic transformation. The goal is to
identify and compensate for those inevitable gaps and lapses that occur in our efforts
to put the meaning back together again, that is, to re-present it more accurately and
appropriately in its new linguistic, literary, and cultural milieu. Chapter 11 consists
of a question-driven series of exercises that focuses on Revelation 5 to give readers
a chance to further apply what they have learned during an analysis and translation
of this dramatic biblical passage in their language. In Chapter 12, I conclude by giv-
ing some attention to ongoing efforts to better contextualize, that is, provide a more
adequate frame of reference for, the joint process of teaching and learning about
Bible translation in different situations and for different ends, including the need for
follow-up interactive networking. A final detailed Topical Index will hopefully serve
to give some orientation and direction to readers as they make their way though this
coursebook. While experienced translators and teachers might be able to select differ-
ent chapters to consider in isolation, it is generally recommended to take them in the
order given, since one chapter deliberately builds on and presupposes the knowledge
gained in what has preceded it.
This coursebook is intended primarily as a class text for use in an advanced course
on Bible translation. Ideally, it would accompany the resource book Bible transla-
tion: Frames of reference (Wilt 2003) and/or Translating the literature of Scripture
(Wendland 2004). It is assumed that users are students either at a tertiary educational
institution, or those who have completed at least one intensive introductory course
on the subject, or who are in the second year of a more exclusive translator-training
programme. It would also be helpful, though not absolutely necessary, if readers
already have some hands-on experience in translation, whether in the religious or
secular field. This text may also be employed as a guide and source book for transla-
tion consultants and trainers who might appreciate having some ready background
or lesson material available. They could thus select or adapt pertinent excerpts when
preparing a workshop for advanced translators or team exegetes – those who have at
least a university or seminary-level degree in translation studies, Bible translation,
biblical studies, and/or biblical Hebrew/Greek.
Outside of its use as a designated class text, this coursebook can also serve as a
primary or secondary resource in established courses that employ other materials or
are designed for different purposes (e.g., for professional translators). Alternatively,
the text may be assigned in portions for experienced translators to study through
as part of a private “continuing education” programme monitored by their project
consultant. The many study questions and exercises that have been included will no
doubt suggest many others that teachers and trainers may wish to assign to students,
xviii Ernst Wendland
either in addition to, or in place of the ones currently given.

In closing, let me underscore the crucial observation of my translation colleague,
Prof. de Vries (from his Foreword): “The tools offered in this book are not meant to
replace that wonderful faculty of the human brain we call intuition…”. Perhaps the
most important goal that I can hope to achieve with this text is simply to stimulate
within translators and their trainers alike that spontaneous creative faculty that is so
essential to their task. The longer I am involved in the work of Bible translation, the
more I am convinced of the vital role that intuition, insight, and imagination play in
this interlingual, cross-cultural communication process.
The author is a seminary classroom instructor as well as a Bible translation field
consultant-trainer who has himself been progressively instructed by his students and
translation colleagues over the years. Therefore, much of the material presented in
this coursebook has already been tested and, in turn, benefited from the revisions that
have been proposed by class participants, both directly (their explicit comments and
queries) and indirectly (through difficulties encountered at certain junctures). How-
ever, I consider this to be very much a work-in-progress that will undoubtedly profit
from additional critical feedback and suggested additions or modifications. All such
comments, including errors, inaccuracies, and omissions are most welcome; please
send these in any form to the author at erwendland@hotmail.com or wendland@
zamnet.zm.
All royalties for this text (should perchance any materialize) will be transferred
by the publisher directly to the United Bible Societies.
Ernst Wendland
United Bible Societies (Reading, UK)
Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in Africa
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
April, 2007
1. Contextual frames of reference
The mind’s construction of meaning
Analogy of an onion

A mature onion bulb is well-known for its distinctive taste, smell, and sharp effect upon
the eyes, but also for its intricate, interlocking construction. One fleshy leaf is compressed
within another to comprise the compact body as a whole. You cannot simply take an
onion apart and put it back together again so that it looks and feels the same; it will have
been completely undone. At the heart or core then of the onion’s concentrated concentric
formal structure is located its radicle, the source of continued life and growth – if it were
to be placed in some sort of nourishing environment such as the soil.
With reference to the topic of this coursebook, an onion bulb may be used as a
limited concrete analogy to represent the cognitive notion of “context” as applied to
any act of human communication. A verbal text, for example, may be likened to the
central radicle, or embryo, that lives by virtue of the meaning that has been intention-
ally encoded within it and which grows when that text is transmitted in a favorable
sociocultural environment. The text itself is enclosed within varied layers of supportive
conceptual context which sustain and give it shape, allowing consumers to perceive,
interpret, and apply its content. But take away all the outer contextual layers, and the
text becomes unrecognizable (to the untrained eye), unstable, and ultimately unusable.

The following image was purchased on-line from: http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1842923/
sliced_onion . “The expression ‘Layers of the onion’ is used to describe a situation in which it is possible
to go deeper and deeper revealing seemingly similar layers until a central core is arrived at. It has been
used as a metaphor in mysticism to describe the supposed layers of reality” (from Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onions). By analogy then, in this coursebook we want to
practice how to access different conceptual frames of reference in relation to specific verbal texts and
sociocultural settings in order to understand, as nearly as possible, that “central core” of meaning that
needs to be maintained when communicating these same texts via translation.
Ernst Wendland
It no longer has a sustainable, transmittable significance or a useful function. All of

the layers operate collectively to perform this vital service of contextualization for the
text, and if any individual one is examined or evaluated in isolation, it can give only
a limited, and often distorted, picture of the text’s true nature and purpose.
The intricate layers of an onion are all very similar to each another in substance
and shape. That is not the case when one considers the surrounding interpretive
environment of a particular verbal text. The constituting conceptual categories and
perceptual aspects of discourse are diverse, though they embrace and closely interact
during communication. Despite their many complex interrelationships, it may still
be helpful, as a heuristic exercise when exploring the idea of context, to distinguish
one implicit cognitive layer from another, moving from more to less inclusive as fol-
lows: cognitive → sociocultural → organizational → situational → textual (i.e.,
various interwoven levels of conceptual structure). I will begin by describing and
illustrating the salient features of these distinct contextual dimensions, these relevant
pragmatic frames of reference (Wilt 2003:ch.2), moving from the generic (“outer”
layer) to the more specific and concrete (“inner” layer). The latter, the textual co-
text, provides the immediate framework for understanding a biblical text such as
that of Revelation 4-5. This composite model will then be applied as a means of
facilitating our understanding and communication of St. John’s visionary record of
the heavenly throne room scene.
The all-encompassing conceptual context is thus employed, first of all, as an
essential element of one’s analysis of the original Greek text and its hypothetical
extratextual milieu. This perspective is then transferred and extended to an inter-
pretation and translation of the same text from the standpoint of an average Chewa
(south-central Bantu) audience, living in their present-day linguistic, literary, and
sociocultural setting. Several different paratextual and extratextual means of enhanc-
ing the overall dynamic communications process (piecing the onion together again)
will be surveyed to highlight their important function in Bible translating. I conclude
with a few thoughts concerning the need for a thorough qualitative assessment of
the entire translation endeavor and some reflection on the implications as well as
limitations of the present study, especially with regard to those aspects that need
to be explored further in subsequent research, perhaps also from a more developed
theoretical viewpoint. The periodic examples and exercises that I have included are
an attempt to encourage readers to critically engage with the material presented (and,
ideally, also with each other) in a practical way from their personal perspective so as
to identify potential points of current application or places where this text needs to
be corrected, modified, and/or supplemented.

“Context can be defined as the psychological and social circumstances under which language is
used” (Boase-Beier 2006:20, citing P. Stockwell).

“A frame of reference is a particular perspective from which the universe is observed. … A
[linguistic] frame of reference is a coordinate system used to identify the location of an object”
(from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_frame_of_reference).
In this coursebook we will be considering the importance of taking different perspectives, or
cognitive “locations,” into consideration when analyzing source texts and also when attempting to
communicate them by translation in different cultural, linguistic, and situational settings.
Contextual frames of reference
EXERCISE-1
The onion example is just one of many analogies available for illustrating the vital
nature and operation of “context” during the communication process.
 Pick out the strong and weak points of this comparison: What, in your opinion,
would be a better, or at least an additional, analogy that could be used for this
purpose?
 Summarize your application to what you see as the most important aspects of
contextual influence as it pertains to the overall activity of communication in general
and Bible translation in particular. Alternatively, you may feel that no analogies are
appropriate – that they only confuse the relevant issues. If that is the case, explain your
position from the perspective of the communication model that you work with.
 Evaluate the accuracy or usefulness of the following minimal definition of context.

Does it work for now, or would you like to propose a revision: “Context can be thought
of as anything outside of an utterance itself that is relevant for its production or inter-
pretation” (Dooley 1995:19).
 Do the same for the following, more complex definition: “CONTEXT – The
multi-layered extra-textual environment which exerts a determining influence on the
language used. The subject matter of a given text, for example, is part of a context
of situation. The ideology of the speaker, on the other hand, would form part of the
context of culture. Finally, context of utilization caters for such factors as whether the
translation is in written form, orally done (INTERPRETING) or as SUBTITLING/
DUBBING, etc.” (Hatim and Munday 2004:336). The preceding needs to be distin-
guished from the “CO-TEXT – The other lexical items that occur before and after a
word” (ibid: loc cit).
EXERCISE-2
Consider the relationships involved in Figure 2:
We observe that in the case of such a collective nesting, whether combining artifacts
or some other type of implement (e.g., chairs, tables, boxes), each item in the set is
usually exactly the same as another, except for a possible difference in size.

Here is a wider frame of reference: “A matryoshka doll…or a Russian nested doll (also called
stacking dolls or Babushka dolls) is a set of dolls of decreasing sizes placed one inside another.
“Matryoshka” is a diminutive from the Russian female first name “Matryona”, which is traditionally
associated with a corpulent, robust, rustic Russian woman. A set of matryoshkas consists of a
wooden figure which can be pulled apart to reveal another figure of the same sort inside. It has in
turn another figure inside, and so on. The number of nested figures is usually six or more. The shape
is mostly cylindrical, rounded at the top for the head and tapered towards the bottom, but little else;
the dolls have no hands (except those that are painted). The artistry is in the painting of each doll,
which can be extremely elaborate” (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Russian_doll; the illustration is from the same site: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/3/3a/Matriochka.jpg).
Ernst Wendland

Next consider a verbal sort of nesting, namely, a generic-specific lexical set, in which
the more specific term includes all of the generic features of the superordinate term,
but then adds a number of specific components of meaning, e.g., living being →
animal → canine → dog → Doberman → “Samson.” In this section of the course-
book, I will be discussing a disparate cognitive (not a neatly related concrete) set of
included frames in which the enclosed domains manifest some, but not necessarily
all, of the generic features of the frame that classifies it. Furthermore, these frames
will be seen to complement and interact with each other in many different ways. For
this reason, it is important to take note of all the potentially relevant sociological and
communication-related characteristics that are evident in the particular setting of us-
age to which a given frame is applied.
 What is the significance of important similarities and/or differences that are mani-
fested during frame-analysis when applied to human communication from more than
one perspective? Give an example that comes to mind – or try this if you are in a
group or class setting: What are the principal differences that emerge between your
participant frame of reference and that of your course instructor or group leader?
 Why do we have to pay so much attention to such matters when carrying out a
certain task of Bible translation? What makes this verbal activity so complicated – one
of the most complex (and potentially controversial!) types of communication? Sug-
gest three issues that give us cause for concern regarding the quality of interlingual
communication where “Scripture” is concerned.
 What do you think of the notion of frames of reference (cf. Wilt 2003:43-58) when
studying different communication events? As in the case of the “onion” metaphor,
is there a better analogy that you know of that could model the manifold nature and
influence of “context” during the process of communication? Note that the expres-
sion frames of reference is variously termed in the literature of cognitive linguistics
(semantics), for example: cognitive frames, semantic domains, conceptual fields,
mental representations, mental spaces, world-view categories, (mental) schemata
– scenarios – scripts, etc.
 A possible advantage of the term frame is that it can be used as a verb to express
the dynamic, fluid, progressively developed, etc. aspects of cognitive perception,
construction, and evaluation. Thus “to frame” a thought is to indicate, demonstrate, or
delineate how one entity, idea, action, or quality relates to another (or others) within a
larger mental structure in relation to a particular social setting. Does this help you to
better understand the notion of “frames” and “framing”? Tell why or why not. If so,
try to give an example of “frame” from an active, verbal perspective with respect to
some specific act of communication. If not, suggest what in your opinion is a better
alternative.
 Dr. Robert Bascom (personal correspondence) offers the following thoughts on

the subject of “framing” and how to express this in another language. Comment on
these reflections in relation to translation:
I think what I am aiming for is not so much frames as flexible as much as frames as
rapidly changeable. [W]e select and negotiate the frames we want to use and discard
the ones we do not want or need. Or we transform them, or even break them. So
frames are indeed rigid (even brittle), but not unchangeable and permanent. That can
be seen as a flexibility of sorts, but the idea for me works better with the images of
changeability. The two (“static”) elements I like the most about frames/framing are
the facts that they set limits and provide structure. FUZZY EDGES AND POROUS
BOUNDARIES?? But they are not static concepts in spite of their metaphorical roots,
and therein lies the problem. I am still struggling to translate these concepts into Span-
ish, for example. I can use “encuadrar” (to frame) as a verb, but the noun “cuadro”
means a picture only (“marco” is the frame, but does not lend itself to metaphorical
extension), and “cuadra” is a city block. Bill Mitchell has suggested possibly using
“matriz social” (social matrix), and I like it as the nominal form in Spanish, though it
does not correspond formally anymore to “encuadrar”. Others use “parametros,” but
that is not very flexible either.
And how does all this concern Bible translation and a “contextual” approach to the
task?
The implications for translation are huge, as you know. I now start with contexts [i.e.
“frames”], rather than end with them. I even tell translators that we should no longer
talk so much about translating words, sentences, paragraphs, or discourses, but about
translating [cognitive] contexts. All the rest (words, etc.) are simply better or worse
clues as to how to discover the contexts we wish to translate.
EXERCISE-3
Study the illustration in Figure 3 – taken from a 2005 (now extinct) website advertis-
ing a _____ [guess the denomination!] retirement community.
 Which different sociological, including religious, frames of reference are packaged

together to constitute this organizational logo? Arrange these in order of hermeneutical
priority (note also the familiar Reformation hymn, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”
and Psalms such as 18:2, 31:3, 71:3).
Ernst Wendland
 Can you suggest a way for trans-forming this illustration to act as a promotional
poster for the Bible translation project that you are working with (or know about)?
Perhaps you have a completely different illustration to suggest (but let it be based on
some prominent image or concept found in the Bible).

The interaction of frames

As noted above, different levels of scope, or generality, may be manifested with re-
spect to the different mental frames of orientation that have been proposed for special
consideration in our study. These are set in relation to one another in Figure 4:
Cline of referential generality

|| most=====================================least ||
Cognitive > Sociocultural > Organizational > Situational > Textual > Lexical Frames
Figure 4: Cline of referential generality
There is a dynamic interaction between and among these different domains as they
apply to a particular cultural setting and ethnic environment (Wendland 1992:45-
47). They may all exert their influence, either singly or corporately, to a greater or
lesser extent in keeping with relevance principles (cf. Gutt 1992:21-34), during the
hermeneutical process of perceiving and understanding diverse acts of human com-
munication (my focus will be on verbal messages). Each referentially more general
frame of conceptual (and emotive!) influence incorporates the one(s) below it, thereby
enriching the process of interpretation, as one moves from the outer, most inclusive
(cognitive) to the inner, most precise (lexical) environment – the latter being the most
specific linguistic frame that is normally investigated. Thus every utterance (indeed,
every word) is conceptually “framed” as to its overall meaning by both its verbal co-
text and its non-verbal con-text, which includes any additional connotative (emotive,
associative) significance that may be connected with the physical setting as well as
the interpersonal situation, or occasion of communication.
The following real-life example (contributed by R. Bascom, personal corre-
spondence) illustrates how people continually negotiate – select, delete, combine,
otherwise modify or adjust – conceptual frames of meaning and significance as they
speak, especially after a misunderstanding or “error message” has occurred at some
key point in the conversation. This scenario also suggests that the “frame” image may
not be as rigid as one might expect when used figuratively to represent the cognitive
adjustment process that takes place during communication – that is, while moving the
relevant mental images back and forth across the conceptual landscape of our minds
in a given social setting.
Not long ago my son was trying to tell me about certain older persons who
were attending classes with him at the public university where he attends. He
complained that the professors had to put up with these persons even though
they seemed to have “a cross to bear.” It was clear immediately to both of us
that this was not the idiom/image he was looking for, so I tried to help him by
offering up some of my own suggestions. We finally got it, and later returned
to look at the unconscious process we went through in matching similarities
at various levels in order to come up with the right idiom.
As we tried to figure out the idiom/image, we unconsciously not only steered
toward images which were similar at an underlying semantic level (something
hitting/rubbing against something else), but just as importantly, after the first
miss, we sought only choices with the sound/word pattern of “an x to y”. We
also steered back toward real idioms after at one point almost abandoning them
altogether (in “nail to hammer” – from hammering away at a point). And of
course we were groping for the underlying idea or focus all along as well.
Later, my son gave me a specific example of one of these misfits asking
about alien communications coming from comets in an astronomy class, which
confirmed the idiom we finally settled on. Table 1 illustrates the movement
along various vectors of similarity and difference.
When telling this story later, someone suggested “bone to pick” as well, which
would have fit nicely between the soapbox and the nail (good idiom, close im-
age, right pattern, right agency, wrong focus). It still reaches back to someone
who feels she or he has been wronged, as in the first two cases. But the image
and pattern are closer to “axe to grind,” and the idiom is a good one. One can
see complex relationships of similarity among various inter-related domains,
and how the search for the form (pattern) can override the search for meaning
in the process of finding the right metaphorical idiom, and the perfect match
of all elements.
Ernst Wendland
Example Idiom Image Pattern Agency/focus

‘x to y’
Cross to bear Good/wrong Burden/resigned + Patient/suffering/martyr
Chip on his Good/wrong Burden/resentful - Patient/suffering/grudge

shoulder
Soapbox to Derivative/ Message/public/ +/- Agent/public/
stand on wrong obsessive committed
Nail to Derivative/ Friction/repetitive + Agent/relentless (?)
hammer wrong
Dead horse to Derivative/ Friction/ repetitive + Agent /relentless/futile
beat wrong
Axe to grind Good/right Friction/ repetitive + Agent /relentless/grudge
Table 1: Idioms related to “a cross to bear”
Notice in the next example (summarized in Table 2) how each successive

cognitive frame serves to more fully contextualize the nature of a certain funerary
communicative event. This includes the particular treatment of the biblical text
chosen for the occasion (the death and raising of Lazarus – Luke 11) as well as
the sermonic discourse as it might be delivered at some stage in each of the two
scenarios that are being compared.
FRAMES ò Scenario A Scenario B
Sociocultural poverty-stricken, rural southeast prosperous, urban African-American

African, Nsenga
Organizational a non-traditional Christian sect a national Pentecostal denomination
Situational outdoor (graveside) address for indoor (a large megachurch) funeral

a polygamous village headman; oration for a departed senior pastor; tele-
delivered by a resident preacher vised; invited, nationally-known guest
evangelist
Textual oral vernacular, popular style of oral English, instance of revivalist

rambling rhetorical oratory rhetoric, but polished and media-
sensitive style
Table 2: Framing a funeral oration
EXERCISE-4
 Speculate as to how each preacher’s handling of the Lazarus passage chosen as the
basis for the funeral sermon might differ (e.g., with regard to the selection, ordering,
development of topics).
 In which significant ways would you expect the respective compositional styles
of the sermons to vary?
 To what extent can such questions be answered – that is, without more specific
information concerning the two culturally-specific cognitive frameworks (or to an
analogous, traditional versus modern pair of scenarios in your sociocultural setting)?
Where might you go to find some answers?
 Of what relevance are such issues and questions/answers to the practice of Bible
translation?
EXERCISE-5
Consider the following quotation (Aloo Mojola 2003), especially its final statement,
and point out its significance in relation to the Bible translation project that you are
currently engaged in or know about. How does the matrix of “text, church, and world”
relate to the contextual frames discussed above?
Bible translation within the Bible Society movement is an activity that is best under-
stood on the basis of the triadic scheme <text, church, and world>. These three form a
matrix and each member of the matrix could be understood in terms of ‘frames’ (Marvin
Minsky). It is clear that a diversity of factors and considerations go into the making
of Bible translations. The triad of <text, church, and world> provides the fundamental
building frames of this process. In the language of frames, one inevitably encounters
subframes and subsubframes and the nesting of frames or subframes within each other.
Each has its own background assumptions, expectations, constants, variations, etc. The
interactions between them obviously need to be well understood, and as well the ensuing
implications and ramifications for the entire process. … Increasingly translators in the
Bible Society movement will be required to take seriously into account the interplay
of factors within the above triadic matrix.
The interaction of contextual frames includes the expected overlapping along

any of their adjacent (fuzzy) boundaries. This frequently occurs at the dynamic in-
terface of the sociocultural and organizational frames since any large, representative
organization, such as a national Bible Society, automatically functions as part of the
wider community and its constituent culture (or complex of sub-cultures). The active
interpersonal relationships and sources of influence may extend even further through
various international connections. The Bible Society of Zambia, for example, is part
of an African regional fellowship as well as the 200 member world-wide organiza-
tion known as the United Bible Societies. This feature of inter-dependence as well as
mutual influence among the different frames becomes clearer as we consider some
of the specific characteristics that are associated with each one.
Prominence, perspective, perceptibility

Three additional variables need to be considered when using this “frames” contex-
tual model to plan, describe, analyze, or assess a given event of communication,
10 Ernst Wendland
namely: prominence, perspective, and perceptibility. These three pragmatic factors

are discussed below, both individually and then in the light of their inevitable inter-
relationships.
First there is the issue of relative prominence. The applicable cognitive frames
are not all equal in importance or influence during specific acts of communication,
whether non-verbal or verbal, oral or written. Thus, there is the need for frame priori-
tizing that presumably occurs intuitively in situations where the manner of message
transmission becomes more widespread, inclusive, or complex. In such cases, the
particular nature of the communicative event, including its primary purpose or goal, as
well as its degree of immediate urgency or importance, will serve to determine which
frame is dominant, which secondary, and so forth, to influence both the act of text
production and also that of text consumption (understanding, analysis, evaluation,
application, response, etc.). Special situational circumstances and/or textual markers
may operate to foreground one perspective or frame of reference over another in a
mixed setting of interpretation and action. The comparative processing “cost” versus
conceptual “gain” principle of relevance (Gutt 1992:24-25) offers a useful way of
conceptualizing how this inferential prioritizing process takes place, that is, how and
why certain bundles of information get perceived and acted upon sooner than others
during communication events.
EXERCISE-6
An American adult male is at home on his “day off” from the job. He gets a call on
his cell phone, which records the number of the current caller in its LED display.
Assuming that he recognizes the present number that is ringing, how might different
possible frames of reference influence how he will react – that is, whether to answer
or not (switch off the phone)? He might imagine the following scenarios with respect
to a particular familiar number:
(a) The caller is his son’s home teacher from school, who may be ringing to
confirm the boy’s claim of “illness” and hence his need to be excused from
classes (so that he can come home and convince his Dad to go fishing).
(b) The caller is his boss from work, probably wanting to request that he come
in to the office to do some unwanted “overtime” work.
(c) The caller is a officer from the local US Army reserve unit of which he is a
member (most likely to implement an earlier warning of an imminent call-up
to active military duty).

“[P]ragmatics focuses on how we interpret utterances in context (cf. Blakemore 1987:30), and thus
could be defined as “the study of meaning beyond that which is encoded in the linguistic structures
themselves” (Watts 1991:26). … [P]ragmatics is non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning, and
covers those aspects which depend on the reader’s inferences (as in relevance theory) as well as those
which depend on the relationships between the text and its context, including its sociolinguistic and
psychological content” (Boase-Beier 2006:20). “By ‘pragmatic’ is meant that aspect of language
which goes beyond sentence grammar, which takes into consideration both the context in which the
utterance was spoken and the shared cultural and informational assumptions of the interlocutors”
(Lunn 2006:32).
Contextual frames of reference 11
 Which “frame of reference” would undoubtedly receive top priority in the man’s
mind according to relevance principles, thus motivating him to answer the phone im-
mediately: (a) the “situational” – a non-urgent family matter; (b) the “institutional”
– an undesirable aspect of his current job; or (c) the “sociocultural” – a matter of
national defense when the country is in a state of high alert?
What might be some prevailing circumstances that would alter this priority rating?
 “The book (The Cell Phone) traces the impact of the cell phone from personal issues
of loneliness and depression to the global concerns of the modern economy and the
transnational family. As the technology of social networking, the cell phone has become
central to establishing and maintaining relationships in areas from religion to love.”
Evaluate the preceding quotation and its (possible) implication for Bible translation
(preparation, production, distribution, promotion) via the use of new, non-print audio-
visual and electronic media – a whole different “context of communication”!
 These examples illustrate, in a limited way, the implicit prioritizing, or salience-

structured sorting and assessing, of cognitive frames that takes place in different
contexts of communication within a given society. Would you perhaps have another
(better) example in mind to illustrate this notion?
Second, we note different levels of perceptibility with respect to these four related
sub-frames. Certain conceptual frameworks, or individual aspects of them, tend to
require more explicit, apparent, diagnostic, or dynamic “marking” than others. In
other words, the communicative signs, or “clues,” which represent and conceptually
evoke these frames (e.g., words, texts, genres, gestures, body movements, clothing,
associated physical symbols, etc.) may be more or less apparent and hence affect
one’s perception more or less directly or consciously. The sociocultural frames that
are more important to a group tend to be distinguished by more overt and elaborate
rituals, symbols, and related customs or accouterments of behavior as these concern
the key persons, public discourses, and events that are associated with a particular
social institution, whether secular (e.g., the activities and proclamations of royalty)
or religious (e.g., high priests and their sacramental or ritualized actions).
EXERCISE-7
In the recent past, the manner in which “middle-class” people dressed would usually
be a fairly reliable indicator, an overt or covert “badge,” of the level of situational
formality of any public event that they happened to be participating in, for example
(a middle-aged American married male) – formal: tuxedo for a wedding ceremony;
business: suit and tie for work at the office; informal: good shirt and slacks for a class
reunion celebration; casual: T-shirt and Bermuda shorts to attend a local baseball

Taken from the latest Berg publishing company catalogue, Anthropology & material culture – 2006:
New books and key backlist (p. 11; www.bergpublishers.com).
12 Ernst Wendland
game. Nowadays, however, such external signals of attire no longer apply since the
different sociocultural frames have become considerably blurred or collapsed. In the
summertime, for example, “casual” clothing works just about everywhere except
in the “formal” setting, as Americans have become some of the least distinguished
(sloppiest!) and distinguishable dressers on earth (that is to say, among people who
can easily afford to do something about their wardrobe).
Unfortunately, some American missionaries automatically transport their casual
dressing habits to Africa (for example) when coming for religious acts of ministry.
On occasion, this can cause some serious misunderstanding or even offense when the
missionary’s informality of clothing clashes with the formality and respect that local
people give to spiritual places and events (e.g., the missionary comes to a weekday
elder’s Bible study in church wearing colorful Bermuda shorts while they are all at-
tired in dark suits).
 How does this example apply to your sociocultural setting? What modifications
need to be made – or do you need to use a completely different illustration (other than
clothing)? If so, suggest what this might be.
 Tell of a situation that you witnessed or experienced in which the manner of per-
sonal dress caused a misunderstanding due to differences in cultural perception and
evaluation.
Third, we must also consider the matter of perspective when investigating any
complex situation of communication. There are always at least two viewpoints in-
volved, namely, that of the speaker and that of the hearer (or author and reader, etc.).
Accordingly, each person accesses and accommodates her/his own uniquely arranged
set of interrelated cognitive frames (sociocultural, organizational, situational, and
textual) when exchanging such “text messages.” In most settings it makes a difference
then as to which point of view is adopted when analyzing or evaluating the nature and
quality of a certain communicative event, whether one is initiating or receiving the
oral or written verbal text being conveyed. In “honorific” or class-conscious societies,
for example, a conversation must always be oriented towards the status, aims, and
outlook (cognitive frames) of the most respected person(s) who is (are) present. In
some settings this implicit rule applies whether that preeminent individual (or group)
happens to be actually speaking or not. Everything that is said in terms of content,
tone, or style has to reflect the fact that these “honorable” folk are listening, if not
being directly addressed (e.g., a chief, political leader, or “elders” in general).
Thus, the order or arrangement and prioritizing of the various cognitive frames that
are currently “active” may well differ between speaker and hearer(s). The result is that
the act of communication between the two might be impaired, limited in some way,
or even blocked entirely. This may be (roughly) illustrated as in Figure 5 – with the
old-fashioned boxes and files of the diagram approximating the electronic programs
that operate when a computer is being used, for example, when an exegete’s study
of a particular biblical book is being enriched by what is available on SIL’s popular
resource, the Translator’s Workplace.
SPEAKER’S cognitive frame of reference  HEARER ’S cognitive frame of reference
Situational Organizational
Situational (a funeral in Organizational (must maintain
the family) productivity)
Sociocultural Situational
Organizational Textual
Textual Sociocultural
Differing “boxed sets” of interactive cognitive frames (interlocutors of same language and culture)
Figure
Figure 5: Prioritizingcontextual
5: Prioritizing contextual frames
framesduring
duringcommunication
communication
To give an example (based on Figure 5): The “speaker,” an elderly African em-
ployee at a large urban auto repair business, informs his Western shift boss that his
closest sister has suddenly died (situational factor) and that he would like to take
two weeks off in order to make the necessary funeral and family arrangements (so-
ciocultural). His boss, the “hearer,” refuses, saying that according to company rules
employees are allowed only three days off for funerals (organizational), except in the
case of most immediate family members (wife or children). He does not realize that
in cultural terms an elder brother is directly responsible as a blood surrogate “father”
to his sister(s) and her family – even more so than for his immediate family. Business
is heavy and the boss can’t afford to have a senior employee gone for an extended
period of time (situational). Besides, due to the speaker’s lack of fluency in English
(textual), he could not make his pressing cultural situation and family responsibilities
clear to his boss when uttering his request. But the latter probably would not have
been able to appreciate the argument in any case (sociocultural). Different cognitive
perceptions and priorities in cases like this inevitably lead to breakdowns in com-
munication and seriously injured interpersonal relationships.
Most “evangelical” (a crucial contextual qualification!) Christians believe that the
entire Bible was written, edited, compiled, and canonized within the divine framework
of God’s ultimate purpose, point-of-view, and plan of implementation. But it must
be recognized that there were undoubtedly other, “sub-perspectives” which actively,
and at times significantly, affected both the compositional and the editorial processes
relating to individual books and groups of books within the Hebrew as well as the
Greek canons. Occasionally, certain competing frames of reference had to be sorted
out and prioritized before the text could be finalized, for example, with regard to the
ancient royal historical accounts of Israel: a “northern” [Ephraim] vs. “southern”
[Judah] perspective (sociocultural); a “royal” [official establishment] vs. “prophetic”
[divine] perspective (organizational); a “pre-exilic” [Kings] vs. “exilic” [Chronicles]
perspective (situational); e.g., concerning the declaration of Solomon’s kingship (1
Kgs. 1:28-53 versus 1 Chr. 29:21-25).
Some important aspects of several shared contextual frames of communication
may be identical within a given socio-ethnic community, including the general priority
14 Ernst Wendland
ranking (in Figure 5, this is depicted as not corresponding between the “speaker” and
the “hearer”; in fact, there is quite a mismatch). But other, more specific variables,
especially those that pertain to the “situational” frame of interpretive setting, will
always be different. This is because one person’s individual conceptual and psycho-
logical constitution will never be the same as another person’s, even that of a close
friend or relative. It is this feature that frequently causes a so-called “breakdown” (or
“crash”) in transmission to occur. More correctly, this may be described as a disparity
in the respective cognitive environments of the communicators. Consequently, critical
aspects of a certain verbal text, whether produced by one party or the partner, simply
don’t “look/sound the same” to the other. Alternatively, they each evaluate and respond
to selected features of the text’s form, content, and/or intent quite differently. Such
failures may occur even in cases where the parties thus verbally engaged actually
recognize the different mental frameworks that they are operating with.
EXERCISE-8
Many Middle Eastern cities (e.g., Cairo, Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut, Amman) il-
lustrate the great complexity that exists in a cosmopolitan setting when many people
of diverse religious faiths (especially Muslims, Christians, and Jews) must coexist in
close proximity. A great number of major social, political, economic, educational, and
artistic decisions have to be made from the perspective of one principal religious frame
of reference, but without ignoring, downplaying, or offending any of the other two
points of view. For example, there are many “holidays” in the annual year and week-
ends are characterized by a series of three “holy days” for rest and worship – Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday. Some serious clashes in viewpoint also occur because there is
a majority ruling government that is dominated by a particular religious framework,
and thus many official actions may appear to favor its professed adherents.
 If you have any knowledge about such a multi-faith context (whether through
reading, word of mouth, or personal experience), what methods or strategies can
you describe (from experience) or suggest that are helpful in resolving or reducing
interpersonal tensions and problems of inter-group communication? On the other
hand, what are some of the primary factors (“flash points”) that lead to renewed
interpersonal suspicions, tensions, and overt conflicts?
 Do any of these situations affect the practice of Bible translation, e.g., in a Muslim- or
Hindu-oriented country or region? Give any example that you may know of regarding
the need for circumspection, patience, and discretion when working in such a complex
and sensitive setting of communication.
EXERCISE-9
One of the clearest examples of the effect of differing frames of reference on the nature
and quality of communication concerns one’s religious beliefs. People can be very
similar in every other respect – culturally, socially, economically, educationally, even
politically – and they can be talking in the same communication situation about the
same biblical text. But because they belong to different Christian church organizations,
their cognitive (interpretive) frameworks regarding the “rock” metaphor of Matthew

16:18, for example, will vary. Differing theological positions and ecclesiastical
perspectives often affect the exegetical interpretations that arise in the case of other
controversial issues, such as: the “serpent” of Genesis 3:1ff; the “sons of God” in
Genesis 6:2; the “great fish” of Jonah 1:17; the term “body” in Mat. 26:26; “tongues”
in Acts 10:46; “head” in Eph. 5:23, and the “thousand years” of Revelation 20:2.
 How or to what extent do such differences of opinion concern Bible translators

(and/or project administrators) in your setting, and what sorts of options are available
for arriving at some sort of a “common perspective” when translating these types of
contentious terms or texts? Discuss in more detail one of the passages listed above
and the strategy that you would adopt to seek a resolution.
 Which passage of Scripture have you found to be particularly controversial in your

translation setting? Explain the problem and how it was resolved, or how a mutually
agreeable compromise was reached.
 Sometimes even members of the same Christian church body or confessional tradi-
tion will disagree with regard to important issues of Bible translation – for example,
which version to use during worship. Socioculturally, even in terms of basic religious
beliefs, such people may be very much alike in all other respects – but there is one
vital contextual frame of reference on which they cannot seem to agree. And they may
become quite dogmatic or adamant about it, as illustrated by the following quote. Say,
for example, that you are working as a translation officer or project organizer in this
sort of situation, how would you go about dialoguing and getting along with persons
who hold such strong opinions? What kind of verbal argument or interpersonal tactic
might be most effective in such a situation?
Our views about the proper goal of a Bible translation should be determined primarily
by the teachings of the Bible about its own character and the nature of its words, not by
some secular linguistic theories, and not by our estimates of how much or how little an
average non-Christian reader will understand. When dynamic equivalence translations
again and again leave out the meaning of words that are there in the original Hebrew
and Greek texts, and when they again and again add meanings that have no basis in the
words of the original texts, they do not seem to me to be placing adequate emphasis
on all the words of Scripture as the very words of God. By contrast, essentially literal
translations seek to translate faithfully the contextually understood meanings of every
word in the original texts. Therefore it seems to me that belief in the plenary inspiration
of Scripture – the idea that all the words of Scripture are the words of God – strongly
favors essentially literal translation of the Bible, and seriously calls into question the
theory of dynamic equivalence translation. (Grudem 2005:55-56)
A different set of cognitive frames – modified by the variables of relative promi-

nence, perceptibility, and perspective – becomes operative then whenever some new
component is added to the “mix” of the prevailing communicative situation (or when
an earlier existing factor is no longer relevant). This occurs even when the same basic
16 Ernst Wendland
language and cultural situation is involved, for example, with the introduction of a
different geographical or temporal setting, another speaker or audience, a changed
physical venue, a new medium of transmission, another type of text to be discussed,
analyzed, or translated. These disparate frame constituents will obviously interact with
and influence each other in different ways during any act of communication.
Certain clashes in viewpoint (contrasts, contradictions, or divergences) may oc-
cur along two dimensions – that is, diachronically (between the old and a new set
of frames) and/or synchronically (among different variables of the same cognitive
set). Such differences first need to be recognized for what they are, before they can
then (hopefully) be resolved by some previously agreed-upon organizational deci-
sion-making process. This may in turn require the establishment of a fixed priority
rating or a recommended set of procedures that is determined specifically for the
communication enterprise at hand – for example, when selecting the particular Scripture
text and/or translation to be published first in a given community, or featured as part
of a public billboard display advertisement, or used in a weekly radio broadcast, video
documentary, literacy primer, a CD of popular religious songs, or an audio lay-leadership
instructional program.
EXERCISE-10
One of the most common and radical shifts in framework that can occur during the
course of a given Bible translation project is when a new translator, usually a younger
man (much less frequently a woman), replaces an older person on the translation
team. In some cases two replacements are needed due to the retirement or ill-health
of current staff members; occasionally an entire team must be chosen to take over,
for example, once a NT has been completed and work begins on the OT.
 What sorts of changes would you expect to see manifested in team working pro-
cedures and/or text production when this new member comes with a perspective
(cognitive frame) and personal characteristics that involve the following combination
of features (based on an actual situation in Zambia)? His two colleagues happen to be
experienced, but not very competent Protestant pastors. Consider each quality first in
isolation, and then as a total “package” embodied within a single individual (A) who
has just joined the translation team in place of an elderly priest (B), who has been
on the team since its inception a decade ago but has recently been appointed by the
Bishop to teach at a major seminary:
“A” is a young male aged 30

Roman Catholic
Just recently completed seminary training
Also has a university Masters degree in vernacular literature and oral art forms
Speaker of a minority dialect of the TL
Highly computer literate
Revealed in interviews as being dynamic and gifted,
but also a rather argumentative and opinionated person
 What measures can be taken to more effectively/smoothly incorporate a qualified

person having such a diverse conceptual and psychological background into a team
setting with established working procedures and the primary goal of producing a
mutually-agreed upon ecumenical translation of the Scriptures?
 What potential interpersonal problems will have to be addressed by the translation

project coordinator (or administrator) in such a situation – and how might this be done?
What might she or he do to adjust the prevailing “contextual frames of reference” in
order to promote better understanding and harmony?
 Give an example of this nature that you have witnessed, experienced, or had to
deal with in your Bible translation experience: What sort of socio-religious disparity
caused the problem and what kind of strategy was implemented to resolve it?
EXERCISE-11
As the present chapter has suggested, and the rest of this coursebook will further
explore, the notion of “context,” or “frames of reference,” is crucial in all types of
communicative activity – oral and written, prosaic and poetic, secular and religious,
and so forth, including original and translational discourse. The following seminar
abstract suggests some of the cutting-edge research that is taking place in this inter-
disciplinary field of study. What is the importance of these efforts for the work of
Bible translation? Do Bible translators need to be concerned about the “triggers”
that the author refers to in the final sentence, for example, when preparing a draft of
the book of Psalms? Explain your answer. Furthermore, how can readers (hearers)
“get lost” as they read (hear) a poetic text? What kinds of “lostness” are there and
what can translators do to prevent this from happening – at least partially and part
of the time?
Translating and the Search for Context

It seems reasonable to assume that knowledge of how texts are constructed and
interpreted will give us insights into their translation. One crucial element in the
understanding of texts is the concept of context. Context can be viewed as something
external to the text and the reader – a set of social, historical, political or linguistic
circumstances – or as a mental representation of such circumstances. This latter notion
– cognitive context – is important in explaining why poetic texts in particular allow
multiple interpretations. In this seminar I want to explore what consequences this view
of context as a cognitive entity has for the translation of poetry. If interpreting poetry
involves the reader in a search for contexts, what are the triggers of this search and
how can translation ensure that they do not get lost?
 How do the variables of prominence, perceptibility, and perspective interact in our

stylistic evaluation of a choice of translations? Try to verbalize your aesthetic reactions
to two different translations of a German poem by Meister (cited in Boase-Beier
2006:144). Compare both versions with the literal English gloss that is provided.

This seminar, presented by Dr. Jean Boase-Beier of the University of East Anglia on 12/02/2007, is
part of the Translation-Studies CTIS series held at the University of Manchester. The initial abstract
was sent to me by Dr. James St André on 06/02/2007 (translation-studies@lists.manchester.ac.uk).
18 Ernst Wendland
Der Abend kommt,

the evening comes
wo ich,
where I
am Menschen schleppend,
on-the human-being pulling
hin und
up and
her geh.
down go
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening comes when, Evening comes
lugging a mortal, and I –
I walk up weighted with being human –
and down. walk up
and down.
(Dove 1996:112) (Boase-Beier 2003:97)
 How do these two translations differ in terms of the imagery that they evoke in
your mind? If you know German, perhaps you can comment on which rendition you
feel best captures the sense, significance, and frame of reference that was intended
by the original poem. Perhaps you can suggest a point of revision. Even non-speakers
might venture a guess – e.g., for the poem’s conclusion:
(I) walk here –

and there.

 To what extent does a different sociocultural frame of reference affect the inter-
pretation of a poem like this? Do you note any problematic aspects of meaning from
the perspective of your situational setting? For example, in a central African context,
anyone moving about at night “lugging a mortal” would be immediately branded as
a despicable “witch” on the job!
 Suggest how the observations made in the following quote (Boase-Beier 2006:144-
145) relate to the exercise that you just carried out, with special reference to the task
of translation and the matter of how to deal with the crucial stylistic factor in relation
to the respective “cognitive states” of author and reader (or hearer) of the text:
One could argue that the corollary of accepting that stylistic figures have cognitive
correlates is to say that all stylistic figures are inherently iconic: they are not just there,
they represent states of mind, and because this is so they give rise to this state of mind
in the reader. … But in the end all that any reading of a source text by the translator
can do is collect evidence for a particular cognitive state, if it is a literary text, and
fashion the target text to contain both implicatures for that cognitive state and enough
open-endedness to maximally engage the reader.

To explain: “[T]here are aspects of meaning which are weakly implied, usually by the style of the text.
…[T]hose aspects of meaning which the linguistics determines. These are explicatures… But meaning
in its entirety is by nature underdetermined by semantics, and it is pragmatics, rather than semantics,
which helps interpret whatever the explicatures do not say. Such further interpretation is by inference
rather than decoding, and depends on implicatures. … Implication is in the text, but an implicatures is
attributed to a speaker: it is taken to involve an intention to suggest something” (Boase-Beier 2006:40,
added boldface) in view of the prevailing situational setting and her/his “cognitive environment.”
2. The context of the mind
Cognitive frames of reference
Dimensions of world-view: Cultural orientations
The cognitive context is the most general or inclusive sort of perceptual/conceptual
framework; in fact, it may be viewed as incorporating at least four distinct orientations
as “sub-frames” (namely, the sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual
perspectives). This cognitive structure is more commonly termed “world/life-view”
or “mental model.” It is a pervasive outlook on reality that is normally very broad
in its range or scope, embracing the composite cognitive environment (CE) (Gutt
1992:21-23) of an entire society or community. In addition, this “context” may be
taken in a more specific sense to refer to the psychological orientation of an individual
or a distinct group of members within the society as a whole.
The notion of a world-view (WV) thus refers either to an individual or a corpo-
rate conception of knowledge, being, and existence – in short, all of “reality.” It is
a comprehensive frame of reference that governs a person/people’s perception and
interpretation of life (and death), and which accordingly guides their overt verbal and
physical behavior. This WV encompasses all their beliefs, presuppositions, attitudes,
ideas, norms, traditions, values – even dreams – on the one hand, while on the other,
it serves to motivate as well as to validate all of their concrete social and cultural
activities, speech acts, customs, social institutions, artifact construction – and most
important, their current perception of reality, evaluation of experience, and future
planning. WV is the ultimate “context,” for it consists of the sum total of a society’s
system of presuppositions about truth, reality, and human experience as lived in a
particular cultural setting.
Although a particular individual or communal (social, ethnic, national) world-view
is implicit by nature, it is normally manifested by a set of characteristic and expected
cultural orientations along with their associated overt behavioral preferences (i.e.,
“customs”). These may be understood as reflecting a person’s assumptions about,
attitudes towards, and/or typical reactions to eight general circumstantial features,
namely: time, space, the environment, power relations, individualism, competitiveness,
structure, and thought processes (cf. Katan 2004:234-243). The importance of such
factors lies in the fact that, taken together, they act as a broad contextual framework
that greatly influences how people in a given society perceive, evaluate, and com-
municate with each other. Each of these eight WV orientations operates over a certain
range of possibilities, although a specific culture usually adopts a certain preference
for one end of the scale over against the other. They are partially defined below by
means of a sequence of diagnostic, but only representative questions:
• Causality: What accounts for the origin of everything in the universe: is it

impersonal energy and random forces, evolutionary biological and social struc-
tures, or the sovereign will of “God” (or the gods)? What are the various forces
20 Ernst Wendland
at work in the world, including society and culture, and how can these be con-
trolled, manipulated, isolated, or enhanced? What is the relationship between all
these causes and effects, and can humans somehow influence outcomes – e.g.,
through the correct performance of rituals, the practice of divination, prayers
to the ancestral spirits or to god(s), the application of magical procedures, the
use of sorcery and witchcraft? Does a supreme Deity exist, and if so, how does
he (or she) relate to the universe and the world of human experience? How do
people in turn relate to, and what do they expect from “God” (or their gods)?
• Relationship: Is individualism a widespread social ideal, or is there an orienta-
tion rather towards collectivism and group thought or action? Is individualism
or collectivism further reflected in a tendency towards universalism (e.g.,
mass-production, the “common good,” globalization) or particularism (e.g.,
“selfhood,” ethnic pride, cultural awareness)? How do people distinguish be-
tween “self” (we) and “other” (they), or between socially internal as opposed
to external realities and phenomena in their environment? Is there an effort to
maintain a social hierarchy during communal interaction, one based on birth
or achievement, with status levels clearly defined and marked? Or is there a
de-emphasis on, or even disregard for such interpersonal distinctions? Are “hon-
orific” terms and other indications of respect (or the lack of it) strictly encoded
in public speech? Do personal relationships end at death, or are they believed
to continue beyond the grave, e.g., as departed benevolent or malevolent spirits
or “ancestors”?
• Thought: Are people oriented more towards deductive or inductive thinking
– that is, do they prefer one-to-many “rational” theories and “logical” principles,
or are many-to-one pragmatic actions and empirical observations more highly
regarded and practiced? How do people view and classify the reality around
them – in terms of conceptual categories that tend to be more general or more
specific in composition and orientation? In other words, are they “lumpers” or
“splitters”? Do they further tend to analyze life’s adverse or favorable phe-
nomena as impersonal data and precise cause-and-effect sequences, or do they
like to approach problems holistically and systematically, looking for personal
relationships and implicit social connections? What do the answers to questions
such as these reveal about the cognitive organization and preferences of the
culture as a whole?
• Environment: Do people generally feel that they are part and parcel of their
environment or clearly distinct from it? Do they feel that they can control and
manipulate an impersonal “nature,” or do they firmly believe that the natural
environment, certain aspects of which may be personalized in the form of
hostile forces, has the power to dominate, or at least directly influence them?
In the latter case, do appropriate forms of mystical protection, magical counter-
measures, or ancestral interventions need to be procured to make life livable
and society sustainable? Are certain antagonistic personal or impersonal beings
thought to be an integral part of the social “environment,” and if so, how can
they be controlled or kept at bay?

I attribute these two colourful terms to Eugene A. Nida (from one of his dynamic lectures).
The context of the mind 21
• Structure: Does society feel uncomfortable or threatened by novelty, change,

“progress,” and “development” – or do they welcome and encourage it? Do
members of the community prefer a strictly maintained social order or rela-
tive flexibility in their interpersonal relationships? Is there a clearly defined
(whether explicit or implicit) scale of social and/or economic status? Do people
feel tightly or loosely bound to one another within society as a whole or in
specific internal groupings? Do events that involve variation, uncertainty, and
unpredictability tend to challenge or confuse the group? How do people regard
or relate to “outsiders” and their “foreign” ways (cf. relationship)?
• Competition: As an aspect of their Structure of Relationships (see above), do
people tend to view fellow members of the same community as competitors
or as team-mates? In other words, do they emphasize competitiveness in their
social activities, manifesting the constant desire to “get ahead” and “succeed”
– or is there a preference instead for mutual cooperation and to work as well
as play together? Do they “live to work” as individuals, or “work to live” as
members of a cohesive communal group (organization, association, fellowship,
guild, company, “congregation/parish,” etc.)?
• Time: Are people “task/schedule/clock-oriented,” or governed more by personal
relationships, human needs, and the “cycle of nature”? Is time more or less
“fixed” or “fluid” in character and operation? Is society primarily past, pres-
ent, or future oriented, i.e., is there an emphasis upon ancestral “tradition,” the
immediate “here-and-now,” or some future idealized time of well-being and
general prosperity (a “millennium”) or of personal and social “fulfillment”?
• Space: Are there limits on private “space” but a great deal of public area in
common – or is there a general concern for obtaining and maintaining one’s
“personal privacy” (and “property”)? During public conversation, do people
allow much or little (if any) physical contact, and how closely do they stand with
respect to each other? How do they deal with the determination of location (e.g.,
“inner” versus “outer”), distance, and direction? What governs their system of
personal and social orientation during thought and discourse – SELF, the most
“honorable” individual present, or some other point of primary reference?
EXERCISE-1
 Do have any corrections or modifications to suggest that would augment or im-

prove the preceding classification of general assumptions? Perhaps you would like
to combine certain categories or add others. If so, give reasons for your proposed
changes. Having completed your revision, how would you prioritize items of the
listing that you arrive at?
 How would you evaluate and classify your own society and culture in terms of the
eight conceptual orientations given above (as you have revised them)? Obviously, all
eight orientations are interrelated and a strict priority listing is probably impossible
– but can you identify some as being more important as far as your sociocultural
frame of reference is concerned?
22 Ernst Wendland
 Consider the following as a specific example of the cultural orientation of reasoned

“thought” as it relates to translating Bible texts into your language (adapted from
Levinsohn 2006:4):
Inductive writing is characterized as having the thesis statement in the final position.
Deductive writing has the thesis statement in the initial position (see Connor 1996:42).
[For example,] 1 Corinthians 1:4–9 leads up to the exhortation of 10. In other words,
these verses could be said to have inductive style, with the hortatory THESIS in
the final position. In contrast, the hortatory THESIS of 10 is followed by supportive
material (in the first instance, vs. 11–17 (Terry 1995:172). In other words, this part of
the text has deductive style. In fact, while examples of inductive reasoning periodi-
cally occur in 1 Corinthians 6, much of the book follows deductive reasoning. Terry
(1995:91) points out “the presence of an inductive argument style in which the reasons,
motivational material, and contrastive elements are presented before the actual point
of the paragraph is revealed.”
 Does this summary of the difference between inductive and deductive discourse
seem to fit the facts of your language? If not, explain the problems you encounter
with reference to translating 1 Cor. 1:4-17.
EXERCISE-2
 If you belong to a non-Western culture, give your general impression of the West-
erners that you happen to know – that is, on a comparative basis in relation to the
variables listed above. Do the opposite if you are the member of a Western society.
Do you distinguish among “Western” societies (e.g., “American” as distinct from
“European”), and if so – why, or on what basis? How are “non-Western” cultures
differentiated?
 Give an example of where a certain aspect of your general cultural orientation or

frame of reference caused a misunderstanding or some other difficulty when com-
municating with a person of a different group. Try to explain what happened and why
– and how the problem might have been avoided, either by you or the other party
(-ies) involved.
 How would you define “culture” and “world-view”? What do you see as the main
implications for Bible translation / translators of a thorough consideration of such
abstract issues? Give a practical example.
 What do you think of the following definition of culture? “Culture is an effort to

provide a coherent set of answers to the existential situations that confront all human
beings in the passage of their lives” (Daniel Bell). What are the main “existential situ-
ations” would naturally be included here in your particular culture? What happens
when the familiar “answers” provided in a given society (ethnic community) are no
longer satisfying, relevant, acceptable, or “coherent,” e.g., when a significant number
of people adopt a new set of religious principles and precepts? How do people, or
different groups within your society, generally deal with “culture change” – in fear,
worry, anger, antagonism, acceptance, etc.? How do people (or sub-groups) deal with
proposed religious changes and modifications? Give a recent instance of this.

This quotation was cited on the CD essay entitled “Secularism and the illusion of neutrality” by
Ravi Zecharias (Norcross, GA: RZIM, 2005).
EXERCISE-3
As noted in an earlier exercise, use of the ubiquitous cell phone is revolutionizing

communication all over the world, from the most to the least affluent or politically
“open” society. The functions that these cell phones perform are being continually
diversified and made more sophisticated, for example, enabling the user to access the
internet, send or receive text messages, even record and transmit photos or videos.
 How do the cultural orientations listed above serve as a framework to help explain
the changes that are taking place with regard to interpersonal communication in your
local community? Give several examples.
 Are the majority of messages conveyed by cell phones in your society more “infor-
mational” or “interactional” in character – that is, is there a greater emphasis on the
transmission on content(facts) (informative function of communication) or personal
contact (relational function)? Or is the nature of the message much more flexible,
depending specifically on who is speaking to whom and in what setting or situation? If
the latter applies, list a number of the most important message-determining factors.
 As “xth generation” cell phones come to dominate and monopolize more and more
of society’s time, energy, interest, attention, and expenditure, do you anticipate ways
of capitalizing on this potential communication highway for the sake of accomplish-
ing specific religious goals, e.g., the transmission of Scripture texts? Explain your
vision of the future in this regard.
With reference to the specific set of beliefs that characterize and define a particular
organization or some other segment of society, their world-view may be said to con-
stitute a distinct ideology, which determines how its adherents interpret and evaluate
their world – including all outsiders who interact with them or impinge upon their local
environment. An ideology is characteristic of certain social institutions or voluntary
associations, whether secular or religious (the “organizational” frame is considered
more fully in chapter 4), and it also serves to give the group unity, cohesion, purpose,
a set of values, and a sense of direction. Such an ideology governs how members
of the particular organization live and interact with each other as a distinct segment
within the society and culture as a whole, for example, by motivating or encouraging
certain behaviors while prohibiting others and working to modify still others. The as-
sociation known as “Alcoholics Anonymous,” for example, promotes a rather strict set
of rules and rituals that are intended to help its members work together both socially
and psychologically to avoid the consumption of intoxicating beverages, e.g., through
regular meetings, relational mentors, and the practice of total abstinence.
Cognitive filters
How does an ideology, or indeed the larger conceptual structure of a given society
that incorporates it, affect human communication – that is, to function as an auto-
matic blocker, enhancer, reinforcer, modifier, etc. of verbal as well as non-verbal
messages? A particular world-view appears to do this by means of a culturally-based
24 Ernst Wendland
system of cognitive filters, arranged as it were in a hypothetical hierarchy of levels

that are closely related to the eight situational aspects of social orientation outlined
above. These considerations represent a more situation-specific way of describing
and evaluating actual communication events, such as those that are involved in Bible
translation and related activities (e.g., Scripture research, publication, distribution,
marketing, engagement).
The following then is a summary description of “culture” (in general) as factored
into a combination of constituent orientative perspectives as they relate to different
types of interpersonal communication in varied cultural settings. We begin with what
is perhaps the most important of these facets of “insider” perception, the underlying
personal or public belief system, and move down the cline of relative influence – but
up the scale of individual or communal consciousness, i.e., a sense of the surrounding
natural or social environment thus being most apparent (Katan 2004:52-57). Each of
the seven categories again includes sample questions that may be used to investigate
the web of cognitive and perceptual relationships that apply with respect to a given
person or group (i.e., when functioning as a unit) as they interact during any com-
municative event:
• Belief System – What are the basic truths about knowledge, reality, and the
world, including religion and morality, that each communicator accepts as a
“given” – i.e., valid, important, reliable, authoritative, etc.? These convictions
derive from enculturation, learning, and personal experience, and each may be
more or less strongly or permanently held, depending on influence from the
levels below. In other words, certain less strongly held beliefs can be modified
due to various situational influences, human as well as non-human. What are
some factors that might affect the belief system of your society?
• Sense of Identity – Who are the respective communicators in terms of their
social, cultural, and organizational status or role within the community com-
pared with others present in the particular context of communication? How
does each perceive him/herself with regard to personal worth and importance
(self-image) in relation to the other parties involved? How does one’s social
group evaluate itself in relation to others with which they coexist?
• Set of Values – Why is “this,” as distinct from “that,” person (role), charac-
teristic, activity, or belief relatively important or unimportant on any given
occasion? The basic core values of a person (or group) are formed in response
to the most essential perceived (felt) needs in life, and they serve to shape both
what people believe and also how they regard others in society. Such values
govern how individuals (groups) live as distinct from less important evalua-
tive considerations termed “attitudes,” which can change or be changed over
time and in response to external human and environmental factors, including
the persuasive force of words (arguments). What set of values motivates each
member of the current pair (or group) of communicators? What are the situation-
specific criteria that allow them to determine whether or not they are achieving
their respective aims in terms of value-enhancement, goal accomplishment, or
shame-avoidance / honor-attainment?
• Range of Capabilities – What key characteristics make it possible for a person

to survive and prosper in life as a functioning member of a given social group,
organization, or association? What are the essential cognitive, emotive, and
physical skills, strategies, and abilities, that enable individuals to behave as
publicly expected, perform according to communally-established standards,
or carry out some/most of their personally desired goals for “success” in life?
On the other hand, what are the crucial social limitations or flaws (e.g., lack of
education, an ethnocentric attitude) that might diminish or have a negative effect
upon a person’s self image (e.g., shame, suspicion) during communication with
the result that she or he will not be able to defend or maintain her/his adopted
set of values, or worse, certain core elements of his or her belief system?
• Inventory of Resources – Which concrete assets and possessions are already
on hand or readily obtainable (whether self-owned or available from others)
to enable one to succeed in maximizing personal and/or group “capabilities”
(see above) when engaged in the pursuit of a particular communicative objec-
tive? What special abilities, aptitudes, or assets are also needed to achieve such
goals, or to prevent failure or a sub-standard performance? To what extent is
the present communication event and text production dependent upon some
technical or externally supplied aids (e.g., human, financial)? How likely is it
that all these necessary resources or provisions can be obtained?
• Behavioral Options – What immediate choices does a person have in terms
of verbal and/or non-verbal behaviors in order to increase the possibility of
accomplishing her/his personal goals during any given communication event?
To what extent are these local options controlled by his or her “capabilities,”
by the “resources” available, or by some other critical restrictive factor (e.g.,
temporary or chronic illness, local customs, negative in-group attitudes, an
unruly or absent audience)? What strategies can be engaged to overcome any
deficiencies, limitations, or outright barriers in these different areas?
• Environment – Is there anything in the present temporal, spatial, or non-human
circumstantial setting that threatens to prevent or restrict overall efficiency or
effectiveness with regard to the current act of communication – e.g., thunder-
storm, a major conflicting or competing activity (such as the planting or harvest
season), a power or equipment failure, the lack of sufficient time? Is any po-
tentially negative feature (e.g., a recent disaster or fatality in the community)
likely to affect the attitude, emotions, or strategies of the communicators – and
if so, how? Positive, enterprise-enhancing factors can also be considered, but
these are generally less important in terms of precise goal setting, although
they can certainly affect the psychological atmosphere that underlies the vari-
ous verbal and non-verbal communicative activities being simultaneously or
sequentially carried out.
EXERCISE-4
 Discuss these seven overlapping factors in relation to Bible communication in

your cultural setting. Which are the two most important in determining the prevailing
cognitive frame of reference regarding vernacular Scripture production and use? Why
26 Ernst Wendland
are these two factors so important? Do other factors, not mentioned above, need to
be considered or researched?
 Van Steenbergen draws attention to the importance of carrying out such detailed
“worldview analysis” (as illustrated by the two sets of cultural orientations listed
above) when producing a Bible translation. He also presents several general guidelines
for carrying out such research (2007:39-40):
A worldview analysis is distinctly different from a purely exegetical exercise. It looks

for possible assumptions underlying actual or desired behavior, while it also looks
for certain conceptual structures (which may or may not be consciously present) that
explain people’s perception of reality.
If the proposed worldview analysis is carried out for both the source and the receptor
cultures, it will bring out clearly where the differences are at a conceptual level. The
analysis will then show which encyclopedic information is relevant for the reader in
order to have access to the full semantic contents of the text.
The analysis of the worldview variables should take the text as point of departure
and not the model of worldview variables on which the analysis is based. … The con-
tents of the books should therefore not be forced into the framework of the model, but
its application should flow naturally from the text.
It is impossible to construct an entire worldview system on the basis of a corpus of
data that was produced for a specific purpose, such as the corpus that we have avail-
able for Bible translation. … Other sources of information could possibly be found in
non-canonical texts and archeology.
 Point out the implications of the preceding observations and proposals for the
translation project that you are engaged in. For example, how can “relevant ency-
clopedic information” be best conveyed in your setting – textually as part of the
translation itself, paratextually in the form of footnotes, or extratextually by means
of supplementary publications? What are the guidelines that have been adopted by
your translation program to deal with issues such as this?
 Compare the world-view typically manifested by the words, attitudes, and behavior
of the “average person” in your culture (or, if the preceding is too difficult to discern,
what is reflected in your oral and/or literary tradition) with that expressed by the
injunctions given below (Matthew 5:3-10, NIV – added boldface). Where are the
main similarities and points of contrast? What implications do you see with regard
to developing an effective strategy for communicating a world-view perspective like
the following in your society today?
3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
EXERCISE-5
 The information given in Table 3 represents an effort to “map the basic differences
between the ancient personality and the modern (Western) one”; it is a summary
comparison for which we must remember that “in many categories we cannot speak
of a dichotomy, but rather a modification of degree.” How helpful to you are such
generalizations? Evaluate this attempt to provide a cognitive frame of reference for
biblical and modern man – do you have any significant corrections or modifications
to suggest? In a group discussion, clarify or redefine any problematic terms that have
been given below.
 Next, assess these same categories with reference to your own people and their
particular ethnic “personality” (i.e., perhaps in place of the “Western”). Finally, suggest
what possible implications such studies might have for Bible translation work.
ANCIENT PERSONALITY MODERN WESTERN PERSONALITY

mystical thought patterns mechanical, scientific thinking
mythological thought historical thinking
ritual thought psychological thought
concrete thinking abstract thinking
bricolage (an assemblage process) engineering
imaginative thinking rational thinking
collectivist individualistic
high sense of dependency sense of independency
conformation to social groups expression of personal characteristics
obligation to follow freedom to choose
less bounded and integrated both bounded and integrated
less self-regulating more self-regulating
Table 3: Ancient versus modern Western personalities compared
Cognitive environment
The psychological component of the various situational factors mentioned above,
when specified with reference to a particular individual, would constitute part of what

These quotes are taken from Krijn van der Jagt (2002:109); the chart has been adapted from
information provided on p. 110.
28 Ernst Wendland
Relevance Theory (RT) terms that person’s “cognitive environment” (CE), which in
the event of a specific instance of communication is equivalent to her/his prevailing
conceptual “context.” In this view, context becomes an all-encompassing rational
construct, composed of a vast array of personal beliefs and assumptions about
theworld, including specific elements of a person’s knowledge, associations, and
inferences (propositional, or logical, as well as empirical) that stem from the follow-
ing accessible sources:
• prior learning, both formal and informal, positive or negative

• past experiences, good as well as bad
• the immediate physical and social environment
• the present co-textual setting of any verbal text under consideration
• current conjectures (including those that pertain to the assumed CEs of other
interlocutors on the scene)
• all other perceptible communicative stimuli (semiotic verbal or non-verbal
signs, including the text which she or he is presently reading, watching, and/or
listening to)
• non-communicative stimuli, that is, any random noise that happens to be
manifested in the current setting, perhaps even hindering the current process
of communication
• those particular or general, positive or negative, emotions, attitudes, values,
etc. that happen to be associated with any of the preceding elements.
To what extent is an individual’s CE influenced by that of the group? Most social

anthropologists would answer – “to a considerable degree,” all the more so in smaller,
tightly-knit, communal face-to-face societies. Yet even in more individualistic cultures,
the pressure exerted upon members of a group to conform in terms of thinking and
behavior is considerable. Otherwise, society as a whole would not function well, if
at all.
In summary, the general cognitive frame-work, or world-view of a people, or-
ganization, sub-group, or individual serves as an implicit, presupposed monitor,
manager, and motivator. It thus functions to assemble, assimilate, arrange, assess,
and apply all the diverse kinds of information that are being contributed from the
sociocultural, institutional, situational, and textual (sub-) frames. This includes
situationally-determined sets of preferred cultural orientations as summarized above
(environment, time, space, logic, etc.) as well as the various interpersonal levels that
organize all communication events in society (concerning beliefs, identity, values,
etc.). Furthermore, we must keep in mind that such “context models are not static
mental representations, but dynamic structures. They are ongoingly constructed and
reconstructed by each participant in an event” (van Dijk, 2001:18, cited in Baker,
2006:328). The cognitive frame thus acts as a master mental control panel which
organizes these different variables into a (seemingly) unified and coherent conceptual
structure, one that enables people to perceive and interrelate the different aspects of
their world of knowledge, experience, and anticipation (goals, hopes, dreams, etc.).
Any internal contradictions, inconsistencies, disparities, or gaps do not surface unless
they occasion a major distortion in their understanding of reality and the environment
or, alternatively, cause some serious breakdown in communication or social behavior,
either on the personal or corporate level.
On the other hand, every society also has certain culturally-derived “blind spots”
which prevent them from recognizing that some of their beliefs and practices may be
quite foolish, inefficient, incomprehensible, or even offensive to people who belong
to a different culture. This is especially true with regard to factors that pertain to their
underlying (not often overtly expressed) sense of identity, assumptions about life and
death, moral code, and value system. Mismatches in these fundamental areas of the
cognitive environment inevitably lead, sooner or later, to intercultural misperception,
misinterpretation, and miscommunication. The results of such skewing will be more
or less serious and consequential for interpersonal relationships, depending on the
magnitude of the apparent violation, who the violator(s) happen(s) to be, and the nature
of the immediate social setting – that is, how relatively important the situation happens
to be (e.g., a foreign evangelist using humour while preaching a sermon during public
worship versus when visiting later with members casually in the church courtyard).
EXERCISE-6
Consider the following scenario involving some obvious miscommunication due to

culturally-based cognitive mismatches. This concerns certain south-central Bantu
funeral customs that occur at the death of a mature man or woman as observed by
an American visitor on the scene:
Custom African interpretation American interpretation

--divination to determine a witch/sorcerer must be silly superstition; more important
who caused this death discovered and punished to find out the medical cause
--wailing, sleep deprivation, bereaved must demonstrate such actions are “over the top”;
no bathing, wear poor clothes overt sorrow for the deceased smacks of “play-acting”
--funerary rituals last at least shows proper respect for the a waste of time; the people have
three days, more in the past dead, support for the survivors have nothing better to do anyway
--elaborate grave-digging and departed spirit will punish any quaint customs, most signs of
burial practices violations of ritual procedure symbolism are not even perceived
--extensive post-burial eulogy given so as not to offend the exessive, but seems to provide
by relatives and dignitaries spirit of the departed comfort for the bereaved family
--person buried along with so the spirit will not come back more superstition; there is no such
many favorite personal items to trouble the living for them thing as a “lingering” spirit
--ritual “cleansing” of the prevents a return of the spirit like the divination, this practice
surviving spouse, with much to “take” spouse to oneself; probably hidden from aliens; they
sexual symbolism only clan elders are involved would not understand it anyway
For cultural insiders, a typical African funeral event incorporates one act of individual and
corporate communication within many others, all of which are intricately inter-related
30 Ernst Wendland
and given vital symbolical significance by the cultural-religious framework provided

by their traditional world-view. For the Western outsider, on the other hand, there is
no coherence and very little that makes sense. Consequently, most of the visible ritual
practices are attributed to inert ethnic “custom” or to pagan “superstition” – neither
of which has any real “rational” meaning at all, except to show a certain amount of
reverence for the deceased for the benefit of the bereaved.
 What would the various African funeral customs summarized above communicate
to people of your own cultural background? What major similarities and differences
do you observe, or what ritual “substitutes” would there be if carried out in a typical
local setting of your community?
 How does the fact and social consequences of death relate in terms of influence or
significance to the different aspects of a culturally-defined perspective listed earlier
(sense of identity, beliefs, values, etc.)? Explain the principal relevance that you see
in relation to what you consider to be the most important variable – first in an African
cultural setting, and then your own.
EXERCISE-7
Describe some of the most important similarities and differences that pertain to acts
of verbal or non-verbal communication as manifested in the following biblical ac-
counts about funeral customs and burials and compared to what you would find in
your own cultural setting. Explain those differences that result from disparities in
your respective world-views.
Sarah (Gen. 23)

Jacob (Gen. 49:29-50:14)
Saul (1 Sam. 31:8-13)
Abner (2 Sam. 3:31-39)
The man of God (1 Kgs. 13:23-32)
Lazarus (John 11)
Jesus Christ (Lk. 23:50-56)
 Would any of the cultural differences that you noted in these passages affect their
translation into your language? Explain.
EXERCISE-8
At least three different religious frames of reference motivate the contrastive speech
and behavior that is recorded in Acts 14:8-20.
 Summarize the major conceptual disparities that apparently caused the communica-
tion break-down(s) that you observe in this text.
 Have you witnessed a similar event involving the Scriptures and/or Scripture
communicators in your cultural setting, especially in the case of some apparently
miraculous occurrence? How can you best explain such reactions and verbal responses
in terms of your own language and cultural categories?
A grid-group perspective
The varied sets of cultural orientations and related perceptual considerations discussed
above may be reduced to a “grid/group” theory of social preference and behavior by
using the model of the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1993:42-62; cf. 1970). Grid
refers to the relative amount of social structure that is manifested by the people of a
given culture, while group refers to their degree of preference for social solidarity.
The negative-positive intersection of these values along two parameters creates the
possibility of four idealized cultural models. Each of these suggests the manner in
which members of the designated community or social segment tend to express their
relative preference for solidarity and structure in everyday life – that is, in terms of
their economy, religion, politics, educational system, art forms and life-style. The four
behavioral models are briefly described after the representative diagram of Figure 6.
+ GRID Cultural Clusters

Isolationist (+/-) (+/+) Hierarchist
Alienation is the norm Cooperation within structure
Individualist (-/-) (-/+) Enclavist

Individual competition Cooperation in dissent
Increasing limits on personal freedom  Increasing social solidarity  + GROUP
Figure
Figure6: Four cultural
6: Four orientations
cultural according
orientations to grid/group
according theory theory
to grid/group
• Hierarchists (+ grid, + group): represented by a socialist economy and welfare

state as well as by a typical traditional, face-to-face, non-industrialized, ethni-
cally homogenous society; it manifests a social structure in which everyone
knows their place, thus giving people a certain sense of security, but with little
individual freedom; the manifestation of “personal initiative” is not encour-
aged – rather, the ideal is to play one’s expected role within the public system
throughout one’s life.
• Individualists (- grid, - group): represented by a typical capitalistic, goods-
driven, market economy in which there is a “free” exchange (but often for a
price!) of merchandise, produce, ideas, values, practices, etc.; “progress” and
personal achievement are eagerly sought after and rewarded, so a high level
of competition in any public activity is expected; conspicuous consumption is

The discussion in the remainder of this section is developed and adapted (by permission) from
Bascom (2003).
32 Ernst Wendland
not only a badge of wealth and prestige, it is at the same time a demonstration
of the individual’s general lack of concern for the group.
• Enclavists (+ group, - grid): represented by sectarian, often utopian groups that
maintain their distinct standing and identity within a larger national or ethnic
society; members value their personal freedom and therefore a well-defined
institutional structure does not develop; instead, they are strongly united around
and in devotion to a particular public issue, cause, crisis, or grievance (e.g.,
the environment, animal rights, nuclear non-proliferation, anti-war, taxes,
etc.); consequently, their membership is often temporary, though it is normally
very vigorously, even zealously pursued while they are active in their specific
struggle.
• Isolationists (+ grid, - group): these are the down-and-outs of society – the
homeless, welfare-dependent, frequently disenfranchised, exploited, lower-class
individuals and others living on the margins of the community at large; they
are not organized into any form of socially active or influential organization,
but are often “grouped” either by default (e.g., poverty, lack of education) or
by force into some disparaged, stereotyped social category; its members are
often unwilling to change or cooperate, and as a result they may face various
types of physical and social persecution or avoidance; in their amorphous,
fragmented “society” there is often an implicit hierarchy based on the principle
that “might makes right.”
As suggested by these summaries, the enclavist and isolationist cultures and sub-
groups tend to be more unstable and hence less long-lived as distinct entities within
the wider community. They are also much less influential in or important to the society
at large, most isolationist persons in particular. The well organized and strongly led
hierarchist and individualist cultural types, on the other hand, are always the most
powerful and dominant – unless their representatives happen to be in competition
with each other in the same social environment, for then the strife between them
will inevitably be fierce and unrelenting, until one cognitive mode and its associated
behavioral model wins a clear victory over the other.
One feature seems to characterize each of the three functioning cognitive-social
models, however (excluding the isolationists), and that is the implicit acceptance of
their general cultural character, coupled with a corresponding lack of self-criticism
on the part of their respective members. People are naturally prejudiced about, and
attached to their own point of view; they also tend to steadfastly maintain the per-
spectives and uphold the values of the group to which they belong without giving
the matter much critical thought, certainly not to the possibility of there being any
advantage to another viewpoint or way of doing things. Internal differences of opin-
ion and practice do arise on the organizational level, but in times of crisis or conflict
(e.g., a time of war), these will be quickly forgotten in the interest of “our traditional
culture and way of life.”
This fourfold framework can be applied as a way of broadly identifying the diverse
components that comprise any culture (as above). It may also be used to describe the
relatively distinct and independent organizations or movements that occur within it – or
comparatively, the correspondents found in a different cultural era. Taking the category
of religion, for example, and the sub-type known as “Christianity,” we might diagram
a hypothetical set of the chief behavioral possibilities as shown in Figure 7.
Christianity
Isolationist Hierarchist
Some forms of Asceticism Roman Catholicism
Individualist Enclavist
Evangelical Protestantism New Testament era Christianity
Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in christianity

Figure 7: Four general cultural orientations in Christianity
EXERCISE-9
 Notice the classification of NT Christianity in Figure 7 as “enclavist” in nature:

would you agree – and why, or why not? What about the specific designations of
Catholicism and (evangelical) Protestantism?
 From the perspective of this diagram, the history of modern Europe and North Amer-
ica, for example, may be viewed as involving a general movement from hierarchist to
individualist modes. Whether in politics (the French and American Revolutions), the
arts (the Renaissance), or science (the Enlightenment), or religion (the Reformation),
the trend has generally been from the upper right to the lower left. Would you agree
with such a broad assessment? If not, what would you suggest by way of revision or
an alternative interpretation? If Western sociocultural history is not familiar to you,
make a similar comparative evaluation in terms of the culture that dominates your
particular world region (e.g., Asian, African, Oceanic, Islamic).
 How then would you describe the major religious domains of your own society
in terms of these four major cultural categories? For example, are strong Catholic
and Protestant churches represented in your community? If not, what representative
replacements can you suggest? If you work in a strong Islamic area, how does this
prominent religion-culture fit into the above framework? What about a local ancestral
religion?
 How does the prevailing religious grid of your life-setting affect the establish-
ment, organization, and management of Bible translation projects in the region? Do
you know of any conflicts that have arisen on account of the different group and grid
orientations of the denominations participating in any local translation project? If so,
try to summarize their respective causes and the solutions or compromises that had
to be put into place in order to promote a harmonious, cooperative, and conciliatory
movement towards a successful outcome.
34 Ernst Wendland
 Note that even apparent “doctrinal” or “organizational” differences of opinion can

often be related to more fundamental divergences with regard to cultural orientation,
for example, between the contrasting “hierarchist” and “individualist” positions of
missionaries who founded and perhaps continue to fund (hence influence) a local
church body. Describe any conflict of interest of this nature that you have experi-
enced / are aware of.
Now consider the concept of “faith” in the light of these same contextual distinc-
tions. Faith (emunah) in the Hebrew Bible (which promotes a theocracy favoring a
hierarchist orientation) is almost always presented in terms of the active notion of
faithfulness to the group and to the established leadership. Thus, there is normally
some evident behavioral component that is present in the context of normal biblical
usage. In a society that values class solidarity, it is not surprising that this is so. The
New Testament religious situation is quite different, however, as indicated on Figure
7 above. The nascent Christian community was enclavist in nature, and this might
suggest a view of faith (pistis) as being more along the lines of a deeply committed
“trust” or “reliance” (i.e., upon God/Christ; cf. Paul’s reinterpretation of the Habakkuk
citation “the just shall live by [their] faith[fulness]” in Romans 1:17). Nevertheless,
the action-based dimension of “faith” would still be operative because of the central
“cause” to which all members of the Christian community were totally committed,
i.e., to the principles enunciated by “their Lord” (e.g., Rom. 5-6).
From a modern perspective within individualist (Western) cultures, on the other
hand, rational (cognitively-oriented) “belief,” or strength of personal “conviction” is
usually emphasized – almost divorced from any notion of associated “works.” This is
especially true of certain Evangelical Protestant churches which seem to have misin-
terpreted the epistle of James and some basic Reformation principles. Such a position
obviously differs considerably from a biblical conception of “faith,” in either the OT
or NT, a cognitive mismatch which must have some serious practical implications both
for individual “believers” and the church bodies concerned. Finally, for isolationists, it
is difficult to predict how they might conceive of “faith” since its biblical dimensions
are so foreign to their world of experience. Thus, one can surmise that faith for them
would tend to be largely self-referential: “I can believe only in me” (which sounds
strangely similar to the common contemporary American secularist slogan “Just believe
in yourself!”). These four possibilities may be diagrammed as shown in Figure 8.
“Faith”
Isolationist Hierarchist
“Self” -confidence (?) Commitment/loyalty
(faithfulness)
Individualist Enclavist
Belief/certainty/conviction Personal trust/hope

A study of this nature suggests how important it is for Bible translators to first
identify their own culture category before proceeding to investigate the biblical type
which contextualizes the texts that they happen to be translating. The results of such a
comparative exercise must then be practically applied in their overall communicative
endeavor. For example, they might need to elucidate (e.g., by means of explanatory
notes) the crucial OT covenantal concepts of communal commitment and loyalty
within an individualistic society that stresses personal belief and conviction, or
alternately, apostolic ideas of personal trust and reliant hope when working in a com-
munally-oriented TL group that values broad social solidarity and hierarchy. Strong
individualists often understand loyalty negatively as an externally imposed duty,
while hierarchists may view trust or hope as being too weak to sustain the various
anthropomorphic relationships between God and humans described in Scripture.
Thus translators and their consultants, as cultural and textual mediators, often
have to finesse or nuance these divergent notions – and a host of other key biblical
concepts – one way or the other, whether textually (e.g., by means of some figura-
tive usage in the vernacular) or extratextually (e.g., by means of a standard glossary
entry). They must do this in order to remain true to the presumed goals of original
communication event as well as ensure (to the extent possible) that the intended au-
dience derives from the translated text a (more) correct understanding of the source
message, one that has not been overly distorted by a local traditional perspective or,
indeed, the semantics of the target language itself. Clearly, a considerable amount
of comparative research and analysis must be devoted to such an exercise to try and
keep the inevitable cognitive and emotive mismatch incurred by a modern translation
of an ancient religious text to a minimum.
EXERCISE-10
 What is the common conception of “faith” in your language-culture, and how does
this relate to an OT as well as a NT perspective and text usage? Give some examples
to illustrate your answer.
 What expressions for “faith” (πίστις) are used in your translation of the Romans
1:17 passage referred to above (the word occurs several times)? Try to describe
each selected vernacular word or phrase with respect to its primary diagnostic and
associated semantic and connotative components in comparison to related English
expressions such as: “faith,” “trust,” or “hope.” Include some consideration of
any pertinent cotextual and contextual influences that need to be factored into this
comparative lexical analysis and evaluation. Then give three common, but different
secular (non-biblical, religious) settings in which your TL term (or terms) for “faith”
might be used.
 Analyze the different communication barriers and break-downs that are recorded
in Acts 8 in terms of differing cognitive frames of reference: What apparently went
wrong in each case, and what did different, culturally-specific world-view (including
religious) perspectives have to do with it?
3. Why we do things the way we do
Sociocultural frames
The constraint of “custom”

Why do “we” (the members of a particular in-group) perform most of the regular
activities of life in a predictable, almost automatic way? Of course, there is personal
choice involved, but people are often surprised when they are shown how often their
decisions regarding how to behave in familiar or standard social situations are cul-
turally defined in accordance with a complex set of implicit traditions, conventions,
and norms. And these often differ – to a greater or lesser extent – from the habits and
routines of some other ethnic group, even one that lives in close proximity. This is
why it is relatively easy to identify a foreigner on the scene; he or she does not speak
or act according to “the rules” or local custom (our ways). Consider the following
example:
EXERCISE-1
When making a purchase at a traditional African curio market, shoppers must under-
stand the practice of local “bargaining”: According to this custom, the original price
is deliberately set at least twice as high as the product is worth. The buyer knows this,
but cannot immediately propose to pay a price that is half what was asked for (which
could imply that the seller is dishonest in asking for so much to begin with, or that his
or her artifact is really not worth very much at all). Instead, the buyer must dialogue
to work the original price down in stages to what she or he thinks the item is really
worth, based on past experience and current market conditions. She or he may even
have to “walk away,” having reached that desired price with no agreement – just to
see if the seller will follow/call out after him/her, to extend the bargaining process
a little longer. Usually, that is the indirect sign that the merchant has finally agreed,
more or less willingly. A foreigner (most likely a Westerner), who knows neither the
local value of things nor this method of progressive negotiation over a sale, might be
tempted either (a) to naively pay the initially stated price, or (b) to walk away without
dickering at all, thinking that the price is fixed and too high.
Why does a native person or resident know how to bargain in this manner, while an
alien does not? Experience has created the relevant cognitive sociocultural frame for
locals, together with an assortment of associated expectations, procedures, and even
suitable texts to verbalize during the bargaining process. An outsider, on the other
hand, who does not know these unwritten rules of speech and conduct, continues to
perceive the situation and react as if she or he were “back home.” She or he may
even break local norms in giving a hostile or insulting response – obvious verbal or
non-verbal signals of extreme frustration or obvious anger (perhaps even accusing
the seller of cheating or “inflating” the prices because the speaker happens to be an
alien), improper gestures or facial expressions, and the like.
Why we do things the way we do 37
 Have you ever witnessed this sort of behavior? Summarize a situation that you
have experienced, which illustrates the importance of speaking and acting properly
within implicit sociocultural frames of reference.
 Can we extend this lesson to behavior in church-related activities? Have you ever
witnessed innocent, but inappropriate words or actions on the part of foreigners who
happened to be attending a religious function where you were present? What was the
problem and what sociocultural unawareness caused it?
In this section I discuss cognitive frames that are specific to both individual and
corporate perspectives within a particular type of sociocultural situation, regardless
of the language that is used to describe it. This applies also to a “world language” like
English or to any language of wider communication (LWC) that is used differently
in diverse cultural regions (e.g., Swahili as spoken along coastal Tanzania, in Nairobi,
Kenya, around Lake Victoria, Uganda, or in the eastern hill country of the DR Congo).
The language may be the same, but the people who speak it are often culturally quite
diverse. This fact inevitably has an effect upon how the language is used both for-
mally and semantically. The customs of certain local speech patterns, vernacular turns
of phrase, and socially-appropriate argument strategies may thus be revealed when
people speak a “second language,” for example, English in Zambia – “Zamlish,” as it
is sometimes called in the daily press. The following excerpt, for example, comments
on a published report about flooding in certain parts of the country:
Substantively, it is a fact that in the recent weeks rains have been heavy in
certain areas than in others. … It is important to explain the floods that have
caused these disasters. … These floods are more pronounced in low ground
dambos [marshy areas] because of the soil texture. … The second type of flood
arises by rivers/streams bursting their banks thereby affecting any crop field
or infrastructure, human made or otherwise that the water comes across with.
These are flashy floods. The impact of these floods is that they pass and go. …
[T]he water quickly swims off in the down stream directions, leaving crops to
survive… These undestroyed structures include houses of stronger description.
It is the stagnant waters that are most devastating to crop fields and houses.
Having explained the flood/rain water scenario above, and having alluded that
rain has in recent weeks been heavy in places, it is however, not correct that
every house that has fatally collapsed has been due to the rains. … The article
appears to heavily draw a lot of data from Zambia Red Cross Society whom the
reporter may have mouth by nose interviewed. … The Zambian government
is for God and we learn from the story of Noah’s Ark that God promised his
people not to use water again to destroy them but eternal fire. …
(Zambia Daily Mail of Thursday, February 1, 2007, p. 8).
High-context versus low-context communication

One general method of sociocultural classification is based on a people being regarded
as more or less text (or context) oriented. The anthropologist Edward Hall has proposed
38 Ernst Wendland
that the members of any culture will tend to have a shared bias towards communicating
either explicitly through a verbal text or more implicitly through the social context.
Thus people will prefer a situation of either High Context Communication (HCC,
i.e., minimal text) or Low Context Communication (LCC, i.e. maximal text), as
illustrated in Figure 9.
TEXT
Culture A: high Text
low Context
Culture B: low Text

high Context
CONTEXT

Generally speaking, a HCC society (Culture B) tends to be more communal, tightly

woven, and socially homogenized in nature, while the converse is true of a LCC so-
ciety (Culture A): more individualistic, loosely knit, and ethnically diverse. There are
other characteristics that are commonly associated with these two basic text/context
orientations during acts of formal communication (Katan 2004:250):
• Culture A emphasizes: written text, knowledge, facts, directness, “objectiv-

ity,” consistency, substance, individualism, sticking to the rules, avoidance
of personal loss (financial, social status)
• Culture B emphasizes: oral text-in-context, interpersonal relationships,

feelings, indirectness, flexibility (versus rules), circumstances, avoidance of
communal shame (family, clan)
Thus in a HCC community people in general are expected to perceive and access
from the immediate sociocultural context all of the relevant information that they
need to interpret verbal texts of different kinds, which accordingly tend to be compa-
rably “thin” in referential terms. Their corporate “wisdom” tends to be derived more
informally, through the process of enculturation – that is, as an individual grows
up to become a mature, functioning, participating member of society, e.g., through
customary initiation ceremonies, learning by apprenticeship, observation, and personal
experience. Identity and status are based more on social position, which is attained
by gaining various sorts of specialized traditional wisdom, which is communally
“owned,” operated, and appraised.
In a LCC community, on the other hand, ethnically-based enculturation occurs
of course, but the specialized “knowledge” that one needs to function, progress, and
gain status in society is much more tied to formal educational methods and individual
achievements in different fields of social endeavor. Important, consequential messages

are usually firmly tied to a concrete text, that is, to explicit and detailed (“thick”) writ-
ten communication – not the more personal face-to-face, oral-aural modes of message
transmission which HCC societies prefer and value. Not surprisingly, “phatic” and
“ritual” types of communication, along with the need to respect socially-established,
situationally-defined honorific and politeness strategies during discourse engagements,
play a much greater role in a HCC than a LCC setting. Figure 10 is an approximate
attempt to schematize sociocultural differences among various peoples along a hypo-
thetical HCC  LCC gradient. See if you agree (from Katan 2004:253).
High Context Cultures Japanese--

(vip information orally received) Arabs--
Spanish (S.American)--
--Italians
--British
--French
Low Context
Cultures --North Americans (English)
(vip information
textually --Scandinavians (except Finns)
received) --Germans
--Swiss
Figure10:
Figure Representative
10:Representative high
high- - versus
versus low context
low context cultures
cultures
EXERCISE-2
Answer these questions based on Figure 10:
 What do you think of this method of classification according to general communica-

tion preferences? Perhaps you have another system to suggest, based on your study
of a culture not represented here.
 Do any of the people groups listed need to be re-positioned along the gradient? If
so, suggest where.
 Where along the gradient would you place the members of your society? Why?
 Where do you think European “Spanish” would fit in and why?
 Why is “American” English more of a LCC representative than “British” English

(cf. Katan 2004:254-257)?
 How would you describe your people-group in terms of the various HCC / LCC
distinctions mentioned above? Are more refined qualifications or additional charac-
teristics needed? If so, which ones?
40 Ernst Wendland
 In which sort of society would silence often communicate more than words – a
HCC or a LCC? Explain your answer.
 Which language would be more likely to signal pre-established social relationships:

that of a HCC or a LCC society? Can you give an example of such a language?
 Would the use of a fax machine and email be more characteristic of a HCC or a
LCC? What about the use of a cell phone? Explain any likely differences in the usage
of these communication technologies.
 Use of the following expressions would be more typical in a HCC or a LCC

– and why?
I’d like that in writing.

Everyone already knows what’s going on.
We must have a written agenda.
I give you my word.
We can work out the details as we go along.
I wasn’t given enough facts to be able to make a decision.
 How does the HCC / LCC distinction affect Bible translation work in a tangible way,
e.g., the team’s manner of working together to produce a draft translation (individu-
ally or as a group); or with regard to the expected “information load” of a segment of
text, such as a sentence or paragraph (more, or less redundancy)?
 Suggest some important considerations that would need some research in your
sociocultural setting.
EXERCISE-3
Evaluate the following quotation with regard to its implications for Bible translation,
specifically the project that you are engaged in or know about (from Thomas and
Thomas 2006:2; see also ch. 7, “phonic enhancement”):
It should come as no surprise for us to discover that, in an oral culture, a speaker (or
writer) has organized material into a structure that would be easily remembered. To-
day both hearer and interpreter profit from the clarity such a structure has provided.
Patterned repetition of words and ideas has been particularly noted as a feature of
biblical literature in modern scholarship. This has provided new clues, particularly
since orally-based literature may confuse the modern reader-interpreter by its lack of
linear argument.
Mental representations
The notion of text and context in relation to communication preferences and strate-
gies brings us to a consideration of cultural differences regarding how people use
language to distinguish, order, arrange, and organize the world around them. In any
distinct linguistic region or community, certain key words, idioms, conventional ut-
terances, or even more general interpersonal situations act as triggers to evoke in
one’s mind socially expected sequences of verbal and/or non-verbal behavior, along
with their anticipated settings of occurrence. Not a great deal is known about how
these particular cognitive “frames of reference,” or “mental representations” (also
called “prototypes”), are structured and stored in the human brain and later accessed
when required. Thus cognitive linguists differ also in their explanations of how such
conceptual models operate, but most investigators agree on their importance as an
attempt to better understand how communication events either succeed or fail in
specific sociocultural situations.
The following is a simplified summary of some noteworthy features of these men-
tal representations (MRs), especially from the perspective of translation studies:
• MRs may be roughly defined as distinct clusters or organized constellations of

interrelated psychological patterns and expectations (including emotions, at-
titudes, values, etc.) that pertain to socially significant events, states, processes,
experiences, or happenings along with the associated entities (persons, objects,
substances, etc.) and qualities that are manifested in a given cultural context.
At their most fundamental, elemental level of cognitive organization, MRs are
composed of referential “concepts,” linked together by appropriate connec-
tive “relations,” which have been conventionally linked to fit the conceptual
category or thematic network that is currently being accessed or applied.
• MRs are developed in a person’s cognition through the multifaceted process
of enculturation both actively and passively from information that is derived
from a variety of sources in the society concerned: personal observation and
life experiences; national or ethnic customs, celebrations, institutions, etc.;
formal and informal educational agencies; past and present oral traditions and
written discourses.
• MRs function as basic tools in human cognitive construction (awareness,
perception, reasoning, evaluation, decision-making), thereby playing an im-
portant role in both the production and also the processing of verbal texts, for
example, in establishing essential coherence relations in the discourse and in
the extended development of topical themes and sub-themes in texts according
to standard, expected patterns of arrangement.
• MRs appear to be hierarchically structured in the brain, forming more-, or
less-, inclusive taxonomic sets, scenes, or sequences that are organized ac-
cording to general-specific, whole-part, cause-effect, temporal, spatial, and
other fundamental “logical” relationships, depending on the culture concerned
(e.g., GOING SHOPPING: traveling, whether literally or metaphorically

My description here is informed by ch. 9 of Dooley and Levinsohn (2001). This is a very complex,
hence speculative, and therefore much debated subject, which I cannot explore further here. For
more details, see the older, but still helpful treatment in Brown and Yule (1983:233-256); for a
recent comprehensive study from a cognitive linguistic perspective, see Coulson (2001:ch. 1); for
the viewpoint of “mental space theory,” see Stockwell (2002:96-99).
42 Ernst Wendland
(i.e., “on-line”), to a store or shop to buy food, clothes, household furniture,

job-related items, office materials, etc.; shopping for CLOTHES: at the local
market, in a discount department store, from a mail-order catalogue or a web
site, at an exclusive boutique, from hawkers along the road, etc.; buying clothes
in the CHAIN STORE [e.g., USA: Pennys, Sears, K-Mart, Target, Wall Mart,
etc.]: drive to the store, enter and take a cart, find the right aisle, search for the
type of clothing desired, survey what’s available according to style and size,
make a tentative selection, compare prices, choose one or more items to try
on, final decision whether to buy or not…and [repeat the cycle]).
• MRs are also manifested in the various genres of literature (or orature) that
are present in a given culture – that is, with respect to preferred scenarios
(e.g., descriptive themes, motifs, and settings), schemata (e.g., the ordering of
major events in narrative, or of key topics in poetry), or scripts (e.g., formulaic
expressions and conventionalized discourses that are specific to a particular
genre or text type).
• MRs may also reflect culture-based preferences for certain types of figurative
expression or symbolic representation – for example, a textual organization that
favors metaphoric (analogical) versus metonymic (associative) relations, which
may vary in turn with respect to the type of subject matter being presented or
the purpose of the discourse.
• MRs are selectively accessed and progressively projected during commu-
nication events according to the cognitive principle of relevance – that is,
maintaining an appropriate balance between processing cost (degree of interpre-
tive difficulty) and conceptual gain (expanding, confirming or revising one’s
“cognitive environment”).
• MRs are not static or stereotyped to the point where they predetermine or
limit human thinking. Rather, cognitive frames are actively modified and
progressively combined during perception, thought (e.g., through metaphoric
“conceptual blending”), and interpersonal interaction in order to adapt to and
integrate different contextual circumstances, including apparent contradictions
and inconsistencies, as well as novel experiences or situations and the individual
impulse towards creativity. “[L]anguage users are continuously and creatively
building and blending [cognitive] frames rather than merely retrieving and
instantiating them” (Coulson 2001:30).
• MRs are managed by means of two different conceptual strategies – “bottom-up”
and “top-down” processing (information selection, arrangement, and prioritiz-
ing), which are ideally carried out more or less together. Bottom-up processing
begins with distinct perceptions that are individually and sequentially joined,
then gradually generalized in order to make sense of the data which is being
perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled, etc.). Top-down processing, on the other
hand, begins with one’s forming a quick conjecture in response to a current
scene or existing state of affairs; such hypothesis formation involves the im-
mediate projection of an entire structure of expectations (“slots”) that pertain
to a certain event, activity, state, or happening – all “ready-made,” as it were,
to apply to the situation at hand, being fleshed-out by specific data (“fillers”)
of the current circumstances.
These cognitive “projections” are of particular importance to the practice of Bible

translation because familiar types of discourse composition (genres) and/or their
associated stylistic characteristics seem to generate or evoke certain crucial facts
that pertain to their semantic constitution and structural organization. These in turn
create patterns of expectation pertaining to the specific content, purpose, and formal
features of a given text which can assist both in the process of interpretation (with
regard to the SL document) and also translation. Thus, equivalent forms and similar
functions are sought to represent the original text in the TL so that it will trigger
corresponding conceptual (and emotive) projections in the minds of members of the
intended audience.
Mental representations are usually categorized into several basic types, but theorists
differ greatly as to their number, definition, and designation. I posit three flexible and
normally co-occurring patterns, or models, that involve relatively stereotyped inter-
personal settings and their associated conventional action sequences and/or routine
discourses – termed scenarios, schemas (or schemata), and scripts respectively. They are
illustrated below with reference to the specific topic heading – a “typical Bible translation
consultant checking session” (presented by way of a summary example only):
• SCENARIO: Three national translators and a foreign (Western) translation consultant are all
sitting around a large table in a rather cramped office; one member of the translation team (the
recording secretary/text keyboarder) and the consultant are peering at sections of a vernacular
text from laptop computer screens (in the Paratext program), while the other two translators
refer to an assortment of computer print-outs, Bibles, and reference books, which are scattered
over the table.
• SCHEMA: Translator (T-1), the keyboarder, reads a portion of the draft translation in the target
language (TL) from the computer screen; next, a second translator, T-2, who is not the text
drafter, gives a back-translation into English (or some other LWC); the Translation Consultant
(TC) asks questions about the back-translation; T-1, T-2, and T-3 (all three translators should
be present) discuss the various questions raised by the TC among themselves in the TL and
respond; once they all agree on the difficulties involved and their respective solutions in the
TL text, T-1 keys in the appropriate changes on the computer; she or he reads the passage
aloud again; the translators may have some additional comments, and the TC may have fur-
ther queries regarding that particular text; if not, they move on to the next passage, following
roughly the same procedure.
• SCRIPT: (a typical segment of the running discourse – in media res)
TC: Please read the next passage.
T1: [Reads the vernacular text]
TC: That did not sound very smooth; you’d better read this same portion
again.
T1: [Reads the vernacular text]
TC: Now give me the English – slowly, so I can follow along on my computer screen
(a Paratext display of six different versions of the passage being discussed).
T2: [Gives a broken back-translation of the TL text]
TC: T3, what do you think of that – do we have a problem here?
T3: Yes, I think that there’s something wrong with the word order of this
sentence.
44 Ernst Wendland
TC: How would you correct it – please make a suggestion.

T3: [Gives a revised version of the TL text]
TC: Now how does that sound to you all?
T2: This is better, but we need to find the right conjunction to begin with.
T1: Yes, to link up better with the preceding verse.
TC: What would you propose?
T2: Gar would seem to fit here, not so?
T3: Right, that will do it.
TC: OK, let me hear both verses again now – as if you were reading from the pulpit in
church.
There is of course a wide range and diversity of socioculturally significant “in-

formation” that characterizes the specific realization of these proposed conventional
frames in any given world setting. Such categories may be arranged, if so desired,
into various sets that are related by patterns of co-occurrence (syntagmatic contigu-
ous “slots”) and/or inclusion (paradigmatic substitutive “fillers”). Thus our “typical
Bible translation checking session” could be preceded and followed by various other
possible scenarios, together with their sequentially (sometimes coincidentally) associ-
ated schemata and scripts – for example, an initial larger group devotion with national
Bible Society staff, a tea/coffee break for relaxation, the midday meal, a “siesta” time
(no schemata or scripts then!), a visit from project sponsors and administrators, and
so forth.
From a paradigmatic perspective, the checking session itself may be classified
more generically as an instance of “joint Scripture text study,” which would normally
include specific circumstantial variants, e.g., a Sunday morning adult Bible class.
These local substitutes might differ, sometimes significantly so, both from the original
scenario and also from one another in terms of the prevailing customs and charac-
teristics that pertain to related schemas and scripts for socio-economic, cultural, or
purely physical reasons. Such situations may, like the preceding, be typical of certain
organizations within the community at large (like a national “Bible society”), thus
triggering the appropriate “organizational” cognitive frame (see below). This sort of
overlapping in perspectives is to be expected when seeking to describe conventional
sociological categories of this nature, whether they happen to be relatively broad or
narrow in scope.
For example, in some cultural settings it might not be appropriate or even permis-
sible for “honorific” reasons (i.e., to avoid the “shame factor”) for a younger translator
(T-2) to directly and overtly criticize the work of an older colleague in any way, say,

Stockwell has criticized “schema theory” from the standpoint of cognitive poetics, alleging that
“the model is focused very firmly on the perceptions, plans, goals and scripted strategies of the
individual. … Other people are regarded as actors simply speaking their lines” (2002:169). To allow
for more situational flexibility and social interaction in the approach, Stockwell recommends that
“a reconception of schema poetics can be imagined which encompasses the social negotiation of
situations through interactive discourse” (ibid:169). Reconsider the preceding example (concerning
the translation checking session) in the light of this criticism, and make some suggestions as to how
the “unscripted” nature of natural discourse, even in common sociocultural settings, might be taken
into more precise consideration during a simultaneous or subsequent analysis.
if he (T-1) were the one who had prepared the original draft text. Rather, T-2 would
have to submit his critique either orally or in writing to a designated colleague (T-3),
or to the project consultant, who would then convey these concerns to T-1. Similarly,
in certain settings, if a woman happens to be a member of the translation team (a rela-
tive rarity in some world regions), she cannot, according to local custom, publicly or
directly suggest any major corrections or changes with regard to a draft prepared by
a male colleague. Instead, her comments must be delivered in writing – or alterna-
tively, in an indirect, euphemistic manner that simply alludes to a potential problem
in the text, which her colleagues will have to first discern and then pursue by directly
questioning her for further information. Physical limitations and circumstantial faults
may of course affect the schemata and scripts in numerous other negative ways to
occasion a delay in progress, e.g., an electrical fault, a malfunctioning computer or
program, illness on the part of one of the translators, an interrupting telephone call,
and so forth.
EXERCISE-4
 The following example illustrates the overlapping between scenarios, schemata, and
scripts when providing a certain mental representation that one presumably employs in
the inferential interpretation of events and related phenomena during everyday life:
What comes into your mind when you read (study) the words of Job 13:13 (any Bible version)?
As far as the co-text of this passage is concerned, this is part of Job’s bitter complaint with regard to what
he perceives as the unsympathetic, untrustworthy advice of his three friends in his time of misery and
doubts about God’s dealing with him. In effect, Job is telling them to shut up because they are offering
him no support at all – he will simply have to face The Almighty on his own in a judicial confrontation, if
he is granted the opportunity (cf.13:15-19).
Now imagine this same script – Job 13:13 (the verse reference alone) – printed out in large letters on
the back of an old African lorry (heavy truck). What do you think that the writer/driver wanted to evoke by
this passage in the minds of drivers who happened to be following behind him – especially if his vehicle
were holding them up on the road (which given its condition would have been highly likely)?
Here is a true-to-life scenario: I jog past this large lorry, broken down along the side of the road, during
my morning exercise. Do the words of Job 13:13 seem to apply in a different light (mental representa-
tion) now?
Actually, the next verse in Job (13:14) seems more pertinent to the present situation. Look it up and see
if you agree. If so, explain how the two frames of reference seem to fit quite well together – Job 13:14
advertised on the back of what is obviously a very un-roadworthy vehicle.
EXERCISE-5
Thomas Dooley (2005:3-4, 5-6) provides some challenging insights concerning how
the notion of “mental representations” (scenarios, schemas, and scripts) should affect
the process of translation:
Comprehending a text involves constructing a resultant mental representation of its

meaning. This process is incremental, requiring trial and error, hypothesizing, con-
firmation and revision, and probabilistic conclusions. There is much that we do not
46 Ernst Wendland
know about mental representations, including the specific neurological form that they
take and the best way to model them. But psychological experiments, conducted over
several decades, clearly indicate the following…:
(3) A reader’s resultant mental representation of a text is not a mere copy of the
text with its linguistic structures, but converts the text from a linguistic object to a
conceptual object.
The word resultant in [principle] 3 is important, because it seems clear that the reader
initially does use the wording of the text as input to comprehension; but then, as
major syntactic and textual boundaries are reached, the specific surface and semantic
details are generally integrated into a more abstract form … In this way, the resultant
mental representation that the reader takes away from a text is abstracted away from
the linguistic form.
The notion of a mental representation can be used to state a major translation goal,
having to do with faithfulness to the source text:
(4) Text-based approaches to translation generally indicate that the most important
thing to be transferred is the mental representation that the author intended to convey
by means of the text....
Whereas the reader’s “resultant mental representation” is a product of the comprehen-
sion process, the author’s “intended mental representation” is what presumably is in
the author’s mind as he or she approaches the task of wording. No one can see inside
another’s mind, but to the extent that competent exegetes agree, we can often come up
with a reasonable idea of the author’s communicative goals. On the other end of text
comprehension, we can sometimes do testing to discern the resultant mental representa-
tion that target readers come up with. [See chapter 10 below.]
In my experience, this isn’t easy; it might mean asking for a retelling of the text
some time after the text was read or heard (to reduce the influence of “disposable”
features) and then doing a discourse analysis on the result. Even when we can assess
mental representations in the source and target situations, there is the question of
what parameters should be used in comparing the two and how closely they should
correspond along those parameters. For mental representations can be viewed on any
level of detail, since they include different kinds and levels of meaning that readers
are intended to “get from” the text.
The notion of intent in translation is critically important: translations differ ac-
cording to the kind and level of meaning that their “clients” want transferred, as well
as whether the message should be construed in relation to its original context or to
the target context. Despite these complexities, to the degree that we can compare the
mental representations of author and readers, we can take [principle] 4 as a general
standard for faithfulness in translation.
Based on this general schema, the strategy for rendering discourse features in the
Guarani translation is as follows:
…In Guarani, discourse features follow natural target-language patterns rather than
source-language patterns, subject to the following constraints:
(a) they do not reduce reader confidence in the translation, and
(b) they are compatible with the author’s intended mental representation.
That is, in addition to the general constraint that all discourse features be compatible
with the author’s intended mental representation, a translation may have one or more
special conditions which constrain the use of natural target-language features. The
special conditions may be of different types, having to do with such things as reader
confidence in the translation, intended liturgical uses, or highly valued academic or
literary qualities. For Bible translations, a common special condition has to do with the
possibility of comparing the translation with a high-prestige version that exists in the
same or a different language. In the general constraint, discourse features are required
to be compatible with the the author’s intended mental representation rather than, in
stronger terms, “to be an exact expression” of it. This is because…not all discourse
features (or functions) are essential ones. All features and functions, however, should
be compatible with it; that is, they should never be contrary to it and they should be
used to signal it when needed.
 Does the preceding discussion of “mental representations” (Dooley’s entire article

should be read) clarify the nature and purpose of translation for you? Explain your
answer.
 How closely does the Guarani general “strategy for rendering discourse features”
compare with the one that your team/project has adopted for your Bible translation?
 Apply your discourse translation strategy to the text of James 4:13. What is your
initial “mental representation” of the content of this passage – in other words, what
do you make of it from your sociocultural perspective?
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town
and spend a year there and trade and get gain”… (RSV)
 How must you modify or change your MR based on a study of this passage in its
ANE setting? Check out a good commentary or two, for example (Loh and Hatton
1997:159):
Come now: James shifts to a conversational style by calling for the attention of his
readers. This expression is used only here and in 5.1 in the New Testament. It is a form
of address, an attention getter, for which a number of equivalent expressions may be
used; for example, “Now listen to me” (TEV), “Listen carefully” (JNIT), “But wait”
(TNT), “Stop and think a minute!” (BRC), “Just a moment, now” (PHPS), “You should
know better than...” (CEV). The people addressed are you who say... , an imaginary
group of business people who say what is said in the quotation. Today or tomorrow
we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get
gain: what we have here are the typical plans of ordinary business people. Their busi-
ness plans include setting the time of departure, selecting a location, determining the
length of stay, projecting the profit, and so on. Notice that all four verbs are in the future
tense: “will go,” “will spend,” “will trade,” and “will get gain.” This shows that their
plans are firm and full of confidence and expectations. … The expression such and
such a town is an idiomatic way of referring to a certain location without naming the
place specifically. In this way the story can be applied to any city and any situation.
Thus the idiom may be rendered as “this and that town” (BRC, NIV). In cultures where
large towns do not exist, but only villages of various sizes, we may express town as
“a large village,” “a place with many houses”… The verb trade means “do business”
48 Ernst Wendland
(TNT) or “go into business” (TEV). The expression get gain may be rendered more
naturally as “make money” (TNT, NIV) or “make a profit” (NAB). James is obviously
not rebuking his readers for making detailed and wise business decisions in advance.
The problem is that they make plans without the Great Planner; they leave God out
of their planning.
Note also that there are several critical hermeneutical decisions that have to be made
before one can evoke the scenario being depicted by James in one’s mind today, for
example: Is James addressing Jewish Christians or non-Christians here? If Christians,
then is he referring to all so-called “believers,” or does he have only merchants and
traders in mind? To what extent is James employing hyperbole in this passage – would
even avaricious businessmen talk that way (how about today)?
 How would you translate James 4:13 idiomatically in YL, given its particular
discourse function and literary features? Compare your rendition with that of The
Message, given below; notice how this modern translation seeks to set a particular
attitudinal frame of reference for this section, 4:13-17:
And now I have a word for those who brashly announce, “Today – at the latest tomor-
row – we’re off to such and such a city for the year. We’re going to start a business
and make a lot of money!”
 Finally, which particular aspects of this discourse-based, cognitive-oriented ap-

proach to translation do you wish to explore further – and why?
Semantic domains
The potential utility of the different socioculturally related distinctions discussed above
lies in the fact that a culture’s system of common cognitive frames, the generic as well
as more specific ones, provides analysts with a heuristic tool that enables them to more
precisely investigate and improve instances of group interactive behavior, both verbal and
non-verbal. This is particularly helpful during the process of cross-cultural, inter-linguistic
communication, especially when more complicated problems develop. For example,
as noted above, the frames involving distinctive scenarios, schemata, and scripts
are the principal constituents of language- and literature-specific genres, which do
not always conform across cultures (to be explored further in ch. 7). Similarly, the
analytical procedure of setting conceptual boundaries within different frames of ref-
erence serves to guide and inform dictionaries, in particular, those that are organized
according to so-called semantic domains. A dictionary of this nature aims, ideally,
to incorporate and categorize the entire referential field of a given society’s world
of thought, behavior, and experience, but in practice, due to the inevitable limits of
information access, only part of the entire realm is actually considered. The relevant
domains of another language group, however, will inevitably be different – in ways
that need to be identified in detail where any sort of communication by translation
is concerned.
EXERCISE-6
Whose “semantic domains” (should) control the process of biblical interpretation

and subsequent translation?
The Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains (Louw
and Nida 1988) purports to segment the conceptual world denoted by NT vocabu-
lary into 93 such “domains,” ranging from the more concrete and general (e.g., 1.
Geographical objects and features, 2. Natural substances, 3. Plants, 4. Animals, 5.
Food and condiments) to the most abstract and specific (e.g., 89. Relations, 90. Case,
91. Discourse markers, 92. Discourse referentials, 93. Names of persons and places)
(ibid:531).
The classification and definition of concepts becomes more and more sociocul-
turally specific (or semantically “framed”) as each domain is sub-divided into ever
smaller categories. For example, domain #53 – “Religious activities” – is broken down
into 12 subtypes, again moving from the general to the specific: A. religious practice
(essentially defining the domain as a whole), B. offering/ sacrifice, C. purify/cleanse,
D. defiled/unclean/common, E. baptize, F. dedicate/consecrate, G. worship/ reverence,
H. fasting, I. roles/functions, J. magic, K. exorcism, L. sacrilege. The sub domain of
“magic” encompasses six terms, the definition of which becomes rather indistinct and
hence rather confusing in English, e.g.,  “one who practices magic and witch-
craft – ‘magician’” and  “one who uses magic and sorcery – ‘sorcerer’”
(ibid:45).
Presumably, the cognitive-semantic frame of “magic” would have clarified the
relevant sociocultural distinctions for the original readers of the Greek New Testa-
ment, for example, in Acts 13:8, where a man called “Elymas” is characterized as
being a  who opposed the Apostle Paul, or in Revelation 22:15, where people
who lived as a  on earth are among those excluded from eternal life in
heaven. In English the same term is generally used to translate both Greek works, e.g.,
“sorcerer” (NIV), but one wonders what the average Westerner, in particular, actu-
ally conceives of by that term. There would undoubtedly be a very great divergence
among respondents asked to define “sorcerer” since the practice is not a common one
in their world of reference or experience. In south-central Africa, on the other hand,
things are very different and the machinations of “sorcerers” (who may be classified
into different categories) are an everyday occurrence in the lives of most people. In
other words, the sociocultural frame of reference that contextualizes the correspond-
ing vernacular term is very wide, diverse, vivid, and precise.
In a Bantu language like Chichewa, for example, the available concepts involving
“sorcery” are usually very complex, depending on the interpersonal situation. Where
the biblical text itself is not very specific, translators should try to mentally situate
themselves in the sociocultural or religious setting that is described, as closely as they
can on the basis of the information given – both there and in any parallel or related pas-
sages. They must then determined from that perspective whether the “sorcerer” being
referred to, Elymas for example, was carrying out his activities in a socially accept-
able or a forbidden manner and the relative degree to which mystical, occult behavior
and taboo practices are involved. There are several options – as shown in the rough
continuum of possibilities below (with only approximate English equivalents):
50 Ernst Wendland
socially acceptable/overt behavior ================ socially taboo/covert

connotation: + +/- - --
sing’anga wamatsenga wanyanga mfiti
‘medicine-man’ ‘magician’ ‘sorcerer’ ‘witch’
The sing’anga “medicine-man” does make use of “sorcery” in his (her) practice,
depending on the need or predicament of his client (e.g., for enrichment, enablement,
healing, protection), and therefore is generally regarded as performing a necessary
social function. Activities of the mfiti “night witch,” on the other hand (e.g., exhuming
new graves to ingest the corpse), are totally reprehensible and universally condemned.
Translators must thus imagine themselves, as it were, into the sociocultural setting
of the biblical text – but from their own viewpoint – in order to select the vernacular
terms that will most accurately and acceptably re-present the perspective of the original
author. The popular language Chewa translation employs wamatsenga “magician”
(a traditional practitioner with a disagreeable public reputation) with reference to
Elymas, but reserves the most despicable term, mfiti “witch[es]” for the damned of
Revelation (e.g., 22:15).
 Analyze the notions of “magic” and “sorcery” from the viewpoint of your cultural
setting. Then make a similar summary study of some other consequential lexical-
semantic category where there is a major incongruity or clash between perspective
of the biblical text and that of your language-culture.
 With reference to the preceding exercise, how would you explain the respective
differences between the biblical concepts of  and and the closest
equivalents in YL? Formulate a sample explanatory note in each case.
EXERCISE-7
A new and revised “semantic domain” dictionary project for Hebrew is now under-
way under the leadership of Dr. Renier de Blois. It is called the Semantic Dictionary
of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH, 2000-2006). If internet access is available, look up the
homepage (http://www.sdbh.org/home-en.html) and also the theoretical framework
for this project (http://www.sdbh.org/framework/index.html). Prepare a brief summary
report based on the information that you find, including your personal assessment
of how helpful you anticipate this dictionary (i.e., lexical-conceptual “frames”) will
be to you (even now in its preliminary stages) as you carry out your everyday Bible
translation work.
 Figure 11 reproduces a sample of the SDBH entry for ’ab ‘father’ (prepared by R.
de Blois; the current listing of dictionary entries may be found at http://www.sdbh.
org/vocabula/index.html – latest update on 16/11/2006). Evaluate the usefulness of
the information that is given, not only in terms of the various semantic distinctions,
but also with regard to the sociocultural frame of reference that is also provided.
Is the information supplied in a user-friendly manner? What improvements can
you suggest? (You may also contact the editor at: editor@sdbh.org .) Have a class
round-table discussion after completing your evaluation. Mention 3 things about the
use of ‘father’ that you did not know before reading this entry (including at least some
of the Scripture references given).
Discerning the fitting frame

Knowing the indigenous sociocultural frames and how they relate to specific ver-
nacular lexical items is a vital aspect of accurate dictionary making. On a more
informal, everyday level, we learn how to use words properly and behave appropri-
ately according to our ever-developing inventory of implicit mental templates. These
tradition-based customary guidelines are especially important when we confront
occasions of social perplexity or interpersonal problems of some sort. Such times
of uncertainty or points of tension must first be recognized for what they are (often
the hardest part), then discussed and resolved according to the local rules of verbal
“engagement” in order for the present or proposed communication event to continue
or resume – perhaps even prevent its total collapse.
Many additional overt and less-obvious difficulties naturally arise, however, when
linguistic and cultural boundaries are crossed. Those who enter such unfamiliar situ-
ations must learn to develop adequate coping mechanisms and strategies for dealing
with the stresses and challenges of operating in a foreign environment. However,
various human and technical resources are usually available to help out. For example,
comparative cultural information is used to prepare international “travel guides” of
varying detail that are designed to help foreign tourists and business-persons com-
municate satisfactorily, albeit in a very limited capacity, and hopefully without giving
(too much) offense within the alien milieu. This usually concerns such essential
everyday activities as asking for directions, making a food order in a café, purchas-
ing the correct ticket at the train station, cashing a travelers’ check, or locating the
nearest restroom (toilet)! But the best, most reliable guides are often culturally-aware
members of the local community who volunteer to help outsiders accommodate to
their new and strange surroundings.
EXERCISE-8
A very important item of contextual information that every tourist guide must in-
clude concerns those unfortunate situations when one must communicate with the
law enforcement agencies in a foreign country. In this case, if one does not observe
socially acceptable “rules of behavior,” the person (say, a businessman) seeking help
can quickly get into trouble with society’s protectors before he even has a chance
to deal with the problem that he has come to them to complain about. For example,
when reporting a theft at the local police station, one must press one’s case not in the
manner of the typical, ethnocentric, culturally naive “ugly American,” belligerently
demanding one’s “personal rights” and disparaging the intelligence and perhaps also
the morals of the national populace. Rather, one must adopt a culturally appropriate
schema and script, appealing to the expected roles that need to be played in such a
situation.
52 Ernst Wendland
’ab
(1) “[…]”
(For the purpose of this exercise, the specific Hebrew lexical items related to ’ab have been deleted.)
(a) Kinship
= direct male progenitor; ► who normally provides protection, care, instruction, and discipline; ≈ is
usually regarded with respect and associated with wisdom, security, and comfort - father
(GEN.2:24; 9:22,23,23; 11:28,29,29; 19:31,32,33,35; 20:12; 22:7,7; 26:3,15 ...)
Kinship
(b) Kinship
extension of meaning of [a]‫‏‬: = indirect male progenitor - grandfather, ancestor (GEN.9:18,22; 10:21;
17:4,5; 19:37,38; 22:21; 28:13; 31:3; 32:10; 36:9,43; 46:34; 47:3,9 ...)
Kinship [show/hide contextual meanings]
(c) Kinship
= person; ► the founder of a village, town, or region, and usually the ancestor of most of its
inhabitants - father > founder (GEN.33:19; JOS.24:32; JDG.9:28; 1CH.2:21,23,24,42,42,45,49,49,49,5
0,51,51,52; 4:3b ...)
Kinship ; Town
(d) Kinship > Deities
as [a]‫ ‏‬but extended to deities: = deity; ◄ compared to a father; ► giver of life, protection, wisdom,
etc. - father (DEU.32:6; 2SA.7:14; 1CH.17:13; 22:10; 28:6; PSA.89:27; ISA.9:5; 63:16,16; 64:7;
JER.2:27; 3:4,19; 31:9; MAL.1:6; 2:10 ...)
Kinship > Care [show/hide contextual meanings]
(e) Kinship > Happen (Causative)
= person; ► the first to be engaged in a certain activity or pattern of behavior - the first person to
... (GEN.4:20,21)
(f) Kinship > Exist (Causative)
= person; ◄ compared to a father; ► originator of a certain process; ● used for God only - father >
(God as) creator (of the rain) (JOB.38:28)
Kinship > Creation ; Individual > God ; Weather
(g) Kinship > Officials
= person; ◄ compared to a father; ► provides advice to someone in authority - adviser (GEN.45:8;
JDG.17:10; 18:19)
(h) Kinship > Safe (Causative)
= person; ◄ compared to a father; ► provides care for the people under his authority -
father > someone who takes care of someone else (JOB.29:16; PSA.68:6; ISA.22:21)
Kinship > Care
(i) Kinship > Tombs
= location; ◄ compared to a father; ≈ regarded as a source of security and comfort - (grave, regarded
as one’s) father > place of security, comfort (JOB.17:14)
Kinship > Security ; Life
(j) Communities “[…]”
= group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; ◄ smallest unit within family group - father’s
house > family (GEN.12:1; 20:13; 24:7,23,38,40; 28:21; 31:14,30; 34:19; 38:11,11; 41:51; 46:31,31;
47:12 ...)
Kinship
(k) Communities “[…]”
= group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; ◄ largest unit within family group - ancestral
tribe (NUM.1:16,47; 13:2; 26:55; 33:54; 36:4,6,7,8)
Kinship
(l) Communities “[…]”
= group of people to which one traces one’s ancestry; possibly identical to [j]‫ ‏‬ - ancestry (EXO.6:25;
NUM.31:26; 32:28; 36:1,1; DEU.18:8; JOS.14:1; 21:1,1; 1KI.8:1; 1CH.6:4; 7:11; 8:6,10,13,28 ...)
(m) Titles
= way of addressing a male person that one regards as one’s superior because of his age, status,
authority, etc. - father (1SA.24:12; 2KI.2:12,12; 5:13; 6:21; 13:14,14)
Figure 11: SDBH entry for Hebrew ’ab ‘father’

One possible strategy would be to politely state one’s petition with all due respect
as a “guest” who is under the generous protection of a “host” who will surely act
expeditiously to deliver the suppliant from the bad situation that she or he is now in
now due to the loss of money or property. Thus, instead of focusing upon the impor-
tance of self, the person humbly and without a hint of anger requests the beneficent
good will, respect, and honor of the local leadership to set the matter right in the way
that they know best – that is, to avoid any “mistaken/misleading impression” about
the country that might otherwise result from this incident. The petitioner would also
conclude by assuring the authorities that she or he would be most grateful for any
little thing that could be done on his or her behalf in the present circumstances. Of
course, it would be very difficult for an aggrieved American to adopt this sort of role
and communicate in such a seemingly subservient manner to foreigners. Is not the
USA generally recognized as the “mightiest nation on earth” – “the world’s only
superpower”? On the other hand, the very shock of witnessing such atypical, contra-
cultural speech and behavior might well be enough to motivate the police to do their
best to pursue the thieves and restore what had been stolen.
 Report on a similar problematic situation involving good/bad “manners” on the

part of foreigners that you have either witnessed or personally experienced in your
cultural setting – or in a different country that you have visited. What went wrong
and how was the problem resolved – or was the misunderstanding and/or offense that
was given simply allowed to stand?
EXERCISE-9
Two different perspectives on “uncovered feet” (Ruth 3:4)
The process of achieving translational equivalence certainly involves making im-

portant decisions concerning which local terms to use for biblical concepts that are
either over- or under-differentiated in the target language. However, the problems for
translators may actually begin at the source – that is, with the text and context of a
certain Scripture passage as it has been represented by the authorities, namely, the
commentators. Here one must always allow for a possibly limited, or even biased,
sociocultural cognitive perspective on the part of recognized experts in the field.
This is especially true in the case of questions that arise due to certain customs and
practices that are very non-Western in nature. The following is a summary of a case
study that was written with regard to the difficulties presented by the narrative of
Ruth 3 (Keita and Dyk 2006, used by permission). I have reproduced below only the
salient conclusions of this insightful article (certain statements have been highlighted
in italics for emphasis):

The interpreters and commentators discussed exhibit a wide range of explanation as
to what occurred in Ruth 3, varying their understanding of the passage according to
their conceptualization of the context and culture in which it took place. Striking dif-
ferences appear in particular in the role ascribed to sexuality in the scene at the threshing
floor. …
Similar linguistic data in regard to the use of the…verbs in this passage could be
evoked. A word does not mean all things at all times, but functions within a syntactic
54 Ernst Wendland
pattern to have a particular meaning in a specific instance. Counter to the extremely sug-
gestive reading of these verses, we would propose that the language itself does not support
such a reading. Rather, because in this passage all verbs lack the specific valency patterns
which would allow for a sexually loaded rendering, we maintain that a neutral reading is
required by the linguistic data.
Why this consensus among the Western authors? Is it not that within Western culture
it is inconceivable for a woman to lie next to a man at night without intending to offer
herself sexually, especially when the context involves speaking of a future marriage?
Feminist writers laud Ruth’s action thus interpreted as a woman’s desperate strife against
all odds, leaving no holes barred. Other authors would find this ‘unseemly’, not keeping
in character, and lacking integrity, but it remains a tricky situation from a Western cultural
point of view.
We draw attention to how determinative a hermeneutic key is for understanding the
text. Where a suggestive framework is chosen, the interpretation of elements is shifted
in that direction: washing and dressing becomes enticement and seduction, uncovering
the foot end becomes uncovering the genitals or even stripping oneself naked, lying
down becomes making sexual advances, ‘spread your wings’ in no longer a request
for protection but becomes an invitation to sexual consummation, and in Ruth 4:11
where Boaz is praised and encouraged by the people to be a ‘mighty man’, a ‘man of
power’, this powerfulness is not understood as his potential to care for the widows but
as his sexual potency.
Read from a typical Western perspective, it appears that the scene at the threshing
floor can not be understood otherwise than sexually loaded. Whether interpreters con-
demn or condone the possibility of actual sexual involvement, the scene seems to make
no sense to Western readers without the sexual or erotic aspect playing an important
role in the passage.
Is there another possible reading for this strange nocturnal encounter? There was
talk of a future commitment. Does this scene make sense if not sexually loaded? In an
attempt to offer an alternative understanding of the scene, we now present it through
the eyes of a West African culture.
The Bowa people are an agricultural society living in the central eastern part of the
Republic of Mali in West Africa. … Traditional values are still valid, though they are
progressively being encroached upon by the influences from the cultures imported by
colonization. Because Christianity came with colonization, many pagans equate the
two. As is so often the case, the Christian missionaries came with the New Testament,
while the Old Testament whose culture, customs, and values are so much closer to
those of traditional Bowa society, only later began to receive attention. A number of
customs exhibit remarkable similarity to those described within the Book of Ruth.
‘Uncover the place of his feet’

When a woman seeks a man’s resting place and waits for him to notice her, it is logical
that she should lie down at his feet and wait. In the Bowa context the woman could
lie next to him, though not with sexual intent. Uncovering the feet presents no dubi-
ous connotations, she could even have taken off his cover completely, but it would be
totally unimaginable to bare his private parts. It is, furthermore, inconceivable that she
should uncover herself: why undress yourself and lay down naked?
Ruth’s lying down and waiting for Boaz to awaken was a natural course of action.
Naomi, too, had indicated as much: ‘he will tell you what you should do’.
‘Spread your wing’

Within the Bowa culture, it is considered a shame if someone who has the right to
marry a widow does not want to do so. No family accepts that a woman who has a
right to marry remains unmarried: ‘A family which is not able to provide partners for
the widows from among the men inside the family is not a family,’ as a Bowa adage
goes. It would be understood as a great shame to Ruth herself, but more so to Boaz
and to the family of Elimelech if Ruth were to remain unmarried.
Boaz knew who in the family had the most right to marry Ruth. Ruth’s request would
be understood to mean: ‘cover me’ with your blanket, with a metaphorical significance
parallel to a Bowa expression sutara ni, ‘hide me’, i.e., preserve my honor, prevent
me from shame by marrying me. Such a request is entirely fitting within the context of
Ruth being a widow, Boaz being an eligible marriage partner within Ruth’s generation
within the patriclan, and Naomi’s knowledge and approval of the meeting.
Ruth’s clear referral to marriage does not entail that she provoked him sexually; in
fact, that would not be fitting within this context.
Carmichael’s assumption that the treading of grain in most cultures has a transferred
sexual significance of ‘treading a woman’ does not apply to the Bowa culture. There
is no connection between the treading or beating of grain to obtain seed and sexual
involvement.
Comparison and Comments

Stepping back to consider what has been brought together thus far, one is struck by
the vast differences within the various approaches between the values ascribed to the
role of sexuality. All agree that marriage is the issue, but in a number of Western ap-
proaches, the possibility of marriage is inconceivable without a major role given to
sexual and erotic aspects.
Once the sexual or erotic aspect has become the hermeneutic key to reading Ruth,
there is a danger that this will affect the choices made in translation. Under the influ-
ence of such a hermeneutic key, ‘anoint yourself’ could becomes ‘perfume yourself’,
and ‘put one your mantle’ be rendered as ‘dress in your nicest clothes’. The translation
could go even further in making the sexual or erotic aspect explicit: ‘uncover’ could
become ‘bare the private parts’ or ‘strip yourself’; ‘foot end’ could be rendered ‘geni-
tals’; a request for protection could become ‘impregnate me’; and a ‘man of potential’
could be made to refer to ‘male sexual prowess’.
In contrast, the remarkable similarity between many details in Ruth and Bowa
customs makes it tempting to interpret the scene at the threshing floor as a Bowa would
understand it. It provides a context in which the text can be read in a straightforward
manner without the twists both to grammar and to interpretive context manifest in some
of the Western explanations whose efforts, however creative, betray the strain of the
distance between the culture of the text and that of the interpreter.
Nonetheless, it is only fair to concede that the reading based on the Bowa culture,
though exhibiting a striking affinity to many details in the book of Ruth, is still a reading
colored by a cultural context. Yet we would offer this reading as a viable alternative and
perhaps a healthy antidote to some of the interpretations of the scene at the threshing
floor current in Western-based exegetical literature.
 How has the translation in your language rendered these two expressions from
Ruth 3: “uncover [the place of] his feet” and “spread your wing”? What would ordinary
56 Ernst Wendland
people in your cultural setting understand by each of these translations, or indeed the
entire scenario sketched out above? Point out any potential – or actual – problems in
the current renderings.
 Have any footnotes been supplied at these crucial points in the text? If so, what
do they say? Do they reflect a Western (or some other alien) bias that pushes the
interpretation of these passages in a certain direction – to the exclusion of other
possibilities, perhaps even one that is closer to the Hebrew viewpoint? What sort of
a footnote would you suggest in order to create a more open-minded sociocultural
cognitive framework when approaching these two texts, or any other problematic
expressions or concepts in Ruth 3?
Illustrations are another important device for creating a cognitive frame of refer-
ence to aid the interpretation of a given passage of Scripture. However, in this respect
too it is crucial to select a fitting, or suitable, frame – one that will actually serve as
an aid in the interpretation process and not hinder it. The latter often happens when
illustrations from an alien culture or point of view are employed without adequate
prior testing for comprehension and acceptability among the target constituency. Fur-
thermore, in many cases an illustration of an ancient text like the Scriptures requires
more knowledge about the cultural setting than we currently have access to. And once
a concrete picture of a certain scene is provided, it more or less “locks” readers in
to that particular visualization of the events or objects being depicted. For example,
while it would obviously help to illustrate what transpired in the case of the “uncov-
ered feet” involving Ruth and Boaz discussed above, how would one know exactly
what to portray? This is a special problem in cases such as this where several quite
different or mutually incompatible hermeneutical choices are concerned.
EXERCISE-10
Illustrations are created from a particular perspective, and the viewpoint of the illus-
trator may be rather different from that of those who are looking a given portrayal,
especially in cases where cultures are crossed. For example, the following illustration
which reflects the artist’s impression of the biblical text at Ruth 2:23 presents a great
deal of detail, which serves to highlight a subtle, but significant implication of the
entire second chapter. But in order to discover this implication, viewers must first
discern where Ruth and Boaz are in the picture. The problem here is that many may
miss the forest for the trees; in other words, they will get lost in the details and thus
fail to find the pair of central personages.
 Try to identify the characters Ruth and Boaz in Figure 12 and discuss your choices
in class. After the group comes to an agreement on this issue, evaluate this illustration
for its suitability in your sociocultural setting: How appropriate is the picture? What
is its chief point? What are the main problem areas (if any)? What needs to be done
(if necessary) to adapt, or “re-frame,” this illustration to fit your context in order to
bring out the desired implication?

Courtesy of www.creationism.org.
Figure 12:
Figure Where are
12: Where are Ruth
Ruth and
and Boaz?
Boaz?
Gender bias
One important sociocultural issue that is becoming highly contentious among transla-
tors and theologians alike in some settings is that of gender-reference in relation to
the expressed text of Scripture. In certain cases the matter concerns the gender of God
him/herself – that is, whether she or he is regarded as being, or should be referred
to as, male or female with respect to nature and attributes (what is your opinion and
why?). However, for the most part the controversy affects languages like English that
have a distinct masculine and feminine pronoun and also a generic term for “human
being” (male or female) which has been traditionally marked for reference in Scripture
as a male. Thus recent moves towards gender equality in societies all over the world
have made changes such as those listed below necessary:
58 Ernst Wendland
RSV  NRSV
when men revile you (Mt. 5:11) when people revile you
let your light so shine before men (Mt. 5:16) let your light shine before others
what man of you, if his son (Mt. 7:9) is there anyone among you who, if your son
if a man will come…let him (Mt. 16:24) if any want to become…let them
not all men can receive this (Mt. 19:11) not everyone can accept this teaching
care for no man (Mt. 22:16) show deference to no one
all who are led…are sons of God (Rm. 8:14) all who are led are children of God
the unspiritual man does not (1 Cor.2:14) those who are unspiritual do not receive
what is man that you thou art mindful.. what are human beings that you are mindful…
or the son of man, that thou… (Hb. 2:6) or mortals that you…
he had to be made like his brethren (Hb. 2:17) he had to become like his brothers and sisters
he who loves his brother abides (1 Jn. 2:10) whoever loves a brother or sister lives
if any one hears…I will come in to him if you hear…I will come in to you
and eat with him, and he with me (Rv. 3:20) and eat with you, and you with me
In these cases, the issue is not only referential, that is, in cases where the use of “man,”
“men,” or a generic “he” results in an ambiguous or misleading text for the average
person, but serious connotative clashes are also involved. The latter, emotive or at-
titudinal difficulties arise in settings where continued use of male references upsets,
and often offends female readers and speakers of the biblical text. However, attempts
to find a solution to one problem frequently incur others – for example, language that
is even more ambiguous, or more commonly, a very awkward, unnatural collocational
style in the TL.
EXERCISE-11
 Try to find three different examples (in any gender-marked language) like the
ones given above which manifest a change that involves a male reference in an older
translation as distinct from a more generic (gender-neutral) rendering in a modern
version.
 Is the matter of gender a debatable issue in your mother tongue or in a foreign

language that you have researched? If not, explain why. If so, give several biblical
examples that illustrate the problems as well as some possible solutions within the
text of a particular translation.
 Does this controversy over “genre-correctness” also have an influence on how pas-
tors must preach and teach in your sociocultural setting–that is, must they be careful
not to offend adult women by their manner of speaking? If so, give an example.
 Darrell Bock defines what he terms as “two basic approaches to gender-sensitive

translations” as follows (2005:170):
Ideological gender sensitivity: This type of translation seeks to “degenderize” the

Bible (that is, removes all language that is male specific and excludes women as a
result). The argument is that the Bible arose in an era of patriarchalism (where men
ruled the culture and women were seen as less than equal). In this approach even male
metaphors for God and/or Jesus are changed to more neutral language (so Jesus is not
called “Son of Man” but “son of a human being”).
Translational gender sensitivity: This approach renders terms to make clear the
gender scope of passages, especially when they use an all-encompassing reference to
man or mankind to address both men and women. So, e.g., the rendering of a term that
is translatable as “men” is made into “men and women” when the meaning intention
or application of a passage is broad and not gender specific.
Which of these two translation approaches is more correct, in your opinion? Tell
why you think so.
 How would you handle the following case in point (Bock 2005:174)? Discuss it
with reference to English and then suggest the relevance of such gender issues, if
any, in your language and culture:
Gen 1.26-27: Is the context clear that the reference to âdâm includes both male and
female (see Gen 1.27 and the reference to male and female)? What should be the
translation at the start of the verse? Should it be God created man/mankind/humankind/
humanity in his own image? Is either generic “man” or “humanity” or “humankind”
acceptable for “God created man”? Are any of these translations really wrong? Which
is clearer? One might argue that for clarity the rendering of “humankind” is a better
rendering in the target language to show the scope of who is created in the image of
God [i.e., both male and female], since humankind is awkward and “man” might imply
only males are meant. “Mankind” is also a solid rendering.
 Does “humankind”, “mankind”, or “humanity” still emphasize the male component

too much? If you think so, what alternative rendering do you suggest? Does the fact
that Gen. 1:27 is a poetic passage in Hebrew make any difference to your translation
technique? Give reasons for your response on this literary point.
Signs make meaning in context

We see then that the conceptual activity which develops during productive thought
and purposeful communication, verbal as well as non-verbal, is the collective outcome
not only of the occurrence of significant signs, whether individual or in combination,
but also of the enveloping social context that surrounds all human thinkers and word-
producers (and processors). These semiotic signs may be represented and transmitted
in the material form of any sensory medium, including their diverse combinations,
e.g., musical accompaniment to a song. Context, in turn, as relevance theorists have
correctly pointed out, is not a concrete physical reality, not even the surrounding verbal
discourse. Rather, it is a psychological notion – consisting of a person’s memory, the
present discernible setting, the current discourse (or ostensible signs), the quality of
her or his mental state, plus any other stimuli that happen to impinge upon his or her
perception at the moment. To simplify reference to all these possible influences, I have
employed the notion of cognitive “frames” according to which different kinds of experi-
ences and fields of knowledge are collected, categorized, and organized for use.
The theory of conceptual network formation further specifies the process of
mental representation in terms of the specific domains of information that appear to be
60 Ernst Wendland
activated during the processing of a discourse. As suggested in the preceding discus-

sion, the relevant source and target conceptual spheres, textual and/or extratextual,
are not simply merged together as individual units of information. Rather, they are
selectively mixed in a particular setting of communication to create a blended cogni-
tive construct that is greater than the sum of the individual realms of knowledge and
experience of which it is composed. The more distinct semantic domains involved, of
course, the more complex the overall mental representation that results, and the more
novel the cognitive elements that are potentially generated, including those evoked
by various images, figures of speech, and rhetorical tropes. One must keep in mind,
as Dooley points out, that “the most important thing to be transferred is the mental
representation that the author intended to convey by means of the text” (2006:4).
The preceding examples have suggested the urgent need for communicators to
provide the sociocultural frames necessary to offer their target audience the possibil-
ity, at least, of arriving at an acceptable interpretation of a given Scripture text. Every
passage, whether orally or visually presented, requires the appropriately contextual-
ized cognitive background for its proper understanding and application. Otherwise,
the text’s desired effect in terms of communicative quantity and quality (including
affective impact and aesthetic appeal) cannot occur. In the absence of an adequate
mental grasp of the original biblical setting, today’s readers readily appropriate the
situational context most immediate in their current thinking, often one that is overly
domesticated in terms of their own world-view, value system, social circumstances,
and the local physical environment. Consequently, some type of communication failure
or malfunction is bound to occur – to a greater or lesser extent, and with more or less
adverse consequences in terms of information loss, distortion, or unwanted semantic
addition. We will see this problem illustrated again when John’s prophetic vision of
Revelation is considered in chapter 8.
EXERCISE-12
 Give an example of a Bible passage that is nearly always misunderstood unless people
are given a proper frame of reference to understand the original text in relation to their
own cultural and religious setting. Suggest a brief explanatory note that would clarify
the problem that you have pointed out here.
 Whose job is it to bridge this communication gap – that of the preacher, teacher,
translator, or that of the people to whom he is/they are communicating? Explain your
position on this matter, with reasons.
EXERCISE-13
Roman Jakobson observed that whereas interlingual translation involves the transfer of
signs from one language to another, an intersemiotic translation involves the complete
replacement of the verbal signs of a given message by non-verbal signs (Hatim and
Munday 2004:5). Nowhere is this more apparent, or challenging, than in the transla-
tion of a written text into “sign language.” This is evident from the following “case
study,” an excerpt from a report on translating the Bible into LESCO (Costa Rican
Sign Language) (Tamez 2006). First, we learn about a few aspects of the difficulty of
the sign-replacement process and then about the importance of the “signers” function-
ing as “signs” themselves during the communication process:
The LESCO translation and all other sign language translations require a decoding
of the discourse before translating the text into sign language. … [W]e first have to
clearly understand the main ideas from the morpho-syntactic level. After this we must
visualize the content including places and orientations in a step by step order. This is
the cognitive level. At this level it is important to sketch the scenes in order to visual-
ize them. As we all know, [in Bible translation] we have to add inferred information.
This step is very important for understanding the meaning. From this third [cognitive]
level the second level emerges: this is the sign language translation. For instance:
to translate this phrase into LESCO: “All went to their own towns to be registered”
(Lk. 2.3), the signer has to visualize different contexts and different families register-
ing in these contexts... In addition, it is important to include an opposition for better
understanding; i.e., it is important to say that a person who belongs to a certain place
(context) cannot be registered in another place (context) but only in the birth place of
his descendents. For this reason, in Lk. 2.5 it was necessary to add that Joseph couldn’t
be registered in Nazareth... This resulted in the LESCO translation being longer than
the audio Spanish translation. This created some difficulties in matching the audio and
the subtitles with the signing… (p.4)
In LESCO, facial gesture and body communication are used together with hand signs.
Many manual signs are ultimately defined by facial and body gestures since a sign can
represent different meanings. Therefore, rhetorical questions were easy to translate
because both facial and manual gestures were part of the translation. See, for example,
in Lk 18:8 “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? The rhetorical
aspect of the question is easily understood because of the gestures. … It seems that
people who communicate in LESCO [also] need to see the signs repeated to confirm
their comprehension. This occurs in our video. In the commentaries of the biblical
stories, translators felt it necessary to review details of the story before they related its
meaning with the deaf community. This fact was confirmed when a draft of the video
was presented to deaf representatives from different churches. They reaffirmed the
importance of the repetition when it was questioned by a hearing person. I am unsure
if repetition is this important in other sign languages. (p.5)
The selection of signers is a very important task. In addition to the characteristics of

all projects of translation in a written tongue (translators whose ‘mother tongue’ is sign
language and church, gender and generation representation), other aspects should be
taken into account. For example, appearance: since Bible translation in sign language
goes together with the person who signs the text, his or her look and personality should
be pleasing to the deaf community, so that the translation may be well received. A
related aspect is that signers and translators might be different persons. We would like
translators to be able to sign as well. However, this is not always possible: translators
can only translate and the signers can only sign. … Before each recording the whole
team was very attentive to the appearance of the model signers: signer translators well
combed, faces made up, t-shirts well ironed, no shining studs, and so on. (p.8)
62 Ernst Wendland
 List what you feel are the two most significant differences between a Bible transla-
tion in sign language and the type of translation that you are presently doing.
 Did you note any principle or procedure from the preceding report that has relevance
to your current translation project? If so, mention what this was.
 Point out some of the ways in which the situational context, or setting of use, in-
fluences the production of a signed translation, just as in the case of written/printed
Bible version.
 Do you have a large deaf community in your country? If you do not know the
answer, try to find out. Does this community have a signed Scriptures (or portion)
available in their language? If so, give the details. If not, how is the Bible being
communicated to this group? Is there a special need here that needs to be followed
up on? Explain.
 Carry out similar research as above for the visually impaired community in your
country. Are their Bible needs being met? Summarize the current situation and what
may be done to create an appropriate frame of reference for them to receive and better
understand the Scriptures.
EXERCISE-14
In Exercise 3 of the preceding chapter we considered different generalized aspects of

the “ancient personality” of Bible times. A more precise way to investigate the diverse
culturally-based value system and associated behavior of the Ancient Near Eastern
world is to adopt some of the key concepts and tools of so-called social-scientific
criticism. The aim of these researchers is to “present models and scenarios of Medi-
terranean norms and values over against which the texts might be appropriately read”
(these and subsequent quotes come from the insightful studies to be found in Malina
and Rohrbaugh [M&R] 1992, used by permission). This socio-anthropological ap-
proach is “an attempt to provide the reader with fresh insight into the social system
shared by the authors” of the Scriptures and their original ANE audiences – that
is, “the range of meanings that would have been plausible” to listeners (or the rare
readers) of Bible times and whose significance is usually left implicit in the biblical
text (ibid:14).
 The following is a selection of some of the main values and social determiners of
Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) life – that is, their default cognitive frames of reference
which normally governed their words and actions in different public situations. The
brief summary definitions come from M&R (with my inter-polations in brackets).
First, determine whether or not you agree with the analysis or description that has
been given by M&R (1992, page number references in parentheses). Then discuss
the biblical passage that is given as an example of each principle and determine the
degree of conceptual correspondence with the perspective of most people in your cur-
rent cultural setting. Is some explanation necessary to clarify any major differences
in thinking or behavior? If so, suggest a brief note to this effect. Then find another
example of this same value or principle in a different passage of Scripture, one from
the Old Testament if possible.
a) Honor – Shame: “Unlike our Western guilt-oriented society, the pivotal

value of the Mediterranean society of the first century was honor-shame. …
‘[H]onor’ and ‘glory’ refer to the same reality, that is, the public acknowl-
edgment of one’s worth or social value. … Since honor [whether ascribed
or acquired] is a limited good, if one person wins honor, someone else
loses. Envy is thus institutionalized and subjects anyone seeking to outdo
his neighbors to hostile gossip and the pressure to share. Challenges to one’s
honor could be positive or negative. Giving a gift is a positive challenge and
requires reciprocation in kind. An insult is a negative challenge that likewise
cannot be ignored. … One can ‘be shamed,’ and this refers to the state of
publicly known loss of honor. This is negative shame. But to ‘have shame’
means to have concern about one’s honor. This is positive shame. It can be
understood as sensitivity for one’s own reputation (honor) or the reputation
of one’s family” (76-77). Mt. 20:9-16
b) Challenge – Riposte: In the shame-honor world of the Gospels, “the game

of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played
out in public. It consists of a challenge (almost any word, gesture, or action)
that seeks to undermine the honor of another person and a response that
answers in equal measure or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return).
Both positive (gifts, compliments) and negative (insults, dares) challenges
must be answered to avoid a serious loss of face. In the Synoptic Gospels
Jesus evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to
be an honorable and authoritative prophet” (42). Mt. 4:1-11
c) Love – Hate: “First-century Mediterranean persons were extremely group ori-

ented. They learned that a meaningful human existence required total reliance
on the group in which one found oneself embedded. [This reflects the so-called
“dyadic,” or socially interactive and embedded, “other-oriented” personality.]
This primarily meant the kin group, the village group, the neighborhood,
and/or the factions one might join. …The result of such group orientation
was an anti-introspective way of being. Persons had little concern for things
psychological. … The term ‘love’…is best translated ‘group attachment,
attachment to some person.’ … There may or may not be affection, but it is
the inward feeling of attachment along with the outward behavior bound up
with attachment that love entails. … Correspondingly, ‘hate’ would mean
‘disattachment, nonattachment, indifference.’ Again, there may or may not
be feelings of repulsion” (57). Mt. 5:43-44
d) Patron – Client: “Patron-client systems are socially fixed relations of gen-

eralized reciprocity between social unequals in which a lower-status person
in need (called a client) has his needs met by having recourse for favors
to a higher-status, well-situated person (called a patron). … Patrons were
powerful individuals who controlled resources and were expected to use
their positions to hand out favors to inferiors based on ‘friendship,’ personal
knowledge and favoritism. … Brokers mediate between patrons above and
clients below. … Clients were those dependent on the largesse of patrons
or brokers to survive well in their society. They owed loyalty and public
acknowledgment of honor in return. Patronage was voluntary but ideally
64 Ernst Wendland
lifelong. … In the New Testament the language of grace is the language or

patronage” (74-75). Lk. 7:1-10
e) Purity – Pollution: “One traditional way of talking about such an overall

system of meaning is called the purity system, the system of pure (in place)
and impure (out of place) or the system of clean (in place) and unclean (out
of place). … Such purity distinctions embody the core values of a society
and thereby provide clarity of meaning, direction of activity, and consistency
for social behavior. … Purity systems thus provide ‘maps’ designating social
definitions or bounded categories in which everything and everybody fits
and is considered clean or does not and is regarded as defiled. These socially
contrived maps provide boundaries that fit over individuals, over groups, over
the environment, over time, and over space. These boundaries are known to
everyone enculturated in the society, so that one knows when one’s behavior
is ‘out of bounds.’ Cleaning, purification, refers to the process of returning
matter (or persons) to its proper place” in the social order (318-319). Mt.
12:1-14
f) Ingroup – Outgroup: “One of the basic and abiding social distinctions made
among first-century Mediterraneans was that between ingroup and outgroup
persons. A person’s ingroup generally consisted of one’s household, extended
family, and friends. The boundaries of an ingroup were fluid; ingroups could
and did change… Ingroup members are expected to be loyal to each other
and to go to great lengths to help each other (Luke 11:5-9). They are shown
the greatest consideration and courtesy; such behavior is rarely, if ever, ex-
tended to members of outgroups. … [T]he house of Israel could look at the
rest of the world as one large outgroup, ‘the (other) nations,’… The factional
boundaries of ingroups and outgroups are well-marked in the Gospels…[the
outermost groups from the Pharisees’ perspective being ethnic Samaritans
and ritually-impure “sinners.”]. By asking a person for a favor, one in effect
extended to the person an implicit invitation for membership in one’s ingroup”
(88-89). Jn. 4:1-42
g) Rich – Poor: “In ancient Palestine, the common perception was that all
goods existed in finite, limited supply and were already distributed. …
This included not only material goods, but honor, friendship, love, power,
security, and status as well – literally everything in life. The pie could never
grow larger; hence a larger piece for anyone automatically meant a smaller
piece for someone else. … The word ‘rich’ describes a social condition rela-
tive to one’s neighbors: the rich are shamelessly strong. To be labeled ‘rich’
was therefore a social and moral statement as much as an economic one. It
meant having the power or capacity to take from someone weaker what was
rightfully his. Being rich was synonymous with being greedy. Similarly, the
term ‘poor’ should be understood in concrete terms, though not exclusively
in economic terms. The ‘poor’ are persons unable to maintain their inherited
honor standing in society because of misfortune or the injustice of others.
Being poor meant being defenseless, without recourse. … The focal source of
power (hence wealth) in Israel was the Temple” (251-252). Lk. 16:19-31
 Can you think of some other prominent social polarity or crucial value that is fea-
tured in the biblical literature? If so, describe it along with an example or two.
 Does this sociocultural frame pose any problems in understanding for your pri-
mary target audience? Prepare a short cross-cultural comparative analysis, including
a summary of the communicative relevance of this particular feature in relation to
your present-day life situational setting.
EXERCISE-15
The new opportunities made possible by electronic sign delivery systems and the
internet are becoming increasingly important to communicators of the Scriptures
worldwide. They are rapidly creating a dynamic and flexible new “frame of reference”
that needs to be given much more attention in terms of research, trial application, and
testing. But is there more involved than simply novel methods of communication?
The following excerpt suggests that, indeed, different mental processing faculties are
engaged in situations of “secondary orality,” which may render electronic texts (or
“hypertexts”) much more amenable and accessible to certain societies and sub-groups
that have not responded well to the printed word. Study the following selections (from
Spielmann and Wiens 2003:4-7) and use these ideas as the basis for a group discussion
concerning issues such as the following:
 How important is “secondary orality” in your culture, and what sort of research
supports your conclusion?
 Evaluate the characterization of electronic “hypertext” communication given below

– do you have anything to add, correct, or query?
 How effective would a hypertext presentation of the Bible (or portions of it) be in
your social setting?
 Would a certain group be likely to respond as reported in Hawaii or as projected in

indigenous American communities? Explain your answer. If you do not know, how
might you find the information needed to draw a reliable conclusion?
 If you have been involved in the production of a hypertext version of the Scriptures
of any kind, describe the essential procedures, including the main problems encoun-
tered and solutions discovered.
 How do you test the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of such electronic me-
dia products? (You may have to wait to answer this question until you have worked
through chapter 10.)
[N]ow electronic media has ushered in a new shift that is restructuring the way we
think. Secondary orality (also called at times oral literacy or electronic orality) is orality
mainly in the ways in which it manifests communication styles and thought processes
similar to primary orality. …
66 Ernst Wendland
Hypertext is a key element in the technology surrounding secondary orality. Hyper-

text has been defined as “nonsequential writing - text that branches and allows choices
to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived, this is a series
of text chunks connected by links which offer the reader different pathways” (Nelson,
0/2). It is not limited to text, but can include graphics, sound, video - any information
that can be digitized. …
Within hypertext format, a text is no longer a unit unto itself. It always occurs
within a field of other texts. It may be linked to other text that supports or contradicts,
that clarifies or questions. The text becomes part of a complex dialogue: “Hypertext
fosters integration rather than self-containment, always situating texts in a field of other
texts” (Landow and Delany, 13). Unlike a printed book, it does not exist in isolation.
Bolter (1991, 58-59) points out several ways in which texts in hypertext format
more closely resemble oral discourse than they do conventional printing. First, just as
oral poetry was composed of formulaic blocks within which the audience interpreted
the story, so electronic writing is also highly associative, with the pattern of associations
among verbal elements being as much a part of the text as the elements themselves.
Second, electronic text and oral text are both dynamic and flexible, i.e., the audi-
ence or reader has a role to play in both. … In oral text, the audience would have “the
opportunity to affect the telling of the tale by their applause or disapproval.” … In
Lanham’s words, “the electronic audience is radically interactive” (76). Fowler adds:
“It is impossible to be a passive reader of hypertext. ...the reader must pick and choose
her way from node to node, thus determining the ‘text’ to be read.”
Third, secondary orality generates a strong group sense. The new media appeal to
the group rather than to the individual. “They offer a shared, not a private, experience”
(Silverstone, 148). Marshall McLuhan’s “global village” is characterized by our cul-
ture of secondary orality. As well, it is close to life, based on hands-on apprenticeship
learning rather than distancing and objectification (Warschauer, 173).
Secondary orality is not a return to illiterate orality. It has “continuing dependence
on the analytical and technical and narrative skills that in turn depend on print” (Sil-
verstone, 148). The formula is replaced “by the slogan and by the planned spontaneity
of group experiences. The new orality is action-oriented and thus is oriented to the
future, not to the past” (Silverstone, 148).
In many ways secondary orality is multisensory. Perceptual presentation (e.g. video
or animation) often displaces or replaces verbal text (Bolter 1996). In traditional print, text
contained the important thoughts, pictures were subordinate, “they are texts of a certain
kind; they suggest a writing space that is stable and monumental” (Bolter 1996).
Warschauer quotes a Hawaiian student he interviewed who was involved in a study
of students being introduced to electronic literacy: “You know, Hawaiians they weren’t
a written culture, and I think there’s a reason for that, you know they were very alive
with everything, so if they’re gonna be writing I think this is a great medium because
they can be alive here. They can kind of be artistic and do something creative, so, I
think it’s very good, and ... a lot of pride can come through there” (107).
Warschauer’s research findings in Hawaii support our own observations in North
America that electronic literacy (i.e. the culture of secondary orality), is far more ap-
pealing to indigenous peoples than the traditional culture of literacy. It is apparent to
those of us who have worked with Inuit and First Nations peoples in Canada that the
culture of literacy which missionaries and the dominant Canadian society attempted
to instill in these communities has not been widely adopted by them. Warschauer says
that, “My observations and interviews yielded evidence that students were keenly
aware of the new medium they were writing in and that they felt that the media was
very appropriate to their Hawaiian cultural traditions. Almost all students showed keen
interest in learning the design features of the Web medium” (Warschauer, 106). …
Warschauer’s research and our own observations lead us to postulate the “aboriginal
leap” in indigenous communities. We are suggesting that while indigenous communities
in North America, by and large, did not embrace the culture of literacy brought to them
by European immigrants and missionaries, they are jumping into the age of electronic
literacy (i.e. secondary orality) as enthusiastically as the dominant society around them.
The most evident limitation to greater participation in electronic communication by people
living in First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada is access to electronic media.
There is a need for further research to test this hypothesis, but our initial observa-
tions would support the conclusion that given equal access, participation in the culture
of “secondary orality” would be at least as great in these communities as in North
American society generally.
References (for this exercise):
Bolter, Jay David. 1996. “Degrees of freedom.” http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~bolter/de-

grees.html.
Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writ-
ing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Gronbeck, B.E., T.J. Farrell, and P.A. Soukup (eds). 1991. Media, consciousness, and
culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s thought. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Fowler, Robert M. 1994. “How the secondary orality of the electronic age can awaken
us to the primary orality of antiquity or What hypertext can teach us about the Bible
with reflections on the ethical and political issues of the electronic frontier.” Paper
presented at SBL, Semiotics and Exegesis Section. http://homepages.bw.edu/~rfowler/
pubs/secondoral/.
Landow, George P. and Paul Delany. 1991. “Hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies:
The state of the art.” In P. Delany and G.P. Landow (eds.), Hypermedia and literarys-
Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3-50.
Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nelson, Theodor Holm. 1990. Literary machines: the report on, and of, Project Xanadu
concerning word processing, electronic publishing, hypertext, thinkertoys, tomorrow’s
intellectual revolution, and certain other topics including knowledge, education and
freedom (Ed. 90.1). Sausalito, CA: Mindful Press.
Silverstone, Roger. 1991. “Television, rhetoric, and the return of the unconscious in sec-
ondary oral culture.” In Media, Consciousness, and Culture, 147-159.
Warschauer, Mark. 1999. Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online
Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. The rights and responsibilities of allegiance
Organizational frames
What is an organization?
As a separate sub-group within any current sociocultural setting, an “organization”
may be defined in a general sort of way from four different perspectives, each of which
may be characterized by a distinct frame of reference. Thus, based on the information
derived from several dictionaries, we may take the term organization to refer to:
1. A group of persons who voluntarily come together to work as an “organized” (catego-

rized, arranged, interrelated, coordinated, etc.) body in order to manifest a particular
intellectual position or cause and perform a related purpose in society.
2. The management personnel whose job it is to see to it that all the persons who be-
long to an organization carry out their respective functions for the good of the entire
group.
3. The formal administrative structure, which is normally arranged, stratified, or codified

in some official way, through which a group of individuals cooperate in an efficient
manner to perform a particular goal, task, or business.
4. The entire abstract establishment consisting of the three previously mentioned aspects
of an organized group that functions as an ordered, purposeful whole (1 + 2 + 3 = 4).
Ideally, the first three aspects – consisting of personal as well as several institutional
dimensions, along with their associated perspectives and/or aims – overlap and operate
together to a sufficient degree to promote the smooth functioning of the corporate body
as a whole (#4). But this does not always happen, especially in times of uncertainty,
dispute, or crisis for the organization (perhaps even the society at large), and as a
result its desired goals are not fully or satisfactorily accomplished.
A Christian “church” denomination [4], for example, consists of a diverse asso-
ciation of people who to a greater or lesser extent affirm and adhere to a common set
of religious beliefs and practices [1]. “Ordinary” members of the group are usually
“managed” (“shepherded” – or “herded”?) by trained or specially recognized person-
nel (“clergy”), who may constitute a formal or informal hierarchy (e.g., priest – bishop
– archbishop – cardinal – pope versus a single higher level of “elder”) [2]. The entire
group normally operates according to an explicit set of doctrinal principles (e.g., a
“confession of faith”) within some kind of ecclesiastical administrative structure that
may be more or less formal and ritualized in worship practice [3]. In the course of
history, certain significant alterations or even a complete transformation may occur
in the respective perspectives of [1], [2], and/or [3], resulting in a serious predica-
ment or dilemma that affects the unity and harmony of the entire institution [4] – as
represented by a “synodical” polity for example.
The rights and responsibilities of allegiance 69
In a typical church body, the primary motivation and initiation for change usu-
ally comes from the clergy [2], such as the recent drive to promote the ordination
of women and homosexuals as priests in the Episcopal Church of America. Such a
move is currently prohibited by traditional church teaching and practice [3], the of-
ficial statement of which would have to be formally modified for any change to take
place. This is widely opposed by the laity [1], who tend to be more conservative in
their outlook than clerics. The result is a serious controversy that threatens to split
the worldwide Anglican fellowship [4], both within individual member churches and
also the denomination as a whole, for example, in many national synods of Africa.
Attempts to resolve this controversy are not meeting with much success because the
antithetical cognitive frames are based upon and influenced by major hermeneutical
differences with regard to the interpretation of certain key passages of the Bible (e.g.,
Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 14:34-35; 2 Timothy 2:11-12).
EXERCISE-1
 What is the official position [3] of your church denomination [4] concerning
the controversies that involve the ordination of clergy mentioned above? Is there
a significant difference between the clergy [2] and the laity [1] with regard to such
sociological as well as religious issues? If so, explain what the respective differences
are – and how the church is trying to resolve them. If ordination is not a “theologi-
cal” issue in your denomination, do you perhaps have some other critical source of
controversy? If so, how do the various aspects of “organization” relate to the main
differences of opinion?
 How do prevailing sociocultural frames of reference, as discussed in the preceding

chapter, influence or affect such group organizational matters – with respect to both
the disputed passages of Scripture and also the widespread secular (social, govern-
mental, business-related) calls for “human rights” or “equal opinions” for all? What
do you think is the best way to modify or transform a firmly established cognitive
perception or deep-seated attitude either one way or the other? Does this depend on
the issues involved – or who is attempting to change whom and why? Explain your
own position on these crucial but highly sensitive matters.
 How does this situation change if, instead of a church denomination, we consider
the national Bible Society (or another translation agency) as general factor [4] with
respect to these issues?
 In view of the current state of affairs in your community and culture with respect to
the organizational issues affecting pastoral or priestly ordination, is there any move in
the Christian community at large to modify or completely change the current transla-
tions of the four Scripture passages mentioned above? What about their “accepted”
or “official” interpretations? If so, explain what the main differences or opposing
positions are regarding this ecclesiastical as well as translational matter.
 Is the case being argued principally on exegetical grounds (i.e., with reference to
the original biblical sociocultural setting) or in terms of widespread public opinion
– that is, not only within the church, but with respect to society in general?
70 Ernst Wendland
 Point out and explain any problems that you happen to note in your vernacular
translation of these four passages (with regard to any controversy noted above). If
you detect any difficulties, suggest how they might be resolved through inter-group
negotiation and compromise.
The matter of interacting, mutually influential organizational frames of reference

is of central consideration in Bible translation work. Any national Bible Society is
part of a large network of religious as well as secular organizations, associations, and
agencies that sponsor and support the mission of Scripture production and distribu-
tion throughout the world. As was noted earlier, the mother body, the United Bible
Societies (UBS), is a worldwide fellowship composed of some 200 independent
national groups that share a common ethos, purpose, and motivation – all of which
center upon communicating the Word of God in an accurate, appropriate (i.e., for a
particular use or setting), acceptable (i.e., to the majority), and affordable manner on
behalf of a designated audience group.
Every national society, however, does have its own localized perspective and
rationale – one that is shaped and influenced by its unique history, location, cultural
setting, religious environment, and resources, including the various churches and
para-church groups that support it financially and otherwise. Each society also has an
internal organization that may differ in certain respects from that of others in the UBS,
although there are usually several general areas of operation that are common to all, for
example: administration, translation, publication, distribution, and Scripture product
promotion. If a UBS translation consultant happens to be resident in the country, a
major agency of the national society will often be a translation center, at which all local
and sometimes regional work is coordinated and managed. In Zambia, for example,
the Lusaka Bible Translation Centre (LBTC) has the following specified goals (as
published on the national Bible Society website: www.biblesociety-zambia.org):
• To help local churches to organize and manage an efficient, well-administered pro-

gramme for the purposes of translating the Scriptures accurately and acceptably in
their language for an explicitly defined target audience and according to clearly-stated
principles and procedures.
• To arrange for the selection and training of competent and committed translators, a
computer keyboarder, and draft reviewers for the project.
• To carefully monitor Bible translation work in each project from start to finish, in-
cluding periodic quality assessment by means of various text-checking exercises and
audience testing procedures.
• To advise each project administration on all aspects of the translation work, including
final certification that a given Scripture text and product is approved for publication

According to the latest UBS World Report (No. 409, March 2007), “(t)he number of languages
into which at least one complete book of the Bible has been translated reached 2,426 at the end of
2006” meaning that “95 percent of the world’s population theoretically had access to Scripture in a
language they could understand. … Along with three new Bibles, the [report] lists 31 New Testaments
[including Mambwe-Lungu of north-eastern Zambia], of which five are the first reported Scripture
publications in those languages” (p. 3). For the UBS, “[t]ranslation remains at the heart of our task.
… It is currently involved in more than 500 translation projects worldwide…” (p. 5).
via the appropriate medium.

• To conduct relevant, translation-related research in the field of Zambian languages
and literature (orature), also with regard to Scripture needs as well as post-publication
usage (text-context consumer engagement).
• To assist translation projects in carrying out basic literacy work as well as new-reader,
special-audience, and non-print Scripture media productions (audio, video, musical,
radio, electronic).
• To promote the wider understanding and use of the Scriptures as well as greater
support for Bible translation in Zambia through various publications, educational
seminars, and public talks about the many different aspects of this foundational
Christian ministry, including the composition and nature of the Bible itself.
The important thing to note with regard to this listing is not so much the specific
objectives themselves, for these might well vary, or be interpreted and implemented
somewhat differently, from one regional translation center to the next. Rather, it is
the existence of the entire package of aims and responsibilities that creates a mental
framework and corporate ethos which guides staff members when carrying out their
individual and communal work assignments. This organizational philosophy also
establishes an essential set of task-related expectations with respect to the national
Bible Society, on the one hand, and the individual translation projects on the other.
Every National Bible Society (NBS) has its own charter or constitution that
establishes its legal existence as an official “non-profit” (or “charitable”) association
within the country as well as its various principles and procedures of operation as
these relate to the composite work of Scripture translation, publication, distribution,
and promotion within the geographical area concerned. Within this highest level of
organization then, the local Bible Translation Center (BTC) functions as the techni-
cal-support agency that is specifically charged with the responsibility of producing
Scripture texts that are suitable for publication for specified target audiences or church
bodies. The BTC must be independent enough to carry out its work efficiently – that
is, without interruption or interference on the part of NBS personnel. On the other
hand, the BTC must also recognize its vital role within the overall operations of the
NBS as well as a constituency of local churches and strive to keep their various in-
terrelationships harmonious and cooperative through joint consultations, workshops,
problem-solving sessions, and mutual support activities (e.g., in the areas of Scripture
distribution, fund-raising, and product testing).
In recent years, every UBS-sponsored translation project – namely, the local
Administrative Committee (AC) – is encouraged at the outset to draw up its own
contextualized, setting-sensitive, statement of general policies, principles, and op-
erating procedures. This job commission constitutes the project’s official position
statement and production guide (sometimes technically termed a translation Brief). It
thus acts as a mental as well as a material framework within which and according to
the project is ideally supposed to be administered, managed, and evaluated for quality
control. This document also explicitly sets forth information concerning the primary
communicative goal of the translation (or Skopos), the principal target audience and
setting of use, the medium of transmission, proposed schedule of completion, staff
job descriptions, conditions of service, measures for evaluating the effectiveness of
72 Ernst Wendland
various draft versions and preliminary publications – in short, anything that pertains
to the overall production process from beginning to ending (and sometimes thereafter,
e.g., in the case of post-production testing and periodic revision).
The formulation of such a job commission means that any Bible translation
nowadays, no matter what the type, is never the project or product of a small group
of translators – let alone a single “one-man” version. Rather, a large network of
professional staff as well as non-specialist supporters is, ideally, welded into a coor-
dinated human “production line” that requires many different tasks to be performed.
In addition to the small team of translators (usually three members having different
functions), there must be capable administrators, technical exegetical, linguistic, and
stylistic advisers, reviewers, testers and researchers, fund-raisers and project promot-
ers. In particular, a competent and well-trained corps of gate-keepers is needed to
continually monitor and oversee both the semantic content and the literary (or other
media-related) quality of the final Scripture product with regard to its textual as well as
extra-textual features (e.g., typographical format and printed presentation, illustrations
and maps, introductions, notes, cross references, and so forth). In addition, a corps of
capable “public relations” (PR) spokespersons must be educated and commissioned
to explain the rationale, purpose, and current progress of the translation to a diverse
assortment of sponsors and other interested or concerned parties: different church
denominations, government agencies (e.g., a national orthographic governing body),
ethnic associations and culture-support groups (especially in the case of neglected or
marginalized languages), perhaps even a “non-government organization” (NGO) or
two (e.g., World Vision).
The preceding summary of the several distinct organizational levels that may be
simultaneously engaged in a specific Bible translation project indicates that this is a
rather complicated enterprise. Since Scripture production is a joint, highly interactive,
long-term operation, it clearly requires the fullest cooperation from all supporting
partners. Their mutual efforts are also vulnerable to failures or limitations in any area
of the work, which can hinder a translation’s progress or even prevent its comple-
tion. Obviously, things do not always go according to plan or in keeping with the
originally proposed schedule. Over and above the expected problems relating to the
basic competence or commitment of key project personnel, financial shortfalls, and
equipment failures, there may also be ideological clashes and procedural inconsisten-
cies that can get in the way of progress. It is clear, therefore, that effective intra- and
inter-group communication and coordination is essential to keep such barriers to a
minimum and to promote a common vision and set of goals that all participants can
readily adopt as their own with a minimum of debate and disagreement. In addition
to dealing with matters that pertain to the translation text itself, an active production
committee may have to educate its target constituency with regard to issues about
the type of version being prepared – namely, for whom it is primarily intended and
for which particular settings of use.
EXERCISE-2
Consider the preceding discussion and the corresponding outline of the function of
“gatekeepers” given in Bible Translation: Frames of Reference (Wilt 2003:51) in the
light of a translation program that you know about or have participated in. If you have
no experience of this kind, then you might do some research concerning a specific
project at the local Bible Society (or some other Bible translation agency – WBT,
IBT, LBT, Pioneer, etc.).
 What are the major structural differences that you can detect in comparison with
those outlined above – and are (were) these beneficial or detrimental to the project
that you are investigating? Briefly describe your findings along with any suggestions
regarding organizational issues that you feel might increase the efficiency of operation
of any translation program, whether in general or in relation to a specific project.
The “efficiency” of any goal-oriented, production-focused organization’s operation in

terms of “quality control” depends on a number of critical factors, for example:
The aptitude and ability of the immediate production staff

The simplicity of operational and administrative procedures
The clarity of personal roles and responsibilities in relation to each other
The availability of resources and control mechanisms
The willingness to use all available resources and/or controls in the pursuit of excellence
The motivation and capabilities of those entrusted in a gatekeeping role of some kind
The skill of management and support staff (including advisory “experts” and consultants)
 Can you add any other factors to this list? How do they, taken together and man-
aged effectively, contribute to the perceptible improvement of the corporate “cognitive
environment” of any organization, a Bible translation program in particular?
 Do you have any positive or negative experiences in this respect – that is, a case
where you witnessed quality control being either adversely compromised or helpfully
enhanced due to the (non-) implementation of some vital gatekeeping mechanism?
 Most organizations have logos which identify them to the public. The various Bible
Societies of the world are no different. What conceptual frames of reference do you
access to understand the following logo? What is the primary message that this logo
seeks to communicate about the organization in terms of purpose and motivation?
Summarize the different aspects of interpreting this logo that you are aware of. How
“culture specific” is the logo – would it cause any difficulties for people in your world
region? If so, explain what the problems are:

This is the logo of the Bible Society of South Africa, accessed at their website: http://www.
biblesociety.co.za/.
74 Ernst Wendland
The quality of organizational relationships in any management structure depends

inevitably on the relative balance of variables that involve power and solidarity within
the group as a whole. One of the most important factors pertaining to both vertical
and horizontal interpersonal relations is the degree of dependency of one member
(group) upon another. For example, the more dependent that A is on B in terms of
essential resources (financial, technical, intellectual, or otherwise), the more power
that B has to influence and direct the thinking and behavior of A. On the other hand,
the more mutual dependence there is, that is, A on B, and B on A, to carry out some
joint objective, or to support a common cause (moral, social, political, etc.), the more
solidarity that normally exists between them, all other things being equal.
Such issues too can be usefully explored in terms of different frames of refer-
ence and the personal perspectives that govern how the current administrative and
operational systems are both analyzed and assessed. These matters concern all of
the factors listed above (and many more) – for example, with regard to the relative
“simplicity of… procedures” or “the clarity of personal roles and responsibilities.”
What the management regards as being a simple, straightforward operation may
be viewed as unduly complex or even unworkable by an uninformed or untrained
work force whose job it is to implement the desired procedures. On the other hand,
a well-informed and highly experienced corps of workers might come to a similar
conclusion about some hastily proposed management-initiated course of action. This
is why institution or organization-wide assessments need to be carried out at all levels
and catering for both directions of any hierarchy – that is, moving from top to bottom
and vice-versa. Similarly, it is helpful from time to time to give opportunity for one
colleague to evaluate the competency and compatibility of another on the same team.
A system in which only the supervisors rate those under their authority is not going
to be very helpful to the organization as a whole. Furthermore, performance reviews
of personnel are clearly dependent upon the degree of honesty and openness with
which they are made. When positive, eulogistic (but unrealistic) appraisals of others
are made in the hope of receiving a corresponding rating in return, the exercise will
not be very informative at all; the same goes for negative critical evaluations which
are acrimoniously traded back and forth.
Such management and other organizational issues are further explored in relation to
the operation of your own Bible translation program through the following exercises:
EXERCISE-3
A critical concern in many less affluent Bible Societies involves the relative amount
of local as opposed to national and – in turn – also international (e.g., UBS) resource
support for a given project. Consider (or do some research regarding) an active trans-
lation program that falls under the auspices of your local Bible society (or another
Bible translation agency):
 Who are the real “owners” (power brokers) of the project or program, and how is such
a judgment made and then perceived by the majority (the principal target audience)?
Who owns the copyright and who sets the translators’ conditions of service? Are there
ways in which the issue of support is transformed into different manifestations of

external control, whether overt or covert?
 How do the various participant groups view the current arrangement in your or-
ganization: Do they feel that inequities exist in the exercise of power, say, in terms
of the decision-making process anywhere along the line, for example, with regard to
the selection and supervision of translators, setting their conditions of service, de-
termining the translational type of the version being produced, the manner or means
of assessing stylistic and compositional quality, choosing which biblical books to
translate first, and so on?
 What affect does the situation considered above have on the intended user constitu-
ency? How much solidarity do they demonstrate and in which ways with respect to the
different phases of the production process: preparation – translation – improvement (revi-
sion) – production – promotion – utilization – assessment of the Scripture product?
 The notion of “gate keepers” brings up the issue of so-called “power relations” in
the socially constituted practice of Bible translating. Who is it that determines what
“context” will be used to define and monitor a given translation “event”? Who sets the
“rules of the game” in terms of authority or the “chain of command”? Who is respon-
sible to whom – why and on what basis? What are the key “ethical” issues involved,
and whose job is it to set the required parameters, controls, and monitors?
The participants in a Bible translation project may assume that these crucial variables
are well understood by all parties concerned. But nowadays this cannot be taken for
granted (if it ever could) – for example, in setting up the translators’ conditions of
service, or when attempting to ascertain the “quality” of an ongoing translation effort,
or when considering such seemingly straightforward matters as who owns the copy-
right to a published Bible translation? Pick out three relevant issues of this nature in
the light of your translation project and discuss them with reference to the following
excerpts from Baker (2006:327, 328, 329):
Translation studies scholars would therefore do well to adapt their methods of analysis
to allow for the fact that participants in a translation event can themselves define rather
than simply respond to the context that is sometimes assumed to surround them ‘stati-
cally’. And of course they can use language itself to do so.
[W]hile Basco et al. (2004) focus on elaborating categories of context and in that sense
may be seen to approach the issue from a static, taxonomic perspective, they neverthe-
less embed their description within the dynamic notion of a ‘behavior game’. Moreover,
they clearly inject their description with a dynamic view of context that acknowledges
the agency of participants when they argue that
“the recognition of the behavior game bid by the speaker does not bind the hearer
to play a particular role in the game. On the contrary, the hearer can decide to
accept or reject the proposed game, or to propose a different one, or to negotiate
a specific one” (Basco et al. 2004:471).
[I]t is of course not up to an individual participant alone to decide what is to count as

context at any moment. Hence, Duranti and Goodwin (1992:6), among others, stress
76 Ernst Wendland
that ‘‘in so far as the processes to which context is relevant are social and interactive,
one party’s proposals as to what should constitute operative context might fail to achieve
ratification by others’’ since ‘‘context is a socially constituted, interactively sustained,
time-bound phenomenon’’. A related, and more important point, is that most treatments
of context in the literature, … imply that context is a neutral field or framework in which
we play out our social roles, and that in order to take control of it and shape it to our ad-
vantage all we need to do is learn how to employ the appropriate contextualization cues.
Lindstrom (1992:103) explains that ‘‘however plotted, these models of context often grant
context an inert neutrality: context is a neutral field for the play of speech events, or is
the accumulation of cognitive schemata that are cued to foreground past understanding’’.
These models clearly fail to explain much of what goes on in interaction.
EXERCISE-4
 Read Paul’s discussion of the human body as a metaphor for the operation of a
Christian organization (1 Corinthians 12). How does this chapter furnish a textual
frame of reference that can help resolve problems that arise in the smooth running
of a certain joint enterprise like the Bible Society, or a local translation project?
Mention three particular applications that you can think of with reference to a trans-
lation organization fellowship that you belong to or participate in (local, national, or
international).
 Obviously, many organizational questions (and perhaps also controversies) need to

be answered before a particular translation project gets underway, or as soon thereafter
as possible. One way of accomplishing this is by incorporating such issues within
a project job commission, or Brief, which is designed to clearly state all the terms
of reference for the translation program, including its primary purpose (Skopos),
principles and procedures.
Say that you are on the planning committee of a new translation: what are some of the
main features that you feel ought to be included in its organizational charter (Brief)?
Try to be a specific as you can in relation to a particular local project that you have in
mind. Also consider such issues as project management, training, and support: How
are these vital aspects of the work to be monitored and evaluated in a manner that
gives (sufficient) power to the people for whom the version is ultimately intended?
 But where there is power – to use and manage resources – there must also be re-
sponsibility and accountability: how will you build these necessary ethics-related
components into your program in a demonstrable way?
EXERCISE-5
Try to do some research (if you do not know the answers to the following questions)
concerning the different churches that have official representatives who sit on the lo-
cal Bible Society Board of Directors (or the equivalent within some other translation
agency):
 How does the prevailing denominational constitution of this governing body cre-
ate a certain organizational “frame of reference” with respect to doctrine or practice
(e.g., “Episcopal” [Catholic-Anglican] – “Main-Line Protestant” – “Evangelical”
– “Pentecostal” – “Independent” ) that may be difficult for other churches to fit within
or cooperate with?
 It is especially important to note how many Catholic (or “Orthodox”) representatives

are present – also how many members of “non-traditional” Christian denominations
(e.g., “African Independent Churches”). What about Jehovah’s Witnesses who want
to buy your Bible translation(s): if they happen to be a large group in your country
(as in Zambia), should they be invited to become members of the national Bible
Society? Why or why not?
 If the board that you are investigating has no problems with regard to such issues,
how has this unanimity been accomplished? If certain problems exist, what do you
suggest may be done to resolve them?
EXERCISE-6
 Organizational control may also be exercised externally with respect to translation

policy. In other words, is the version under production intended to be relatively literal
in nature (i.e., “foreignized”) or correspondingly idiomatic (i.e., “domesticated”) – or
has the translational style been determined to fall somewhere in-between? What is the
situation in your setting – whether past, present, or future (planning)?
 How was this decision as to translation type (language level, register, or “style”)
made and by whom (who were the major “players” involved)? Were the different
viable options in the current situational setting clearly explained and fully discussed
in advance of the decision-making process? Who presented the relevant issues: was
there any possible skewing in the perspectives or opinions manifested?
 For many years, “common language” or “popular language” translations were

strongly promoted in both SIL and UBS circles. Nowadays the situation has
changed, and much more flexibility is allowed for adjustments to local conditions and
circumstances, including diverse audience groups and different Scripture products
(not only for printed texts, but also audio and video productions, comics, musical
versions, electronic hypertexts, and so forth). However, in some areas there may yet
be a strong tradition of translation policy and procedure that needs to be respected
and taken into consideration during the planning of any new project. The following,
for example, is a brief extract that outlines a typical Orthodox perspective on and
approach to Bible translation. Clearly, this particular composition – and theological
– “frame of reference” is very influential in a large region of Euro-Asia. Are you
working in circumstances that are similar to those outlined below? If so, summarize
your Bible translation policy.
This is very different from the translation tradition of the Orthodox Churches in the
East where the Sacred Inspiration is also present but not balanced by the Reformation
idea of perspicuitas (see Crisp 2000). There the Septuagintanisms and Hellenisms of
the Slavonic translations and the resulting strangeness and otherness of the text are

This case study is excerpted from a forthcoming article by Lourens de Vries in the Bible Translator
entitled, “Theology, spirituality and the skopos of Bible translations: the case of the Dutch
Statenvertaling”. It is used by permission of the Editor.
78 Ernst Wendland
positively welcomed because the ‘Orthodox tradition views language as an intrinsically

inadequate tool for comprehending the holy, and therefore as performing verbally a
symbolic role analogous to that enacted visually by icons. Just as the icon makes no
claim to be a photographic – or even essentially pictorial – depiction of the scene or
event it represents, but rather a window onto the timeless reality to which it testifies
and a mysterious means of mediating that reality to the worshipper, so the language
of Scripture cannot be a series of logical propositions with a single intended mean-
ing…The implications of this understanding of language for Bible translation are quite
considerable. Since the way in which language relates to the realities described in the
Bible is seen as a complex and mysterious process, an Orthodox approach would tend
to maintain in some way the status of the text as a window onto another world by
preserving a sense of the distance between the (modern) reader and the (ancient) text,
and by marking in some way the inherent strangeness or otherness of that text’ (Crisp
2000:6-7). For the Orthodox the Bible functions primarily in the liturgy and as an icon
in the sense indicated by Crisp. It is the Fathers, the patristic tradition, that forms the
exegetical and hermeneutical key to the Bible but these understandings of the Holy
Writ are not mediated in the translation but in the teaching of the Church.
EXERCISE-7
Table 4 displays some of the common organizational frames involved in Scripture

translation with some hypothetical target texts. It illustrates a number of the major
factors that influence a translation committee’s decision about what sort of a transla-
tion to aim for (as stated in their project agreement form, or job commission – the
Brief). The “product” side is merely one possible outcome, but this is not to say that
the “frame” specified will always give the same translational result. Translation frames
can also be combined to produce a “mixed” text output.
Framing feature Desired Scripture product

Strong church tradition Formal equivalence translation1
No biblical background Functional equivalence translation
Educated TL constituency Full Study Bible in several editions
Limited funds available Standard two-column text; few paratextual helps
Long history of writing High-level written style, “literary” type of version
First Bible translation Oral-oriented text, popular-language version
Long history of translation Wording of new text is restricted by common usage
in already published versions
Very few literates Common-language audio Scripture production
Table 4: Aspects of organizational frames in Bible translation
 Answer the following questions with reference to the examples of Table 4 (or the
closest TL equivalent in your setting):
a) Which “framing feature” or combination of them best characterizes the Bible

translation project that you are most familiar with?
b) What is the particular translation “Scripture product” which that project aims
to produce?
1
For a discussion of the crucial – albeit controversial – notion of “equivalence” in translation, see
Wendland 2004:84-94, 297-298; 2006:61-65; see also Evans and Krajewska 2006.
c) Which other combinations of “framing features” and “Scripture products”

can you think of?
d) Discuss this assertion: “The combination of a ‘strong church tradition’ and
‘no biblical background’ involves a contradiction in terms” (i.e., a clash in
the expected organizational frames). Can you think of any exception to this?
Consider the reverse situation – a weak church tradition but a strong biblical
background, is that possible? How does “biblical background” relate to local
efforts on behalf of Bible translation, in your area of experience?
EXERCISE-8
 The anthropologist Mary Douglas concludes that a culture’s beliefs, values, and
even personal taste are to a large extent passed along to individual members by the
societies in which they live. “For better or for worse, individuals really do share their
thoughts and they do to some extent harmonize their preferences, and they have no other
way to make the big decisions except within the scope of the institutions they build.”
(1986:128, cited in Bascom 2003). To what extent do you agree with this opinion?
Can you think of some salient exceptions from your social setting? If the assertion
is true, to what extent do you think that such beliefs (or institutional “filters”) can be
changed or modified – and how can this best be done?
 Some translation theorists are of the opinion that because the biblical text was
concerned with geography, culture, history, etc. far removed from their own, this same
distance, or “foreignness filter” ought to be represented also in any translation. From
this point of view, a translation’s function is not to reflect “What Jesus would have said
to us if he was here today” (i.e., a “domesticated filter”) but, rather, “What Jesus said
in Galilee to Peter” (i.e., a “foreignized filter”). What do you think about this differ-
ence of opinion – which perspective do you support, that of the “foreignizer” or that
of the “domesticator,” and why? In any case, what is a more important determining
factor in the debate: Who is to decide what sort of translation should be made – and
on what basis? What ethical issues are involved here in terms of both policy and
implementation, that is, to ensure that translators actually do the job that is expected
of and stipulated for them?
EXERCISE-9
 Consider the following quotation (Mojola 2003) with reference to the possibility
that certain organizational (ecclesiastical or denominational) “frames of reference”
can act as blinders to openness in interpretation, thus promoting “bibliolatry” while
at the same time hindering the process of Bible translation in a given setting:
The Bible is the Church’s book. No church can exist and carry out her historic mission
and ministry without appeal to the Scriptures. …. The old traditional and liturgical
churches of the northern continents need it. No less the new indigenous or the so-called
independent churches of the southern continents, or the charismatic and Pentecostal
80 Ernst Wendland
churches now mushrooming everywhere. A possible problem in this love affair between
church and Bible is the danger of bibliolatry – a legalistic and slavish appeal to the letter
rather than the spirit of the Scriptures, poorly lacking in sound exegesis or interpretation.
Undoubtedly this problem exists in some pockets where proper Biblical education is
lacking. It could and does lead to a certain fanaticism and intolerance, especially of
those whose positions may differ. Another danger relates to churches and individuals in
established and traditional Christian communities who have lost touch with the Bible
and prefer rather to refer to theological tomes and seminary textbooks, or the word
of their professors and former seminary teachers to validate or give authority to their
message. Both dangers exist and ought to be guarded against. The middle ground that
respects the Biblical text and also gives ear to theological and biblical scholarship is to
be commended.
 What can be done in your socio-religious setting to promote the so-called “middle
ground” (spoken of above) with respect to communicating the original Hebrew and
Greek texts of Scripture, that is, with reference to specific practical applications such
as interpretation, translation, church indoctrination, Bible education, multi-media
transmission, and so forth?
Empowering the organization

It has been customary in recent years for all large business and professional orga-
nizations to have some sort of department that is concerned with human resource
development (HRD). Its primary aim is to foster or facilitate a better cognitive,
emotional, and attitudinal framework for improved interaction on all organizational
levels. This is done by seeking to provide members with the communication skills
necessary to relate to each other more effectively and to be able to negotiate more
positively when interpersonal problems and clashes arise. Another important aim is
to train members in the capacity to evaluate in order to enhance past performance
with respect to the organization’s stated goals. From a UBS perspective, the HRD
department has the task of trying to clarify, harmonize, and interrelate the different
frames of reference that various employee or member groups operate under within
the organization as a whole. This is accomplished by various training courses and
associated pedagogical techniques that are intended to increase the communicative
proficiency of the people involved in any aspect of their joint corporate endeavor
– whether commercial, humanitarian, scholarly, religious, or any other.
For example, the following specific objectives were identified for an “essential
(communication) skills” course that was presented by an HRD coordinator to a group
of UBS translation consultants in 1995.

This UBS Human Resources Development Program workshop was held in Nairobi, Kenya in
November 20-24, 1995 and was facilitated by Dr. Jane Trent Surles and Ms. Glenda McQueen.
These goals are outlined on page one of the prepared training course notes which were distributed
to participants. The diagram here comes from the same source (p. 24), as does the subsequent,
considerably modified chart delineating the roles of “coach” and “consultant,” which originally
came as a separate handout.
At the end of training, participants will be able to:
• Function effectively as a caring and learning community which can freely

examine ideas and practice new skills.
• Understand the origin of individual differences and preferences.
• Describe clearly and affirm UBS values and operational priorities.
• Use essential skills to facilitate work.
• Describe and use the Performance Management Cycle.
• Adapt and apply the course learning in their work situations.
The crucial Performance Management Cycle (PMC) consists of a repeating sequence

of five basic steps, each of which builds upon the preceding one(s) to further develop
the cycle, as shown on the diagram of Figure 13.
Setting Goals
and
Creating an Agenda for Work
/ \
/ \
Providing Performance Feedback Planning Performance
\ /
\ /
Monitoring Work --------- Assigning Work
Figure
Figure TheThe
13:13: performance
performance management
management cyclecycle
This sort of PMC is clearly very task-oriented, but it should be remembered that
“work” (job performance) is only one facet treated the total training process. Other
essential aspects include vital “human-relation” skills, like learning to appreciate in-
dividual differences and functioning as a “caring community” in which each member
strives to facilitate and complement the abilities, roles, and assignments of others
within the group.
For the translation officer responsible, there is an obvious need to encourage a
positive and productive psychological environment that will support his (her) work as
a coach and/or a consultant. Each of these two roles and their associated responsibili-
ties may be activated when working with a particular translation team, depending on
its current situation and the specific organizational framework in which they are cur-
rently operating. For example, a consultant’s role may be more appropriate for a new,
inexperienced, not-completely competent team, whereas a coach-like procedure usually
works better with an experienced, highly qualified, more independent translation team.
But how do these clearly related and overlapping roles differ? The data given in Table
5 offers one comparative perspective on some of the primary “roles, function, and
skills for coaching and consulting”.
The roles of a coach and consultant, when competently carried out, are essential
to the operation of any organization, large or small. The goal is to encourage and
82 Ernst Wendland
COACH CONSULTANT
Role: operates directly to support and assist Role: exerts influence more indirectly by virtue
the members of a group to become more co- of his or her position, rank, assignment, etc. in
hesive, competent, and committed to superior order to stimulate, correct, and/or enhance the
performance; has the power or authority of performance of a certain group; plays an advi-
command in this effort to unlock the unique sory role to assist team members in recognizing
potential of every participant to maximize his problems, finding possible solutions, and facing
or her skills for the benefit of the entire team new challenges.
and its particular joint enterprise.
Main Functions: Main Functions:

• Counseling • Observing
• Mentoring • Questioning
• Training • Resource identifying
• Challenging • Problem solving
Special Skills: is able to do the activity Special Skills: is recognized and respected for
being undertaken – can train by illustration specialized knowledge in key areas related to
with regard to all aspects of the enterprise; project performance; able to diagnose, stimulate,
promotes unity and harmony in a joint activ- and facilitate dialogue, planning for achieve-
ity; generates respect (and obedience) due ment-based goals, and making decisions; trained
to all-around performance abilities; good monitor and evaluator.
strategist.
Application: Application:
> Consider this overview of a coach and > Consider this overview of a consultant
revise the description as necessary. and revise the description as necessary.
> Describe any personal experience that you > Describe any personal experience that you
may have had as a coach. may have had as a consultant.
> Identify the principal function of a coach > Identify the principal function of a consultant
and the skill most needed to achieve this. and the skill most needed to achieve this.
Table 5: Comparison of roles – “coach” and “consultant”
eventually establish a more efficient and effective working environment, or “corporate-

context,” to facilitate production. As suggested above, often the same person must
fulfill both areas of responsibility, alternating according to the circumstances between
coaching and consulting, while assisting a particular team and project. In particular,
coach-consultants carry out an important function in creating and controlling the
different frames of reference – whether individual or corporate, general or specific
– that enable the group to accomplish its objectives in a more context-sensitive and
people-oriented manner. Not everybody can serve in this crucial integrative capacity,
however; an unqualified, inexperienced, inept, or biased coach-consultant can easily
retard, undo, or even completely prevent progress from being made. It is important,
therefore, that such personnel be carefully selected, tried or tested, and trained for
their central communication-building role within any organization that is serious
about achieving interpersonal harmony and cooperation while on the road to success
in its primary endeavor(s).
EXERCISE-10
 What do you think of the Performance Management Cycle described above: Has
any important procedure been omitted? If so, suggest what activity needs to be added
and where in the sequence.
 Does the organization that you work for have an HRD department? If so, describe
its program and evaluate its effectiveness. If not, would it help your organization to
have such a component? Explain.
 In the UBS–HRD “Essential Skills Course” (also referred to above) six steps are
recommended “for conducting a work plan conversation” involving a job supervisor
or works manager and a person (X) who is being given an assignment; they are as
follows:
a) Set the psychological climate and present the focal assignment or task.
b) Give any needed background information, reasons for the task, and its
priority.
c) Describe the benefits of having X chosen to perform the assignment in
question.
d) Get input and answer questions from X concerning the assignment.
e) Reach agreement on job quality, level of effort required, areas of support,
and a time line.
f) Summarize the conclusions or agreements reached, the next stage, and the ap-
proach to monitoring for quality control and/or performance enhancement.
 Evaluate these six steps and add to or revise them as you see fit in keeping with the
translation organization that you are advising or working with. How effective do you
think these will be in helping to create a harmonious working context, or “atmosphere”
(psychological frame of reference)? Note that it is the responsibility of the person
who assigns the work to be done (the supervisor/manager) to provide the agreed-upon
support and to monitor performance and progress. Do you think that you could carry
out such a supervisory role or function? Give reasons why – or why not.
 Can you suggest any improvements or modifications that would be needed in these
proposals if they are to be implemented within a different sociocultural setting? How
do the recommendations relate specifically to the role of a “coach” or “consultant”
as they may apply in your specific work situation?
 Which is more important to the operation of a successful Bible translation program

– that of the coach or a consultant? Explain your answer.
EXERCISE-11
Role Playing (for two class members):

Dr. X is an experienced Bible translation consultant who has been working with a new team for about a
year. X has been frustrated in past efforts to get the three team members to get better organized so as
84 Ernst Wendland
to make acceptable progress in their work. The individual members seem to be competent, committed,
and mutually compatible – but still major project deadlines are missed and the quality of their work varies
drastically, from being excellent to completely unacceptable. The young, energetic, and well-educated
team leader, Rev. Y, is always very apologetic when meeting with Dr. X, but is never able to offer a
satisfactory explanation for what is going wrong. X arranges to meet Y again to discuss the situation,
aiming to accomplish two major objectives: (a) identify the key problems hindering the project and their
causes; (b) develop and agree upon a strategy for dealing with these and resolving the situation. Focus
on dramatizing in dialogue how X needs to play his or her role sensitively and strategically as a seasoned,
context-building coach/consultant for this team. Y will have to imagine her-/himself working in a translation
situation that would be possible, even likely, in her/his actual life-setting.
In the “post 9/11” era many church bodies and charitable organizations have
experienced a noticeable drop in funding. The reasons for this are many and varied
and cannot be considered here. What does need to be briefly discussed is the accom-
panying necessity for many organizations, religious and secular alike (the latter to
achieve greater profitability), to “downsize” their staff through various measures such
as job cutting, “early retirement” agreements, and other retrenchment procedures. The
question is: What role does “human resource development” departments have to play
during such exercises to help employees who happen to lose their jobs cope with such
traumatic experiences – or better, to assist them to find some new employment else-
where? One does not hear a great deal these days about such an essential organizational
service being carried out by the “H&R” people, and this naturally leaves the newly
unemployed feeling bitter and often betrayed by those who were perceived as having
the obligation to “look out for” their welfare within the organization that has just “let
them go.” Perhaps the management feels that its retrenchment or retirement programs
are generous enough to soften the blow sufficiently (often a matter for debate), but
in many cases this still provision does not deal adequately with the psychological
shock to the system that is felt by professional, highly skilled persons who have all
of a sudden lost their jobs (while other former colleagues have not). In short then,
“empowering the organization” is a vital function that must be performed not only to
prepare an individual to serve the corporate body more effectively, but also to leave
the group more gracefully in the end, especially if the termination of one’s services
should for one reason or another come prematurely and unexpectedly.
EXERCISE-12
 Retrenchment letters and company communiqués on the subject are often quite
blunt, at times insensitively so, even within Christian organizations (who, one would
think, ought to know better – a better way to soften the blow). These are cases where
sensitive communication skills are needed but the actual results often leave much to
be desired. Here is a case in point, from an official organizational “letter to the fel-
lowship” in 2007, which begins:
“I am writing with the sad and unwelcome news that a number of posts in the Service
Organisation have been made redundant.”
Let us focus on the commonly-used term “redundant” – what does it really mean in
terms of both denotation and connotation? Webster’s Dictionary defines several of
the senses of this word as follows:
“more than enough; overabundant; excess; superfluous – unnecessary – (Brit.) laid off
from work as no longer needed; discharged; dismissed”
So which of the possible senses of “redundant” is going to make the employees thus
affected feel any better when they reads this notice of termination? Certainly, a con-
notatively less grating term could be found – perhaps also used in a less outspoken
statement of fact. How about this (with reference to the quote above):
“…a number of important posts in the Service Organisation can no longer be sup-
ported” (reasons following).
Perhaps you can make a better suggestion in this particular case:
 Have you, or a colleague/friend, that you know ever received such a termination
of employment letter? If you have an example, how was the critical news conveyed?
Cite the actual sentence or paragraph used. If you feel that the message could have
been communicated in a more sensitive and sympathetic manner, make your sugges-
tions – with reasons (if you are quoting from a language other than English, give a
back-translation).
Competing organizations
The following case studies illustrate the competion that results when organizations
having different frames of reference in terms of guiding principles and procedures
aim to achieve the same general objective, namely, an acceptble translation of the
Scriptures. It is not a matter of one organization being right and the other wrong.
Rather, success and satisfaction can be measured only on the basis of the specific
goal(s) that a project has in relation to a clearly defined target audience, whose needs
and desires have been carefully ascertained in advance.
EXERCISE-13
Consider the following summary of a comparative case study involving two very
differing Bible translation projects (from L. de Vries 2003). Point out several key
examples of “organizational influence” coming to the fore to influence the purpose
(skopos), motivation, method, and outcome of the work in each case. Note any similari-
ties in these two cases to Bible translation programs that you have either participated
in or which you know about. What was the eventual outcome of this tension among
competing organizational factors?
I examined the relationship between skopos and paratext of Bible translations, using the
Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637 and the modern Indonesian common language version
(BIS) as examples:
The skopos of the Statenvertaling comprised theology and spirituality related elements
such as the inspiration doctrine, the perspicuitas doctrine including the emphasis on
86 Ernst Wendland
lay theology and the Reformed hermeneutics of comparing Scripture with Scripture.
But the skopos of the SV also contained other elements such as national and politi-
cal elements, and the relationship with previous translations that had won authority,
especially the Deux-Aes Bible.
This skopos of the Statenvertaling is reflected by its paratext. The need to balance
perspicuity and inspiration motives is reflected in the marginal notes and in the way
text and marginal notes interact. Inspiration motives also led to a special paratextual
treatment of the deuterocanonicals in the SV, a separate place after the New Testament,
at the end of the canonical Bible, a separate introduction and separate pagination. The
decision of the Synod that deuterocanonicals should also get a smaller type apparently
was not honored by the printers. Within the text of the canonicals, brackets and small
type were used for Dutch words added to conform to the grammar of Dutch but seen
as additions to the inspired Word of God. The national and political elements in the
skopos were reflected in the title page text and the Dutch Lion on the title page.
The skopos of the BIS is to make the message of the Bible as perceived by the com-
missioners of the translation as clear as possible for people outside the church or for
those inside the church that find the Terjemahan Baru too hard to understand. It is a
typical example of a common language version in the tradition of the Today’s English
Version and the Good News Bible. Theological neutrality is an important element in the
skopos. These translation goals are reflected in the explanatory text of the translation,
in the factual explanatory paratextual elements like the glossary and the notes and in
the pericopes that reflect the desire to make the structure of the text as clear as possible
to the reader rather than reflecting the use of the Bible in church traditions.
Since the theological elements of a skopos tend to manifest themselves strongly in
paratextual elements (introductions, marginal notes) it is especially the paratextual
elements that have triggered theological, social and political difficulties. The fact that
paratextual elements directly reflect the skopos of the translation, showing how the
translators and commissioners intend the Bible to function in communities, helps to
explain prohibition practices of censors in the first half of the sixteenth century in the
Netherlands as described by den Hollander (1997:25). There were ‘heretic’ Dutch Bible
translations offering the text of the forbidden Luther Bible but without ‘suspicious’
paratextual elements like prefaces, introductions, marginal notes and so on, that were
not placed on the Index. On the other hand there were Bibles with a ‘good’ text (more
or less) reflecting the Vulgate but with ‘suspicious’ paratextual features that were placed
on the Index. These paratextual elements made the Bible suitable for communities and
individuals that did ‘dangerous’ things with the Bible, like lay people discussing and
explaining the Bible relatively independent from the traditions of the Church.
Abbreviations:
BIS Alkitab dalam Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (Indonesian Common Language
Version)
SV Statenvertaling (Dutch translation of 1637)
TB Terjemahan Baru (New Indonesian Translation)
EXERCISE-14
Organizational “pressure” to produce one specific type of Bible translation as op-

posed to another has, since the turn of the century, usually come from “evangelical”
groups that strongly prefer and hence promote a more literal type of rendering. As
one prominent spokesman writes, “I endorse linguistic conservatism, by which I
mean a translation that seeks to convey the words of the original text as much as the
translation process allows. The other translation theory [i.e., dynamic equivalence]
strikes me as linguistic license” (Ryken 2005:13). For this reason, Ryken proposes
“ten reasons we can trust essentially literal Bible translations” (ibid:23-30). Carefully
evaluate these reasons, which have been reproduced below:
1. Except where a completely literal translation would have been unintelligible to an

English reader, an essentially literal translation is transparent to the original text.
2. You can trust an essentially literal translation to keep to the essential task of transla-
tion – namely, translation.
3. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve the full interpretive potential
of the original text.
4. You can trust an essentially literal translation not to mislead you by mixing com-
mentary and translation.
5. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve theological precision.
6. You can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve an expository preacher from
needing to correct the translation from which he is preaching.
7. You can trust an essentially literal translation not to resolve all interpretive difficul-
ties in the direction of what a given translation committee decides to parcel out to its
readers [NB – this would be a major organizational decision having great implications
for the nature of the translation produced].
8. If your essentially literal translation is the RSV, the ESV, or the NKJV – in other
words, if your essentially literal translation rides the coattails of the matchless KJV
– you can trust it to preserve the literary qualities of the Bible that the KJV gave to
the English-speaking world for nearly four centuries.
9. You can trust some essentially literal translations to preserve the exaltation, dignity,
and beauty of the Bible.
10. You can trust an essentially literal translation to be most consistent with the doctrine
of plenary or verbal inspiration.
 Now discuss these ten assertions as a group, first in relation to the English versions
that you are familiar with and then in relation to your language and the translation
that you are preparing (or regularly make use of). Which assertions are correct, in
your opinion – which partially correct – and which ones are wrong? Give reasons
in each case.
 Is there a fundamental problem or principle concerning language and/or cross-

cultural communication that the author seems to be missing or misunderstanding
here? If so, explain what this is and why it is so important for Bible translators to
grasp, no matter what type of translation they are preparing, whether relatively literal
or more idiomatic.
 Consider a simple example that highlights some of the problems that are posed by
an “essentially literal” approach to the challenge of Bible translation, especially in
non-Indo-European languages (from Strauss 2005:162-163). Try to fill in the right-
hand column below in the context of the passages listed:
88 Ernst Wendland
Verse “Literal” rendering of poieô NASB translation Idiomatic in

your language
Matt 3.8 Make fruit Bring forth fruit
Matt 6.1 Make righteousness Practice righteousness
Matt 6.2 Make alms Give alms
Matt 7.22 Make miracles Perform miracles
Matt 7.24 Make lawlessness Commit lawlessness
Matt 22.2 Make a feast Give a feast
Matt 26.18 Make Passover Keep Passover
Mark 3.14 Make Twelve Appoint Twelve
Mark 15.1 Make a council Hold a discussion
Mark 4.32 Make branches [a tree] Form branches
Mark 15.7 Make murder Commit murder
Mark 15.15 Make sufficient the crowd Satisfy the crowd
Luke 1.68 Make redemption Accomplish redemption
Luke 1.72 Make mercy Show mercy
Luke 2.48 Make us thusly Treat us this way
John 3.21 Make truth Practice the truth
Acts 7.24 Make vengeance Take vengeance
Rom 9.28 Make a word Execute his word
2 Cor 11:25 Make sin Commit sin
Gal 5.3 Make the law Keep the law
Eph 2.3 Make the desires of the flesh Indulge…desires of theflesh
 Do you have any instances where you could make a literal translation of the Greek
in your language where this communicates the same meaning as the original?
In which cases would a straight literal rendering in your language produce the wrong
meaning – or no meaning at all (nonsense).
Cite several examples of where the idiomatic form of the expression turns out to be
quite different from that of the Greek text.
 Strauss comments on this example as follows (ibid:163-164; boldface added):
So what does poieô mean “literally”? Make? Do? Bring forth? Practice? Give? Perform?
Commit? Keep? Appoint? Hold? Form? Satisfy? Accomplish? Show? Treat? Take?
Execute? Indulge? Even the NASB – one of the most literal English translations – rec-
ognizes that it can mean any of these things (and many more), depending on its context
and collocations. But the real problem is not that poieô has so many different senses
(though that is true); it is that English and Greek say the same thing in very different
ways. … Meaning must always take precedence over form [original emphasis]. …
Form-equivalent versions tend to seek one-to-one correspondence, and if the translation

works, even awkwardly, then that translation is retained. There are two problems with
this approach. First, since Greek words have a semantic range rather than a “literal”
meaning, how do you decide which English to use for its one-to-one correspondent?
To say that poieô literally means “make” is simply wrong – a lexical fallacy. Second,
the attempt for one-to-one correspondence often blinds the translator to better ways of
expressing the meaning of the original.
Take e.g. Mark 1.17:

NASB/ESV [English Standard Version]: “Follow Me, and I will make you become
fishers of men.” …
While the NASB and ESV are adequate (= comprehensible) translations, they ignore
the idiomatic nature of the Greek and so produce awkward English. Since the original
Greek sounded natural to the original hearers, the NASB and ESV have introduced a
foreign semantic element into the text.
Evaluate the preceding argument: Do you agree with it or not? Give reasons for your
opinion.
Can a Bible translation that is “comprehensible” but stylistically “awkward” really

be considered “adequate”? Explain your answer.
How do you render Mark 1:17 naturally – meaningfully – in your language? (Give a
literal back-translation into English.)
What would an “essentially literal translation” of this passage in your language mean
– if anything?
What do you think about the final sentence above – in italics: do you agree? If not,
tell why.
If so, to what extent does this principle of “naturalness” (let alone “literariness”!)
influence your translation work in terms of actual practice and procedures?
EXERCISE-15
 Now evaluate the advice given below by a more or less “independent observer,”
namely, the professional secular translator Hillaire Belloc (1931, as adapted by
Bassnett 2002:116-117). In what major respects do these general suggestions differ
from those of Ryken? To what extent would they apply to your translation setting,
if at all? Explain.
The translator should not ‘plod on’, word by word or sentence by sentence, but should
‘always “block out” his work’. By ‘block out’, Belloc means that the translator should
consider the work as an integral unit and translate in sections, asking himself (sic) ‘be-
fore each what is the whole sense is he has to render’. … The translator should render
idiom by idiom ‘and idioms of their nature demand translation into another from that
of the original’. … The translator must render ‘intention by intention’, bearing in mind
that ‘the intention of a phrase in one language may be less emphatic than the form of the
phrase, or it may be more emphatic’. By ‘intention’, Belloc seems to be talking about
the weight a given expression may have in a particular context in the SL that would be
disproportionate if translated literally in the TL. … [I]n the translation of ‘intention’,
it is often necessary to add words not in the original ‘to conform to the idiom of one’s
mother tongue’. … [T]he essence of translating is ‘the resurrection of an alien thing
in a native body’. … [T]he translator has the right to significantly alter the text in the
translation process in order to provide the TL reader with a text that conforms the TL
stylistic and idiomatic norms.
90 Ernst Wendland
 What are the organizational implications of the final sentence of the preceding quote
– with special reference to the practice of Bible translation? What personal “rights”
and ethical responsibilities does the translator have in such a joint, (normally) com-
munal endeavor? Be prepared to bring up for group discussion any conflict-producing
experiences that you may have had in this area (if non-confidential) – or, which you
may have observed in some Bible translation program.
EXERCISE-16
One of the previous sub-headings was “Empowering the organization.” A complement

to this might be termed “Policing the organization” – that is, in terms of its ethical
values, responsibilities, and operations. The “ethics of translation” has become a topic
of considerable interest and importance in secular and more recently also religious
circles (e.g., Pym 1992, Porter 1999, Chesterman 2001). The following are excerpts
from a cogent presentation of some of the key issues involved as they concern Bible
translation (Voth 2006:28-32). Study this selection (and Voth’s entire paper, if pos-
sible) individually and then organize a group discussion with reference to some of the
important issues being raised – now as they concern your specific translation setting
and project commission. A few questions appear at the end of this quotation to help
get your discussion going (if need be).
We stated at the outset that our intention was not to develop a rigid ethic that would
provide closure to the discussion. … Closure and comprehensiveness may be an im-
possibility and to a certain degree undesirable. … The problem in our estimation is the
very chaos that translation itself represents. Translation is never neutral and therefore
by extension a translation ethic is never neutral.
Our proposal for a Bible translation ethic begins by stating that due to the nature of the
translation process itself, it will inevitably be subjective, partial, and flexible and will
not pretend to bring closure to the discussion. … Contexts, language, cultures, ideas,
change constantly and this is what needs to be in the background of any theoretical
articulation. This picture, as was stated above will always be subjective and cannot
claim to be absolute in any sense of the word. This is partly due to the fact that Bible
translation is always done in a socio-cultural context. These realities in our opinion
do not take away from the possibility of suggesting a course of action that can be
considered viable and legitimate.
We will begin by building on Chesterman’s suggestion [2001] that virtues such as
trustworthiness, truthfulness, fairness, and the courage to take risks in caring for others
are valid, human qualities to be pursued in developing a Bible translation ethic. … [A]n
“ethical” translation is one that “composes” and therefore empowers. Stated in opposite
terms, any translation that diminishes, or “disempowers,” is not an ethical translation,
subjective as it may sound. We are suggesting that this framework ought to prevail
over matters of ideology, religious confession, marketing, and other related issues. The
goal of the translator and subsequently of the translation should be to “compose” in the
sense of placing in proper form, of settling, of making right. This in turn, empowers an
individual, a community or a situation. A translator should attempt to provide dignity,
worth, and value through the translation produced. …
A necessary component of this ethic is “service.” This is quite different from the eth-
ics of service as explained by Chesterman. Since we are suggesting an ethic for Bible
translation, we feel it is legitimate to suggest a more theological nuance for the concept
of service. By this we mean that translators and translations ought to be infused with
a spirit of service on behalf of the fellow-human being. The translation should not be
an end in and of itself. The translator should continually ask: how can this translation
best serve the so-called “client.” …
Finally, as part of this Bible translation ethic we propose that “liberation” has to go
along side the intent to compose, to empower and to serve. Bible translation should
be a process whereby liberation in its broadest sense is achieved. This will certainly
be contextually and culturally determined. And yet, the intent to liberate needs to be
present throughout the entire process of Bible translation. …
An ethic of liberation is an ethic of responsibility for the “other.” It could be called
an ethic of radical responsibility, because it will not pass by on the other side when
confronted with a victim. The responsibility for the other who is vulnerable, who is
suffering becomes the litmus test of an ethic of Bible translation. It is our contention
that if liberation is absent, from any ethical construct, then we would call that construct
something else. Given the devastating realities that most people experience on planet
earth, a Bible translation ethic needs to demand that liberation become an integral
component of its framework. …
In conclusion, we consider that these elements, though not absolute or comprehensive,
are necessary for a Bible translation ethic, so that matters of ideology, marketing, inter-
est groups, and personal agendas, can be addressed in such a way that no single one
of them dominates the translation process. What is clear to us is that this discussion,
much like Bible translation, is and should be a never ending process. …
 Have you ever seriously considered the “ethics of Bible translation” before? If so,
in what context, and what were your conclusions? If not, will this become a topic of
discussion within your program in future? Tell why or why not.
 Do you feel that any of the issues presented in the excerpts cited above needs further
discussion with reference to your own translation setting and project? Can you think
of any other factors that contribute to or influence the ethics of Bible translation, that
is, in addition to those mentioned above?
 What about the “components” of an ethical approach to the translation of Scripture

– has something been omitted that needs mentioning? (Perhaps you could find these in
the full version of the paper.) In your opinion, what is the most important attitudinal or
behavioral characteristic, at least as it concerns your particular translation setting?
 What do you do then in the case of conflict – when certain ethical concerns appear
to clash or contradict one another in a given situation: How should such differences
of opinion be resolved in a way that maintains the project’s unity of purpose and level
of mutual cooperation?
5. Situational frames
Communicating in different circumstances
A sociolinguistic model: S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G

Due to its specific nature, this frame of reference has been anticipated and already
partly considered during the discussion of sociocultural and organizational frames.
So here I will simply fine-tune the perspective somewhat in order to focus on several
additional topics of significance for some important modern developments in Bible
translation. I have adopted a sociolinguistic approach – that is, a point of view that
stresses the study of human speech as a dynamic instance of communicative action
in particular social situations (Wendland 2006b:4-5). Of course, written discourse is
also included, as are the varied representations of Scripture via other media, such as
video, radio, movies, music and song, comic books, computer programs, traditional
drama productions, and even public oration (an ancient rhetorical art-form that is being
revived in some contemporary circles). In fact, one of the main features of the overall
communication setting that characterizes Bible translation and production nowadays
is the diversity of modes of transmission that are being accessed.
The various sociolinguistic elements that are involved in a personal conversa-
tion, which I assume to be the primary, prototypical mode of human communication,
may be represented by the acronym [ S P E A K I N G ] (see Wilt 2002:55-56; cf.
Hymes, 1964; Wendland 1985:18-31). Together these eight factors create an integrated,
tightly-knit cognitive structure that constitutes the “situational” frame of reference
for any discourse – oral or written (with certain adjustments in specification being
needed for the latter). The individual situational components may be briefly described
as follows:
Setting: the physical scene (time, place, environment, weather, and other circum-
stances), including the acoustic properties of the setting as well as any features that
might create a disturbance during the process of message transmission or a distortion
in the sensory quality of the message.
Participants: speaker and hearer(s) (termed addressee/audience, producer/proces-
sors, etc.) and their respective cognitive environments, especially any contrastive or
antithetical features in their world-view, outlook on life, or value system, including their
social status and psychological background in relation to each other (e.g., attitudes,
feelings, opinions, and current level of interpersonal rapport).
Ends: the primary communication goals and expected or hoped-for outcomes of the
participants, whether explicitly stated or only implied, including those of more passive
participants (e.g., a listening audience).
Activity: the selection, arrangement, and prioritizing of the sequence of “speech
acts” that comprise the speech event (or “text-act”), along with any accompanying
non-verbal types of communicative action, both paralinguistic (e.g., volume, tempo)
and extra-linguistic (e.g., gestures, facial expressions).
Key: the overall psychological tone, manner, attitude, or emotive “spirit” of the
Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances 93
participants that characterizes the prevailing social “atmosphere” during which the
present act of communication takes place.
Instrumentality: the sensory channel (medium) of message transmission that is acti-
vated during the speech event, along with any accompanying supportive media (e.g.,
musical background, print formatting devices, visual aids, etc.).
Norms: customs of interpersonal interaction and interpretation, as determined by
the preceding factors; the interrelated levels of social formality, situational register,
conventional speech styles, special communicative codes, or linguistic sub-types (i.e.,
dialect or sociolect).
Genre: recognized patterns of informal (conversational) or formal spoken and written
discourse, including oratorical and rhetorical categories, along with their associated
stylistic qualities (e.g., the distinctive compositional features of a poem, folktale, ballad,
proverb, riddle, sermon, political speech, etc.).
The eight different aspects of “S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G” must all be carefully studied

in relation to one another when one attempts to delineate and describe the total cog-
nitive framework that surrounds a particular act of communication. This includes
any written conversation or speech event recorded in the Bible that one wishes to
study exegetically. Such incorporated discourse must first be examined from the so-
ciocultural perspective that presumably governed its original conception, intention,
representation, and transmission – that is, by its stated or inferred biblical “author.”
Only after fully analyzing this hypothetical “initial setting” then can one adopt a
transferred viewpoint when seeking, for example, to represent the same text and its
communicative function in a changed situational environment and perhaps also for a
somewhat different contemporary purpose.
EXERCISE-1
Answer the following questions concerning the situational framework proposed

above:
 List the three most important features to consider when analyzing the record of
a speech event, and give reasons for your choice. Have any situational factors been
omitted from the preceding listing? Could the ones given above be more accurately
defined? If so, suggest how this may be done.
 Which two sociolinguistic factors are the most difficult to investigate among the
eight specified above and indicate why this is the case, based on your experience of
communicating life-changing messages.
 Consider the overall communicative situation of a recent conference or seminar that

you participated in (or perhaps your present setting of teaching-learning): Evaluate
the quality of the communicative event as a whole: how well did it work out as far as
you are concerned? How could it have been improved with regard to any of the eight
contextual factors of S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G?
 Next, describe the complete communicative context that applies to the Bible
translation project which you are currently engaged in (or which you have partici-
pated in).
94 Ernst Wendland
 There are several noteworthy criticisms of the preceding “social-interactive model” of

characterizing the notion of “context”, as summarized by Baker below (2006:325-326;
note: the entire issue No. 38 of the Journal of Pragmatics is devoted to a study of context
and contextualization in translation studies). Evaluate the validity of these potentially
serious limitations – to what degree are they on target? Then suggest ways of correcting
the problem areas by means of a more dynamic, participant-oriented approach to the
description or interpretation of a particular “context” for communicating a biblical text
in translation. Perhaps you have a completely different model to suggest:
• The most serious weakness is that the components and entities are often treated as
static phenomena that exist in a fairly stable environment which the analyst can sim-
ply document and use to generate an analysis of events and behavior. For example, a
participant is traditionally assumed to have a stable identity throughout the interaction,
whereas more recent approaches in socio-pragmatics and linguistic anthropology would
prefer to treat all elements of context as at least having the potential to shift and develop
during the course of an event, to both shape and be shaped by the ongoing interaction.
• Another obvious problem with this approach is that ‘‘such open-ended lists suggest
that the components are coordinate and independent, and they leave us with the nag-
ging uncertainty of never knowing whether the list is complete or whether yet more
components are needed’’ (Hanks, 1992:47).
• A third problem concerns the difficulty of deciding which of the components on the
list are relevant for the interpretation of a particular speech event. This is partly a
question of whether we treat the components as static, taking the analyst’s classifi-
cation of the event as a given, or follow the perspective of the participants and find
ways of establishing what they see as relevant by paying attention to those features
that they themselves seem to attend to.
 How would you apply Mona Baker’s suggestion below (2006:328), now with
reference to making a constructive, but more nuanced use of the S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G
model in Bible translation studies?
• I would therefore argue that adopting a dynamic approach to context in the study of
translation and interpreting does not mean that we do not need access to the type of
ethnographic/extra-linguistic information documented [by this model]… because in
order for the researcher to appreciate whether someone is ‘doing’ or ‘performing’ the
role of interpreter or friend or caring adult at any point, he or she first needs to know
who the speaker is, in what capacity they are engaged in the interaction, and so on.
The idea, then, is not to throw lists of apparently static situational components out
altogether but to use them merely as a starting point for analysis, to acknowledge
that they are not all necessarily relevant in every context and, more importantly, that
every element is open to negotiation in the course of a given interaction.
EXERCISE-2
Analyze the following passage, a familiar dialogue portion from Acts 8:26-39 (RSV)
according to the eight factors discussed above. Give several examples of how such a
sociolinguistic perspective helps you to better understand the wider communication
dynamics of the biblical text – and its presumed situational context – and then to
translate it with greater cultural awareness. Feel free to use a different situation-
sensitive, context-oriented model to accomplish the same objectives.
26
But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that
goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. 27 And he rose and went. And
behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians,
in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning;
seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip,
“Go up and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the
prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How
can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32
Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this:
“As a sheep led to the slaughter

or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
33
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth.”
34
And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about
himself or about some one else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with
this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. 36 And as they went along the road
they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent
my being baptized?” 37 l 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went
down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they
came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw
him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
 What situational factors at the time of writing might have led to an assumed inter-
polation within this passage (at least in the opinion of most NT Greek scholars and
text critics)? The addition is as follows:
8.37 Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with
all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
 Study Figure 14 below and comment on the degree to which you think it creates
an adequate “frame of reference” for helping readers to understand the preceding
Scripture pericope from Acts 8. Is there anything misleading or problematic from the
perspective of your sociocultural setting? Do you have any suggestions for possible
modifications or other improvements?
Speech-act analysis
The Key, Ends, and Activity (KEA) aspects of any discourse event can be further
investigated through the method of speech act analysis. This approach is based on the
observation that people not only say things, but more important, they do things with
words. That is, they perform specific communicative actions in and through their
diverse utterances, such as, making (giving) an announcement, assertion, promise,
oath, curse, greeting, warning, and so forth. Thus, by means of her/his words, the
96 Ernst Wendland

Figure 14: Philip andFigure
the Ethiopian
14: Philip and the Ethiopian
speaker carries out particular intentions, hoping to reinforce, change, or modify a

certain belief, feeling, attitude, value, or behavior of the person(s) she or he is com-
municating with.
For example, when I say to a seminary student who is sleeping in the back row of
my English class, “Mr. Banda, are you ready to comment on the next paragraph of the
essay before us?” I do not really intend for the named person to answer “yes” or “no”
at all. Rather, I am doing one of several possible things: (a) attempting to rouse this
student from slumber; (b) requesting an adjacent student to wake Banda; (c) warning
Banda’s fellow students not to follow his poor example; and/or (d) seeking to inject
some humor (at Banda’s expense) into what may be a rather dull classroom session.
Such goals are all possible intentions (or illocutions) of my utterance (locution),
though usually only one is primary (particularly “relevant”) in a given sociocultural
setting. My indirect command to Banda (a) would be more apparent – more like an
overt imperative rather than a mitigated interrogative – and hence more insistent if I
should repeat the “question” in a much louder tone of voice.
But it all depends on who is speaking to whom in what setting: If we were discuss-
ing the same essay at a theological conference and I happened to be talking to fellow
pastors, then I would probably not ask the question at all. In this situation I would rather
skip Rev. Banda and move on to someone else so as to avoid shaming him in public.
And if I had not noticed that Rev. Banda were asleep and made the same request, it
would be likely that an adjacent pastor would assume that I meant (b), but again, in
order to avoid any embarrassment for his esteemed colleague, he would contribute
the asked for comment himself. Thus, the force of my words would not be the same

Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954,
1967, 1972; Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society
1994.
1
Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954, 1967, 1972;
Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1994.
nor would they carry the same weight, either for me or for the rest of those listening
on the scene. Whether or not the humorous element (d) is perceived to apply would
depend on the solemnity of the occasion, the theological subject being discussed, and
perhaps also the church denomination involved.
Different categories of speech act have been proposed as a way of organizing the
inventory that happen to be represented in a given language for the purposes of more
precise textual and contextual (interpersonal) analysis. The following, for example, is
a system of speech acts suggested for English (Ross 2003:140; cf. Wendland 1985:96-
103, 2004:214-218):
A. Acts of asserting (accuse, advocate, affirm, claim, comment, concede, conclude,

etc.)
B. Acts of evaluating (analyze, appraise, certify, characterize, estimate, figure, judge,
etc.)
C. Acts of opining (accept, acclaim, affirm, agree, acquiesce, apologize, blame, rep-
rimand, etc.)
D. Acts of stipulating (abbreviate, characterize, choose, classify, describe, define,
designate)
E. Acts of requesting (appeal, ask, beg, bid, enjoin, implore, order, request, solicit,
etc.)
F. Acts of suggesting (admonish, advise, advocate, caution, counsel, exhort, pro-
pose, etc.)
G. Acts of authorizing (abolish, abrogate, accept, adopt, approve, bless, condemn,
etc.)
H. Acts of committing (accept, assure, commit, dedicate, promise, undertake, swear,
etc.)
EXERCISE-3
 Evaluate the preceding set of categories – do you have any revisions to suggest,
or perhaps another category or three to add to this listing?
 How would this classification of “speech acts” work out in your language (YL,
or some non-European language that you know)? Would you have the same major
categories listed or a different set, perhaps a simplification or even an extension of
the proposed system? Propose any modifications as you see fit.
 How many of the specific English verbs (in parentheses) do you have single word
equivalents in YL? What verbs require a phrasal representation in YL or some type
of verbal idiom (e.g., “pick up” = encourage)?
 What speech acts are performed by the two short utterances of Acts 8:36 (see the
text above)?
 How would you analyze the preceding passage (Acts 8:26-39) from the viewpoint
of Relevance Theory? For example, what are the primary “contextual implications”
that are present (cf. Gutt 1992:22-23) – and which also need to be represented in a
translation? How can you best do this in your language (excluding English)?
98 Ernst Wendland
 Which speech acts are performed in Acts 8:37, the passage found in the footnote?
What textual and contextual evidence argues for or against the inclusion of this verse
in the original text?
 Evaluate the validity and utility of a speech-act method for analyzing the discourses
of the Bible (including prophetic and epistolary “speech”). Feel free to propose a
more effective (more precise, explicit, accurate, etc.) method of analysis from your
perspective – either to use along with an SA approach or in place of it.
There is a continuum of diversity with regard to the number and kinds of speech
acts that occur between two different languages. If the languages are closely related,
there may be a large measure of correspondence in terms of lexical form and pragmatic
function. If the languages belong to very divergent linguistic families, however, one
can expect a great deal of difference and thus quite a bit of verbal adjustment when a
certain speech act, or a related set of them, is translated from one to the other. Often
such variations reflect deeper cultural differences: The Chewa and other east-central
Bantu languages, for example, are spoken by peoples that are typically synthetic in
their world-view and corporate, or communal, in their life-style. Thus their typical
vocabulary does not contain many words that come from the speech act category of
“evaluating,” e.g., English: analyze, investigate, scrutinize, appraise, assess, character-
ize, describe, estimate, approximate, figure, reckon, and so forth. This does not mean
of course that such concepts cannot be expressed in the language if need be – once
the notion has been understood and a suitable context of use supplied (e.g., in Chewa
various lexical variants based on the central verbs “see” and “think” are available).
However, an appropriate amount of time for carrying out the latter exercise (research
and testing) needs to be set aside and the necessary creativity stimulated, especially
when attempting to translate speech acts that are not common in the culture – for
instance, the logical-legal language of Paul’s epistle to the Romans (e.g., chs. 2-4).
Another example comes from biblical Hebrew, where we find many different terms
to express the notion of “praying.” These apparently vary according to the contextual
circumstances – namely, the nature or purpose of the prayer (e.g., whether to request
or to thank) and how the prayer is offered in terms of manner, or physical stance. This
diversity is also manifested in the related nouns that reflect verbal concepts, e.g., the
various Hebrew words for “prayer.”
EXERCISE-4
Look up the following Bible passages and try to determine whether there is any
distinction in the type of prayer or mode of praying that is present in the textual
context or in the expressed or implied situational setting. A different Hebrew term
(not always a verb) is used in each case; therefore, it would be helpful, if possible, to
refer to the original text (or an interlinear version) and a dictionary when doing this
exercise. Then decide which word or expression best conveys the specific notion of
“praying” in YL. Make a note of any problems of incongruence or ambiguity that
you encounter when doing this exercise.
• 2 Chr. 6:37 _____________________________________________

• Job 33:26 _____________________________________________
• Job 21:15 _____________________________________________
• Gen. 20:7 _____________________________________________
• Ezra 6:10 _____________________________________________
• Psa. 55:17 _____________________________________________
• Psa. 122:6 _____________________________________________
• Zech. 8:22 _____________________________________________
• Gen. 50:17 _____________________________________________
• Isa. 26:16 _____________________________________________
• 2 Sm. 7:27 _____________________________________________
• Gen. 23:13 _____________________________________________
EXERCISE-5 (after Ross 2003:142)
The speech act conveyed by the Greek verb  is usually translated cor-
respondently by the English term “boast.” However, this rendering does not always
suit the biblical context in which it is used due to the negative, self-focused connota-
tions of the English verb “boast.” Check out the following references (NRSV) more
closely in their textual and situational setting of use. Then pick a more appropriate
verb to use in English, if this seems necessary, and also determine which verb or
verbal expression to use in YL:
• You that boast in the law (Rom. 2:23)

• …and we boast in our hope (Rom. 5:2)
• …we also boast in our sufferings (Rom. 5:3)
• Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31)
• …we are your boast even as you are our boast (2 Cor. 1:14)
• …since many boast according to human standards (2 Cor. 11:18)
• If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness (2 Cor. 11:30)
• May I never boast of anything except the cross (Gal. 6:14)
• …not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:9)
• Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up (Jas. 1:9)
EXERCISE-6 (after Ross 2003:141)
A number of Greek speech-act verbs appear to have a complex meaning with no single
equivalents in English. The ones listed below are all glossed as some form of “teach”
in Louw and Nida’s (L&N, 1989) dictionary under the general semantic domain of
“Communication” (section 33). Look up the reference that is given for each verb and
propose what you feel would be a good contextual rendering in English as well as in
YL – the L&N reference number is also given in parentheses:
 (2 Pet. 2:21; 33.237) ______________________________________

 (Tit. 2:4; 33.229) ______________________________________
 (1 Tim. 4:6; 33.242) ______________________________________
(Acts 18:25; 33.225) ______________________________________
 (1 Th. 5:12; 33.231) ______________________________________
100 Ernst Wendland
 (Acts 7:22; 33.226) ______________________________________

 (Acts 22:3; 33.232) ______________________________________
 What is wrong with simply translating all these verbs as some form of “teach”
wherever they occur?
 How does the immediate textual “frame of reference,” or co-text (cf. ch. 6), provide
a situational context that would lead us away from such a simple (and misleading)
translational solution?
EXERCISE-7
Pick out the major speech acts found in Louw & Nida’s listing of “subdomains” (un-
der “Communication”) on pp. 388-389 and then compare these with the set of eight
categories listed earlier. Where would L&N’s items fit in – or are some new general
categories needed to accommodate them? If the latter, which ones? How do these
categories work when transferred to your language and cognitive environment? Do
you note any (potential) problems or incongruities? If so, specify what these are.
EXERCISE-8
The “illocutionary force” of a given speech act is often accompanied by the com-
munication of a particular implication by the speaker along with the expression of
a certain emotion and/or attitude. For example, in John 18:30, the Jewish religious
leaders tell the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate: “If this man [Jesus] were not a
criminal, we would not have handed him over to you” (New English Translation,
NET). In this case, the implication is: [Jesus] is a dangerous criminal and needs to
be judged and punished accordingly; the speakers are probably also expressing their
hatred of this “criminal” as well as a certain degree of anger at Pilate for daring to
question their motives (Jn. 18:29).
 Will a literal rendering of this passage in YL convey the same implication, emotion,
and attitude? If not, how must the form of the text be modified in order to re-present
the full force and intent of the original (the Greek should of course be consulted if
possible)?
 Carry out the same sort of analysis and evaluation of the following quotations
of Pilate, taken from John’s account of the trial of Jesus the Christ (all citations are
from the NET):
• “Are you the King of the Jews?” (18:33)

• “I am not a Jew, am I?” (18:35a)
• “What have you done?” (18:35b)
• “So you are a king.” (18:37)
• “What is truth?” (18:38)
• “Look, here is the man.” (19:5)
• “You take him and crucify him.” (19:6)
• “Where do you come from?” (19:9)
• “Look, here is your king.” (19:14)

• “Shall I crucify your king?” (19:15)
• “What I have written, I have written.” (19:22)
Assessing the audience

The relationship among the various contemporary Participants and their current Set-
ting is an important situational factor to consider during any communication event,
oral or written. This is true also in the overall process of Bible translation, both before
and after a given project is undertaken and completed. No adequate translation agree-
ment (Brief) can be drawn up without having sufficient and accurate prior information
about the intended target constituency for the version under consideration, as well as
the primary environment in which it is expected to be used. In this respect the crucial
setting-sensitive question remains: “Whom are you translating for?” There are many
different variables and combinations possible of course, and all of the options need to
be fully investigated before translation work actually begins. This is to give the team
a fairly precise picture of their primary communication goal(s) (Ends) along with the
target-group that they must keep firmly in their minds as they are translating.
For example: How/in what way would Ms./Mr. So-and-so (Chewa: Che-uje), se-
lected as a specific representative of the envisioned audience (whether older / younger,
male / female, Christian / non-Christian, educated / uneducated, upper / lower class,
dominant / depressed cultural community, etc.), interpret the text that I / we have
rendered in this way? Is there any possibility that she or he might mis-understand
the passage? If so, at which point(s) and why? How will she or he react emotively to
the translation – and aesthetically as well (i.e., with regard to the connotation and/or
beauty of the text as it sounds in the vernacular)? Will she or he regard the vernacular
style as being too colloquial, formal, liturgical, dynamic, connotatively off-color, or
foreign-sounding for use in the Scriptures? Where then will the majority of consumers
encounter or employ this version – is it intended to function mainly in church during
public worship, in a group Bible-study session, when doing personal or family devo-
tions at home, as an oral text in a largely non-literate society?
All these questions must be thoroughly investigated and answered (see also ch.
10), especially in the case of a translation that is being prepared for a so-called spe-
cial audience. This is because such a group will most likely require a text that has
been significantly modified in specific respects, e.g., a simplified lexicon and gram-
mar (for a “new reader” group), larger print and a modified format (for the visually
impaired), small print and a condensed format (for an “economy” or “pocket” version),
more contemporary illustrations and life-application comments (for a youthful read-
ership), expository notes and cross references (for a mature Bible study group), and
so forth.
Careful research is also necessary at the other end of the translation process – that
is, in its post-publication situational setting – in order to assess the nature and level of
Scripture “use,” or as it is sometimes expressed nowadays: audience engagement (cf.
ch. 10). For example, is there evidence that the intended target audience actually reads
the translation that has been specifically designed for them, and what is their reaction:
102 Ernst Wendland
positive, negative, or in-between – and why? Is its primary function being achieved;
if not, what is the apparent reason for this lack of success or failure to meet expecta-
tions? What crucial modifications or improvements do the consumers themselves
suggest for a future revision? Is a different set of readers/hearers somehow benefiting
from the translation produced, either in addition to or instead of the original target
audience? Or is the text perhaps being used in a different socio-religious setting? If
so, what are the reasons for this? The task of revising a translation, whether only a
selection or a complete Bible, must begin on the day that it is first distributed – and
thereafter in a systematic, well-recorded manner so that all relevant responses can
be catalogued and reserved for future refrence. This can also be a valuable learning
experience, one that can help to avoid similar problems in a future project, whether
a revision or a completely new translation.
EXERCISE-9
Answer the following questions with respect to a Bible translation that you know
about or are presently working on:
 Was any serious research embarked upon with respect to the envisaged sociolin-
guistic and religious setting of translation either before or after the publication of at
least one trial selection? If so, what was the nature of this investigation, how was it
carried out, who conducted it, and what were the results? If not, why was this vital
initial step in the production process ignored?
 Who was the primary target audience and what was the principal setting of use
intended for this translation? Give a summary of the proposed situational frame of
reference.
 Was the principal communication goal attained? If not, have the problems which
prevented this from happening been identified? If so, what were these problems or
limiting factors?
 Has any other type of research been carried out during the translation process: if
so, what was this for, what method was used, and what were the results?
 Do any other important factors pertaining to the overall situational frame of refer-
ence need to be investigated? If so, what are these matters? The following examples
briefly note several diverse issues that had to be carefully researched in order to get
additional target audience opinion during the course of Bible translating in Zambia
so that important decisions concerning the nature and purpose of a current TL ver-
sion could be made (all the languages referred to in boldface belong to the SE Bantu
group):
The Lenje Protestant community was accustomed to address “God” with the honorific plural
form, baLesa, while the Catholic Church much preferred the familiar singular, Lesa, as was
common in all ancient traditional prayers to the deity. So which form should be used in the
interconfessional Bible translation?
The missionary-composed Chewa Protestant Bible referred to YHWH as Yehova, while the
corresponding Catholic Bible used Yahwe. An older translation committee proposed the com-
promise compound term, Ambuye Mulungu ‘Master [an honorific term] God’, but the current
committee preferred the indigenous personal (not generic!) name for the High (Creator) God of
the Chewa people, Chauta.
A serious controversy arose during the Tonga translation of the Pentateuch, when the transla-
tion committee decided to employ a more understandable, but non-traditional rendering for
the “Sabbath Day” – i.e., buzuba bwa kulyokeezya ‘the day for resting’. One particular church
body insisted that the old term Nsabata ‘Saturday’ had to be retained, while others proposed a
sort of compromise, that is, the introduction of a new transliteration of the original Hebrew term
shabbath, i.e., Sabata.
The new Bemba interconfessional version wanted to adopt the orthography proposed by the
Ministry of Education, in which long vowels were represented by double letters. Traditionalists
clung strongly to the old spelling system which made use of macrons to represent long vowels,
saying that the use of two letters would “Tongaize” the Bemba language (since Tonga had long
been using double vowels in their Bible and other publications).
The widely-spoken Tonga language had two published dialects, both of which had supporters on
the early interconfessional translation committee: The major variety was used by people living on
the central plateau region, while the other dialect was spoken down in the more sparsely popu-
lated Zambezi River Valley. The older missionary Bible had followed the Plateau dialect, and for
this reason the Valley dwellers were proposing the use of their dialect in the new translation.
 Present a little “case study” (or two) from your own Bible translation experience
(like those above), which illustrates the importance of carefully contextualizing the
total speech “situation” of the project by way of research before it is undertaken.
Perhaps you can also give examples of some unfortunate results that occurred when
such crucial sociolinguistic and inter-group factors were NOT taken into adequate
consideration when the translation was being prepared. Discuss these case studies as
a class/group to see if you can arrive at some tentative answers or solutions that are
more or less acceptable to all.
EXERCISE-10
In large, widely-spoken and long-written languages the issue of dialect must normally
be decided through extensive research and often considerable negotiation. In this
regard, people normally think only of geographically-based dialects, as in the Tonga
case above. But sometimes sociologically-based “sociolects” must also be taken into
consideration – that is, in order to try to reach people who are either “turned off” to
the standard versions of Scripture or who simply don’t understand such translations
in a language that they do not normally speak or hear on a daily basis.
 The following is an excerpt from the current debate that is raging in Polish circles:
Evaluate the several arguments presented for and against a more colloquial, even
“slangish” (“hip-hop”), rendition of the Gospels (Good Reading) in Polish (Blumc-
zynski 2007:21, 22, 23, 23-24, 24). Which position would you adopt if the issue ever
came up in your linguistic and social setting – and why (give reasons)?
104 Ernst Wendland
Arguing from a pastoral and evangelistic perspective, [the priest and professor] Dra-
gula challenged the basic position of the [Catholic] Commission regarding the special
status of biblical language, pointing out that the style of Christ’s preaching was not
fundamentally different from the language he used in ordinary discourse. … He also
noted that the archaizing, high style of language used in numerous Bible translations
seems odd to contemporary readers who derive their linguistic taste largely from ad-
vertisements, newspapers, and popular literature. The attempt to translate the Bible into
contemporary youth slang does not, in his opinion, violate the principle of faithfulness
to the original text because it seeks to establish a linguistic and theological continuum
between the biblical and the contemporary world. … [F]or people who would not
start reading the Bible in traditional translation, a simplified or adjusted version may
become the “first contact Bible.”
[A]t the climax of his argument, Koziara stated: “The Bible is a temple of the Word to
which you have to climb up the stairs. What you need is a guide who can find the right
keys to the temple. … Reading the comments of the priest Dragula one can conclude
that the author, instead of keys, offers picklocks which can only damage the door.” In
short, rather than seek ways of phrasing the text of the Bible in a familiar language,
one should turn for help to modern “scribes” – linguists, exegetes, and preachers – who
can properly expound the meaning of the Scripture.
Weclawski noted that the gospel in hip-hop slang should still be considered a transla-
tion (though a somewhat unsuccessful one) rather than illegitimate interpretation.
Interestingly, its communicative unsuccessfulness resulting from strong sociolinguistic
markedness – and not from using a language variety inherently inappropriate to convey
the sacred content – is in his view shared by a number of traditional translations in their
overly elevated style. … [I]t may be that “a foolishly ‘consecrating’ version betrays
the translated Word not less than a ‘desecrating’ one.”
“Religious convictions are always communicated in a social context. Obviously, formal

situations demand the high style which, in turn, seems artificial in informal contexts.
… An even more important element of the said social context is the recipient. Hardly
anyone would insist on banning ordinary language when preaching to children, soldiers,
or prisoners.” Consequently, Kudyba challenged the opinion that speaking about God
in everyday language results in a trivialization of the truth about him, claiming that
“the process of stripping the religious notions of their deeper meanings occurs more
often than it is typically assumed: not on the level of speaking about religious issues
in ordinary language but rather whenever religious language is used to describe the
ordinary [as in modern adverts]. … At the same time Kudyba criticized the attempt
to translate the gospel into hip-hop slang as “indefensible” – not from the linguistic
or theological but strictly an evangelistic perspective – pointing out that the excess of
slang modifications necessarily leads to grotesque results: in his opinion “the text [of
the Good Reading] may incite various kinds of laughter (from a friendly smile to a
mocking grin) but does not encourage a serious response.”
As concerns the actual translation choices, Dragula noted that, on the one hand, the
style of the Good Reading may seem rather artificial because of the excess of slang
expressions but, on the other hand, a number of phrases suggested by the authors are
very evocative and seem to aptly convey the gist of the original text (among the latter,
he listed zziomowac sie [to become one’s pal] as an accurate rendering of [ἐσκήνωσεν]
in John 1:14, traditionally translated as zamieszkac [to dwell among]). … Stressing
the theological legitimacy of the attempts aimed at bring the gospel closer to everyday
reality, he noted that the risk of trivialization of the biblical message is much broader.
“The coexistence of the Gospel with the pop-culture or slang is just as dangerous as its
coexistence with folklore or naïve piety.” He argues that even though such translational
techniques may deform the gospel, they can also – if used competently – prove very
helpful in teaching and preaching. Finally, Dragula admitted that behind his battle
for the slang version of the Bible is his concern about the evangelistic strategy of the
Church toward the youth.
 Do you have a significant number of young people (or some other distinct social
segment, like soldiers) whom you feel are not being reached by the currently avail-
able translations of the Bible in YL? What is your evidence for such a conclusion?
If the facts are supportive, what translation strategy do you propose for reaching
youthful readers (as distinct, too, from a children’s version)? Would a “hip-hop” ver-
sion, such as that being tried in the Polish setting, possibly work in your situation?
Explain your answer.
 Now for an example in English – namely, from The Word on the Street, a hip-hop
version selling in the UK (Lacey 2003): Study the following selections from a passage
that we will be studying in more detail later on, Revelation chs. 4-5 (specifically 4:11
and 5:6-10 – reproduced as originally formatted). The standard NIV translation is
given after each portion for the sake of comparison. What is your assessment of this
“special-audience” version? Give reasons for your opinion, plus any suggested cor-
rections or modifications that you may have. Make a list of any words or expressions
from this English hip-hop sociolect that you do not understand.
Our Boss, our God, you’re worth everything.

Which is why we bring
All the credit, all the respect, all the credibility we can source.
You’re so worth it. Of course.
You made everything happen. It all started ‘cos you said so.
Nothing would exist without you, you know.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God,

to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”
=========================================
Then there’s this Innocent One, ripped apart (like a sacrifice from a Flyby Fest
in Moses’ time) standing centre stage by the throne; the four creatures and
the seniors are close by. Image zooms in; the Innocent One’s got seven horns
(subtitle comes up on screen: “symbolic of power”) and seven eyes (subtitle:
“God’s spirits on earth duty”). He takes the scriptbook from God’s hand; the
four creatures and the twenty-four seniors hit the deck holding harps and
bowls full of JLM earth-to-heaven requests. They improvise a new song:
You’re qualified to take the scriptbook

And to crack open its locks.
‘Cos you were hated, annihilated, assassinated,
And your blood’s the buying power, which you donated
106 Ernst Wendland
To buy people, whatever their state,

To but them back for God.
To make them welcome immigrants: a New Nation of reps
who know their worth.
Who run things his way on earth.
6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne,
encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes,
which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the
scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the
four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one
had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers
of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song:
“You are worthy to take the scroll

and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”
The underlying “text” of a situational context

To conclude this chapter, I will present two additional case studies as a way of il-
lustrating some of the diverse considerations that often emerge when the situational
frame of reference is carefully examined as part of the wider communicative context
of a particular Bible translation project. The first one focuses on several elements
of our proposed sociolinguistic model, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G, namely: the Key, or pre-
vailing connotative and emotive atmosphere evoked during the communication of
texts; Instrumentality, here featuring the medium of traditional music; Norms, now
involving a society’s traditional mode and manner of religious expression; Genre, in
this case, highlighting traditional song/hymn styles; and Setting, namely, that of the
rural Quechua peoples who inhabit the Peruvian Andes. From the author’s perceptive
conclusion, take note of how the pervasive influence of the sociocultural environment
of communication permeates the entire process – how it acts as a powerful non-verbal
“text” that affects the twin processes of composition and comprehension:
The hymns give an insight into the understanding and expression of the Christian faith
in the southern Andes of Peru from colonial times to the present – an understanding that
shapes the expression of the faith today and the sense of identity of Andean peoples.
It is part of the ‘web of significance’ (Geertz 1973:5) that they themselves have spun
and in which they find themselves.

This selection is quoted, by permission, from an article published in the Bible Translator (55:3, 2004),
by Bill Mitchell, entitled: “Text and Context in southern Peru: Himnos Sagrados de los Andes.” The
two books cited are: Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1973)
and Rosaleen Howard-Malverde, ed., Creating Context in Andean Cultures (Oxford: OUP, 1997).
The ‘context-as-text’ mentioned earlier emerges from concrete experience and in turn
evokes a whole world. As regards the Quechua language, the linguistic constraints and
thought forms molded the appropriation of the Christian message. At the same time,
the use of pre-Conquest poetry and imagery took into each new context associations
from the past, giving them a continuing validity. Over against the church’s reluctance to
express key theological terms in the vernacular is set an amazing readiness to incultur-
ate Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary through the appropriation of ‘royal’ terminology,
the Andean understanding of the ‘ultimates of existence’, and the intensely relational
Quechua language.
This ‘text’ is an “acted document” expressed “in multiple tongues and as much in
actions as in words” (Geertz, 18). We note, for instance, that the contours of colonial
piety were shaped around a powerful lord/ancestor/father figure whose sufferings
resonated deeply with the people’s suffering, and around Mary, the compassionate
caring mother, queen of heaven and earth. Such developments were strengthened and
fostered by the growth in pilgrimages to the increasing number of Marian and Christ
shrines, the devotion to the Santíssimo Sacramento and the importance of the feast of
Corpus Christi. All of which live on today.
At the same time this piety is expressed in a liturgical language that is paradoxically both
contemporary and archaic. In part it emerged in the interstices of the Andean-European
culture clash. In part it grew out of the symbiotic relationship between European and
Andean cosmovisions, between Christian theology and Andean all-embracing sacrality.
It resonates deeply with Andean reality, it provides continuity amidst change. It robes
Jesus and his mother in a punchu, puts rubber-tyre sandals on their muddy feet, and
bows before them: ‘Mamalláy, Taytalláy’.
Studies related to this in the cultures of the Andes Mountains suggest that this ‘text’ is
not so much a construct of the outside observer, as it is ‘part of the indigenous conceptual
system held by culture members themselves’ (Howard-Malverde 1997:4). It embodies
meaning(s) which the members evoke, engage and reproduce in life situations.
The ‘text’ can be thought of as a closely interwoven garment formed from the differ-
ent strands of the Andean peoples’ expressive culture: dance, drama, music, rites and
rituals, sermons, Scripture, song, story, and visualisations. This garment is worn by
Bible translators as they engage that other text, the Bible. They are informed by both
as they translate. At the same time, it is such a normal part of them that they may not
always be consciously aware of it.
This has many implications for the Bible translation enterprise: One is the need that
may arise for consciousness-raising with regard to this ‘text’. Another is related to
approaches for training translators--a recent experience in a poetry workshop in Chim-
borazo, Ecuador may help to illustrate this.
Workshop participants were asked to bring a song from each of their communities. These
were part of their oral culture. They did not bring them on sheets of paper. “Why would
you do that? Everyone knows them! They’re meant to be sung, not read,” they said.
Instead they sang and recorded them on the office laptop. These were then transcribed
and printed – that in itself was a fun experience for them – it was the first time they had
ever seen their songs in print. It suddenly gave them a new experience of their ‘text’,
a sense of pride. The discussion, study and analysis that followed of the rich imagery,
108 Ernst Wendland
the parallelism, the humour, the sarcasm, the emotion, and the contexts of the songs
proved to be a journey of discovery of themselves, their own identity, their culture,
and the value and dignity of their language. We were all enriched. The Biblical poetry
and its translation then took on a different dimension.
In addition to the exegesis of the Biblical text, all of us involved in Bible translation
need to become ‘exegetes’ of ourselves and of our cultures.
The second example further illustrates the powerful situational influence of culture
– in particular, a traditional world view and ancient way of life – on the interpretation
of a well-known passage of Scripture, namely, Isaiah 53:6 in Tonga, which reads as
follows in the RSV:
All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
In the excerpt below, several references are made to the necessity of providing a more
adequate cognitive framework for receptors to enable them to better comprehend
the sense and significance of the biblical text, for example, by means of explana-
tory or descriptive footnotes and an appropriate illustration (based on Wendland and
Hachibamba 2000b:548-549). This case-study also underscores the need for adequate,
setting-sensitive research to determine how well/poorly (correctly/wrongly) average
members of the TL audience have construed the Scriptures in their language: Do they
really understand what they are reading (or, more likely, hearing)?
EXERCISE-11
Here we are often asked one of the most crucial queries of all: What are “sheep” really
like? These animals are not traditionally herded by the Tonga, and many people have
never even seen a sheep because they tend to be restricted to the vicinity of large com-
mercial farms and ranches. The word used to translate “sheep,” mbelele, is strangely
related to the expression used to refer to the indigenous “pangolin” cibbata-mbelele,
the spotted variety of which is believed to bring good luck to a person who happens
to find one and bring it home to the village. The ominous significance of sheep “going
astray” is therefore also unfamiliar to most listeners, especially in view of the next line
which states that these sheep (“we”) each had its own “path” to follow. Hence some
comment on the cultural background of the biblical text would again seem to be needed
in a footnote, along with an illustration (if possible) of a sheep or herd of them.
The much more familiar “goat” (impongo) cannot be utilized as a clarifying “local
equivalent” in this case for two major reasons: because of the importance of sheep in
the overall biblical setting and record, and due to the undesirable connotations con-
nected with goats, especially males, in Bantu culture, such as being unruly, destructive
of crops, and worst of all, sexually (over)active.

Sense considers the “meaning” of a verbal text from the perspective of the author and what she or
he intended to communicate to a particular audience in and through her/his text (as nearly as this
can be determined on the basis of textual as well as extra-textual evidence). Significance considers
text “meaning” from the perspective of the audience/readership (whether the intended group or any
other) and what they derive from the text cognitively, emotively, and volitionally when interpreting
it in their particular situational context.
The notion of a “scapegoat” implicit in this verse (note the possible allusion to Leviticus
16:21-22) is well known in Tonga religious practice. Thus a substitutionary, sacrificial
animal bearing the sin(s) and/or disease(s) of society may be prepared by ritual and
sent out into the bush and far away from the village to remove from the vicinity some
aggrieved or avenging spirit (cizwa). However, the particular creature used for this
purpose is quite different, namely, a chicken. This is because the latter will not find its
way back home to bring a curse back on the community, like some larger animal (such
as, a goat, dog, or even a cow) would do.
Another important variation from the biblical sense in this context concerns the no-
tion of a human scapegoat to atone for some communal crime or offense before God
(Leza), which is unknown in Tonga indigenous religion. The closest correspondent
unfortunately involves the practice of witchcraft, where a “witch/sorcerer” (mulozi)
will maliciously and surreptitiously utilize the “life force” (muuya) of a close family
member in order to empower a certain charm for self-protection or to enable some
sorcerous activity for the purpose of personal enrichment. In this case of course the
innocent “substitute” is completely unwilling while the agent, and beneficiary, is made
guilty by means of such nefarious, antisocial action. Therefore, in view of the potential
disparity and consequent confusion with respect to both form and function in the pres-
ent context, the desired biblical concept of vicarious sacrifice (with reference to the
foundational “atonement” ritual of Leviticus 16) might well deserve some exposition
in a note because of its importance to the prophetic imagery which appears especially
in this and the following verse.
 Describe a similar experience that you know of as it concerns the text and com-
munication of the Scriptures in your setting: What was the sociocultural or situational
problem that arose in connection with a particular translated passage and how was
the difficulty resolved (or is a solution still being sought)?
6. Textual frames of reference
The pervasive influence of intertext
Intertextuality and genre markers
No text exists in isolation. It always subsists within an enabling, enriching cognitive
context that helps to shape and define it. That is what we have been considering in
the preceding sections. No text exists in and of itself alone either. Rather, it always
consists, more or less, of other texts. In other words, a given text is either partially or
wholly derived from, based on, related to, or in some way conditioned by other texts
with respect to general ideas, presuppositions, structural arrangements, particular
concepts, key terms, or memorable phrases. These are all different aspects of inter-
textual influence. Earlier oral and written texts thus serve as “external” textual frames
of reference for current texts (“internal” textual frames are considered in chapter 7).
Sometimes the reiteration of wording is exact, or nearly so, in which case a known
source (pre-text) is usually acknowledged, unless it is assumed to be well-known.
At other times, prior thoughts and expressions are recycled much less directly and
attribution may or may not be given, depending on the type of discourse and its degree
of formality. Finally, no speaker or writer deliberately produces a text that is totally
unique, completely cut off from some standard structures, genres, verbal patterns,
rules of composition, topics or issues of importance – or even culturally common
nonverbal norms and customs of behavior.
The previously discussed sociocultural, organizational, and situational “mental
models” (schemata, scripts, etc.) of thought and action explicitly or implicitly inform
and influence the process of text composition as well as that of communication. This
is contextual “pressure” in action. Iconoclasts and non-conformists may resist or rebel
against the familiar forms and representations of content of traditional discourse or
customary behavior, but their creativity and ability to innovate must remain within
certain publicly determined limits or they will simply not be understood or appreciated
by their contemporaries. In fact, creative as well as critical thinkers depend upon past
discourse in order to make their point (e.g., by way of innovation or caricature) and
to take everyday expressions of meaning in a modified or completely new direction.
The authors of Job and Ecclesiastes, for example, presuppose that their readers (or
hearers) are familiar with the basic “wisdom tradition” of Hebrew religious sages (as
set forth in the book of Proverbs) as they seek to persuade people to view the ways
of God in the world from a fresh sapiential perspective.
For more specific examples, we might note the important signaling capacity of the
distinctive markers of a particular literary genre, which offer readers (hearers) an initial
textual framework and an important mental guide for interpretation. Such traditional
text templates strongly suggest to consumers how a certain composition ought to be

I am defining “text” in a narrow, verbal sense. “Intertextuality” thus involves the influence of one
text (the pre-text) upon another, either directly by way of citation, or indirectly through paraphrase
and various degrees of allusion.
Textual frames of reference 111
perceived, understood, and also applied in keeping with the type of discourse that is
being formally announced in this way.
EXERCISE-1
Consider the following passages and tell what kind of writing in general you would
expect to follow these citations in the text at hand. In the blank space put the letter
of the passage in Scripture that is quoted, choosing from the references listed below
(all texts taken from the RSV):
• These are the descendants of Esau (that is, Edom): ____

• Oh that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! ____
• Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb… ____
• Therefore, thus says the LORD of Hosts: Because you have not obeyed
my words… ____
• Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife. ____
• O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever! ____
• Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on
to maturity… ____
• While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy… ____
• In that day the LORD of Hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem
of beauty… ____
• How lonely sits the city that was full of people! ____
• A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many… ____
• We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we
pray for you. ____
a) Rev. 14:1 b) Psa. 107:1 c) SoS 1:1 d) Isa. 28:5 e) Lam. 1:1
f) Prov. 17:1 g) Lk. 14:16 h) Jer. 25:8 i) Col. 1:3 j) Heb. 6:1
k) Gen. 36:1 l) Lk. 5:12
Most Bible translations simply reproduce the genre markers of the original text
in a fairly literal manner. Alternatively, if there is no overt marker in the original,
neither does the translation give any indication at all of what sort of text follows.
That is certainly true of a more literal, formal correspondence version like the RSV.
In other languages, however, such a non-proactive policy can often lead to problems
of interpretation. For example, a different kind of discourse marker is needed in
Chewa to mark the exclamatory wish of SoS 1:1, “Oh that you would kiss me with
the kisses of your mouth!” A formally correspondent rendition does not work at all
here and would be regarded as obscene, or at best improper. Rather, a euphemistic,
contrary-to-fact conditional construction is needed: “If you had only embraced me!”
On the other hand, a more explicit signal of a parable is required in Luke 14:16 to
clearly indicate that Christ is telling a parable, and not a true story: “But Jesus killed
him with a parable (an idiom), and said…” The important textual frame of reference
provided by literary genres will be considered further below (ch. 7).
EXERCISE-2
What is the case in your language: Do any of the passages listed above need to be
marked in a special way to indicate the genre of literature that follows? Give examples
112 Ernst Wendland
if you know of any. Which other biblical (sub-) genres come to mind that need to be
correspondingly distinguished in your language? How is this done? Give an example
or two of such genre-marking.
Examples of intertextual influence

The writers (and editors) of Scripture were clearly influenced by other texts – oral and
written, religious and secular, verbal and non-verbal – when they composed their books.
Such intertextuality may be manifested more or less explicitly in the biblical text – that
is, as a direct citation, an indirect allusion, or just a passing reference (“echo”) used only
to establish a general verbal or conceptual context. The importance of intertextuality
for biblical interpretation is underscored at the very beginning of the Scriptures in the
account of “the serpent’s” (hanachash) temptation of “the woman” (ha’ishah)
He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree
in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1b, NIV)
What the LORD God (YHWH Elohim) actually said of course was this – quite
different!
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in
the garden…” (Gen. 2:16)
The woman too apparently misunderstood God’s prohibition, for she mis-quotes
what he had commanded them, both reducing the permission and also adding a major
restriction:
“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3 but God did say, ‘You must
not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not
touch it, or you will die.’ ” (Gen. 3:2b-3)
Along with this change in the textual representation, we must observe the equally
important shift in the respective situational settings of these different utterances, for
they add significant implicatures to the words that are being spoken. In tempting the
woman, the serpent suggests that God was harsh and unreasonable by including every
tree in his prohibition. For her part, the woman, with the man apparently standing
silently at her side (Gen. 3:6), seems to adopt this same perspective, perhaps to a lesser
degree, as she adds her own limitations to God’s original command concerning the
forbidden tree as well as all the others in the garden.
In any case, the point is that quotations, allusions, and other types of textual represen-
tation with reference to what was said or done on some prior occasion in the discourse
history of God’s people are a vital part of the overall “meaning” of any biblical text. This
is in turn an important aspect of the wider sense and significance that an author presup-
poses as being “known” and accessible (perceptible) to his intended readership.

Throughout this coursebook, I use the male pronoun to refer to individual biblical authors since
most reliable scholars still feel that there were no women among those who composed the original
66 books of the Protestant canon.
To first century Jews such as Jesus of Nazareth and his followers, the collection
of writings that we use to call the ‘Old Testament’, was Holy Scripture, a divine
revelation that was relevant to their past, present and future. As Holy Scripture,
it provided them with their religious imagery and their religious language. As
soon as Jesus’ followers tried to express the significance of the message and
person of Jesus, they did so largely in terms derived from Scripture, and they
considered the Jesus event and its effects to be the ‘fulfillment’ of Scripture
(Moyise and Menken 2004:1).
As the preceding quote suggests, there are manifold intertextual echoes, exact as well
as paraphrased, of major and minor persons, events, precepts, principles, figures of
speech and images that resound throughout the corpus of Scripture. One must there-
fore interpret any given conceptual reiteration in the light of the contextual frame
of reference that was provided by the original occurrence. Indeed, as the familiar
hermeneutical precept goes: The Scripture interprets itself. This is why it is very dif-
ficult, if not impossible, to correctly understand and appreciate the New Testament
writings apart from the theological and religious framework that has been established
by the Old Testament.
This assumption of inter-textual dependency is also highlighted at the onset of the
NT canon by a number of crucial passages that reflect the influence of the OT within
the Synoptic Gospels – for example, the structured genealogy that begins the book
of Matthew (1:1-16), the messianic prophecy that headlines Mark’s narrative (1:2;
cf. Mal. 3:1, Isa. 40:3), and the two personal psalms of praise that both embellish and
inform Luke’s opening account announcing the births of John the Baptist and Jesus
Christ (1:46-55, 68-79). And speaking of psalms, the Psalter is, on the whole, prob-
ably the OT book most widely used as a textual frame of reference in the NT whether
as foreground (directly quoted) or background material (alluded to); 67 psalms are
found in one form or another in 13 NT books, usually in many more than one passage
(Moyise and Menken 2004:247-250). More often than not, it is the didactic, authori-
tative force of a cited psalm that comes to the fore in these instances, rather than its
expected expressive or panegyric appeal (e.g., Rom. 3:9-20).
At times the operation of intertextuality in the Scriptures is very subtle and un-
doubtedly imperceptible to those who do not have access to the original text. Thus it
may be that just a single word (or root) in the biblical text has a possible correspondent
of significance in another passage. This may well be the case, for example, with the
Hebrew verb (h-g-h) which is found in Psalm 1:2 (“meditate”) and 2:1 (“plot”). There
are a number of connections that join these two inaugural psalms of the Psalter together
as a conceptual as well as a structural unit, and this general tendency strengthens the
likelihood that any potential lexical pairing is yet another instance of such linkage. The
respective cotexts of these two verbs are quite different, however, and this obviously
affects the specific interpretation of each (i.e., positive versus negative deliberation).

For example, Psalms 1-2 are framed by the term “blessed” (); they evoke basic themes that
are distinctive of both the Law (torah) and wisdom (hokmah); and they together focus on the theme
of righteousness as the life style of those who wish to participate as citizens in the universal rule of
Yahweh’s Anointed One (Messiah).
114 Ernst Wendland
We cannot determine the direction of intertextual influence with this pairing or decide
whether the association that we now discern was intentional or not. The placement of
psalms one and two in juxtaposition is no accident, however, and such a compositional
(or canonical) reality renders lexical and conceptual correspondences (or contrasts)
of this nature worthy of note, for Bible translators as well as exegetes. For example,
translators must decide whether it is desirable, or even possible given the different
contextual meanings, to render the single Hebrew term (h-g-h) by using the same
verb in the TL, e.g., “ponder.” This question, in turn, must be investigated in terms
of the functional significance of the literary forms in question, and whether it is likely
that this was a perceptible feature with appreciable relevance (thematic, pragmatic,
artistic, etc.) for the original worshipers.
In other instances, the lexical variations of apparent parallels may be much more
extensive and hence important for the meaning of each text in relation to the other.
Carefully compare Yahweh’s promise made through the prophet Nathan to King David
as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:11b-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:10b-14 and note where the
major differences occur. Then suggest a possible reason for these deviations, given
the probable compositional dates of these two documents, Chronicles coming much
later than Samuel:
2 SAMUEL
Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled
and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your
body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne
of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; 15 but I will not take 4r my steadfast
love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your
kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.
r7.15
Gk Syr Vg 1 Chron 17.13: Heb shall not depart
1 CHRONICLES
I declare to you that the LORD will build a house for you: 11 When your days are over and you go to be with
your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his
kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his
father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predeces-
sor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.
As already noted, Old Testament intertextuality (usually via the Septuagint, LXX)
is rather thickly interwoven within the discourses of Christ and the New Testament
epistles generally. These compositional threads are of considerable structural, thematic,
as well as contextual significance, for they contribute a great deal to the overall unity
of the Scriptures and its primary message, which centers in the “salvation history”
of God’s people as they move by grace and divine provision from one covenantal
setting to the next. The Messiah himself took great pains to emphasize this essential
continuity of faith and righteous living, as correctly understood and applied in the
light of his new gospel message. In Matthew 5, for example, the Mosaic moral code is
emphasized again and again as a major text topic near the onset of Christ’s well-known
“disciples discourse” (spanning chs. 5-7) – namely, his foundational personal testi-
mony in support of the “law” (i.e., Greek nomos = Hebrew torah) in 5:17-10, followed
by the periodic reminders of 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43. The question then for Bible
translators is simply this: does the broad, cohesive cognitive framework provided
by the Lord here for didactic purposes in this passage strike a chord of recognition
and elicit a response from people who read (let alone hear) it today in their varied
vernacular texts? If not, is this loss of significance not worth doing something about,
whether textually or paratextually, in the translation?
The same question concerning relative perceptibility could be asked of a book
like Hebrews whose interpretation depends on its readers’ correct understanding of
the sequence of selected OT passages that the writer quotes as part of his exposition,
from the beginning of his Christ-centered composition (1:5-13) to the comforting
conclusion (13:5-6). In the case of such heavy intertextuality (with respect to quality
as well as quantity), it may not be sufficient as a contextualizing device for many
readers (and all audiences!) simply to list the OT cross-references in the margin or
as footnotes. A much more detailed – perhaps even invasive! – hermeneutical back-
ground, or key, must be supplied so that the intended TL constituency can perceive
the great relevance of these intertextual cords, which play such an important part
of the author’s eloquent argument on behalf of their “great Shepherd of the sheep”
(13:20; cf. Psa. 23; Ezek. 37:24-28; Jn. 10:11). The apostles’ teaching about Jesus,
the Christ, was clearly anticipated and often forcefully announced by many salient
writings of the Hebrew Testament, thus lending credence as well as continuity to their
uncompromising message (just pick them all out, for example, in Peter’s Pentecost
sermon of Acts 2:14-39).
EXERCISE-3
 Pick one substantial instance of intertextuality that you find in the book of Hebrews
and explain how the OT (LXX) citation lays an essential hermeneutical foundation
(or frame of reference) for the passage at hand. Give special attention to pertinent
information that might not be perceived or understood correctly by average readers
who live in your sociocultural and religious setting.
 Point out any textual “clues” to interpretation that you might incorporate within
your translation, and then suggest the wording of an expository note that would be
necessary to introduce or clarify the rest of the background that is required to increase
the text’s relevance.
The subtle pervasiveness and consequent exegetical as well as translational im-

portance of intertextuality in NT interpretation is well illustrated by the following
instance taken from Romans 15 (Hays 2005:111-113). Obviously, for the Apostle Paul
this intertextual contextualizing device was a very prominent aspect of his epistolary
compositional technique.
The citation of Ps. 69:9 in Rom 15:3 occurs at the climax of Paul’s careful response
to the pastoral problem posed by the tension between the powerful and the powerless.
The powerful are called upon to forego their prerogatives and to please the neighbors
116 Ernst Wendland
in the interest of building up the community (vv. 1-2); this act of pleasing the other
rather than oneself is warranted by the example of Christ, exemplified in the psalm
quotation. …
The aptness of the quotation would be enhanced for readers who remembered
its immediate context in Ps. 69:6ff.:
Do no let those who wait for [ὑπομένοντές; cf. ὑπομονή in Rom. 15:5-6] you be put
to shame [αἰσχυνθείησαν; cf. Rom. 1:16; 5:5; 9:33; 10:11] because of me,
Oh Lord, Lord of the powers [κύριε κύριε τῶν δυνάμεων]. (1)
Do not let those who seek you be dishonored because of me, O God of Israel.
1
Heb. “O Lord, LORD of Hosts” – (Adonai YHWH Tsiba’oth)

This is an example of the allusive technique called metalipsis, which is pervasive in
Paul; the most telling elements of Paul’s subtext are suppressed in his overt citation.
Anyone who hears Ps. 69 as the prayer of Christ [as intimated in Rom. 15:3] would
immediately realize the relevance of these petitions to the counsel that Paul is offering
the Romans; the Messiah who prays such a prayer in the midst of suffering is a power-
ful model for the other-regarding conduct that Paul is urging. Paul wants the Roman
Christians to echo the prayer of the Messiah by saying, in effect, “Do not let one for
whom Christ dies be put to shame because of me” (cf. Rom. 14:15). (The sense ascribed
to the psalm in this interpretation is hardly what historical criticism would regard as the
original meaning of the text. Paul, however, was not deterred by such constraints.)
Against this background we can more adequately understand the function of the
“hermeneutischer Lehrsatz” in Rom. 15:4… The Scriptures kindle and sustain hope
(Rom. 15:4). How? By placing human life in a Christological and eschatological frame-
work. The life pattern of suffering for others, defined by the Christ in Paul’s reading
of Ps. 69, is possible only for those who hope in God’s ultimate vindication. One must
have hope to live sacrificially as Jesus did, even in the midst of conflict and suffering,
trusting that God wills the community’s eschatological unity (vv. 5-6).
EXERCISE-4
 Evaluate the preceding interpretation of the verses cited – is it convincing? If not,

tell why. If you agree, how do you propose setting forth Paul’s reasoning more clearly
for an audience in your setting? If you feel that an explanatory note is necessary, sug-
gest a possible wording that would work in YL.
 How then does Paul’s argument in Rom. 15:1-6 link up with what he says later in
vv. 7-13? Summarize the point and purpose of the several OT passages that are cited
in this latter portion of the pericope.
The intertextual pressure of a prior translation

Just as one biblical text exerts intertextual pressure upon another to varying degrees
and in different respects (e.g., in terms of lexical selection, syntactic arrangement,
discourse style, connotative coloring, and hermeneutical choice), so also one promi-
nent translation often verbally influences a later version. Thus it can be shown that
the latter clearly consulted its predecessor, not only in wording, but at times also
incorporating some of the same errors! This, too, is an instance of contextual condi-
tioning, in this case, of the wording of one translation operating on the compositional
form of another. Some of the best known examples of versions that have subsequently
had widespread intertextual and interlinguistic influence are the Greek Septuagint,
the Latin Vulgate, and the King James Version. But along with this admirable group
of inspirational base texts, another translation deserves honorable mention (at least)
in this regard, namely, Martin Luther’s German translation, which became a life-long
project of the Reformer. The following examples (based on Bluhm 1965:169-180)
illustrate certain aspects of the impressive verbal impact of Luther’s version on the
entire English tradition of Bible translation – in particular, the forerunner Tyndale’s
translation of Ephesians:
Eph. 1:10 Tyndale: when the tyme were full come

Luther: da die zeyt erfullet war
NOTE: Luther did not appreciate double genitives and thus sought to avoid them in
his translation, in this instance by employing a dependent clause, which is evident also
in Tyndale’s rendering.
Eph. 1:19 Tyndale: accordynge to the workynge of that his mighty power
Luther: nach der wirkung seyner mechtigen sterck
NOTE: All of Tyndale’s Greek and Latin sources retain the double genitive construction,
but here he again follows Luther’s use of an adjective to eliminate one of these.
Eph. 1:22 Tyndale: the heed of the congregacion

Luther: zum heubt der gemeynen
NOTE: Tyndale kept the distinctive “Lutheran” term (concept) gemeyne at every occur-
rence of ecclesia in Ephesians (8x), using congregacion instead of Wycliffe’s chirche,
which was later reinstated by the KJV.
Eph. 2:2 Tyndale: after the governor that ruleth in the ayer
Luther: nach dem fursten, der ynn der lufft herrschet
NOTE: Luther perhaps leaned on the Latin translation of Erasmus in order to clarify the
complicated original Greek construction here, but he added an upgrade in the relative
clause, which Tyndale apparently approved of.
Eph. 2:22 Tyndale: and hath broken doune the wall in the myddes that was a stoppe
bitwene us
Luther: und hat abgebrochen den zaun, der da zwischen war
NOTE: Tyndale here approximates Luther’s dynamic rendition of the original.
Eph. 2:15 Tyndale: the lawe of commaundements contained in the lawe written
Luther: das gesetz der gepot, so fern sie schrifftlich verfassen waren
NOTE: Tyndale does not achieve Luther’s idiomacity in this case, but he obviously
learned something from the German text in his effort to clarify the sense of this difficult
verse (Wycliffe’s version is an obscure literal rendering of the Vulgate).
Eph. 3:5 Tyndale: in tymes passed

Luther: ynn den vorigen zeytten
NOTE: A literal reproduction of the Greek is evidenced in the KJV’s “in other ages”
– and Wycliffe has “to other generaciouns”.
118 Ernst Wendland
Eph. 3:19 Tyndale: which is the love of Christ, which love passeth all knowledge
Luther: die liebe Christi, die doch alle erkentnis ubertrifft
NOTE: Tyndale follows Luther’s substitution of a relative clause for the original Greek
participle and his inclusion of the adjective “all,” which is found in no other version.
Eph. 4:18 Tyndale: straungers from the lyfe which is in god

Luther: entfrembdet von dem leben das aus got ist
NOTE: Tyndale, like Luther, converts the original genitive “of God” into a relative
clause and inserts a clarifying preposition – in his case “in,” rather than Luther’s “aus.”
Eph. 4:24 Tyndale: in true holynes

Luther: yn rechtschaffener heylickeyt
NOTE: In both versions, and in no other prior to this time, do we find one of the
original genitives transformed into an adjective to produce a more natural vernacular
expression.
Eph. 6:2 Tyndale: the first commaundement that hath eny promes
Luther: das erst gepot, das eyn verheyssung hat
NOTE: In this case, the Greek prepositional phrase “in a promise” is restated as a full
explanatory clause – nowhere else prior to Tyndale except in Luther’s German text.
Eph. 6:11 Tyndale: against the crafty assautes

Luther: gegen den listigen anlaufft
NOTE: Again, this way of expressing the Greek occurs nowhere else prior to this except
in Luther first, and then Tyndale – thus suggesting a rather clear dependence.
It is worth reading Bluhm’s overall assessment of the creative influence of Luther

on Tyndale in the form of a vernacular textual frame of reference (1965:170):
Tyndale was very much aware of the pioneer achievement of the man who
set the general pattern for Tyndale’s own popular, highly idiomatic rendering.
As a literary genius in his own right he more often than not provided his own
relatively free translation. He was obviously not content with merely copy-
ing Luther. … Instead, he reproduced in his own tongue the general spirit of
Luther’s German, thus succeeding in creating a New Testament in the ver-
nacular second…only to Luther’s masterful version.
EXERCISE-5
It is important to note the qualification that is given with regard to such intertextual
translational “borrowing”: The borrowers of the second version must be competent
and experienced enough not to simply copy the model translation(s) that they are us-
ing. No matter how good this text may be in the language concerned, it will not turn
out that way if rendered literally in the new target language.
 Do you agree with the preceding assertion? If not, tell why. What may be done
to prevent linguistic interference from the model version and conceptual skewing
with respect to the biblical text from occurring in the current translation that is being
prepared? Give as many suggestions as you can that can serve as guidelines for a
team in this situation.
 Compare Tyndale’s final version and the Authorized Version (KJV) reading at
Romans 12:1 (below). What does this suggest about the influence of the former ver-
sion upon the latter? (Of course, there were other English translations available to
the AV’s translators, but they all came after Tyndale.)
Tyndale: I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercifulness of God, that ye make
youre bodyes a quicke sacrifise, holy and acceptable unto God which is youre reason-
able servynge off God.
KJV: I beseech your therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.
 The following is the Chichewa translation of Rom. 12:1 in three versions. The first
citation (A) is from the old “missionary” version of 1927; the other two are modern
versions completed within the past ten years. Which of the latter two, B or C, is a
“new” translation and which is a rather light “revision” of the oldest translation?
The revision obviously “borrowed” heavily from the old version; in other words, the
level of intertextual influence was high, perhaps unacceptably so – since it was not
acknowledged at all by the publishers! (Note: it should be possible to do this compara-
tive exercise without an English back-translation.)
A: Cifukwa cace ndikupemphani inu, abale, mwa zifundo za Mulungu, kuti mupereke
matupi anu nsembe ya moyo, yopatulika ndi yokondweretsa Mulungu, ndiko kupem-
bedza kwanu koyenera.
B: Tsono abale, popeza kuti Mulungu watichitira chifundo chachikulu chotere,

ndikukupemphani kuti mupereke matupi anu omwe kuti akhale nsembe yamoyo,
yopatulika, ndi yokondweretsa Mulungu. Imeneyi ikhale njira yanu yopembedzera
Mulungu mwauzimu.
C: Chifukwa chake, ine ndikupemphani inu abale, mwa chifundo cha Mulungu, kuti
mupereke matupi anu nsembe yamoyo, yopatulika, yokondweretsa Mulungu – kumene
kuli kupembedza kwanu kwa uzimu.
 Do have an example of this sort of intralingual “borrowing” that has served to

contextualize the text of a particular Bible translation in your setting? Was there a
good outcome, as far as this new version is concerned, or were the results unsatisfac-
tory from the point of view of the primary target audience and the purpose of the new
translation? Explain your answer, with reasons, and give an illustration or two (cf.
also Exercise 13 of chapter 4 and Exercise 10 of chapter 10).
 With reference to the three Chewa translations above, what major “organizational”
issue (cf. ch. 4) could arise out of the fact that versions A and B have been sponsored
by the United Bible Societies, while version C was published by the International
Bible Society (all three operating in the country of Malawi)?
120 Ernst Wendland
Primary versus secondary (and tertiary) translations

In certain parts of the world where formal educational standards are low and oppor-
tunities for advanced studies few, many Bible translators are not able to refer to the
biblical languages, to Hebrew and Greek. They thus cannot produce what is known
as a primary translation, based on the original text. Rather, they must depend on
another translation, usually a primary version that has been prepared in a language of
wider communication (LWC), such as English, French, Spanish, and so forth. Theirs
will then be what is termed a secondary translation. In this case, the linguistic and
cultural frames of reference of the primary, or “intervening,” version often act as a
barrier or blinder to translators, sometimes preventing them from gaining an adequate
grasp of the biblical source in terms of content, style, and function.
In such “secondary” communication situations, consultants or advisers must devise
different compositional strategies to try and compensate for their translators’ loss of
direct contact with the original text, for example, through the careful use of special
exegetical tools (analytical dictionaries, interlinear translations, Bible dictionaries and
encyclopedias), translation resources (special handbooks keyed to the biblical texts,
word processing programs like Paratext), and practical techniques based on some
sort of comparative translation method. The so-called base-models approach, for
example, begins with a careful analysis of a relatively literal primary version (i.e., the
base – e.g., the [N]RSV) to give translators some idea of the actual linguistic forms
that were used in the biblical text. This is then closely compared with a number of
LWC model versions (e.g. for English: GNT, CEV, NIV), which suggest to translators
how the base may be restructured and re-expressed in different ways in order to pres-
ent the text in a more meaningful manner and/or to carry out certain communication
goals more effectively in another language.
Most helpful in this text-framing interlingual translation exercise are well-prepared
model versions that are available in a language that is very closely related to the one
into which the Bible is being rendered (the target language), e.g., a Chichewa trans-
lation as a model for one in Chisena or Chinsenga. This is true even though such
“models” often happen to be a translation of a translation, i.e., a tertiary version. In
any case, the aim of this method is never to render any single translation literally, but
rather to re-present the sense and significance of original text using a natural target
language style in a way that best fulfills the primary communicative objectives that were
designated for the new version (its current Skopos). These aims, in turn, should have
been clearly spelled out in the project “commission” or “agreement” form (the Brief).
Great care must be taken, however, in the use of translation models, whether pri-
mary or secondary. A formal over-dependence on any one version (including slavishly
following the forms of the original Hebrew or Greek document) will inevitably lead
translators to introduce many foreign lexical collocations, syntactic structures, and,
worse, entire mis-matched genres into the TL text. Similarly, the undiscerning, uncriti-
cal use of a relatively easy-to-understand model, such as the English GNT or CEV,

Chinyanja, Chisena, and Chinsenga are closely-related east-central Bantu languages (Zone N)
spoken in Malawi and eastern Zambia.
can also produce some serious problems – such as linguistic unnaturalness, erroneous
meanings or implications, even complete unintelligibility – in any translation that fol-
lows it too closely. This is because the word usage, sentence construction, and basic
stylistic preferences do not often correspond very closely between the SL and TL.
EXERCISE-6
If the following marked expressions from the GNT translation (second UK edition,
1994) of Christ’s parable of the “Shrewd Manager” (Luke 16:1-8) are rendered literally
in Chichewa the result will most likely be an ambiguous, unnatural, or meaningless
text (the problematic elements are italicized). Furthermore, it is probable that many
second-language speakers of English in a country like Zambia, for example, would
also experience difficulties with most of these expressions. I have tried to limit the
examples to those involving translational issues within the GNT, not problems that
arise due to a mismatch in the respective sociocultural settings, namely, the Ancient
Near East and modern south-central Africa. [Brief explanations of the problems in-
volved are given in brackets]:
The Shrewd [This is not a familiar adjective; much better is “clever” for the adverb
φρονίμως –v. 8.] Manager
1 Jesus said to his disciples, “There was once a rich man who had a servant who man-
aged his property [How could a ‘servant’ be placed in charge of managing someone’s
property?]. The rich man was told that the manager was wasting his master’s money
[An extended passive construction is difficult to process; it is also more natural to put
the accusation, even if the source is unknown, into direct discourse – e.g., “People
were telling him, “…”. There is also a problem of ambiguity: Is “the manager” the
same person as “a servant” who is mentioned earlier in the verse?], 2 so he called him
in and said, ‘What is this I hear about you? [This would be interpreted as a real ques-
tion by many – and the rich man does not give his manager a chance to answer at all!]
Hand in a complete account of your handling [Whether a pun was intended here or
not, it does not sound natural: why “hand in,” rather than the more direct “give me”?]
of my property, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 The servant said to
himself, ‘My master is going to dismiss me [This is too high-level a verb for this par-
ticular cotext. Why not the more idiomatic “fire me”?] from my job. What shall I do?
I am not strong enough to dig ditches [In Africa, “farming” would be a more suitable
image, and is in fact allowed by the original σκάπτειν ‘to work the soil’.], and I am
ashamed to beg. 4 Now I know what I will do! [The manager has just asked himself,
“What shall I do?”– so how can he turn around and say, “Now I know…” In natural
Chewa, a pragmatic term plus a perfect verb tense would suggest the manager’s sud-
den shift in thinking here, which is marked in the original by asyndeton and an aorist
verb: “Alright, now I have known what I must do…”] Then [This word implies that
the man has already explained “what (he) will do,” which has not yet occurred in the
text. Try: “After I have done this…”] when my job is gone, I shall have friends who
will welcome me in their homes [The specific phrase “in their homes” confuses the
issue for most hearers–why did the man want to go live with his “friends”? Simply
“welcome me” is enough, or more idiomatically, “will help me out”].’

Although this is also a sociocultural issue, GNT’s rendering of οἰκονόμος as “servant” in this
context is quite misleading.
122 Ernst Wendland
5 “So he called in all the people who were in debt to his master. He asked the first one,
‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 ‘One hundred barrels [In Zambia, “drums”
would be a much more familiar unit of liquid measure; “barrels” are occasionally used
to refer to petroleum products] of olive oil,’ he answered. ‘Here is your account,’ the
manager told him; ‘sit down [What was the point of “sitting down” on this occasion?
The original “quickly” ταχέως, left out in the GNT, is more important: “Take your bill
right away…!”] and write fifty.’
7 Then he asked another one, ‘And you – how much do you owe?’ ‘A thousand sacks
of wheat,’ he answered [In Bantu languages it is more natural to begin with the quote
margin; thus an English version is easier to follow if it follows that pattern. When the
margin is put in the middle of an utterance (next sentence), it is even more difficult to
track.]. ‘Here is your account,’ the manager told him; ‘write eight hundred.’
8 “As a result [“Result” of what? – specify “of what he did/how he acted…”] the master
of this dishonest manager praised him for doing such a shrewd thing; because [A long
sentence with a semicolon is always more difficult to interpret; put a full-stop and begin
a new sentence instead. In many Bantu languages, the break at this point needs to be
more pronounced and marked to indicate that Jesus is here beginning his own com-
mentary on the parable that he has just told, e.g., Chewa: “As you well know (a single
transitional particle)…”] the people of this world [Includes everyone? – ambiguous!]
are much more shrewd [clever] in handling their affairs than the people who belong
to the light [“Belong” – in what sense? Better: “who walk (a good biblical idiom!) in
the/God’s light”].”
 Would the same (italicized) expressions cause difficulty in some non-European

language that you know? Point out any other words or phrases in this passage that
might be misunderstood or not understood at all.
 How would you word the various problem points in English (perhaps with reference
to the original text) so that they would be more readily understood (perhaps more
accurately expressed as well)?
 What does this exercise reveal to us about the different intermediary “text frames”
that we provide for Bible translators who cannot refer to the Hebrew or Greek origi-
nals? How do you propose teaching the proper use of such LWC versions to such a
translation team?
Translation text frames – including how literally or idiomatically the SL docu-

ment is to be rendered in the TL – always differ therefore according to the intended
purpose and setting of use of the version that is envisioned. It is worth underscoring
this principle once again. The communicative function (Skopos, which may be unitary
or multiple) must be accurately determined on the basis of sufficient research – and
agreed upon by all parties involved! – before any translation work is undertaken.
This simple (but often overlooked) requirement is one of the most important tenets
of modern Bible translation practice. The translation’s goal(s) will in turn influence
the project “constitution” (Brief), that is, the explicit statement of its principal terms
of reference, including such details as: the project’s organizational framework, the
required qualifications for translators, provision of additional staff training, team
structure and working arrangements, a proposed schedule of completion, a stipulated
manner of qualitative assessment, testing, and revision, and many more. The main
pragmatic purpose and its associated procedures must be explicitly formulated in
keeping with the wishes of the version’s primary TL audience (as determined by a
representative sample of clergy as well as laity). A final decision should be made
only on the basis of widespread education and understanding concerning the various
available (and possible) options, as well as the pros and cons of one type of transla-
tion over against another.
EXERCISE-7
Consider the following organizational-textual issues from the perspective of your

past, present, or proposed translation project:
 What sort of mutual agreement or memo of understanding serves as the procedural

“frame of reference” for the Bible translation project that you are working with (or
which you know about)? How or on what basis was this agreement formulated?
 If you do not have such a documented framework for your project’s operation
and oversight, mention some reasons why this would be helpful, even essential, to
establish as soon as possible. List some of the important management-related and/or
administrative factors that would need to be included.
 Which published Bible translation(s) act(s) as a textual frame of reference for

the version that you are currently preparing? Have any vernacular models in related
languages been included? Why or why not?
 Which would be more helpful to use as a model for consultation when translating
– a related vernacular version that is more literal or more idiomatic in nature? Explain
your preference.
 One general translation goal is stated like this: “We want our version to remain
as close as possible to the SL text forms in keeping with a natural, understandable
style in the TL” – or, as the Preface to the RSV puts it: “as literal as possible, as free
as necessary.” Compare this aim in relation to the one that has been adopted for your
project: where is it similar – how is it different? Is this a realistic goal to shoot for?
Explain why or why not from the perspective of a new translation project in YL.
 Is the principal goal of your translation to bring the biblical text closer to today’s
readers in terms of style (domestication), to transport today’s readers back to the
biblical text (foreignization) – or does your policy lie (perhaps wavering) somewhere
in-between these two poles of relative correspondence? Explain the differences among
these three stylistic approaches and their ensuing effects on primary translation proce-
dures as these relate to the project that you are working with or have knowledge of.
The inclusion of study Bible notes (some of which were suggested when working
with Luke 16:1-8 above) is an attempt to provide a fuller cognitive frame of refer-
ence for the passage of Scripture that will help readers to interpret it more easily,
124 Ernst Wendland
accurately, and completely. This increasingly popular method of contextualizing the

biblical text will be considered more specifically during our discussion of Revelation
4 below (ch. 9).
Which “text”? The need for textual criticism

Thus far we have been considering “textual frames” without much reference to the
original text of Scripture. This of course has been a reversal of usual procedure: The
first step of every exegetical (and translational) study normally begins with a so-called
text critical study of the original document. The aim is to discover where the main
difficulties lie with regard to the principal copies available and then to determine
how these might be resolved. Many translators, especially those who cannot access
the original text of Scripture, simply allow the pertinent UBS Translator’s Handbook
(and/or SIL’s Exegetical Summary), plus a selection of standard translations, to take
care of this problem for them. In cases of disagreement or doubt, they adopt the “ma-
jority opinion” among their various references. In most situations, such a minimal
strategy for assessing the quality of the biblical text is quite satisfactory, especially
when more recent exegetical resources and study tools are studied in comparison with
each other (e.g., Omanson 2006). The following is a brief introduction to the subject,
which highlights some of the challenges that translators face in this basic text-framing
endeavor (from A Translator’s Handbook on Song of Songs [SoS], G. Ogden and L.
Zogbo – the Paratext edition; used by permission):
Textual Problems and the Translator

Most Bible readers are not aware that translations made from one language to another
depend to a certain extent on interpretations made by the translators themselves. That
is why translations of a given passage from the original Hebrew or Greek vary from
one Bible version to the other. Taking an example from the Song, at 8.10 RSV says
“then I was in his eyes as one who brings peace,” TEV “with him I find contentment
and peace,” and the New Jewish Version (NJV) “I became in his eyes as one who finds
favor.” Each translator has interpreted the Hebrew text in a slightly different way.
Differences in translation are not only determined by translators’ choices but also by
some other technical factors. These we can only briefly spell out here.
First, words in Hebrew are built on consonant roots. Depending on the vowels added
to the root letters, these roots can be interpreted as nouns, verbs, participles, adjec-
tives, and so on. For example, the root sh-l-m, found in the example cited above, can
indicate a noun “peace” or “security,” a verb “to complete,” “to be complete,” or “to
be at peace,” a participle “one at peace” or “one being complete,” or even an adjective
“safe” or “peaceful.”
Unfortunately for us the first writers of Hebrew wrote with consonants only. Various
symbols were eventually added to indicate vowel sounds, but a full system of vowel
representation was not used until the time of the Masoretes, scholars living during the
ninth and tenth centuries A.D. Much of our interpretation is therefore based on a text
that was “completed” many centuries after the original was first written. Furthermore,
the markings introduced at this time were for the most part “points” looking like com-
mas and periods, markings that can often be confused. When biblical scholars study
the meaning of texts, they try to evaluate how well the Masoretes interpreted the text.
This means they may question how they “pointed” a given word. Changing the vowels
of a word can change the whole meaning of a verse!

How words are divided can also affect the meaning of a text. In English the string
“anear” can be taken as “an ear” or “a near.” Similarly problems of word division in
Hebrew may also enter the picture.
Finally, some Hebrew consonants are very similar in appearance and lead to confusion
as to the original text. For example, the letters y and w look alike (y and w ), as do r and
d (r and d ). We can see the problem in 2 Kgs 16.6, where Edom and Aram (Syria) are
confused because of the very slight difference in the two letters d. If there was an error
in copying, the whole meaning of a phrase can be affected. We only have to look at the
number of footnotes in many translations that say “Hebrew text unclear” or “Hebrew
meaning unclear” to realize that the translator faces many decisions about the correct
text. Proposed changes to the text are called “emendations,” and every Bible translation
has to come to terms with them. In the discussion of very difficult texts in the Song,
this Handbook will try to explain some of the most important proposals.
EXERCISE-8
The following are several samples of text-critical and text-interpretive issues that
occur in the final chapter of SoS (ch. 8) as discussed by the handbook mentioned
above. Evaluate the quality and relevance of the guidance that is given from the
perspective of the translation project that you are working with. What corrections
or improvements can you suggest? How important is such information in providing
translators with a sufficient textual frame of reference to carry out their work? Explain
your position on this matter.
8:2 Into the chamber of her that conceived me: as the RSV footnote indicates, this
phrase is a problem for interpreters and translators. The problem is that instead of the
Hebrew here has the verb “teach.” It translates as “you/she will teach me.” However,
many scholars suggest that the correct text should be conceived, as in the parallel 3.4.
The two possible interpretations are:
into the house of my mother;

she [or, you] will teach me.
Or else:
into the house of my mother,

and into the room of the one who conceived me.
If the Hebrew text actually says “she [or, you] will teach me,” it is difficult to know why
the phrase is included here. Is it simply a phrase that describes the role of the mother,
much as the phrase “the one nursing at my mother’s breast” describes the brother? If
so, we can translate it as “the one who taught [or, teaches] me [everything I know].”
However, there is another possible rendering of the Hebrew: “you will teach me.” This
can be addressed to the young man, in which case we assume the young man would be
teaching her more about love. This latter is the interpretation that many versions and
commentators adopt. tob, for example, renders “you will initiate me.” This majority
view is certainly a logical possibility.
8:5 Leaning upon her beloved: the Hebrew participle leaning is from a root that
occurs only here, so its meaning is uncertain. From related languages we can narrow
126 Ernst Wendland
its sense to “clinging to” or “leaning on.” A general expression like “leaning on [her
lover]” or “holding closely to [her lover]” will serve well.
Under the apple tree I awakened you: obviously there is a change of speaker here.
Translations generally indicate this division by leaving a blank line between the two
clauses, as in RSV.
Our first question concerns the speaker. If we accept that the introduction in the
previous half of the verse is presented by the chorus, then we presume it is one of the
lovers speaking here. But which one? The problem is complicated by the fact that
there are different versions of the ancient texts. The Hebrew text has first person verbs
with masculine pronoun objects, “I awakened you [masculine].” This indicates that
the young woman is speaking. However, the Syriac translation (second century a.d.)
has feminine object markers, suggesting the young man is speaking. Both views can
be found in translations. NEB, NAB, and JB present the young man as the speaker,
while TEV, NIV, tob, and frcl consider it to be the young woman. If the latter view
is accurate, this is the first time the young man’s mother is referred to (see following
line). We will follow the Hebrew text and suggest it is the young woman speaking.
Was in travail with you is the attempt of RSV to render the Hebrew root, which can
mean “get pregnant” as well as “give birth,” but not travail (as RSV, neb). The follow-
ing clause contains a different verb, which is the more precise and recognized term for
giving birth. In Psa 7.15 the two verbs occur in association with each other, meaning
“conceive” and “give birth” respectively. Therefore “conceive” should be used here in
place of in travail with: “it was there that your mother conceived you.”
8:6 A most vehement flame: this is a phrase presumably referring to love also, as a
description parallel to the previous phrase. RSV considers this line to be only one word
in Hebrew (shalhebethyah). Its meaning is at best ambiguous. A number of scholars
believe the phrase to be two separate words, the second of which is yah. This latter is
then interpreted as an abbreviated form of the divine name Yahweh, giving a translation
“flame of Yahweh.” If this were the correct view, this phrase would represent the only
reference to God in the entire Song. Those who accept this view think that human love
is being compared to divine love. This analysis of the text provides the basis for many
commentators’ belief that the Song is not a simple love song, but a treatise on God’s
love for his people.
There are many other scholars, however, who see no reference to Yahweh at all here,
pointing out that the name of God has never once been mentioned in the Song. Some
think that, if indeed it is the name of God, it may be nothing more than an idiomatic
expression for lightning, “flame of Yah,” parallel in meaning to the previous phrase,
“shafts of fire.”
As noted above, the phrase is ambiguous. It can also be interpreted as a superlative
form (with no reference to Yahweh), “the hottest [or, fiercest] flame.” RSV and NJV
follow this sense, as TEV apparently does when it says “like a raging fire” (see also
NIV margin).
We suggest following the majority view here and so choose to translate with a super-
lative, “the hottest flame” or “the hottest of all flames.”
Where readers are familiar with Bible translations that interpret this latter clause as
referring to Yahweh, it may be helpful to include a footnote as some of the French
versions do (frcl, tob), stating that “flame of Yahweh” is an alternative interpretation
of the Hebrew text.
8:10 As one who brings peace: there are problems with this phrase, as RSV points
out. The verb in question is either a participial form of the verb “find,” (jb, TEV, Fox)
or a participle of the root meaning “come out.” This latter gives a translation “one who
brings out, produces” (followed by NIV, NEB, Gordis). Opinion is clearly divided.
However, the problem does not rest there, for how we interpret the phrase determines
how we render the fuller sense. Who is it who finds peace? The young woman, or her
lover? Who brings or gives peace? The young man, or the woman? NAB, TEV, and
JB have the man welcoming the woman; RSV, NIV, NEB and others consider it is the
young woman who brings well-being to her lover.
Thus there are two problems to be resolved. The first one concerns the subject of
the verb brings. As the young woman is the speaker, our conclusion is that she is
the subject. What she actually does depends on our interpretation of the verb phrase
brings peace. So our other problem has to do with the verb itself; and that is an even
more complex problem. Our conclusion is that, because the verb “find” has been used
frequently throughout the Song, and the verb “come out” has not, it is more likely that
the verb “find” is the one used here. However, in view of the uncertainty, we can put
the alternative in a footnote.
A third question now flows from the above: What is it that the young woman finds?
Peace is the Hebrew word shalom. It carries various meanings, all having to do with
a person’s sense of “well-being.” It is a very positive term and may mean “friendship”
or “favor.” NAB suggests “one to be welcomed,” while NEB thinks it means “content-
ment.” In the light of the discussion about the young woman’s physical maturity, what
does shalom mean here? It may well be some kind of euphemism for sexual fulfillment.
However, the root also has the meaning “complete,” so it is our opinion that she is us-
ing shalom to portray the fact that she has reached full or complete maturity. Thus the
translation of the phrase brings peace is “one who has reached maturity,” “one who
is complete [fully mature].”
Translation of the entire clause then becomes “So he thinks of me as one who is now
mature,” “He sees me as one who has reached full maturity.” In view of the problem
with this text and interpretation, we will need to include a footnote with a reference to
the Hebrew idiom used.
The whole verse can say:
I was a wall, but now my breasts are as tall as towers!

Therefore I have found favor in his eyes.* (* Or “Therefore my lover thinks of me
as fully mature.”)
8:12 As one who brings peace: there are problems with this phrase, as RSV points
out. The verb in question is either a participial form of the verb “find,” (jb, TEV, Fox)
or a participle of the root meaning “come out.” This latter gives a translation “one who
brings out, produces” (followed by NIV, NEB, Gordis). Opinion is clearly divided.
However, the problem does not rest there, for how we interpret the phrase determines
how we render the fuller sense. Who is it who finds peace? The young woman, or her
lover? Who brings or gives peace? The young man, or the woman? NAB, TEV, and
JB have the man welcoming the woman; RSV, NIV, NEB and others consider it is the
young woman who brings well-being to her lover.
Thus there are two problems to be resolved. The first one concerns the subject of
the verb brings. As the young woman is the speaker, our conclusion is that she is
the subject. What she actually does depends on our interpretation of the verb phrase
brings peace. So our other problem has to do with the verb itself; and that is an even
more complex problem. Our conclusion is that, because the verb “find” has been used
128 Ernst Wendland
frequently throughout the Song, and the verb “come out” has not, it is more likely that
the verb “find” is the one used here. However, in view of the uncertainty, we can put
the alternative in a footnote.
A third question now flows from the above: What is it that the young woman finds?
Peace is the Hebrew word shalom. It carries various meanings, all having to do with
a person’s sense of “well-being.” It is a very positive term and may mean “friendship”
or “favor.” NAB suggests “one to be welcomed,” while NEB thinks it means “content-
ment.” In the light of the discussion about the young woman’s physical maturity, what
does shalom mean here? It may well be some kind of euphemism for sexual fulfillment.
However, the root also has the meaning “complete,” so it is our opinion that she is us-
ing shalom to portray the fact that she has reached full or complete maturity. Thus the
translation of the phrase brings peace is “one who has reached maturity,” “one who
is complete [fully mature].”
Translation of the entire clause then becomes “So he thinks of me as one who is now
mature,” “He sees me as one who has reached full maturity.” In view of the problem
with this text and interpretation, we will need to include a footnote with a reference to
the Hebrew idiom used.
The whole verse can say:
I was a wall, but now my breasts are as tall as towers!

Therefore I have found favor in his eyes.*
Footnote: * Or “Therefore my lover thinks of me as fully mature.”
8:13 Your voice may be the object of the participle are listening or of the follow-
ing verb let me hear. Translations are divided on this matter; JB agrees with RSV,
but NJV and NIV, along with a number of commentators, think voice is the object of
hear. This gives a sense “Let me hear your voice.” The phrase your voice follows the
preposition
TEV seems to understand your voice as doing double duty in this verse, making it
both the object of “hear” and the object of “listen”: “Let me hear your voice from the
garden, my love; my companions are waiting to hear you speak.”
8:14 Your voice may be the object of the participle are listening or of the following
verb let me hear. Translations are divided on this matter; JB agrees with RSV, but NJV
and NIV, along with a number of commentators, think voice is the object of hear. This
gives a sense “Let me hear your voice.” The phrase your voice follows the preposition
TEV seems to understand your voice as doing double duty in this verse, making it
both the object of “hear” and the object of “listen”: “Let me hear your voice from the
garden, my love; my companions are waiting to hear you speak.”
Textual support of the canon

A consideration of the textual framework provided by the original documents of
Scripture is closely related to similar concerns that pertain to the biblical canon (a
collection of books officially accepted as sacred “Scripture” by a particular religious
community) as a whole. This is a subject that is being explored nowadays in a spirit
of greater flexibility but also with a certain amount of controversy in some circles. We
must realize that major church bodies differ on this crucial question: What comprises
the divinely inspired, authoritative “canon”? How many books does this include – the
traditional Protestant 66 or more? The canon of Scripture rightly creates a primary
textual frame of reference for biblical interpretation (as noted earlier: “Scripture
interprets Scripture”). However, it must first be agreed among all parties supporting
a translation project what exactly constitutes the canonical text that forms the basis
for their work (sometimes also the order of books that are to be included). In the past,
this matter was pretty much taken for granted since the national Bible Society was
usually represented by Protestant church denominations that generally agreed on the
issue. That is not always true nowadays as the scope and diversity of membership in
many instances has been increased to serve the wider Christian community. In any
case, this is yet another matter that deserves due consideration, especially during the
formative stages of a “Bible” translation project.
EXERCISE-9: Considering the Canon
 Do issues of canon (its selection and internal sequence) concern the Bible transla-
tion in your language (or in a related language), for example, the inclusion of the
Deuterocanonical books within the Old Testament? If so, mention one or more of
the difficulties that have been encountered and how these were resolved.
 What about the standard chapter and verse numbers: Has there been any proposal
to revise these in the light of recent scholarship or on the advice of standard com-
mentaries and versions (e.g., to combine two or more closely related verses into one
larger paragraph unit for the sake of more restructured translation or a modern format)?
Which system of chapter and verse numbering is used in the book of Psalms? Will the
Catholic edition differ from the Protestant version in this respect? Explain.
 Can you think of examples of some church denominations that tend to favor cer-
tain books or portions of the Bible more than others (e.g., the NT epistles) – in an
obvious, perhaps even contentious manner? If so, does this clear partiality affect the
joint program of Scripture translation in any way, for example, with regard to the
order of preference in which the books are chosen for translation – or selected as
portions for publication? For example, which book of the Bible should be chosen as
the first portion to publish as a sample? Should the books of the Bible be published
in canonical order, beginning with the OT and Genesis? Why or why not would this
be an appropriate choice in your setting?
 Providing an interpretive framework for the canon of Scripture on behalf of a

remote or isolated target group may require a more progressive, measured procedure.
This is a translation-publishing plan that seeks first to create a sufficient “narrative
background” of familiar or easier-to-interpret biblical books in order to facilitate the
subsequent understanding of the more difficult books, e.g., poetic, prophetic, episto-
lary texts. If you have participated in such a gradual text-contextualizing program,
describe its motivation, implementation, and results (if available).
 In some world settings, it is not possible, perhaps for financial reasons, to publish
an entire Bible. Instead a selection is made of those books that are deemed most
crucial for the particular culture, society, and situation concerned. If this happened
130 Ernst Wendland
to be the case in your area of the world, which OT and NT books would you select to
comprise such a “mini-canon” – say, of 26 instead of 66 books? Can you provide a
brief rationale for your chosen inventory? Discuss your different listings as a group
and see if you can come up with a common abbreviated canon. Which biblical books
seem to cause the most controversy regarding inclusion – and why?
 At times the provision of a hermeneutical frame of reference for the biblical books
will be expanded to include the production of a series of non-scriptural booklets that
are intended to describe and explain some of the principal features of the Bible’s
physical environment and cultural setting. Briefly tell about any extratextual bibli-
cal enrichment endeavors of this nature that you have either participated in or know
about. Evaluate the success of such text-framing projects and what might have been
done to improve the outcome. Mention several of the key Scripture-related subjects
that would merit publication as separate informational texts in your locale.
7. Intratextuality
A text’s internal frame of reference
In the preceding lesson we considered several prominent external textual frames that
provide a point of reference for the translation of a given passage of Scripture – in
particular, those that arise due to some intertextual relationship with some other book
of the Bible. We also noted the context that is created by an earlier translation in the
TL as well as by Scripture versions in other languages that the receptor community
has access to, especially certain well-established versions in so-called languages of
wider communication (e.g., English, French, Spanish, Swahili). We might begin with
a review of these two important categories of influence.
EXERCISE-1
 The Apostle Paul clearly bases his argument against a legalistic approach to religion
in Galatians 4:21-31 on the narrative found in Genesis 17:19 and 18:10-15. List the
different comparative relationships that Paul brings up and summarize his application
to the current extratextual (socio-religious) setting among the Galatian churches.
 What prophetic passage does he cite in verse 27 and what is his main point here?
Describe the operation of intertextuality as a strategy in the rhetoric of Paul’s argu-
mentation.
 What special difficulties then does this Galatians passage present for translators
in your language (YL) – with special reference now to its intertextual frame of refer-
ence? Mention the most important of these and suggest some ways in which they
might be dealt with.
EXERCISE-2
Make a listing of all the Bible translations that people in your community read,
study, preach, and teach from on a regular basis –both those that exist in your mother
tongue and also those in other languages. Try to list these in their relative order of
importance.
 Which is the most important version? Suggest a reason as to why this is the case.
 Since the version that you have just mentioned is widely used, why is another
translation necessary? In other words, why are you preparing or planning a new
translation – what special purpose(s) is it intended to serve?
Write out Galatians 4:27 below using three Bible translations that people in your
speech community commonly refer to. You may include a draft in your language that
you have completed, but not yet published. Do this in the spaces provided after the
NIV rendering, which is given first.
132 Ernst Wendland
Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children;

Break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains;
Because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 Now point out the major differences that you see among these four versions as you
compare one with another. Try to explain these translations in terms of the diverse
frames of reference that we have been discussing in this coursebook. In other words,
how might a significant Sociocultural, Organizational, or Situational factor have
influenced the translation that you find in one or another of these versions?
 Perhaps the chief variations appear as a result of the application of a different

translation policy or procedure. Try to point out one or two examples of this and
explain what the main differences are.
Literary hermeneutical clues

In this lesson we will survey and exemplify several prominent literary (artistic,
rhetorical, architectonic) characteristics of biblical writings that serve individually,
but particularly in combination, to establish intratextual, i.e., text-internal, frames
of reference which act as implicit guides to their own exegetical interpretation. The
presentation here illustrates through textual application a number of the categories and
distinctions that are outlined in chapter 6 of Wilt (2003). In one sense, these structural
and stylistic features act as formal hermeneutical clues that have been built into the
biblical text by the original author, whether deliberately or intuitively, to direct his
target audience (readership) along the path of the most desirable (source-intended)
semantic and/or pragmatic understanding of the message that was conveyed to them
in writing. Some markers of this nature are more “ostensible” and hence interpretable,
even in translation; others are somewhat less so, while still others may require a great
deal of study with reference to the current text of Scripture and its supposed situational
context before their “full” (i.e., relatively speaking) symbolical, rhetorical, thematic,
etc. significance can be perceived and understood.
How one represents a given literary text in another language will depend, first of all,
on its presumed intrinsic artistic properties and communicative dynamics in the origi-
nal setting of message transmission. This formally-organized constellation of stylistic
features, discourse structures and speech functions constitutes the original “model”
with which any verbal representation in the target language needs to be continually
compared and evaluated in terms of possible semantic losses, gains, and distortions.
Intratextuality 133
In this instance we are dealing with the case of a textual “frame [TL] within a frame
[SL].” In other words, the diverse compositional influences that underlie the creation
of a specific biblical passage or book serve in turn as a formal and semantic frame of
reference that must govern or shape its re-creation in a given translation. This would
include all of the different literary strategies (to be illustrated below), that an author
employed in order to contextualize or direct the interpretation of his text in a given
way. Functionally equivalent devices must then be found by translators, to the extent
possible, in order to carry out the same or similar communicative goal(s) in the TL.
A careful, comprehensive study of the biblical text must therefore be carried out
because this provides the foundational corner stone for the entire translation enterprise.
As was noted in previous lessons, the subsequent translation will also be guided and
directed by the external influence of the project management form (terms of reference)
that has already been agreed upon in advance – that is, in keeping with its primary
communication goals in relation to a specific target audience as well as in accordance
with the combined abilities of its team of translators. The production of any Bible
translation is thus dependent upon a host of factors that pertain to the ancient text itself
as well as to the contemporary setting in which it is to be communicated today.
EXERCISE-3
Critically evaluate the following “relevance theory” approach to stylistic analysis

and its relevance for translators (cited in Hatim and Munday 2004:65, 279; original
boldface). Then answer the subsequent questions that illustrate the suggestions made
with reference to the selection of James 2:14-17.
While it is certainly true…that what can be said in one language can be said in another,
it is also true that this is often restricted to semantic content. In the area of stylistic
properties, for example, linguistic features tend to be far from universal. To cope with
this specificity, relevance theory has adopted the ‘communicative clues’ model. Sty-
listic properties are no longer seen in terms of their intrinsic value, but rather through
the kind of clues they yield to guide the audience to the intended interpretation. …
Focal effects (emphasis, etc.) may be achieved by such formal means as stress in some
languages, but not in others. Stress is a communicative clue which, if unavailable in
the TL, may be replaced by other syntactic means that serve a similar function (e.g.,
clefting as in it is his vision that was impaired). In these TLs, clefting (like stress)
would be a crucial communicative clue.
Languages differ not only in the patterns of structure employed but also in the val-
ues assigned to what could be a similar pattern (e.g., repetition). Cumulative effects
conveyed by sequences of elements also tend to vary across language and cultures
(does parallelism, together with other relevant devices within a given configuration
in English, perform a similar role as it does in other languages?). In addition to this
factor of complexity, there is ‘frequency of use’ in the TL to consider. Take the case
of repetition or parallelism, for example. From the perspective of relevance theory,
the effect of such structures is seen in terms of ‘the cost-benefit correlation between
the effort needed to process a stimulus and the contextual effects to be expected as a
reward’ (Gutt 1991:140). With repetition or parallelism being ‘fashions of speaking’
used frequently almost by default in a range of Eastern languages, will such a structure
be as ‘noteworthy’ in these languages compared, say, to English?
134 Ernst Wendland
14
Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ
δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; 15 ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν
καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς 16 εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν, Ὑπάγετε
ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ
σώματος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; 17 οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστιν
καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν.
14
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can
such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16
If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does
nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if
it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
 Pick out three marked stylistic features (communicative clues) that are manifested
in the previous selection. What is the apparent rhetorical function of each one in this
particular textual setting? What would you posit as being the principal communica-
tive goal (illocutionary force) of this passage as a whole (within the cotext of James,
chapter 2)?
 Do you have these same linguistic/literary features in your language? If so, are they
used with the same (or similar) communicative value and relative frequency of use?
Explain. If not, which functionally equivalent stylistic forms could you use in your
translation? Give an example, with explanation, based on the James passage above.
 Finally, explain how you would proceed to measure or assess “the cost-benefit
correlation between the effort needed to process a stimulus and the contextual effects
to be expected as a reward” with respect to the example(s) that you have given. Can
you suggest any other way to determine whether a satisfactory degree of “functional
equivalence” (or “relevant similarity”) has been achieved in your translation? If so,
outline this procedure. If not, where would you go to find a possible answer – which
translation resource would you turn to? [If time allows, have individuals in the class
or translation teams do some comparative research, then report their findings and the
analytical or practical solutions arrived at to the group.]
The following is a selective overview of five important internal textual strategies that
serve to guide one’s interpretation of any larger biblical discourse: genre selection,
compositional shifts, patterned recursion, rhetorical highlighting, and sound (phono-
logical) support. These are composite groupings (sets of “communicative clues”) in
that each one incorporates a number of different facets, devices, and/or procedures.
They are not the only ones that might be examined but they seem to offer a good
representative sample. Together, these five overlapping and interconnected literary
frames of reference provide a varied perspective on the total text structure and func-
tional inventory that must be thoroughly investigated together as the first step in the

A more detailed description of these and other literary-focused discourse analysis techniques is
found in Wendland (2006:88-103).
Intratextuality 135
overall translation process. In other words, this assortment of artistic and rhetorical
features represent a large proportion of the compositional building materials that were
employed to construct the diverse passages and pericopes of Scripture in their original
linguistic form, each reflecting the specific theological or ethical purpose for which
it was initially composed. Also discussed in this unit are different possibilities for
utilizing the typography and format of print in order to display pertinent aspects of the
discourse organization for Bible readers (the options for representing these in audio
and video media products need to be more fully explored as a separate study).
Genre specification
The subject of genre, that is, a conventionally recognized and reproduced type of
literary discourse, has come up already on a number of occasions in this coursebook.
This is a crucial aspect of any textual analysis and one that we normally consider
first since knowledge about the kind of composition that one is working with will
(or should) influence how one interprets and later translates it into another language.
Genre thus sets up a pattern of expectations with respect to structure, style, purpose,
occasion of use, and (in some cases also) content. Such a discourse framework acts
like a roadmap together with a set of directions that enables the analyst to know
where she or he is going within a text and thus to travel from one place to another
with understanding and confidence.
EXERCISE-4
Evaluate the following quotation from STEPS (Salisbury 2002) regarding a relevance
theory perspective on genre (by Christoph Unger, cited by Bo-Krister Lyungberg
STEPS:81):
We can summarize then: genre may be important to the understanding of texts because it
makes certain contextual assumptions easily available for interpretation. This is because
genre knowledge is – like other kinds of cultural knowledge – information which a
culture regards as highly relevant. ... Cultural knowledge becomes highly accessible
as context and influencing expectations of relevance – [this] is especially likely when
there is a word denoting a genre in the language. ... The way genre influences text
comprehension (where it does) is describable by the same means as the role of context
in utterance interpretation in general. Thus, there is nothing special about genre in this
respect. ... However, the task of assessing the role of genre in translation is a sub-task
of the task of assessing the role of context and context-availability, which is the main
task in communication and translation.
 Apply these thoughts on genre to the James 2:14-17 passage above: What genre-
based “contextual assumptions” does this passage evoke for you as you read it? How

I apply this manner of literary study to a detailed study of Paul’s letter to Philemon in Wendland
2005. I must stress the fact that these guidelines do not constitute a complete “recipe” or an ideal
“model” for carrying out a successful text analysis; they are simply my personal suggestions, given
by way of summary, that may encourage readers to develop their own methodology, one more
appropriate to their needs.
136 Ernst Wendland
does such knowledge inform and/or influence your interpretation of this particular
text? Give one specific example of this.
 What is the term that you use for “genre” in YL? Is this an etic (borrowed) or emic
(indigenous) term? Do you differentiate between oral and written genres of discourse?
If so, explain in what way.
There are many different genres (and sub-types) of literature in the Bible, and so
the first step of analysis is learning how to distinguish one from another. I cannot
consider this subject in great detail here (cf. Wendland 2004:101-123), but do wish
to underscore its importance to translators as they study the original text and then
seek an appropriate way of re-expressing that in their language, not only in terms of
words, phrases, clauses, and sentences, but also with respect to the larger units of
discourse along with their implicit communicative goals. Each one of these patterns
of arrangement serves as the compositional structure that provides an essential her-
meneutical frame of reference as we perceive and interpret any literary text, whether
secular or religious.
EXERCISE-5
Carefully examine the two passages, A and B (from Exodus 14-15, RSV), below and
do the following: Break the text up into meaningful utterance (line/sense) units by
drawing a single slash mark (/) at the end of each one. Next put another slash (thus
making it a double marker: //) at the end of what you perceive to be a larger “poetic
paragraph” or strophe unit in the text. Most such greater “breaks” are marked by a
major shift in form and/or content, especially if multiple (see Compositional disjunc-
tion below.) The first several lines have been done for you as a sample of what to do
in this exercise.
A. 5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, / the mind of Pharaoh and his servants
was changed toward the people, / and they said, / “What is this we have done, / that we have let Israel
go from serving us?” // 6 So he made ready his chariot and took his army with him, 7 and took six hundred
picked chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them. 8 And the LORD hardened
the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly. 9 The
Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and his horsemen and his army, and overtook
them encamped at the sea, by Pi-ha-hiroth, in front of Baal-zephon. … 19 Then the angel of God who
went before the host of Israel moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before
them and stood behind them, 20 coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was
the cloud and the darkness; and the night passed without one coming near the other all night. 21 Then
Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all
night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the people of Israel went into the
midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 23 The
Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots,
and his horsemen. 24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down
upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians, 25 clogging their chariot wheels
so that they drove heavily; and the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from before Israel; for the LORD fights
for them against the Egyptians.” 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea,
Intratextuality 137
that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.” 27 So
Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning
appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28
The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had
followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on
dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 30 Thus
the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon
the seashore. 31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people
feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.
B.1Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, / “I will sing to
the LORD, / for he has triumphed gloriously; / the horse and his rider he has thrown into the
sea. / 2 The LORD is my strength and my song, / and he has become my salvation; / this is my
God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. / 3 The LORD is a man of war;
the LORD is his name. // 4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host he cast into the sea; and his picked
officers are sunk in the Red Sea. 5 The floods cover them; they went down into the depths like
a stone. 6 Thy right hand, O LORD, glorious in power, thy right hand, O LORD, shatters the
enemy. 7 In the greatness of thy majesty thou overthrowest thy adversaries; thou sendest forth
thy fury, it consumes them like stubble. 8 At the blast of thy nostrils the waters piled up, the
floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. 9 The enemy said, ‘I will
pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw
my sword, my hand shall destroy them.’ 10 Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them;
they sank as lead in the mighty waters. 11 Who is like thee, O LORD, among the gods? Who is
like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders? 12 Thou didst stretch
out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them. 13 Thou hast led in thy steadfast love the people
whom thou hast redeemed, thou hast guided them by thy strength to thy holy abode. 14 The
peoples have heard, they tremble; pangs have seized on the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are
the chiefs of Edom dismayed; the leaders of Moab, trembling seizes them; all the inhabitants
of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of
thy arm, they are as still as a stone, till thy people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by
whom thou hast purchased. 17 Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them on thy own mountain,
the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, which thy
hands have established. 18 The LORD will reign for ever and ever.”
Answer the following questions based on your examination of the two passages
above, A and B:
 What differences in terms of patterns of lineation do you observe between the

two texts A and B?
 Mention at least three other ways in which text B is different from A in terms of
its formal style.
 How does this difference pertain to function – in other words, how does the ap-
parent purpose of text B differ from that of A?
 On the basis of this exercise then, you would conclude that text ___ is an example
of poetry and the distinctive stylistic features that you have mentioned may be re-
garded as primary indicators of “poetic” discourse in the Bible. How does a poetic
text differ from a “prosaic” one in terms of how its basic message is communicated
– as well as the effect that is evoked in or elicited from an audience?
138 Ernst Wendland
 Examine all the places where you put a double slash (//) marker and then mention
your reasons for marking a major/larger discourse division at these points.
 Finally, compare your major textual units in sample B with those of the GNT and
NIV and point out where the chief differences occur. Choose which arrangement of
the text you prefer – your own or one of the other versions in each case and give
reasons for your preferences.
Serious Bible readers, lay people as well as clergy, depend on the concept of genre
much more frequently than they might think to give them an initial idea or “feel” of
how to read (listen to) and interpret a given passage of Scripture, which, as a library
of sacred documents, offers a wide variety literary types to choose from. Some texts
tend to be more prosaic in nature, others more poetic, and still others somewhere in
between. List below the three main stylistic features that you found to distinguish
selection B above – hence key indicators of poetic discourse:
a) ____________________________________________________________
b) ____________________________________________________________
c) ____________________________________________________________
EXERCISE-6
Read through the poetic passages given below and then list two additional distinguish-
ing features of biblical poetry.
d) ____________________________________________________________
e) ____________________________________________________________
Now try to identify the specific [sub-] genre of poetry that each selection represents
by marking it with a given letter from the list of text types that follows these examples
(all taken from the RSV):
Out of the eater came something to eat. _____

Out of the strong came something sweet.
Pour out your wrath on them; _____

let your fierce anger overtake them.
May their place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
He is like a shrub in the desert, _____

and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in an uninhabited salt land.
4
Your neck is like the tower of David, _____
built with elegance;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
Intratextuality 139
Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights. _____

How the mighty have fallen!
Tell it not in Gath,
proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.
Long may he live! _____

May gold from Sheba be given him.
May people ever pray for him
and bless him all day long.
Like a bird that strays from its nest _____

is a man who strays from his home.
Adah and Zillah, listen to me; _____

wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, _____

my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield, and the horn of my salvation,
my stronghold.
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, _____

and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants,
and my blessing on your offspring.
I am weary with my moaning; _____

every night I flood my bed with tears;
I drench my couch with my weeping.
Does God pervert justice? _____

Or does the Almighty pervert the right?
If your children have sinned against him,
he has delivered them into the power of their transgression.
He rode on a cherub, and flew; _____

he came swiftly upon the wings of the wind.
He made darkness his covering around him,
his canopy thick clouds dark with water.
And I will encamp against you round about, _____

and will besiege you with towers
and I will raise siege works against you.
The law of thy mouth is better to me _____

than thousands of gold and silver pieces.
140 Ernst Wendland
For of the wise man as of the fool _____

there is no enduring remembrance,
seeing that in the days to come
all will have been long forgotten.
How the wise man dies just like the fool!
Let Israel be glad in his Maker, _____

let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King!
Let them praise his name with dancing,
making melody to him with timbrel and lyre!
The ironsmith fashions it and works it over the coals; _____

he shapes it with hammers, and forges it with his strong arm;
he becomes hungry and his strength fails,
he drinks no water and is faint.
a. prophetic curse (Jer. 17:6) b. pessimistic (anti-)wisdom (Eccl. 2:16)

c. love lyric (SoS 4:4) d. funeral lament (2 Sam. 1:19-20)
e. imprecatory wish (Ps. 69:24-25) f. royal blessing (Ps. 72:15)
g. judgment oracle (Isa. 29:3) h. sapiential debate (Job 8:3-4)
i. proverb (Prov. 27:8) j. panegyric boast (Gen. 4:23)
k. profession of trust (Ps. 18:2) l. personal lament (Ps. 6:6)
m. salvation oracle (Isa. 44:3) n. prophetic analogy (Isa. 44:12)
o. praise hymn (Ps. 149:2-3) p. theophany of nature (Ps. 18:10-11)
q. wisdom (Torah) psalm (Ps. 119:72) r. riddle (Jdg. 14:14)
 Several of the preceding texts are questionable with regard to whether they are
more poetic or prosaic in nature; they perhaps represent a “mixed” literary type.
Look up the passages listed in b, g, and n in the GNT and note how they have been
formatted there. After examining them again, how would you classify these texts?
(Give reasons for your choices.)
 Which of literary texts cited above would give you the most problems when trans-
lating their functional intent into your language (YL)? Tell why and suggest how you
might deal with these – creatively (!), that is, using the full stylistic resources of YL,
yet without compromising exegetical fidelity to the original text.
Most of the poetry in the Bible is found in the Old Testament, but there are a
number of significant occurrences also in the New Testament, most obviously in the
case of passages that feature quotations from the OT, for example, Luke 1:46-55,
68-79. Several well-known texts are debatable; in other words, they feature a blend
of poetic and prosaic characteristics. Therefore they are formatted differently by the
various major translations.
EXERCISE-7
Take Philippians 2:5-11, for example, and note how the text is displayed in A (NIV)
as distinct from B (RSV) below. Study this passage in its textual context (also in the
Intratextuality 141
original Greek if possible) and then tell which format you prefer and why, citing some
of the text’s most prominent stylistic markers as evidence for your decision:
A. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!
9
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
B. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who,
though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to
be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in
the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself
and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has
highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and
under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.
Now adopt a broader perspective and answer the following questions as they relate
to your life-setting:
 Does the choice of either prose or poetry as a general format of text composition
significantly affect your cognitive (literary) frame of reference with respect to how
you perceive and interpret the content and purpose of this important pericope? If so,
explain the influence that the use of poetry, for example, has on your hermeneutical
perspective and outlook on this passage.
 How might your personal perspective differ from that of another language-culture
that you know or in which you are currently working? Does text formatting make a dif-
ference for hearers of the text (an audience)? If you think so, tell why and how so.
Prose texts too may be classified into a great variety of literary genres and sub-
types. Below is an exercise similar to the one above in which you are asked to identify,
based on your “genre intuition,” the different kinds of discourse that you find mani-
fested in this assortment of passages:
142 Ernst Wendland
_____ In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should
be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of
Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.
_____ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be
satisfied.
_____ You shall set the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the
tent of meeting, and place the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar,
and put water in it.
_____ So now, O LORD our God, save us, I beseech thee, from his hand, that all the
kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O LORD, art God alone.
_____ They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full
of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips…
_____ When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he
shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he
comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
_____ There were three cake baskets on my head, and in the uppermost basket there
were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the
basket on my head.
_____ Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you
do be done in love.
_____ So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what
they do are in God’s hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits
him.
_____ A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own
kin, and in his own house.
_____ Do you not know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the other
lands? Were the gods of those nations ever able to deliver their land from my
hand?
_____ In those times a branch from her roots shall arise in his place; he shall come
against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal
with them and shall prevail.
_____ I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has
done will be told in memory of her.
_____ This is what the LORD says: “Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your
hand today, and then you will know that I am the LORD.”
_____ I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine
for you all making my prayer with joy, thankful for your partnership in the
gospel from the first day until now.
_____ The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah,
Sabta, Raama, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush was
the father of Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
_____ All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit…
_____ Thus says the LORD: “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth
shall dogs lick your own blood.”
Intratextuality 143
_____ Now after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings. As I was
doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult.
But some Jews from Asia --they ought to be here before you and to make an
accusation, if they have anything against me.
_____ The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,
besides their menservants and maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand
three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred and forty-five singers,
male and female.
_____ A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the
banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, “Come; for
all is now ready.” But they all alike began to make excuses.
a. salvation oracle (1 Kgs. 20:13) b. historical record (Lk. 2:1-3)

c. ritual procedure (Exo. 40:6-7) d. petitionary prayer (2 Kgs. 19:19)
e. oracle of judgment (1 Kgs. 21:19) f. census (Neh. 7:66)
g. commissioning (Mt. 28:18-19) h. speech of defense (Acts 24:17-19)
i. parable (Lk. 14:16-18) j. beatitude (Mt. 5:6)
k. case law (Exo. 21:2-3) l. dream report (Gen. 40:16-17)
m. paraenesis (1 Cor. 16:13-14) n. vice list (Rom. 1:29)
o. didactic observation (Eccl. 9:1) p. genealogy (1 Chr. 1:8-10)
q. apocalyptic vision (Dan. 11:7) r. epistolary thanksgiving (Php. 1:3)
s. aphorism (Mk. 6:4) t. prediction (Mk. 14:9)
u. warning speech (2 Chr. 32:13)
EXERCISE-8
 Which discourse (sub-)types from the listing above do you have clear examples
of in YL?
Which kinds are not found in your oral or written literature? Do you have “mixed”
types too?
Which type (genre) of text is the most difficult to translate into YL and why is this
the case?
 Most likely you will have a local genre that is similar to the “parable” (παραβολη)
in nature. What is this called in YL and what are its principal stylistic characteristics?
Furthermore, what are its main communicative functions as normally used in your
social setting? Are you able to copy certain formal features of this TL genre when
translating the parables of Christ (e.g., Lk. 14:16-24)? Give an example of such usage
– or, tell why this is not possible.
Compositional disjunction
Verbal texts are constructed by their author in cognitive chunks of varying sizes
(lengths) and shapes (structural formats) to reflect a hierarchical semantic organiza-
tion of topics and sub-topics. These are normally all related in some way to the major
theme and purpose of the pericope at hand – that is, in keeping with its principal
genre category. This manifestation of discourse chunking serves as another important
144 Ernst Wendland
intrinsic frame of reference that an author employs to guide his or her readers (hear-
ers) towards the interpretation of the message that she or he wishes to communicate
with them. Our minds automatically process such text portions as we hear or read
them, but how does this happen? In this section we will examine one important way
in which the text of a particular genre is “structured” into a more manageable and
memorable format – namely, through compositional shifts, that is, where a break or
modification in form, content, or pragmatic function occurs.
EXERCISE-9
Examine the following unformatted selections of Scripture (RSV, designated as texts A

– Genesis 37:17b-28, B –Hosea 14, and C –Ephesians 6) and place a mark where you
think that the discourse “breaks” in each occur. Do this by observing where any promi-
nent shifts in form and/or meaning occur, especially the points where several shifts
of this nature are found. Indicate any major divisions that you posit with two slash
marks (//), and the lesser breaks with one (/), like you did in Exercise 5 above:
A. So Joseph went after his brothers, and found them at Dothan. 18 They saw
him afar off, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to
kill him. 19 They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. 20 Come now,
let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild
beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.”
21
But when Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hands, saying, “Let
us not take his life.” 22 And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; cast him
into this pit here in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him”--that he might
rescue him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. 23 So when Joseph
came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the long robe with sleeves
that he wore; 24 and they took him and cast him into a pit. The pit was empty,
there was no water in it. 25 Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw
a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum,
balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. 26 Then Judah said
to his brothers, “What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?
27
Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him,
for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers heeded him. 28 Then
Midianite traders passed by; and they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of

Katan uses the term “chunking” somewhat differently than I do in this section: “In terms of
language and translation, cultural interpreters need to be able to chunk up and down to establish
the wider and narrower frames of reference to the source text. Chunking down is necessary for
componential analysis to better understand the semantic field of, for example, individual words.
… Cultural mediation also requires the translator to be able to chunk up, above the individual and
different cultures, to more generic, culture-inclusive frames. Finally, mediators must be able to chunk
sideways to find comparable frames in the target culture…” (2004:200). I would term these processes
all different aspects of the multifaceted search for functional equivalence when translating. In this
section, chunking refers to an author’s (speaker’s) tendency to group sections of semantically-related
content together in a discourse (i.e., in paragraph or strophic units), and to mark the text accordingly
by means of various conventional signals (e.g., by a longer pause and intonation in an oral text; by
transitional formulas of closure and aperture in a written text).
Intratextuality 145
the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver; and they
took Joseph to Egypt.
B. Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God,

for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.
2
Take with you words
and return to the LORD;
say to him,
“Take away all iniquity;
accept that which is good
and we will render
the fruit of our lips.
3
Assyria shall not save us,
we will not ride upon horses;
and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’
to the work of our hands.
In thee the orphan finds mercy.”
4
I will heal their faithlessness;
I will love them freely,
for my anger has turned from them.
5
I will be as the dew to Israel;
he shall blossom as the lily,
he shall strike root as the poplar;
6
his shoots shall spread out;
his beauty shall be like the olive,
and his fragrance like Lebanon.
7
They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow,
they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom as the vine,
their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon.
8
O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols?
It is I who answer and look after you.
I am like an evergreen cypress,
from me comes your fruit.
9
Whoever is wise, let him understand these things;
whoever is discerning, let him know them;
for the ways of the LORD are right,
and the upright walk in them,
but transgressors stumble in them.
C. 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your
father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it
may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” 4 Fathers, do
not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and
instruction of the Lord. 5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly
masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; 6 not in
the way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the
will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord
146 Ernst Wendland
and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive
the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the
same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master
and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. 10 Finally, be
strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor
of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For
we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities,
against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against
the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the
whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and
having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod
your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all these, taking
the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil
one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and suppli-
cation. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for
all the saints, 19 and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening
my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an
ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. 21 Now
that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tychicus the beloved
brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. 22 I have sent
him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he
may encourage your hearts. 23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith,
from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all who love
our Lord Jesus Christ with love undying.
EXERCISE-10
 Make a list of the primary boundary “markers,” that is, the “shifting” features that
you employed as a guide to determine where the various breaks occur in each of the
three texts above.
 Now note any differences among the three sets of break markers, that is, in terms
of quantity or kind (i.e., features that were used to indicate a discourse disjunction in
one kind of text – narrative, prophetic, epistolary – but not the other). Also mention
those discourse features that seemed to mark boundaries in all three types (genres)
of text.
 Finally, compose a topic phrase (or clause) for each of the major discourse units
that you demarcated in each of the three texts, A –B –C. Then propose an inclusive
section title that would serve to identify the text as a whole.
You have discovered in the preceding exercises that one important strategy for iden-
tifying the break points of any text, no matter what the genre, involves noting where
a significant shift, change, or modification in the composition occurs with respect to
form, content, or function (communicative purpose). For example, you may detect an
Intratextuality 147
alteration with regard to one or more of the following discourse features, that is, with
respect to: the main topic being discussed or referred to, the speaker, addressee(s),
type of text (e.g., prose/poetry, direct/indirect/reported speech, exposition/exhortation),
or the compositional setting (time, place, circumstances) – to mention a few of the
most important. The more features that clearly vary at a particular point in the text,
the more prominent and noteworthy the break which may be assumed to occur there.
In this way “minor” breaks may be distinguished from “major” ones, for instance, a
paragraph (or “strophe” in poetry) from a new section, episode, or stage in an argu-
ment (or a new “oracle” in prophetic poetry).
It is essential that translators pay close attention to these form-meaning dimensions
of discourse structure, for they need to be reproduced – naturally – also in a transla-
tion. Thus the beginnings and/or endings of distinct compositional constituents must
be clearly evident in the TL, and it may even be necessary to mark such boundaries
formally in a special way, for example, by means of a repetition of elements, a tran-
sitional formula, or a conjunction that pertains to time, space, the cast of characters
(in a narrative), or a logical argument. Overtly marked external borders provide a
conceptually distinct, referential framework for the portion of text that is contained
within the unit, thus strengthening a perception of its internal bonds of coherence
(content) and cohesion (form). On the other hand, the boundaries of a given discourse
segment should be supported by a perceptible unity of thought and purpose that is
reflected within the section itself. This twofold property of text organization (exter-
nal unit demarcation and internal unit connectivity) cannot be taken for granted, for
instance, if translators decide to mechanically follow the existing divisions of one
translation or another, or even a set of standard versions. This simply shows that they
have not really mastered the sense and flow of what is being said in the biblical text,
or the particular function of each of the distinct segments within the sequentially
unfolding discourse progression – whether this happens to be a narrative account, a
poetic prayer (psalm), or an epistolary argument.
In fact, quite a diversity of opinion may be manifested among the major versions
(i.e., translations in a LWC) that are consulted with regard to demarcation. So, when
differences of opinion arise as to where the compositional breaks should occur, which
version should be followed? Or are translators simply to seek a simple majority opinion
and copy that exactly in their TL version? This is why this exercise in discerning text
disjunctions is crucial, for it alerts translators to the need for clearly understanding
how the SL text is cognitively organized and arranged so that this conceptual structure,
as nearly as possible, can be not only discovered in the original document but also
appropriately duplicated in their translation.
EXERCISE-11
 Examine four different translations with respect to where each has made its para-
graph breaks within selections B and C above. Compare the NRSV, NIV, GNT, plus
one other version of your choosing (possibly an already published vernacular text in
either the TL or a related language). Note those places in the text where the greatest
difference of opinion occurs with regard to whether a unit should, or should not,
148 Ernst Wendland
begin/end. Can you suggest any possible reason for such disparity at these particular
points?
 Now compare the divisions manifested in these four versions with where you
determined that the discourse breaks should be situated in the preceding exercise.
Which version do you agree with most often in this respect?
 Do you now wish to revise any of your proposed paragraph (strophe) breaks? If
so, can you tell why – what is the textual evidence that leads you to change your
mind?
 At which verses do all, or most, of the versions agree in their segmentation? Propose
suitable “section headings” to fit these principal points of compositional agreement.
EXERCISE-12
Even a seemingly minor linguistic shift, if sustained throughout a major portion of

the biblical text can serve to signal a significant disjunction that may have thematic
implications. Notice, for example, where an obvious change in the prevailing tense
pattern occurs in Romans 7:7-25 (refer to the Greek text if you can).
 How does this reflect, or signal, the change in Paul’s argument that occurs in these
verses? How do the two ethical perspectives, or moral “frames of reference,” that
Paul presents in this section relate to what he says in 7:4-6?
 Point out the main implication of this linguistic feature for translators in your
language. In other words, how will you duplicate the discourse function of this tense-
shifting device in YL?
 The texts of 2 Peter chapter 2 and Jude manifest many similarities. However, they
also seem to demonstrate a major change in their respective frames of reference. Com-
pare 2 Pet. 2:1-3 and Jude 1-4 and point out what the major difference in perspective
is. Will this be obvious to most Bible readers and hearers? If not, how can you make
this difference more apparent in your translation? How does this temporal disjunction
serve to demarcate the first and second chapters of 2 Peter?
Patterned recursion

In addition to the compositional shifts noted above, a literary text is normally also
organized in various ways by different kinds of linguistic “recursion.” Such formal
reiteration may involve sounds, morphological elements, lexical items, grammatical
constructions, and/or larger patterns of discourse structure. The recursion of verbal
form may be exact, when it may be distinguished by the term repetition, or non-exact
– that is, restatement, which is synonymous, contrastive, and figurative (metaphoric
or metonymic) in nature.
In the first place then, recursion frequently operates in conjunction with various
disjunctive devices to segment and arrange a discourse into sections of varied length
Intratextuality 149
and internal patterning. Furthermore, it also functions to provide these included units
as well as the complete text with a unifying sense of semantic coherence as well as
formal cohesion. Discerning this essential literary property of unity in diversity – the
significant parts all integrated within a meaningful whole – is important both for
directing one to make an accurate interpretation of the discourse at hand and also for
leading one to appreciate its intrinsic artistic beauty and rhetorical impact.
In this section we will examine several types of recursion that are employed,
along with the various formal and semantic shifts that also appear, to delineate the
boundaries of discrete text segments within a larger verbal composition. A percep-
tible text-generated arrangement of this kind thus acts as a vital structural frame of
reference for interpreting the relationship of ideas that occur within the discourse as a
complete unit. This demarcating function exists in addition to the important integrat-
ing, or connective, function that recursion, whether repetition or restatement, serves
by its very nature.
EXERCISE-13
Read through the following passage (Joel 2, NIV text) and make a note of the various
instances of recursion that you can find; use different colors of ink, if possible, or con-
necting lines in order to mark all of the salient correspondences that you see. Italics,
boldfaced print, underlining, a few special symbols, and distinctive print fonts have
been used to draw your attention to some of the main examples of recursion within
the text. At times a more literal (i.e., ‘lit.’) expression is given to reflect the Hebrew
repetition more precisely.
My proposed set of internal strophe boundaries for Joel 2:1-32 is already indi-
cated in the passage that follows; however, this segmentation is open to discussion
and possible revision, which may be carried out when an examination of the text has
been completed. Following this passage, a number of guide questions are offered to
help focus upon isolating and identifying the principal compositional segments (po-
etic paragraphs, or strophes) that comprise this typical stretch of prophetic hortatory
discourse:
1
Blow the trumpet in Zion;
sound the alarm on my holy hill.
Let all who live in the land tremble,@
for the day of the LORD is coming.
It is close at hand--
2
a day of darkness and gloom,
a day of clouds and blackness.
Like dawn spreading across the mountains
a large and mighty army (lit. ‘a strong people’) comes,
such as never was of old
nor ever will be in ages to come.
3
Before them fire devours (lit. ‘eats fire’),
behind them a flame blazes.
Before them the land is like the garden of Eden,
behind them, a desert waste--
150 Ernst Wendland
nothing escapes them.

4
They have the appearance of horses;
they gallop along like cavalry.
5
With a noise like that of chariots
they leap over the mountaintops,
like a crackling fire consuming (lit. ‘fire eating’) stubble,
like a mighty army (lit. ‘a strong people’) drawn up for battle.
6
At the sight of them (lit. ‘before them’), nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7
They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.
They all march in line,
not swerving from their course.
8
They do not jostle each other;
each marches straight ahead.
They plunge through defenses
without breaking ranks.
9
They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows.
10
Before them the earth shakes,
the sky trembles,@
the sun and moon are darkened,
and the stars no longer shine.
11
The LORD thunders
at the head of his army;
his forces are beyond number,
and mighty are those who obey his command.
The day of the LORD is great;
it is dreadful.
Who can endure it?
12
“Even now,” declares the LORD,
“return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning.”
13
Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity.
14
Who knows? He may turn and have pity
and leave behind a blessing--
grain offerings and drink offerings
for the LORD your God.
15
Blow the trumpet in Zion,
declare a holy fast,
call a sacred assembly.
Intratextuality 151
16
Gather the people,
consecrate the assembly;
bring together the elders,
gather the children,
those nursing at the breast.
Let the bridegroom leave his room
and the bride her chamber.
17
Let the priests, who minister before the LORD,
weep between the temple porch and the altar.
Let them say, “Spare your people, O LORD.
Do not make your inheritance an object of scorn,*
a byword among the nations.*
Why should they say among the peoples,
‘WHERE IS THEIR GOD?’ ”
18
Then the LORD will be jealous for his land
and take pity on his people.
19
The LORD will reply 4g to them:#
“I am sending you grain, new wine and oil,
enough to satisfy you fully;
never again will I make you
an object of scorn to the nations.
20
“I will drive the northern army far from you,
pushing it into a parched and barren land,
with its front columns going into the eastern sea 4h
and those in the rear into the western sea. 4i
And its stench will go up;
its smell will rise.”
Surely he (è ‘it’) has done great things. 4j
21
Be not afraid, O land;
be glad and rejoice.
Surely the LORD has done great things.
22
Be not afraid, O wild animals,
for the open pastures are becoming green.
The trees are bearing their fruit;
the fig tree and the vine yield their riches.
23
Be glad, O people of Zion,
rejoice in the LORD your God,
for he has given you
the autumn rains in righteousness. 4k
He sends you abundant showers,
both autumn and spring rains, as before.
24
The threshing floors will be filled with grain;
the vats will overflow with new wine and oil.
g2:18,19
Or LORD was jealous . . . / and took pity . . . / 19 The LORD replied
h2:20
That is, the Dead Sea
i2:20
That is, the Mediterranean
j2:20
Or rise. / Surely it has done great things.”
k2:23
Or / the teacher for righteousness:
152 Ernst Wendland
25
“I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten--
the great locust and the young locust,
the other locusts and the locust swarm-- 4l
my great army that I sent among you.
26
You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,
and you will praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has worked wonders for you;
never again will my people be shamed.*
27
Then you will know that I AM IN ISRAEL,
that I am the LORD your God,
and that there is no other;
never again will my people be shamed.*
28
“And (it will be that) afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
30
I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
31
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
32
And (it will be that) everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,#
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.
 Now, having worked through this passage from the point of view of its principal
patterns of recursion, answer the following questions with reference to the poetic
discourse structure of Joel 2:1-17. They will focus upon the different instances of
linguistic shifting and conceptual reiteration that occur.
a) The expression “Blow the trumpet in Zion” is found in verse 1 and also in
which other verse? What is the special semantic significance of this particular
expression?
Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective begin-
nings of different discourse units – a structural device termed “anaphora.”
b) Read 2:1 carefully and identify recursive expressions that match correspondents
found also in 1:2 and 1:15. These additional instances of anaphora help confirm
l2:25
The precise meaning of the four Hebrew words used here for locusts is uncertain.
Intratextuality 153
the presence of a major discourse beginning (aperture) at 2:1. Mention also

the major compositional shifts that occur at this point (i.e., differences from
the form/content/purpose of the preceding strophic unit in 1:19-20).
c) The anaphoric phrase “before them” occurs in verses 3, ___, and ___ to indicate
the apertures of three successive strophes (poetic paragraph units).
d) What expression is repeated at the beginning of v.3 and the end of v.5? (Notice
how the two key terms in each case are reversed in order to form a reversed (A
–B : B’ –A’) structure; this device too, a chiasmus, is sometimes used to mark
a point of ending, or closure).
Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the beginning and
ending of a given discourse unit, large or small –a structural device termed
“inclusio.”
e) In question (b) above we observed that the expression “all who live in the land”
in 2:1 forms an anaphoric relation with an earlier occurrence in ____. Notice
also the presence of this same phrase in 1:14, which both ends a strophe and
the first “stanza” (a collection of related strophes, i.e., 1:2-14) of the book’s
opening “oracle” (consisting of one or more stanzas). Thus this latter recursion
also marks an __________________ for the stanza beginning in 1:2.
f) What expression occurs at the end of 2:5 and also towards the end of the first
strophe that covers vv. 1-2? This similarity is reinforced by the respective simi-
les (a figurative comparison, e.g., “A is like B”) in which they are enclosed.
Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective end-
ings of different discourse units – a structural device termed “epiphora.”
What similar image appears at the end of 1:20 and 2:5 to reinforce these points
of “closure.”
g) Another simile of this type occurs at the end of the next strophe in v. ___. In
this case the “great army” (which is not mentioned explicitly) is compared to
what? Such epiphoric (end-unit) recursion helps to mark the closure of the
strophe or larger discourse segment.
h) We have already noted that a new strophe begins at 2:6. Where does this poetic
paragraph end, and what is your structural evidence for this conclusion? In this
case, the strophe manifests a great deal of internal cohesion. What is it that
creates such textual connectivity?
i) What is the anaphoric expression that leads off the strophe that starts at v. 10?
Where does this strophe end? In this verse we hear that the “sky trembles”
on account of the great army coming to punish God’s people. Where did we
read that the people themselves “tremble”? Thus, different strophe begin-
nings are marked by this repetition of a key verb; it is therefore an instance
of structural __________.
j) What important theological phrase is found towards the end of v.11 and also
in 2:1? A more detailed study suggests that this inclusio marks the close of a
stanza unit, one that covers verses 1 through 11. List some of the prominent
shifts that are evident in 2:12, which would support the conclusion that a new
major section begins at this point in the text.
k) How far does the strophe that begins at 2:12 extend. Note the minor inclusio
154 Ernst Wendland
formed by the mention of the divine name (which is always significant) in v.

____. This inclusio is actually part of a larger pattern of recursion and topical
correspondence that runs throughout this unit.
This pattern may be outlined as follows:
X key terms: YHWH + ‘return’ (12a)

Y characteristics of a true penitent (12b-13a)
Z key terms: ‘return’ + YHWH (13b)
Y’ characteristics of YHWH (13c-d)
X’ key terms: ‘(re)turn’ …YHWH (v. 14, with the blessings of ‘return-
ing’ specified within)
Note: A reversed (chiastic) instance of recursion like this –termed an “inverted

parallelism” (or “extended chiasmus”) – serves both to mark the respective
beginning and end boundaries of the same discourse unit and also to provide
it with internal cohesion and coherence. For another example, see 2:28-29.
What important thematic concept is also highlighted by such patterned

recursion?
l) We have already observed that the phrase “Blow the trumpet in Zion” occurs
elsewhere in this chapter in an opening structural position –where? v.____ What
is this device called? It is termed ___________________________.
m) What gives internal cohesion to the strophe covering vv. 15-17?
n) The mention of ‘weeping’ recalls which prior verse? v.____ The latter may
be viewed as the beginning of the second “stanza” of the oracle that began in
2:1; thus the term ‘weep’ (symbolizing true repentance) signals the structural
boundary marker called ___________________.
o) The reference “their God” corresponds to the expression “your God” in which
verse? v.____ This end-marking structural device is termed ___________.
p) List the principal shifts that are evident at the onset of v. 18:
This would indicate that a major discourse unit begins here – a new “oracle”
from Yahweh.
Read 2:18-27 and suggest how this oracle relates in content, theme, and purpose
to the preceding one:
Note: It is important to investigate the semantic relationships which the
structural patterns of discourse call attention too –the various units and their
inter-connections. Such relationships must also be evident, at least implicitly,
in any valid translation. The literary structure helps one to understand and
interpret the theological and ethical content. For example, the inclusio that is
formed by the expressions: “the LORD… will take pity on his people” (v.18)
and “the LORD…never again will my people be shamed” (v.27) would suggest
that the content in between is “framed” by the prophetic truth that Yahweh will
act on behalf of his people and that they can take comfort in this fact despite
their current adverse circumstances.
q) What recursive elements are manifested between verses 17 and 18?
Note: A significant instance of recursion may serve to mark the respective
Intratextuality 155
ending and beginning of adjacent, but distinct discourse units – a structural

device termed “anadiplosis.”
You can find another important example of anadiplosis at the end of v. 20 (if
you interpret this as the end of a strophe –cf. GNT) and in v.21. What expres-
sion is reiterated – however, with a significant difference. What element has
been changed and what is the significance of this?
Note: This is the textual note that the NIV has at the end of 2:20: [j2:20 Or rise.
/ Surely it has done great things]. This line is also taken as an aperture for the
following strophe, in contrast to the arrangement that is shown in the format
above. Which format and reading do you prefer, and what is your structural
evidence for this? Study the other textual variants that are proposed in the
footnotes and point out any one that you feel is merited as a better “reading”
on the basis of the literary criteria that we are considering here.
r) On the basis of the preceding structural study of Joel 2:1-17, you should now
be able to propose an accurate section heading for each of the two stanzas that
this oracle contains. Give the verses that comprise each stanza and a section
heading that is appropriate – that is, in keeping with the thematic development
and the prophetic argument that the discourse sets forth in this progression of
verses.
s) If time allows, you may identify the recursive structures and important shifts
that organize the remainder of Joel 2. Be sure to note inter-segmental relation-
ships and communicative functions for the different discourse units that you
propose – the minor within the major ones.
t) In addition to the various structural patterns based on recursion and the form/
content shifts that we have already called attention to, there are several other
literary devices in the prophetic books which are often found at the beginning
of discourse units, thus helping to mark an aperture at such points. List four
of the more important of these devices by examining the following passages
and then choosing from the options that are given afterwards:
___ 1:15 ___ 1:19 ___ 2:1 ___ 2:12
(i) vocative (ii) exclamation (iii) speech or prophetic formula

(iv) imperative/command
Note: The correlates of a structural end-point (closure) are not so clear-cut,

though at times the indication is quite obvious – for example, the concluding
rhetorical question at the end of 2:11. In any case, it is important to keep in mind
that literary principle that a combination of features always provides stronger
evidence for marking the boundary of a discourse unit – the more distinctive
markers, or compositional indicators, there are present in one verse, the surer
the analyst can be that a complete segment either begins or ends there. Also
note that this method of structure-functional discourse analysis can be carried
out with respect to any text-type in the Bible, but it is especially helpful in the
case of poetic, prophetic, and epistolary literature.
156 Ernest Wendland
EXERCISE-14
 Compare the discourse organization proposed above in terms of the strophic units
that have been indicated in the text of the GNT, NRSV, + a version of your choice.
Where do the major differences occur?
 Which demarcation do you prefer and why – that is, on the basis of what linguis-
tic/literary evidence?
 Is there a special way of marking such structural divisions in your language? If so,
explain what this is and give an example from Joel 2.
Artistic-rhetorical accentuation
This aspect of a literary-structural analysis investigates the various features, artistic

(formal focus) as well as rhetorical (functional focus), which an author employs to
highlight or to emphasize selected portions of a biblical text, whether prose or poetry.
Again, these forms are particularly diagnostic when they co-occur in more concen-
trated combinations. There are a great diversity of stylistic devices to consider here,
but most of these should already be familiar to experienced translators, for example,
different kinds of figurative language, idioms, syntactic movement forwards or back-
wards, adjacent repetition, rhetorical or leading questions, ellipsis, hyperbole, irony
– to list some of the more common forms used for focusing and foregrounding in
both biblical Hebrew and Greek.
These varied artistic features are not merely esthetic or decorative in nature;
rather, in the literature of Scripture they always serve some sort of “rhetorical” (prag-
matic-communicative) purpose. One of these is to call attention to, and thereby also
to “cement,” the textual framework that has been postulated for a given discourse
segment, whether major or minor, especially with respect to its main structural
boundaries (aperture and closure). At points in the text where such literary devices
are contentrated, one might also look for some special significance with respect to
content (peak), e.g., a major theme of the composition, and/or expression of emotion
(climax), e.g., where the central feelings of the author are concentrated.
EXERCISE-15
A number of these artistic-rhetorical devices may be illustrated with respect to form

and function within the first stanza of Joel 2 (vv. 1-11). Some questions to more
fully explore this literary aspect of the discourse are given below. It would be help-
ful also to examine them in the Hebrew text, if possible, particularly where cases of
4
To “focus” is to direct one’s attention; to “foreground” is to attract one’s attention. The two processes
are clearly related, and thus these two terms are often used interchangeably. “[F]oregrounding is an
essential feature of literature which, in cognitive terms, forces the reader to engage fully with the
text” (Boase-Beier 2006:130). Presumably, it would act thus for the hearer too, though different
devices might be more prominent in this regard, especially the text’s prosodic interpretation by a
reader/reciter/performer (e.g., the pitch, loudness, and length of vowel sounds).
Intratextuality 157
extensive literal repetition or syntactic movement are involved, since these are not
always reflected in an English (or any other) translation. In each case, suggest how
the feature at hand may be reproduced with equivalent communicative effect in your
translation of the Scriptures.
a) What does the first parallel couplet (2:1) in the imperative mode suggest in
terms of form and content? What does the metonym “holy hill” refer to?
b) Point out the extended metaphor that appears in v. 2a and tell what it calls
the listener’s attention to in the present context of occurrence.
c) The metaphor referred to in (b) shifts to a simile in v. 2b. What is its basis
or ground of comparison (i.e., in which respect[s] is the “spreading dawn”
like the advancing “army” [lit. ‘people’])? The latter is itself another key
metaphor – to what does it refer (cf. 1:4)?
d) A climactic, all-inclusive time reference ends the first strophe (2:1-2); the
final expression reads literally, ‘years of generation and generation’. Perhaps
one can detect a note of hyperbole here: how would you define this particular
figure of speech, and why is it appropriate in this genre of discourse, again
helping to establish a certain frame of reference for interpretation?
e) In addition to the opening metaphor involving the imagery of fire, the be-
ginning of the second strophe (vv. 3-5) involves an allusion to the story of
Creation. How would you define this literary feature, and how is it employed
as a persuasive rhetorical device in v. 3?
f) Describe how the evocative imagery of fire and or a military cavalry also
provides a strong element of cohesion to this second strophe.
g) What is the very last word of v. 5 (it is the same in the NIV as in the Hebrew),
and what it the significance of its particular syntactic placement at this point
in the text?
h) There is an ironic repetition of the term “faces” at the aperture of strophe
3 (vv. 6-9) – i.e., “before them” (lit. ‘from his faces’) and “pale…faces.”
Explain the irony here.
i) The third strophe is held together by a semi-narrative progression of images.
What is the topic of this imagery, and how does that fit in with the theme of
the prophet’s (Yahweh’s) message in this oracle? Note that the subject of the
long sequence of verbs is not stated. What is this implicit subject, and how
do you know this? What is the dramatic effect of not mentioning precisely
who are performing all these actions?
j) Point out the climactic final image of this strophe (v. 9), expressed in the
form of a simile. Give the topic, the figure, and the associative ground of this
simile.
k) The tragic events overcoming “Zion” (v. 1) reach their cosmic peak in the
final strophe (vv. 9-10) of this stanza with the mention of the “earth…sky…
sun…moon…stars.” Explain the personification that coincides with these
all-inclusive references.
l) Note the first word of v. 10 (same in English as in Hebrew). What is the
significance of this position in the verse? Where else has the divine name
occurred in this stanza? Why do you think that it is reserved for this point in
the discourse?
158 Ernst Wendland
m) Which “army” (lit. ‘strength’ – a metonym) is being referred to here? Point

out the irony that is implicit in this particular reference – that is, the army
concerned, now with YHWH at the “head” of (lit., ‘faces of’ – more repeti-
tion; cf. [h] above) it.
n) To mark v. 11 as the thematic and structural peak of this stanza, a number
of rhetorical features co-occur here. Another one of these is the syntactic
juxtaposition of three emphatic kiy (yk, lit., ‘for/that’) clauses – here perhaps
best rendered as “indeed…” or “surely…” What is being emphasized by this
recursion? Note also the prophetic keynote “the day of the Lord”.
o) What type of utterance concludes this fourth strophe and the stanza? What is
the expected answer to this rhetorical question? How does it function here
as a literary device?
EXERCISE-16
 Go through the second stanza of this oracle, Joel 2:12-17, and record all of the
rhetorical features that you can detect. Try to give a functional explanation (note the
speech-acts effected) for each of these in relation to the textual context in which they
occur. Make a note of any devices that would cause special translation problems in
YL; these may be discussed later as a group – that is, why there is a difficulty and
what to do about it in the vernacular.
 Now carry out a similar exercise with respect to the Greek text (if possible)
of the book of Jude: (a) identify the main artistic features that you find in this
passage; (b) suggest what the rhetorical function of each is within its co-text; (c)
point out those expressions that might cause you difficulty when translating them
into your language and propose some tentative solutions that match the forcefulness
of the original.
 We have now learned three literary techniques that help us (together with a linguistic
analysis) determine the discourse structure of a particular biblical pericope: repeating
– shifting – marking (accentuation). A careful study of these features can give us a
rough idea of how the text has been organized in terms of its main discourse units
(paragraphs, strophes) and their inter-relationships, including its point(s) of special
significance (peak). Review the segmentation of Joel 2 given above in the light of
these three strategies and see if you wish to propose any modifications to the textual
arrangement as given. Look in particular for any areas of special convergence, where
instances of recursion and accentuation occur together to foreground the text at that
point (thus also “defamiliarizing” the discourse, causing the reader/hearer to linger
over it and to search for additional meanings or implications). Then suggest what you
consider to be the peak strophe of ch. 2 and tell why you think so.
 Carry out a similar exercise as outlined above to the epistle of Jude: Summarize its
paragraph units and pick out the one that appears to act as the letter’s climax.
Within the structure of a given text of Scripture, including its various internal
boundaries and points of special emphasis (peak, climax), the analyst must also make
an effort to discover its main functional dimensions – that is, what communicative
Intratextuality 159
goal a particular passage, large or small, is performing in relation to those around it

and the discourse as a whole. In many biblical passages, for example, the rhetorical
dimension of the text must be carefully investigated. This frequently involves dis-
course that features instruction (perhaps direction is a better term) and/or persuasion
(Levinsohn 2006:5):
• INSTRUCTION: a speaker or writer (exhorter) considers himself or herself

to have the right or authority to tell the exhortee how to behave (apostolic au-
thority, in the case of Paul’s epistles). The Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2–17)
are instructional... Directives from employers to employees are typically of
this type. In some cultures, parents also have the right to instruct their adult
children how to behave once married, etc. This category may even include
strong rebukes of existing behavior, as when someone ‘instructs’ a friend to
stop maintaining enmity with another person or to stop being lazy. Demands
to act in a certain way seem to fit here, too, such as when the Israelites call
on Aaron to make them an idol (Ex. 32:1).
• PERSUASION: the exhorter “appeals to the reasoning logic of the recipient,

seeks to convince” (Kompaoré 2004:40). Examples include the request of
the daughters of Zelophehad to Moses…, David’s speech to Solomon (1 Chr.
22:7–16…) and Paul’s speech to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:22–31).
Typically, the exhorter uses persuasion because he or she cannot make the
exhortee pursue the desired course of action. However, there are occasions
when a person in authority chooses to persuade rather than instruct (e.g., the
exhortation of the LORD to Moses in Ex. 3:7–10).
Indeed, these two kinds of composition are normally mixed in the Bible, with some
sort of directive appeal (instruction) being combined with various types of supporting
reasons or evidence (persuasion). Thus, the hortatory thesis – the major and minor
command or exhortation (prescription / prohibition) of a (sub-)section, whether more
or less directly expressed – may be preceded or followed by supporting material
that is appropriate to the point being made and the author’s purpose (cf. Levinsohn
2006:5-6). The latter species would include a diversity of discourse types such as
explanations, ethical motivations, appeals to authority, reminders, warnings, prom-
ises, examples, analogies, and so forth – but also inserts of theological affirmation or
doctrinal exposition (explanation, description, clarification). It is important, therefore,
not only to analyze the original text in terms of its rhetorical strategy, but also to
make sure that closely similar imperatives and their implications are conveyed in an
appropriate manner in the target language.
EXERCISE-17
 Identify the main “hortatory thesis” of Joel 2 above, along with any minor ones
that may accompany it. Where does this occur in the chapter? So would this be an
example of inductive or deductive reasoning? (See exercise 1 of chapter 2.) Explain
your answer.
160 Ernst Wendland
 Now identify some of the different types of “supporting information” that the
prophet, speaking on behalf of the Lord God, incorporates into his “argument” for a
significant life-change among his addressees.
 Next, think this text through in your language: Would Joel’s line of reasoning or
method of argumentation correspond, more or less, or differ in significant respects
with the way persuasive discourse is packaged and presented in YL? Point out any
major difficulties that you anticipate in this regard and suggest how these might be
best handled in your translation. Give one good example of this.
 Finally, carry out a similar sort of rhetorical analysis of the Jude epistle that you
examined earlier: Where is/are the principal hortatory thesis(es)? Point out the main
supporting evidence for each central imperative or appeal in this text.
Phonic enhancement
There is another, often unrecognized method that a biblical author frequently employs
in order to contextually “frame” his text as a means of guiding listeners (readers) in the
direction of its intended interpretation. This involves the inclusion of certain devices
that are applied to the oral-aural dimension of his composition. To be sure, the text
of Scripture is written and hence completely silent as it stands; however, in many
cases it is clear that the words were composed with eventual public proclamation in
mind. The author wrote his text (or uttered it to an amanuensis) so that it could be
read – performed aloud – in such a way as to complement the message being com-
municated in several important respects. Significant sound selection and patterning
may be used, for example, to embellish a particular passage in keeping with the nature
of its appealing theological content and purpose, or it may be utilized to emphasize
especially important aspects of the discourse and, accordingly, to render the religious
text as a whole more memorable, hence easier to recall as needed.
The phonological organization and articulation of a biblical text, whether the
original or its translation, is really another facet of rhetorical highlighting discussed
above. But since it is so often ignored or overlooked, we shall consider this as a
separate element here. It is essential, whenever possible, to carry out such a close
investigation of the sonic arrangement of the Scriptures because this is the first fea-
ture to make an impression on any listening audience. In fact, sound appears to be
frequently utilized by a biblical author to create a variety of subtle effects that pertain
to his text’s content, intent, emotion, attitude, and esthetic value, e.g., alliteration,
assonance, rhythm, rhyme, and paronomasia (although one cannot be too dogmatic
when interpreting such possible synaesthetic impressionism in the original, a dead
language). The “audio effects” of artful literature (orature) can make a significant
impact even when read silently by a competent mother-tongue speaker of the language.
This potential auditory influence is vitally important, therefore, for any translation of
Scripture to capitalize upon, since more often than not it too is a version that will be
read orally – and heard – in public.
Some of the concerns with regard to the phonological fabric of the text to be
Intratextuality 161
translated, especially one written to be read like the Scriptures, are well summarized
in the following quotation (Thomas and Thomas 2006:63):
The sound patterns of oral speech are never immediately apparent from a writ-
ten text, but an analysis of the organization and relationships of the epistle’s
grammatical, syntactical, lexical, and stylistic features helps answer such ques-
tions as: What is the pace for reading or reciting this? Where are the pauses?
Where do sounds invite particular attention? What should be emphasized when
reading or reciting this aloud? Knowing the answers to these questions allows
the translator to build a translation that will at least partially elicit comparable
responses from present-day oral readers and reciters.
The text that will be used to illustrate the sound support system of biblical litera-
ture is John 17:1-12, which expresses the first portion of the so-called “high-priestly”
prayer of Christ. Since this is part of the Lord’s “upper room discourse” with his
disciples (Jn. 13-17), it was obviously meant to be read (and heard) as an oral text. In
this case, we discover a rhythmic, highly patterned composition – one that includes
many artistic devices, including lineal parallelism, nigh unto poetry. Of course, the
phonological arrangement of a text may, indeed must, be supplemented by a number
of prosodic features that are not overtly indicated in the original written document,
e.g., tempo, stress, pause, loudness, intonation, and perhaps even pharyngeal modifica-
tion, to indicate various emotions such as sadness, joy, anger, frustration, excitement,
and so forth.
In order to determine then how a given pericope ought to be enunciated (recited,
chanted, sung, etc.) in public, an orator must attempt to internalize the text both sen-
sorily and psychologically (through repeated readings aloud), analyze its meaning
in context, posit the most likely communicative implications of its genre, and also
identify any explicit as well as subtle clues in the intertextual setting of the passage
under consideration (e.g., John 13:21a in relation to 17:1a; cf. Hosea 6:4 in relation
to 6:1-3; 1 Cor. 12:31b and 14:1 in relation to 13:1-13).
EXERCISE-18
Only the Greek text of John 17:1b-12 is reproduced below – set out on the page in
a hypothetical “oratorical” format. Translators who do not know Greek will have to
complete this exercise by referring to some standard literal translation (e.g., RSV,
NASB) or an interlinear version. A number of questions regarding the oral-aural
“envelope” of this passage are given on the right-hand side of the page (in italics)
to help lead students more fully into its presumed sound dimension. Certain typo-
graphical modifications are also incorporated into the text so as to draw attention to
the chief phonological features being discussed relative to it. Any additional devices
that become apparent during your analysis of this text should of course be noted and
discussed as a group.
It should be pointed out that these suggestions are all highly tentative since we don’t
really know for sure how the Greek NT text was actually pronounced (the OT text
either, despite the long Masoretic tradition). In addition, we have no standard models
162 Ernst Wendland
of poetry to follow with regard to the religious macro-genre of early Christian literature
to give guidance as to its principal stylistic, including phonological characteristics.
The primary purpose of this exercise then is simply to introduce translators to some
of the possibilities concerning the artistic and rhetorical potential of sonic significance
in biblical discourse and also to encourage them to employ such techniques in their
own rendition of the text in their own language and literary tradition.
1
…Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· What sort of a pattern does v.1 display with regard to the
δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, key terms “glorify” (δόξα-) and “Son” (υἱὸς)? How might
ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, the lexical (and sound) pattern function in this case?
2
καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, The parallelism of 2a and 2c would suggest breaking the
ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ otherwise long syntactic unit of 2a. Does the rhythm concur?
δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Here we see a similar chiastic pattern to the one above, but
3
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή the rhetorical purpose seems to be somewhat different;
ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ suggest what it might be at this point.
τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν What is “alliteration”, and what topic it serve to highlight in
καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. here in v.3 c-d?
4
ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Another chiastic structure seems to perform a linking
τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας function in this strophe: What parallel thematic elements
ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· does it connect? (Note also the /s/ alliteration.)
5
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ,
πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ The corresponding line-end components in v.5b/d serve to
τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον highlight which personal relationship?
πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
6
Ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα What may the extra long “poetic” line mark here?
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
οὓς ἔδωκάς μοι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. The 4 lines of v.6 present one chiasmus within another.
σοὶ ἦσαν κἀμοὶ αὐτοὺς ἔδωκας This functions to tie the concepts involved into a very
καὶ τὸν λόγον σου τετήρηκαν. tight bundle. Summarize the key ideas in this case.
7
νῦν ἔγνωκαν
ὅτι πάντα
ὅσα δέδωκάς μοι The central thematic notion of this strophe is recycled
παρὰ σοῦ εἰσιν· in a rhythmic, poetic sequence of lines. This includes
8
ὅτι τὰ ῥήματα the final series of line-initial conjunctions which add
ἃ ἔδωκάς μοι a sense of continuity to the entire progression.
δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, What sort of an impression would such devices make

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλαβον in YL and literary tradition?
καὶ ἔγνωσαν ἀληθῶς Do you have different, but functionally equivalent
ὅτι παρὰ σοῦ ἐξῆλθον, rhetorical devices that would work in this poetic text?
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν
ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας.
9
ἐγὼ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐρωτῶ, What does the obvious parallelism in sound and structure
οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ seem to signal at this point in the discourse?
ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, Sound similarity at the end of v.9 links which two persons
ὅτι σοί εἰσιν, (pronouns) together in a unity of perspective and action?
10
καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν The first two lines of v.10 feature a verbal correspondence
καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά, that imitates the content being conveyed – what is that?
Intratextuality 163
καὶ δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς.

11
καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, More sound similarity in v.11a-b seems to highlight
καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, the contrast being presented, which is what?
κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι.
Πάτερ ἅγιε, Why begin a new strophe here –any evidence?

τήρησον αὐτοὺς Three lines at the end of v.11 are reiterated in a similar
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου form below in v.12. What is the apparent purpose?
ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι,
ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.
12
ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν
ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου
ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι,
καὶ ἐφύλαξα, What does the lexical and phonological similarity stress
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο in these closing lines?
εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, What is “assonance” and where do you see it at the end?
ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. What rhetorical function might it serve at this point?
EXERCISE-19
Now consider the next two strophes of John 17. Call attention to the obvious lexical
and phonological features that you can observe in this passage. A number of them have
been already highlighted for you. Try to posit a communicative (rhetorical) function
for each of these in its co-text and context of use (i.e., John 13-17). As in the preced-
ing exercise, you are free to propose (and defend) different line breaks and strophic
divisions. Make a note of any proposed changes as you proceed in your analysis of
this text. Finally, pick out what you consider to be the three most prominent phonic
features in this passage and suggest how you would reproduce these sound effects
and their functions in YL.
13
νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι
καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
ἵνα ἔχωσιν τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν
πεπληρωμένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
14
ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου
καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς,
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου.
15
οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου,
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
16
ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν
καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου.
17
ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ·
ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν.
18
καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον,
κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον·
19
καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν [ἐγὼ] ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν,
ἵνα ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ.
164 Ernst Wendland
EXERCISE-20
B. Winter cites, with apparent approval the following conclusion by M. Thrall regard-
ing the quality of New Testament literature: “[I]t is plain that the language of the New
Testament as a whole does not reflect the κοινή as it was used by the best educated
classes in Hellenistic society, those classes…who were well acquainted with the idioms
of classical literature” (2005:145-146). Winter later quotes Aristotle’s observation
(in Art of Rhetoric III.12.1) that: “When compared, the speeches of writers appear
meager in public debates, while those of the rhetoricians, however well delivered, are
amateurish when read…hence speeches suited for delivery, when delivery is absent,
do not fulfill their proper function and appear silly” (ibid: 147). This opinion is then
assumed to be correct and applied to the writing of the Apostle Paul: “Paul himself
indicates that he resorted to plain style, declaring that he used plain speech…” (ibid:
149). So then, “[w]hat does all this mean for the [Bible] translator? Paul wrote in the
plain style of Greek that would have been judged as ‘unsophisticated’ by rhetorical
standards and ‘vulgar’ in that it did not reflect classical learning and allusions. …
That deliberate decision on his part to pursue clarity means that translating his letters
demands a comparatively plain style…” (ibid: 150).
 Do the selections from the Apostle John (often regarded as being an author of
elementary Greek) studied above appear to reflect a rather “plain style” – no matter
what “standards” are used to assess these texts? How about the Corinthian passage
from Paul reproduced below: “unsophisticated,” “vulgar”? What do you think – and
give reasons for your stylistic evaluation and its implications for Bible translation.
 It is indeed interesting to observe that one of the co-authors of Winter in the book
cited above (i.e., L. Ryken) has in the past voiced quite a different opinion on the
stylistic quality of the Scriptures – both Old and New Testaments:
The third dominant type of writing in the Bible is literature. … Literature is an art form,
characterized by beauty, craftsmanship, and technique. … Literary artistry includes
both skill with words and patterned composition. The elements of artistic form that
all the arts share include pattern or design, theme or central focus, organic unity (also
called unity in variety), coherence, balance, contrast, symmetry, repetition or recur-
rence, and unified progression. … Literature uses special resources of language such as
metaphor, simile, pun, allusion, paradox, and irony. … A literary approach to the Bible
is preoccupied with questions of literary form. It is concerned not only with what is
said, but also with how something is expressed. … A literary approach also sees value
in the artistry that is everywhere evident in the Bible. … The fact that the Bible is an
anthology results in a remarkable range of forms and styles. … It is a literary book, but
the literature of the Bible is intermingled with theology and history. … If the Epistles
[including those of Paul!] are more religiously oriented that most other ancient letters
were, they are also more literary. … [T]he Epistles are consistently literary, not only in
their figurative language and proverbial style, but also in their highly patterned rhetoric.
… We have heard too much about the ‘unliterary’ quality of the New Testament. Even
if in the original the vocabulary tends to be that of ordinary speech, there is no way in
which we can consider the rhetorical patterning of the clauses to be ordinary (Ryken
1992:12,16,17,20,22,29,32,435,437, 439; cf. Wendland 2004, 2006b).
Intratextuality 165
 How can we reconcile the expressed opinions of Winter and Ryken cited above?
Quite impossible, some might say, meaning that we must make a choice of whom
to believe. How can we make such a choice – pit one “expert” (whether biblical or
literary) against another? A better way would be to come to your own conclusion,
based on a careful stylistic and rhetorical analysis of the biblical text (ideally in the
original language). Express your thoughts on this issue and give the results of any such
analytical studies that you have made with regard to the biblical text. How does this
evidence and the conclusions that you have reached concerning the literary (artistic-
rhetorical) character of the Scriptures impact upon the task of Bible translation? Give
a concrete example or application if you can.
EXERCISE-21
The following thoughts concerning the “elements of a stylistic approach to transla-

tion” come from a recent scholarly study of the subject (Boase-Beier 2006:112-113).
Evaluate the following quotes with reference to their possible relevance to your
past/present/planned translation of the Scriptures. What insights or applications do
you derive for your work, with special reference now to a “literary” approach and the
“style” that you aim to achieve in your particular version?
[L]iterary translation is, in a very basic and important sense, the translation of style,
because style conveys attitude and not just information, because style is the expression
of the mind, and literature is a reflection of the mind. …
The textual meaning of the source text is more than just the words on the page because
it is dependent on context. … Much of what goes beyond the immediate and obvi-
ous meaning of lexis and syntax of the source text is its style…, the basis for reader
engagement is in its style…, the expression of cognitive state is its style… Therefore
it is highly important for a translator to be as stylistically aware as possible, and to use
the style as the basis and focal point for a translation. …
The translator can convey some of the richness and openness to reader involvement
of the source text if it is borne in mind that the style represents (author’s, narrator’s,
character’s) choices… This is not to say that these choices represent different ways of
saying the same thing but different ways of saying which reflect different ways of see-
ing; what is said also varies according to how it is said. One of the ways such choices
are reflected in the style of the source text is in its use of what Relevance Theory calls
weak implicatures…, what Reader-Response Theory has called gaps in the text…, and
other writers have called weakly implied meanings… These reflections of choices in
the source text, if carried over to the target text, allow for the reader of the target text
to similarly engage with the text and create new meanings. …
Stylistic figures in the text such as metaphor, iconicity [i.e., where the form of the text
somehow reflects or mimics its meaning], ambiguity and the like are not merely in the
text. They have cognitive correlates…, and in this cognitive sense they have both a
universal basis and an individual context which is to some extent culturally bound.
Translators need to make decisions especially about what to do with their culturally-
bound and individual aspects. These are the sorts of decisions affected by translation
strategies such as foreignizing and domesticating…
 Do you view the “Holy Scriptures” as being “literature” – or in at least certain

respects “literary” in character? Explain your answer (cf. Wendland 2004:37-46;
2006:45-52).
166 Ernst Wendland
 If indeed you consider the Scriptures as being “literature,” at least certain portions
of them, how does this affect your translation procedure? Give a specific example,
if possible.
 Does the literary, or stylistic, assumption regarding “weak implicatures,” “gaps,”

or “weakly implied meanings” in the text clash with your theological assumptions
regarding the clarity, or “perspicuity,” of the “Word of God”? Explain.
 Point out which elements or aspects of the Scriptures are “culturally bound.” How
does this fact affect your policy and procedure of translation? This might well serve
as a good topic for a round-table discussion – namely, the subject which is brought
up in the final paragraph quoted above.
EXERCISE-22
Study the following quotation (from Thomas and Thomas 2006:1) and see if you
agree with the thoughts expressed. If not, tell why. If so, give some examples from
your Bible translation setting to support the argument being made. Then tell how you
might apply these insights in your own project in a practical way.
The problem of translation is especially acute in the case of Scripture. For many
years biblical translators were influenced by reader-insensitive societies and Western
biblical scholarship that concentrated on the written text. The fundamental needs of
predominantly oral societies were often downplayed. Inadequate attention was given
to the functions of the Bible as a written text and its oral rendition in public worship,
study groups and family settings. Today we need only think of how many people listen
to the Bible from audio cassettes or the radio to recognize that the Bible is used orally
around the world.
EXERCISE-23
Finally, you may practice applying all five diagnostic literary criteria at once with
respect to how they converge to create an internal textual frame of reference for in-
terpretation and ultimately also for translation as well. So analyze and characterize
the following familiar passage (1 Corinthians 12:12-31, RSV) in terms of the five
categories discussed above: genre selection, compositional shifts, patterned recursion,
rhetorical highlighting and sound (phonological) support. Remember: the literary
devices of repeating + shifting + marking  (reveal) discourse breaks/boundaries +
peak(s). If possible, refer to the Greek text (cited afterwards) when doing this exercise,
especially with regard to the criterion of sound. You will thus examine the text with
regard to its principal stylistic forms, for that is where any literary study must begin
and proceed from that linguistic foundation to investigate some of the principal dis-
course (communicative) functions which the various compositional devices interact
together to perform within the current discourse setting – namely, the paraenetic
exhortation of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Christians. The text has not been
formatted at all, so at the end of your study you will have to propose a reasonable
lay-out for displaying the discourse on the printed page.
After this text analysis then, the class may be organized into groups of 2-3. Each
group should translate the following selection into a dynamic vernacular style that is
Intratextuality 167
suitable for a public dramatic recitation of the discourse. The individual selections
may then be “performed” in class (in lieu of some more suitable public venue) and
later evaluated through group discussion.
12
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of
the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit
we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and
all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one
member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do
not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
16
And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the
body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body
were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear,
where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in
the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single organ, where
would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye
cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet,
“I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem
to be weaker are in-dispensable, 23 and those parts of the body which we think
less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts
are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not
require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the
inferior part, 25 that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members
may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer
together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the
body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 * And God has appointed
in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of
miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of
tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work
miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do
all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a
still more excellent way.
12
Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ
σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός· 13 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ
πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες
εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. 14 καὶ γὰρ τὸ
σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά. 15 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ,
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; 16 καὶ ἐὰν
εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος· 17 εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; εἰ ὅλον
ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις; 18 νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη, ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν
τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν. 19 εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα; 20 νῦν
δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶμα. 21 οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί,
Χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω, ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν, Χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔχω·
22
ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν
ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν, 23 καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν
περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν
168 Ernst Wendland
ἔχει, 24 τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει. ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα

τῷ ὑστερουμένῳ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν, 25 ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσμα ἐν τῷ σώματι
ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη. 26 καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος,
συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται [ἓν] μέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη.
27
Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους. 28 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους,
ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη
γλωσσῶν. 29 μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι;
μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις; 30 μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες
γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν; 31 ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσματα
τὰ μείζονα. Καὶ ἔτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι.
Formatting the textual form
As was noted in the preceding exercise, the art of formatting, or spatially “laying
out,” a printed text is not an optional feature of the integrated set of activities that
constitute the overall work of Bible translation. Rather, it is an essential finishing
task, for the typographical format has meaning in and of itself. Therefore, it is an
overt means of representing today – via translation – the original text of Scripture so
that it can be easily read, and understood, by all literate consumers. The technique
of skillful text design makes it possible to display the key compositional character-
istics of the original (e.g., an author’s deliberate pattern of contrasting elements or
his arrangement of parallel ideas) and also to call visible attention to special aspects
of the internal discourse structure, such as its primary boundaries and peak points.
These features of graphic architecture, which includes the use of varied elements of
typography, guide the oral and silent reader alike both to understand the passage
of Scripture that she or he is reading and also to enunciate it clearly when speaking
aloud. A variety of visual cues that appear on the printed page are included in this
internal framework, for example: section headings, indentation, paragraph breaks,
the text layout (meaningful utterance breaks at a ragged right margin), print class, as
well as font size and style.
To illustrate some of the possibilities here, I have set out below one way of
formatting the passage that was analyzed above, 1 Cor. 12:12-31 (in the NIV). The
class should discuss this proposal critically and try to come up with their individual
suggestions for improvement, with special reference to the Bible reading community
that each happens to be translating for (their reading abilities, preferences, publishing
traditions, and so forth):
12
The body is a unit,
though it is made up of many parts;
and though all its parts are many,
they form one body.
So it is with Christ.
13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body –
whether Jews or Greeks,
slave or free –
Intratextuality 169
and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14
Now the body is not made up of one part
but of many.
15
If the foot should say,
“Because I am not a hand,
I do not belong to the body,”
it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
16
And if the ear should say,
“Because I am not an eye,
I do not belong to the body,”
it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye,
where would the sense of hearing be?
If the whole body were an ear,
where would the sense of smell be?
18
But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body,
every one of them,
just as he wanted them to be.
19
If they were all one part,
where would the body be?
20
As it is, there are many parts,
but one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand,
“I don’t need you!”
And the head cannot say to the feet,
“I don’t need you!”
22
On the contrary,
those parts of the body that seem to be weaker
are indispensable,
23
and the parts that we think are less honorable
we treat with special honor.
And the parts that are unpresentable
are treated with special modesty,
24
while our presentable parts
need no special treatment.
But God has combined the members of the body

and has given greater honor
to the parts that lacked it,
25
so that there should be no division in the body,
but that its parts
should have equal concern for each other.
26
If one part suffers,
170 Ernst Wendland
every part suffers with it;

if one part is honored,
every part rejoices with it.
27
Now you are the body of Christ,
and each one of you is a part of it.
28
And in the church God has appointed
first of all apostles,
second prophets,
third teachers,
then workers of miracles,
also those having gifts of healing,
those able to help others,
those with gifts of administration,
and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
29
Are all apostles?
Are all prophets?
Are all teachers?
Do all work miracles?
30
Do all have gifts of healing?
Do all speak in tongues?
Do all interpret?
31
But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.
EXERCISE-24
 Consider the preceding passage from Corinthians in the light of the advice regard-
ing text-formatting given below (Thomas and Thomas 2006:123-124). Select one
suggestion that you would like to apply in your translation; tell why and how you
will do this:
The appreciation of a text, both for its simple beauty and its complex ideas, is enhanced
by a good print layout. Minimally, a non-[standard?] published layout is needed for
oral readers who must visualize what they will interpret by voice in audio productions
or public presentations. This layout can be prepared by the translation team, perhaps
is cooperation with the specialized readers. A more ambitious project, however, is the
preparation of a text for publication so that general readers can visualize its structural
framework as fully as possible. In this endeavor translators are only members of a larger
team of which they may not have traditionally been a part. … A portion publication
should offer good opportunities for testing audience response. Formatting text is, to
some extent language-specific. …
 What sort of “formatting” devices are available for non-print media? Make some
suggestions as to what you would do in order to aurally and/or visually “display” the
preceding passage if you were preparing: (a) an audio cassette recording, and (b) a
video cassette production.
Intratextuality 171
EXERCISE-25
 Carefully study the following poem by George Herbert (1663, cited in Stockwell
2002:67) and then point out how the unique iconic format serves to both structure
the text and to also foreground certain crucial aspects of its content and intended
emotive impact. Finally, point out any other poetic features that appear to enhance
the message of this poignant lament – or is it a eulogy? (Give reasons to support your
observations and conclusions.)
Easter Wings
Lord, who createst man in wealth and store,
Though foolishly he lost the same,
Decaying more and more,
Till he became
Most poore:
With thee
O let me rise
As larks, harmoniously,
And sing this day thy victories:
Then shall the fall further the flight in me.
My tender age in sorrow did beginne:

And still with sickness and shame
Thou didst so punish sinne,
That I became
Most thinne.
With thee
Let me combine,
And feel this day thy victorie:
For, if I imp my wing on thine,
Affliction shall advance the flight in me.
EXERCISE-26
 Suggest a suitable printed format for the following Old Testament passage (Gen-
esis 11:1-9, RSV) based on a prior examination of its various literary features (as
practiced above).
 Conclude with some comments concerning the extent to which a literary (artistic-
rhetorical) method of discourse analysis helps you in turn to translate more accurately
and effectively (that is, with beauty, impact, appeal, and appropriateness) in your
language and then also to communicate a given passage of Scripture correspondingly
via a selected medium of transmission.
 Feel free to question, assess, and/or criticize the methodology presented in this chap-
ter. However, when doing so be sure to make some positive (concrete) suggestions as
to how these procedures might be improved through correction, modification, and/or
172 Ernst Wendland
supplementation – that is, with respect to certain crucial aspects of investigation that
have been left out or not treated thoroughly enough.
1
Now the whole earth had one language and few words. 2 And as men migrated from
the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to
one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had
brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves
a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves,
lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” 5 And the Lord came
down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord
said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only
the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be
impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that
they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad
from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore
its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused p the language of all the
earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
8. Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne
room (Rev. 4)
The preceding study material was, in a sense, all by way of introduction – to provide
some background information for understanding a “frames of reference” approach to
biblical text analysis. This offers a flexible, multi-faceted method of both exploring
and also explaining the complex nature of the textual “onion” that we endeavor to pull
apart (analyze) and put back together again (synthesize). This task is accomplished
through the twofold process of interpretation and communication, either exclusively
in one’s mother-tongue (e.g., an exegetical study) or via another language-culture
(e.g., Bible translation).
I will now apply the analytical framework that was presented above to a single
pericope of Scripture to illustrate how it may be used to enhance our understanding
of this passage (Revelation 4) as a composite, but integrated whole. However, space
obviously prevents me from providing anything but a partial consideration of this
conceptually rich and rewarding passage, so we will have to settle for a relatively
limited suggestion of the various parameters that need to be investigated in a more
complete “contextualized” study. I have again incorporated various little practical
exercises along the way to involve those who may wish to explore the text and its
context in greater detail (especially with reference to the closely related passage of
Rev. 5 – cf. lesson 11). The following then is only a cursory examination of Revelation
4-5 that illustrates one possible method of analyzing biblical discourse and work-
ing from there towards a better grasp of the present text’s potential communicative,
and especially translational, implications. The aim is primarily to underscore the
importance of taking into serious hermeneutical consideration the various aspects
of “context” that have been discussed from a multiple “frames” perspective. It will
be up to readers, if they so desire, to take this analysis to a higher, more refined and
extensive level of realization.
We begin with an overview of several of the principal sociocultural and situational
conceptual frames that contextualize the 4th chapter of the Apocalypse. Much of this
discussion is conjectural in nature, and so we will not spend a great deal of time on
this aspect of the analysis. We turn next to an examination of the actual composi-
tional frame-work of this pericope with a view towards revealing some of the main
structural and stylistic features of the Greek text. In the next chapter (9) we will shift
from the source document to a target language setting and viewpoint, commencing
with a consideration of the current organizational dimension as it is manifested in two
contrasting translations of this passage in the Chewa language of Malawi/Zambia. This
includes some thoughts about contextualizing the biblical text in translation from a
TL perspective as we apply several methods of introducing paratextual supplementary
devices. In Chapter 10, the important matter of evaluating the results of this intertex-
tual and cross-cultural communication process is discussed in terms of how to test
a translated text of Scripture with regard to its perceived “quality” in relation to a
specified target audience. Some questions to initiate a study of Revelation 5 accord-
ing to a framed contextual approach are suggested in Chapter 11. In the final chapter
174 Ernst Wendland
(12) then we will bring this exploratory survey to a close by considering the present
context of education and practical training in which we are working: How can we
dialogue together to be better teachers and learners so that we can in turn become
more effective translators of sacred Scripture?
The general cognitive environment of Revelation 4

A survey of several plausible (nevertheless debatable) hypotheses concerning the
sociocultural, organizational, and situational setting for the book of Revelation offers
us a guiding hermeneutical perspective on the focal text under consideration, namely,
the pericope covering chapters 4 and 5. This provides the necessary frame of refer-
ence that enables us to better comprehend the exceedingly rich cognitive background
that must have shaped not only why this passage was composed, but also how it was
heard (less often read) and interpreted in its initial communicative environment. This
is very different of course from the viewpoint naturally assumed by a contemporary
Chewa-speaking audience in south-central Africa, who unavoidably approach Rev.
4 under the prevailing influence of their own life-view, religious beliefs, and world
of experience. Is it possible for a secondary, translated text to bridge this great cog-
nitive-emotive gap with its essential sense and significance intact? Despite many
formidable linguistic and cultural barriers, we believe that Christ’s commission (Mt.
28:19) assures us that this can be done, at least to a sufficiently relevant degree, so
later we will examine several ways of facilitating this conceptual bridge-building
process in relation to the passage at hand.
The ANE milieu of Revelation: Its sociocultural and organizational

frames
Before one can address the contextual (sometimes termed “isagogical”) issues and
circumstances that are associated with a thorough exegetical study of any book of the
Bible, one must first answer the question of authorship: Who wrote the text? Several
credible possibilities have been advanced with regard to the Apocalypse (along with
some highly unlikely ones, e.g., John the Baptist in Ford 1975:30): (a) John, the son
of Zebedee, the brother of James and a beloved disciple of Jesus; (b) a so-called “John
the Elder,” an early influential, but largely unknown prophetic follower of Christ; (c)
an anonymous Palestinian disciple of John who assumed the pseudonym “John” when
writing this book; or (d) several core members of a “Johannine school” of followers
who collaborated in composing this book (or whose separate works were later redacted
into a single text), which was dedicated by name to their revered Apostle. This thorny
authorship issue, once decided, will determine how one approaches a number of other
points of contention, and so it is foundational to the entire interpretive process.
To make a rather long story short, I have adopted the historical “conservative”
viewpoint (a), despite certain problems that arise in connection with this traditional
position. This is because I feel that such a long-standing interpretation must remain
as a “given” unless clearly proven erroneous. In my opinion, no convincing argument
Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room 175
has thus far been advanced to overturn our attributing the authorship of Revelation to
John, the last living disciple of the Lord (cf. Johnson 1994:1127).
EXERCISE-1
Discuss the pros and cons of the interpretive stance adopted above in relation to the
four quotations that follow:
The issue is not important to settle since it does not affect the message of the book.
Regardless of which John wrote, the author of the book identifies himself as a prophet…
Therefore, it is probably that John should be socially identified with a group of early
Christian itinerant prophets. (Beale 1999:35-36)
“The most certain line of evidence is the early tradition… At least, if this is the true
solution it at once explains the rise of the tradition, which none of the others satisfac-
torily does. But many prefer to leave the authorship an open question.” At all events,
the ‘John’ of Revelation makes the clear apostolic claim that though he may have
written the book, its real author is none other than Jesus Christ. (Wilcox 1975:23,
citing D. Guthrie)
The otherwise unknown author of Revelation in its final form was probably a Palestin-
ian Jew who had emigrated to the Roman province of Asia, perhaps is connection with
the first Jewish revolt in A.D. 66-70. He regarded himself as a Christian prophet and
his composition as a prophetic book… (Aune 1997:lvi)
Given the likelihood that some version of the revision and fragmentary hypothesis are
correct, it appears likely that both the earlier and the later dates for the production of
Revelation are partially correct, since the composition and compilation of Revelation
are probably an extended editorial process that began in the 60s and only concluded in
the late 90s… (Aune 2003:400; apparently a revision of the preceding quote)
EXERCISE-2
Does the following argument concerning authorship convince you? Explain your own
position on the matter and its relative importance for interpreting and translating the
books of Revelation.
The evidence that allegedly argues against a single author revolves around a number
of internal difficulties, falling into four categories: (1) the presence of doublets (the
same scene or vision described twice); (2) sequence problems – i.e., persons or things
introduced seemingly for the first time when in fact they had already been mentioned;
(3) seeming misplaced verses and larger sections; and (4) distinctive content within
certain sections that does not seem to fit the rest of the book. In each case, however,
there are satisfying alternative explanations. In fact, the difficulties just named stem
more from the reader’s presuppositions than from the text itself. We are more likely
to discover the author’s original intent if we approach Revelation with the assumption
of its literary integrity than if we attempt at every turn to judge it by modern Western
mentality. (Johnson 1994:1126-1127)
176 Ernst Wendland
 What are some aspects of “Western mentality” that might get in the way of an
objective, or honest, exegesis and evaluation of the book of Revelation?
 Does the fact that most or all of the alleged “internal difficulties” cited above hap-
pen to be rather common in the oral narratives of non-Western peoples, e.g., those of
central Africa, have any bearing on one’s perspective on the original composition and
intended “performance” of the text of Revelation today? Explain – with examples,
pro or con, if you have some at hand.
 Consider the following quote and its implications concerning authorship with re-
gard to interpreting the book of Revelation. In short, in the Greek text are we reading
and interpreting “John” as the “real author” or as the “implied author”? Ditto for the
audience – is this group “real” or only “implied” – and what difference does it make,
either to interpreters or to translators?
Modern literary criticism, however, has made us aware that what we meet in a text is
not the author himself or herself but rather the implied author, i.e., the author as he or
she has chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to reveal himself or herself in the written
text. … By the same token, the audience envisaged by the creator of a text is not the
real audience, but the implied audience, i.e., the audience as conceptualized in literary
terms by the author. (Aune 1997:xlix)
After authorship, the next major contextual question to be determined as part of

a wider sociocultural study of a given biblical book is historical: When was the book
written? There are two main theories concerning Revelation’s most likely date of
composition. Proponents of an early date feel that it was written shortly prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This places the book’s references to persecu-
tion within the temporal framework of Nero’s oppression of Christians, especially in
the vicinity of Rome. Supporters of a later date suggest the reign of Domitian some
30 years later, but certainly before the turn of the first century. It appears as if the
persecution of Christians was becoming more widespread then over their refusal to
participate in or comply with the rites and rituals of emperor worship. In any case,
“under either dating position the book could be understood as a polemic against Rome
and especially against compromise with ungodly Roman culture” (Beale 1999:4; cf.
Aune 1997:lxix-lxx).
Thus, while the date of composition cannot be established with certainty (I favor
the later alternative, along with most commentators), the predominant faith-life issue
facing Christians of the day, whether earlier or later, was one of manifest personal and
corporate fidelity: To whom should loyalty be given, ultimately, to Caesar or Christ?
“Every age has its equivalent test of a Christian’s true allegiance; for them it meant
actual persecution and the threat of martyrdom” (Wilcox 1975:22). But at least that
ultimate test, when faced, forcefully clarified the character of a person’s faith; for many
complacent “Christians” today who are not really put to such a drastic life-threatening
trial, the real internal testing of spiritual allegiance has never been undertaken.
EXERCISE-3
Consider the following line of reasoning in relation to a date for Revelation’s writing:
The explanation in Revelation 17:9-11 as to the meaning of the seven heads of the
beast has been investigated with a view to determining the date of Revelation… Two
meanings are given in the text, the one identifying the seven heads with the seven
hills of Rome, the other representing seven emperors. … The list of emperors up to
Domitian is Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho,
Vitellius, Vespatian, Titus, Domitian – twelve in all. Of these John states that five have
fallen, one is (the sixth) one is to come (for a short time only), the eight is one of the
seven and will be the antichrist. Starting from Julius Caesar, John would be writing in
Nero’s reign… (Beasley-Murray 1997:1028)
 What is the problem with such an attempt to contextualize the biblical text in this
manner (which B-M does not agree with)?
 After reading several of the works on Revelation cited in the closing Reference sec-
tion, what conclusion do you arrive at concerning the most likely date of Revelation’s
composition? What difference does this date make to the book’s interpretation? Is
this issue of dating, or historical record-keeping, a matter of concern in the religious
setting in which you work? Explain why or why not.
The chaotic historical circumstances and pressing socio-political situation that

form the conceptual background for the message of Revelation is probably best delin-
eated by the specific problems that were besetting the seven representative Christian
churches addressed in chapters 2-3. While frequently expressed in graphic images
and figurative language, there can be no doubt that the prominent structural position
of this stylized seven-fold hortatory-epistolary discourse is intended to act as a broad
literary frame of reference that sets the scene for the more apocalyptic visions and
prophetic pronouncements that follow the prominent throne room setting in chapters
4-5. The letter genre is also marked more broadly by the typical introduction of 1:4-5
and closing in 22:21. Accordingly, a survey of the critical issues brought out in these
seven pastoral letters may serve as a helpful introduction to the sociocultural setting
and institutional environment that contextualizes the book. These two cognitive frames
must be considered together because of the critical interpersonal concern that unites
them – namely, religion – for in that day and age there was no such thing as a separation
of church, state, and culture as we so often find today, at least in Western countries.
The following list summarizes some of the main trials being faced by believers and
the chief threats to the true teachings and orthodox practice of the Christian religion,
as viewed from the inside by the Lord Christ himself:
• False teachers (“apostles”) who promoted anti-Christian/biblical doctrines

(2:2, 2:24)
• Roman persecution for remaining loyal to the Christian “sectarian” faith (2:3,
2:13)
178 Ernst Wendland
• Ethnic oppression, especially against fellow Jews who had become Christians
(2:10, 3:9)
• Complacent and careless (“lukewarm”) Christians (2:4, 3:1-2, 3:15-17)
• Attractions towards a syncretistic brand of “Christianity” (2:6, 2:14, 2:20)
• Poor social conditions and economic status (2:9, 3:8)
• Serious social pressure to practice state-sponsored “emperor worship”
(2:13)
• Immorality in keeping with the pagan society at large (2:14, 2:22, 3:4)
The Lord’s fervent message to the members of these diverse congregations (there
is little indication that it is intended for religious outsiders) is thus twofold: To those
who were still living a biblical faith, whether strongly or only weakly, he says, “Be
faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you a crown of life” (2:10, NIV).
To the rest, to the uncommitted, the compromisers, and all apostates, he says, “Get
serious and repent – look, I am standing at your door and knocking!” (3:19b-20a).
EXERCISE-4
Read Revelation 2-3 plus any reference material at hand and then review the book’s
situational summary given above, revising or augmenting this as necessary in keeping
with your own research.
Now try to put yourself into the picture: Imagine that you are a member of a small,
embattled church body – a tiny minority in a society rife with pagan religions and phi-
losophies. The temptation to immorality and corruption is everywhere. False preachers
and unscrupulous teachers are splitting your congregation. There is strong competi-
tion, even oppression, from a rival church denomination that calls itself “Christian”
but does not have Christ. Local semi-religious cults associated with some of the key
economic sectors of the community are constantly exerting pressure to come join in
with them. The government too, which sponsors a self-centered, “patriotic” form of
devotion, is becoming more insistent on its demands to participate and threatens dire
consequences for all “conscientious objectors.” In this tumultuous socio-religious
environment then you receive a letter from the most respected Christian leader in your
area, and you are asked to read and discuss it as an assembled congregation.
 How do you think that a frank discussion of the seven letters of Rev. 2-3 would
develop in terms of arguments and counter-points? What is the rhetorical impact of
considering them all together, rather than as separate texts? Suggest how the author
himself indicates that this is the way he wanted these letters to be read: one after the
other, then deliberating over the composite message of the entire corpus.
 Are there any world settings today that would approximate some of those portrayed
in Revelation 2-3? Point out which of the seven congregational scenarios approximates
one that you know of in your locale.
 How does this sort of thinking yourself into the situation affect your reading of
the book? Is this a book that can simply be broken off after silently reading a single
chapter or even a related cluster of them? Explain the effect of doing this and suggest
why the message of Revelation was perhaps intended to be communicated all at once
in the form of a single extended dramatic performance or an oratorical recital.
The situational setting of John: Apostle, pastor, prophet
The situational frame of reference of the book of Revelation is completely encom-

passed, hence also characterized by, the sociocultural (religious) and institutional
circumstances described above. However, the book is unique in the NT for its rather
intricate communication setting. In a way that is very typical of OT prophetic writings
(Wendland 2004:115, 153, 260), so also the text of Apocalypse features a complex,
embedded structure of largely unidirectional, divinely-motivated discourse (speech)
levels at its very beginning (1:1-2; cf. 22:6). The salient relationships are displayed
in Figure 15.
1* God  Jesus Christ

2* Jesus Christ  angel
3* angel  John
4* John  Christ’s “servants” // the Church (7 churches)

These last-mentioned, literally ‘slaves’ (δούλοι), the weak in faith and life as well
as the strong, are represented, perhaps typologically, by the varied recipients of “the
seven churches in the province of Asia” (1:4). Within this external framework of com-
munication then, there are a number of internal speech events recorded, involving a
diverse array of dramatis personae within the prophecy, e.g., Christ → John (1:17-20,
4:1), Christ → “the angel of the church in Ephesus” (2:2-7), “four living creatures”
→ “one sitting on the throne” (4:8), angel hosts → Lamb (5:12), slain martyrs →
“Sovereign Lord” (6:10), “multitude…from every nation” → God/Lamb (7:10), “a
voice from heaven” → John (10:4), “kings of the earth” → fallen “Babylon” (18:10).
The close of the book (22:6-21) also features a rich combination of speaking voices
which appear, in conventional narrative fashion, to announce the dramatic peak of
the discourse (a “crowded stage”).
It is important to discern the multilayered “external” communication setting of
Revelation, for this not only helps to identify the prophetic nature of the book, but it
also indicates the very secondary role played by the divine mouthpiece (and scribe),
John. His message is really one from the “Lord” – this deliberately ambiguous designa-
tion, as throughout the book, expressing a profound theological truth: the Lord Jesus
Christ in the NT is distinct from, but divinely equal to YHWH of the OT! Revelation
then is a special “word of God and the testimony of Jesus [the] Christ” (1:2) to his
fellowship of believers of every age concerning “what you have seen, what is now,
and what will take place later” (1:19). In essence, this is a reiterated pastoral message

For a somewhat different perspective on the embedding that characterizes the various locutionary
levels found in Revelation, see Pattemore (2003:121).
180 Ernst Wendland
of powerful comfort and encouragement for the faithful, a “testimony” (1:2; 22:16)
that is perhaps best epitomized in the book’s seven beatitudes (1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9;
20:6; 22:7, 14) and in the final speech of “the Alpha and Omega” – “Jesus…the Root
and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star” (22:12-16).
EXERCISE-5
Evaluate the following conclusions (of Hellholm, cited by Aune 1997:lxxxi) regarding
the implications of Revelation’s composite communicative situation for the message
being transmitted by this book. Are there any corrections or modifications that you
wish to suggest – either to what is proposed below (e.g., regarding “the central mes-
sage of Revelation”), or to the opinions expressed above to begin this section?
[David] Hellholm finds that the most profoundly embedded text at the functional com-
munication level coincides with the sixth, i.e., the highest, grade of the macrostructure
of the Revelation of John (sic). This most embedded text is Rev 21:5b-8, a passage that
Hellholm claims expresses the central message of Revelation. … This analysis leads
Hellholm to draw three major conclusions (Semeia 36 [1986] 45-46): (1) The first con-
clusion concerns virtuality: the phenomenon of the most profoundly embedded text as
the bearer of the central message of an apocalypse is an invariable feature of the genre.
(2) The second conclusion concerns function: the reason for the hierarchic embedment of
texts centers on the matter of the authorization of the message. (3) Third, he concludes
there is a direct relationship between communication embedment on the pragmatic
level and the content on the semantic level. The message of Revelation is the promise
to those who conquer that they will live with God in his new world and the threat that
the cowardly and unfaithful will be separated from God (the ‘second death’).
 How much of this information concerning the situational setting of Revelation is

essential for readers of the book to know so that they can correctly process its content?
List three of the most important facts, in your opinion. What is the most effective way
to convey such material to readers? To hearers?
The conceptual context presupposed by the throne room vision
To a certain degree, what is said in this section regarding the setting that John’s imagery
evokes in Rev. 4 anticipates our discussion of intertextuality below because here, as
well as elsewhere in the book, so much of the conceptual background is established
by numerous allusions and references to pertinent OT prophetic texts. As will be
pointed out in the later structural discussion below, the vision through the “open door”
of chapter 4 (4:1) continues the scene that was initiated in chapter 1, where the book
as a whole is formally introduced (1:1-8) and John, having been seized by the Spirit
on the Lord’s Day, is commissioned as a prophetic scribe to “write down” everything
that will be revealed to him (1:10). This miraculous reception into the divine presence
is reminiscent of the call accounts of several well-known Hebrew prophets, notably
Isaiah (ch. 6) and Ezekiel (chs. 1-2). It thereby establishes the credentials and cred-
ibility, as it were, of John the apostolic scribe since he too is required to transmit a
message to God’s people that will be quite awful, even terrifying in many respects.
But the same merciful divine initiative is also at work, for the primary purpose of
what will be revealed is to bring a contextual “blessing” to all those who hear and
obey what the Lord has to say through his prophet (1:3).
The essentially paraenetic (hortatory) character of this Apocalypse is thus estab-
lished at the outset, and this serves as a vital hermeneutical frame of reference and
guide for the work as a whole. That is to say, the message of the book is primarily for
those who are already believers and who live amidst diverse sufferings and tribulations
in the here-and-now: They are encouraged to take heart, for the ever-living Lord has
already conquered sin, death, and the power of Satan (1:17b-18). This once-for-all
victory in the past guarantees for all time a blessed outcome in the future for every-
one living in the present who “overcomes” the enemy by faith in Christ (2:7, 11, 17,
26-28; 3:5, 12, 21).
There is a sudden shift of setting that occurs in ch. 4 as John is apparently snatched
up in spirit (or: by the Spirit?) from his remote earthly place of exile on Patmos (1:9)
and received up through a door into the awe-inspiring presence of God in heaven (4:1-
2). Such “throne-vision reports, often involving heavenly ascents, occur frequently
in both prophetic and apocalyptic literary contexts in early Judaism as well as in the
later rabbinic hekalot literature” (Aune 1997:276-277). Six distinct scenes in Revela-
tion feature God’s heavenly throne room: 4:2-5:14, 7:9-17, 11:15-19, 14:1-5, 15:2-8,
and 19:1-8. Most of the book’s joyous doxologies and poetic hymn fragments occur
in these settings, and thus they serve functionally as important pause-points in the
drama, that is, periodic reassuring images of calm stability, divine control, and focused
worship amid the turbulent visions which surround them. Four additional items of
note contribute to our understanding of the cognitive background that underlies such
throne room scenes, which would have been assumed to be known to an ANE audi-
ence (citing Aune 1997:277):
• The focus of the throne vision is almighty God presiding over his heavenly
court, surrounded by a variety of angelic beings or lesser deities (angels,
archangels, seraphim, cherubim) who function as courtiers (e.g., Exod. 15:11;
Ps. 8:5, 29:1; Mt. 25:31-32).
• All such descriptions of God enthroned in the midst of his worshipful
heavenly host are based on the ancient conception of the divine council or
assembly found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Phoenicia, as well as in Israel
(e.g., Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Ps. 82:1, 6, 89:5,7).
• This motif of the divine council is frequently associated with prophecy in the
OT, for prophets were thought able to join the assembly, to hear the delibera-
tions of the council, and then to announce God’s will upon the earth (e.g.,
Job 15:8; Jer. 23:18; Amos 3:7).
• Most royal throne visions, for obvious reasons, are set in heaven, though in
some passages the earthly temple of God and heavenly throne room appear
to merge (e.g., Isa 6:1-13; Mt. 19:28).
EXERCISE-6
 Would people in your Bible translation setting have any analogues at all in their
oral or literary tradition that correspond, even partially, to the previously described
conceptual context for Rev. 4?
182 Ernst Wendland
 If so, what are some of the main correspondences or similarities that you can draw
on to re-create the essential aspects of this vision?
 If not, identify the principal areas of contrast, difference, or absence that would
need to be dealt with in a supplementary paratextual device of some kind, e.g., sec-
tion headings, introductory sectional notes, cross references, explanatory study notes,
illustrations (but not too shocking or imaginative!).
 Give a short sample of one (or more) of these informative contextualizing devices
that you would like to propose for use in the TL that you are working in (give an
English back-translation).
EXERCISE-7
Comment on the two hermeneutical observations below: Do you think that they are
possible, convincing, or not very credible at all? Having read both selections, what
is your conclusion about the major significance – the theological as well as pastoral
“relevance” – of the throne room vision report of Revelation chapter 4?
Revelation 4 sets forth the Seer’s foundational vision of God as creator of this world
and as the one who is worthy to be worshiped. The images of this throne scene both
draw upon and disrupt the associations people might have had with imperial worship.
… In short, the rich, multivalent imagery by which John describes the throne and the
participants in heavenly worship has the effect of making the worship witnessed in
imperial-cult settings seem puny by comparison. (Saunders 2003:143-144)
The inaugural vision places the seer in the heart of the Jewish prophetical and apoca-
lyptic tradition. It indicates that he is one of the privileged few who experienced the
vision of the throne or chariot, Heb. merkabah, an experience which was regarded as the
climax of mystical progress. Indeed, it cannot be a coincidence that the word “throne”
appears in every chapter of Revelation except 9, 10, 15, 17, 18. Twice it is used with
reference to “Satan’s” throne: Rev 2:13, 16:10 (the beast’s throne). This suggests that
the main theme of the work is theocracy versus dominion of Satan. (Ford 1975:76)
 Do the perspectives described above mean that the book of Revelation has rel-
evance only for receptors who possess a conceptual framework that includes a good
idea of what the “imperial cult” and “emperor worship” are all about? Explain your
answer.
 What might be some “functionally equivalent” mental models of such royal and/or
divine throne scenes for people living in different parts of the world today? Begin
with your own sociocultural setting.
The formal representation of Rev. 4: Textual frames

I will preface my own analytical remarks regarding the discourse structure and style of
chapter 4 with an extended quotation of a relevance theory perspective on the textual
organization of the book of Revelation (Pattemore 2003:160-163):
Discourse analysis, then, is inherently pragmatic and it is this drive to under-

stand texts within the pragmatics of real communication which leads us to
the principle of relevance as the primary criterion for discourse structure. In
searching for optimal relevance over the various levels of discourse structure
of a biblical text, it needs to be clearly understood that we are primarily seek-
ing to uncover the relevance to the original readers, which I have earlier called
synchronic relevance. However, we do it, of necessity, from within our own
cognitive environment and there are considerations of this diachronic relevance
which inevitably affect our view. The hope of insights into the relevance per-
ceived by the original readers rests on a number of assumptions. Fundamentally
we assume that human thought processes, in particular logical and inferential
processes, are to some degree universal and unbounded by local and temporal
conditioning. Thus what appears to us as a logical or inferential relationship
we assume would have appeared so to first century A.D. readers/hearers as
well. Second, we assume that we can reconstruct a sufficient amount of the
cognitive environment of the first readers/hearers to make meaningful state-
ments about their probable perceptions of relevance. But Blass has argued
correctly that in the absence of contextual information it is valid to construct
a hypothetical context if we can show that this leads to optimal relevance for
the text. In fact we will most often be working with cognitive environments
that are a mix of evidenced and hypothetical contextual assumptions. The test
of our hypotheses will be the degree of relevance obtained for the text. There
remains an unavoidable degree of opacity of the original context, however, in
that we don’t know what we are lacking about it. We can construct positive
aspects of contexts with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but we have
no way of knowing what additional parameters, whether features of the situ-
ational environment, or earlier texts, or relational assumptions, have simply
disappeared without trace. These considerations have some implications for
the way we analyze discourse:
(1) The context within which the structure of a text is understood is the mutually mani-
fest cognitive environment. This is composed of the cotext, the situational context,
the intertextual relationships, as they have become a part of both the author’s and
audience’s mental geography.
(2) Text units, or integral text sequences, are units over which relevance is optimized.
This applies to both large and small units.
(3) Relationships perceived between text units are those relationships that optimize rel-
evance. This means that significant contextual effects are experienced for acceptably
low processing effort.
(4) More complex relationships should only be postulated where there is a failure to ac-
count for the presence of a particular feature by means of linking to the most readily
accessible cognitive environment.
(5) The significance of discourse markers is always that which optimizes relevance.
This means, for example, that in Revelation meta tauta (“after these things”) does
not always operate on the same level. The referent of “these things” will be such as
to maximize cognitive effects for minimal processing effort.
184 Ernst Wendland
In a sense, my effort to understand and set forth the discourse of Rev. 4 in subse-
quent sections by means of various methods of literary-structural analysis is simply
a limited, but text-specific outworking of this broader cognitive enterprise. My aim
is to perceive and construe meaning (“relevance”) in terms of the formal composi-
tional fabric of the pericope at hand – plus what we can safely deduce concerning
the intended audience’s probable “cognitive environment,” which the author assumed
that they would be able both to access without difficulty and also readily apply to an
interpretation of the text.
EXERCISE-8
Evaluate the following perspective on the controversial discourse organization of

Revelation, with special reference to chs. 4-5 (Saunders 2003:128-129, 140-141).
How does this jibe with your past and present reading of this book?
The “problems of sequence and repetition” [citing A.Y. Collins] are only problematic
when we attempt to violate the Seer’s directions for how to use this work. … [I]t was
meant to be performed as a whole, not taken apart and preached piece by piece. Rev-
elation begins with a clear prologue (1:1-8) that corresponds to an epilogue (22:6-21),
both of which draw on epistolary convention (1:4-6; 22:21), contain prophetic oracles
(e.g., 1:7 [cf. Dan. 7:13; Zech. 12:10, 12 LXX]; 22:16b [cf. Isa. 11:10; 60:3]), and echo
one another verbally (1:1-3//22:6-7; 1:8//22:13). Everything between the epilogue and
prologue is presented as a single vision, although that vision has several distinct, yet
interrelated, elements. … [B]ut the Seer’s careful interlacing of the material in chapters
4-22 resists any single organized scheme – or, rather, permits diverse outlines. The effect
is a performance that resists fragmentation, whether by ancient or modern audiences,
and that presents an integrated, unified alternative to the mythic patterns of the empire.
This, in turn, alters the ways audiences engage the work.
The account in chapter 5 of the Lamb opening the scroll provides the narrative
foundation for all that follows in this book, for it is this seven-sealed scroll that contains
the visions of salvation and judgment that comprises chapters 6-20. The visions of God
as Creator and Redeemer (chaps. 4-5) who is making a new heaven and a new earth
(21:1-22:5; see esp. 21:1-5) forms an interpretive frame around chapters 6-20, where
the images of judgment and destruction are dominant. This structural frame prevents the
audience from hearing the visions of chapters 6-20 merely as descriptions of destruction
and chaos or as a cry for vengeance on the part of the saints. The visions of chapters
4-5 make clear that the power of God displayed throughout the book is the power of
the Lamb who was slain, whose death redeems his followers to serve as priests, and
whose worship unifies the whole of creation (cf. 5:11-14). … The interpretive lens
supplied by the visions of heavenly worship in chapters 4-5 is thus indispensable for
interpretation of the whole performance.
 Does such conceptual integration and unity characterize the manner in which the
typical audience (or readership) in your setting perceive and apply the text of Revela-
tion? Explain your answer.
 What can be done by Bible translators to encourage such a holistic, dramatic, and
meaningfully structured approach to this prophetic work – to increase its perceived
relevance for, and rhetorical impact upon text consumers today?
Co-text: Demarcating the pericope beginning at 4:1
There is little doubt that a new major text unit begins in the book of Revelation at 4:1
– “After this…” (Μετὰ ταῦτα); cf. 7:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1; and 19:1). The preceding,
tightly-constructed discourse section comprising the letters to the seven churches
of Asia Minor concludes in 3:22 (originating from 2:1, with an overlap at 1:19-20,
cf. 1:11), thus creating the need for a fresh start. But in fact, this turns out to be a
resumption of the divine invitation to John to write down the prophetic vision that he
“saw” (εἶδον– cf. 1:2, 12) concerning “what must happen after these things” (ἃ δεῖ
γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα – 4:1; cf. 1:1, 19). Here the eternal triune God (1:4-5) was
about to reveal to him a multifaceted message regarding the spiritual state of Christ’s
Church – past, present, and future (vv. 19-20). The same thunderous, trumpet-like
voice is speaking to John (4:1; cf. 1:10, 12) as he prepares to describe what is beyond
the open door in heaven. The seven letters of chapters 2-3 are not irrelevant, however,
to what John has to report now in 4:1ff., for this sequence of epistolary exhortations
serves to specify, albeit in highly figurative, symbolic terms, the nature and situation
of his ostensive audience, namely, the various local congregations that he had been
formerly serving as a pastor in this politically restive region bordering Europe and
Asia. The select group of seven churches should probably be taken as a metonymic
token of worldwide “Christianity,” consisting of near apostates and unstable adherents
as well as all Christ’s believing and obedient “servants” (1:1, 22:6).
It is much more difficult to determine the conclusion of the primary discourse seg-
ment that begins in 4:1. Obviously, several points of termination might be proposed,
depending on the scope, or structural level, of the compositional unit that one has in
mind for analytical purposes. A new, minor stage in the revelatory account occurs in
5:1 with the reiteration of the anaphoric formula “And I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον), which
appears in this shorter, and also a longer form periodically throughout the rest of the
book as an important marker of aperture (the final occurrence being in 21:22 – “And
I did not see a sanctuary…”). The pericope covering 5:1-14 is very closely related
to the preceding text of ch. 4 due to the many thematic elements and personages that
these two passages have in common – in particular, the central character, “the one
seated upon the throne” (5:1), and those mysterious heavenly beings, the “four living
creatures” and the “[24] elders” (5:14). This busy liturgical scene of resonant wor-
ship around the heavenly throne comes to a calming close in 5:14, and a contrastive
sequence of seven tumultuous visions of various calamities and catastrophes (the six
seals) commences at 6:1.
The next occurrence of the major disjunctive discourse marker “After this…”
(Μετὰ ταῦτα) occurs in 7:1, which may be therefore regarded as the onset of another
principal division of John’s prophecy, and yet another in 7:9. But notice that these
two sections are clearly enclosed within the ongoing report of the progressive open-
ing of the seven seals (cf. 8:1), which may in turn be viewed as incorporating a new
set of judgment visions involving “seven trumpets” (8:2ff; cf. 11:15)! In conclusion

For a convincing argument in favor of the twofold division of the “body” text (epistle) of Revelation,
i.e., 1:12–3:22 and 4:1–22:9, see Pattemore (2003:119-120).
186 Ernst Wendland
then, it seems reasonable to consider the text of chapters 4-5 as being a single, tightly
integrated discourse segment composed of two sequentially related descriptive panels
(ch. 4 + ch. 5), which therefore need to be discerned and interpreted together.
EXERCISE-9
 Examine several major Bible versions that you have access to. How do they de-
marcate the section covering chs. 4-5: Do they treat these two chapters together as a
distinct, unified discourse unit?
 Do the respective section headings of chs. 4 and 5 underscore this cohesive

narrative-descriptive relationship? If not, can you propose an appropriate revision or
alternative wording where needed, yet one that preserves the semantic distinctiveness
of each pericope?
 Evaluate this proposal: “4:1-11 Main Event: John saw in a vision three different
kinds of heavenly persons as they worshipped God in heaven.” (Ott 2005:ch. 4:1)
EXERCISE-10
A study of the wider contextual “cotext” of a pericope of Scripture includes a consid-

eration of a given text’s communicative function within the larger composition and
also this same passage as it, too, is manifested in the form of a hierarchically, as well
as syntagmatically-structured discourse unit.
 Evaluate the following conclusion regarding the significance of the throne room
scene of Rev. 4-5 within the book as a whole. Do you have any corrections or modifica-
tions to suggest, based on your current conception of the overall structural organization
of Revelation? (Perhaps you may wish to leave this for some future study, waiting
until you are actually engaged in a translation of the book yourself).
As the vision of Christ in Revelation 1 leads into the seven letters, so the vision of
heaven in Revelation 4-5 leads into the main body of the Revelation. It initiates the
process of events leading to the unveiling of the final kingdom of God (Rev 6-19) and
at the same time determines the symbolism of the first series of messianic judgments
(Rev 6:1-8:5). (Beasley-Murray 1997:1030)
 Does this particular discourse structural perspective, if you agree with it, have any
important implications for Bible translators? If so, mention what these are.
A literary analysis of the text

For the purposes of illustration, my literary method of investigation pays special at-
tention to the artistic (formal) and rhetorical (functional) features of the biblical text.
Accordingly, I will selectively apply the five aspects of an intratextual, “internal
textual frame” analysis (cf. chapter 7) to Revelation 4 in the following order: genre
specification, phonic enhancement, compositional disjunction, patterned recursion,
and rhetorical accentuation.
Categorization: What is the genre of Revelation?
Is Revelation a prophetic apocalypse or an apocalyptic prophecy? “The hermeneutical

significance of the literary genre of biblical books has become increasingly obvious,
for the meaning conveyed by the generic packaging of texts provides the indispensable
context for understanding the constituent parts of a composition” (Aune 2003:401).
Agreed – but the question now is: What is the genre of Revelation? Due to its opening
words (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ…), the book is often (too) quickly categorized
simply as an “apocalyptic” text. In reality, however, it is a multivalent generic hy-
brid that is comprised of a number of masterfully interwoven discourse types and
sub-types. To be sure, some of the typical features of an ancient Jewish apocalypse
are manifested, such as: graphic visual imagery, involving great earthly calamities
and cosmic battle scenes which feature God’s victory over Satan and the forces of
evil; familiar apocalyptic symbols, including key numbers, and fantastic visions; a
predominantly future temporal orientation (moving progressively from the readers’
present to some indefinite, but impending point of climactic consummation); and
an elaborate, flamboyant style of writing that attracts as well as moves the audience
(for the text is surely meant to be uttered aloud), both cognitively and emotively.
But excluding the superscription and verse 1, the term ἀποκάλυψις occurs nowhere
else in the book of Revelation, and so for various reasons (see below) it seems more
accurate to construe this as a reference not to “the literary genre, but rather [to] the
revelatory character of the book and its divine origin as ‘the revelation from Jesus
Christ’ (subjective genitive)” (Aune 2003:401).
Another potential macro-genre term occurs in 1:3, as a divine “blessing”
(μακάριος) is pronounced upon all who read, hear, and take to heart “the words of this
prophecy” (τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας). A similar expression is found twice in
proximity at the very end of Revelation (22:18-19) to form an inclusio; there receptors
are warned not to add to or remove anything from the meaning of “the words of this
book of prophecy” (τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης). The same
word “prophes/cy” also occurs several other times in the book, thus reinforcing its
significance as a designator of primary genre (10:11; 22:7, 10). The prophetic character
of Revelation is supported by the text itself for the Old Testament prophetic books
are alluded to (though never directly quoted) nearly 300 times. “John the prophet
was evidently acquainted with all that [biblical] background, for it is recognized by
virtually all scholars that his work reflects a mind soaked in the OT, and his language
is dominated by it” (Beasley-Murray 1997: 1026). A thorough knowledge of this
conceptual background is therefore important for one to correctly understand both
the content and also the purpose of this book. That purpose is clearly stated in the
text’s opening paragraph. Thus, along with the moral imperative to think and behave
in an appropriate way (1:3), there is the command to recognize the book’s theological
authority as “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:2; cf. 22:6-11).
Further evidence in favor of an approach that views Revelation as being essentially a
prophetic work – an apocalyptically-colored prophecy as it were – is the prominence
given to its heavenly setting in the very throne room of God who is the source of the
discourse (chs. 1, 4-5; cf. Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1-2). In conclusion:
188 Ernst Wendland
The apocalyptic-prophetic nature of Revelation can be defined as God’s revela-

tory interpretation (through visions and auditions) of his mysterious counsel
about past, present, and future redemptive-eschatological history, and how the
nature and operation of heaven relate to this. … The heavenly revelation usually
runs counter to the assessment of history and values from the human, earthly
perspective and therefore demands that people change and realign their views
with the heavenly view. … In particular, John writes because he perceives that
there is a real danger that the churches will conform to the values of the world
system and not to God’s transcendent truth… (Beale 1999:38).
But as was already noted, a prominent section of epistolary discourse has been
incorporated within the hybrid genre described earlier, namely, chapters 2-3, over and
above the prominent external “letter frame” (1:4-5a / 22:21-22). However, the affinity
of these two discourse types must be recognized, for a NT epistle will often correspond
to OT prophetic works in terms of its hortatory style and content. The hermeneutical
implications of this identification, if accepted, are vitally important, for it supports the
position that the message of Revelation is not limited largely to the future, whether
imminent or afar off; rather it has immediate here-and-now significance for believers
of each and every age. This point is well stated by Beale (1999:39):
The main purpose of the epistolary genre elsewhere in the NT is to address

problems that have arisen in the various churches. The epistolary writers
elsewhere in the NT appeal to the readers’ present and future participation and
blessings in Christ as the basis for their appeals to obedience. … [T]he entire
Apocalypse is not merely a futurology but also a theological psychology focus-
ing on past and present, within which the first-century readers were to think and
which was intended to alter their behavior. … Since one of the major topics
of chs. 1-3 is the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection for believers
living in the present, as well as the future, we would expect the same ‘already
and not yet’ notions to be prevalent throughout the body of the book.
Finally, some scholars have recently pointed out that there are also a number of
distinctly narrative segments in the book, which exhibit standard discourse features
such as setting, atmosphere, character, dialogue, point of view, and even the develop-
ment of a plot (with a climax). In fact, many of these analysts would argue that the main
genre which incorporates and provides an interpretive framework for all the rest is
that of a “[his]story with many narrative layers intertwined” (Saunders 2003:119):
At one level, Revelation is an account of John’s visionary experiences while

exiled on the island of Patmos, and especially while observing events in heaven
and on earth from the exalted setting of the heavenly throne of God. The story
of worship and the events that take place in the heavenly realm constitute a
second, distinct, yet interrelated, level of the narrative. Revelation also tells
the stories of the beast and its violent conquest of the people of God; and of
Babylon, the city where Israel was both taken captive and seduced, including
Babylon’s commercial and military conquests and eventual destruction. But
even more than these, the Apocalypse tells the story of the revelation of Jesus
Christ… His story is…the overarching drama within which the other layers
of the narrative have their place (ibid.:119-120).
As the last sentence suggests, we also sense an unmistakable element of drama

– of a public performance – in the book of Revelation. This dimension comes to the
fore in the prominent segments of worship, liturgy, prayers, and hymnody that are
interspersed throughout the text. The book as a whole is thus “punctuated with a num-
ber of liturgical or quasiliturgical [literary] forms, including amens (1:6; 19:1; 22:21),
hallelujahs (19:1, 3, 4, 6), doxologies (1:5b; 4:9; 5:13-14; 7:12; 19:1), the Trisagion
(i.e., 3 x “holy”; 4:8), and 16 hymns or hymnlike compositions (man antiphonal) set in
heavenly throne-room scenes that provide a theological commentary on narrative de-
velopments (4:8c, 11; 5:9b-10, 12b, 13b; 7:10b, 12; 11:15b, 17-18; 12:10b-12; 15:3b-4;
16:5b-7b; 19:1-3, 4b, 6b-8)” (Aune 2003:402-3; several of these references have been
corrected). The performance of liturgy then is essentially dramatic in character, and
this central aspect of the message of Revelation is periodically highlighted throughout
the book through reiteration of the key verb προσκυνεω ‘worship’, especially in the
medial chapters that contrast the false worship of the “beasts” of this world (ch. 13)
with true worship of the “Lamb” of God (ch. 14).
What then is the principal genre of Revelation – the overall guiding perspective
that gives us the primary, most inclusive hermeneutical framework for understand-
ing the text? On balance, I prefer, not a singular, but a mixed, multiple perspective,
namely, that of an apostolic prophecy, cast in the stylistic mold of an apocalypse,
written down in a letter form, and dealing primarily with the salvation history of God’s
people. Such a composite literary designation, though problematic for purists, seems
to most adequately reflect the book’s main purpose, which is a forceful discourse
of paraenetic exhortation and encouragement to believers living in very troubled
and uncertain times. Beale, in my opinion, well captures the essence of the timeless
pastoral aim that emanates from this narrative-prophetic-apocalyptic-epistolary text
(Beale 1999:33, material in brackets added):
John’s purpose in writing is, therefore, to encourage those not compromising

with idolatry to continue in that stance and to jolt those who are compromising
out of their spiritual anesthesia so that they will perceive the spiritual danger
they are in and repent and become witnesses to the risen Christ as Lord. …
Therefore, the focus of the book is exhortation to the church community to
[worship and] witness to Christ in the midst of a compromising, idolatrous
church and world.
EXERCISE-11
 In view of the preceding discussion, how would you classify the book of Revelation
in terms of genre? Come to your own conclusion and cite some evidence to support
it. What difference does this decision make to your perception, interpretation, and
translation of the text? Can you give a concrete example?
190 Ernst Wendland
 What is the predominant (sub-)genre that is manifested in ch. 4, and what is your
evidence for this? Can ch. 4 be considered for the purpose of discourse categorization
in isolation? Explain. If not, where does the account beginning in 4:1 end?
 Evaluate the following three quotations concerning the nature and purpose of
Revelation, and then suggest how the observations that you agree with may affect
your understanding of this book:
Apocalypses exhibit a threefold function: (1) to legitimate the message (and/or the
messenger) through an appeal to transcendent authorization, and (2) to create a liter-
ary surrogate of revelatory experience for hearers or readers, (3) so that the recipients
of the message will be motivated to modify their views and behaviors to conform to
transcendent perspectives. (Aune 2003:401)
[T]hese [Jewish] apocalypses are pessimistic concerning the outcome of God’s present
activity in the world; and for hope they look to the eschatological end, when God will
once again intervene and defeat evil in the world. Though Revelation is often read in
this manner, there are great differences, for it describes the climactic event in history
as already completed – in the victory of the slain Lamb (ch. 5). At the present time, the
Lamb’s victory is being worked out in the obedient suffering of his followers. (12:11;
15:2). (Johnson 1994:1126)
[Revelation is] a prime example of a narrative of resistance, a work designed to cre-

ate imaginative space for discourse and social practice that pose a sharp alternative to
‘empire.’ Revelation was created for oral performance amid the Eucharistic gatherings
of the early Christians. In these assemblies, the Apocalypse both described and evoked
worship of the Lamb who was slain as the Lord of all creation. Revelation, in fact,
presents worship itself as the definitive act of Christian resistance against the idolatry
and violence of Roman imperial domination. (Saunders 2003:118)
EXERCISE-12
Although we may not wish to interpret Revelation simply, or primarily, as a narrative

account, we do have to make a decision as to how to handle the overt temporal frame-
work and marking that overlays the book – whether as a strictly chronological record,
or just the opposite – as an a-chronological discourse, or somewhere in between.
A number of different hermeneutical perspectives have been proposed in this
regard; the main positions are summarized below:
a) Preterist: Revelation is understood almost exclusively in terms of a first century

setting. John is talking only about the early Christian Church as it relates to the
Roman Empire at that time. All of the events and prophecies of the book were
fulfilled by the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) or shortly thereafter.
b) Historicist: Revelation gives a detailed forecast of world history right up to
the present time of the interpreters, who tend to adopt a Western-dominated
perspective on these crucial events and stages, including, for example, the Dark
Ages, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the collapse Soviet
Empire, and in particular, chronic Middle Eastern turmoil.
c) Futurist: From ch. 4 on, Revelation offers a programmatic scenario of what
will happen at the end of the world – in particular, the events that will usher
in the second coming of Christ, a temporal millennium, and the final victory
of God/Christ over the forces of Satan and his human as well as demonic co-
horts.
d) Idealist: Revelation does not deal with real or specific events at all – past,
present, or future. Rather, it portrays in a dramatic, idealistic fashion images
of timeless religious relevance, that is, concepts, ideas, and warnings to God’s
people of all times, e.g., his sovereign rule in human history, the ultimate tri-
umph of good over evil, and the need to remain faithful to Christ in all of life’s
trying situations.
e) Ecclesiologist: Revelation, from ch. 4 on, does present a general temporal
framework, one bounded on the “already” (past) side by Christ’s first coming
(or his defeat of Satan and sin on the cross) and on the “not yet” (future) side
by the Lord’s second coming in glory. In between these two poles, the story
of Christ’s Church, essentially his rule in the hearts of believers, is figured in
cyclical, or recycled, fashion – first from one perspective of testing and trial,
then from another, but eventually culminating in a final, climactic struggle and
a public, judicial reaffirmation of his victory over Satan and all evil.
 Which chronological perspective on Revelation do you prefer and why? What are
the exegetical implications of this decision concerning the book’s time setting?
 What then are the translational implications of your position, say for example, on
the type of transition that you see between chs. 19 and 20 – with respect to a guiding
section heading and your rendering of the initial expression in 20:1 “And [then, now,
next?] I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον …)?
 How do you interpret the transition between chapters 3-4: “After these things,
behold, I saw…” (Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ…)?
 What would be the temporal implication of a literal rendering of the preceding

expression for your primary TL audience? Is there any need to correct this impression?
If not, tell why. If so, how would you do this – that is, establish an accurate temporal
perspective on the throne room scene of chs. 4-5?
EXERCISE-13
Evaluate the following perspective on a major theme of Revelation in relation to its

possible original contextual motivation and application to a contemporary setting
(from an unpublished email essay by Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi, “The setting of
Revelation and the mark of the beast” – sent to me on 20/01/2006):
“…[W]orship is the central theme of Revelation. It is the key to understand much of

the book. No other book of the Bible contains so many worship scenes. Time and again
John is shown heavenly beings praising God (4:9; 7:12; 11:17) and serving him in his
temple (7:15; 22:3). … The verb ‘to worship’, proskuneo – a fundamental liturgical
term – occurs 24 times in Revelation. This represents almost half of the New Testament
occurrences. … [T]he reason worship is so central in Revelation is because John was
192 Ernst Wendland
shown in vision that worship is the root cause of the titanic controversy between Christ
and Satan. … The first reason for the centrality and conflict over worship is to be found
in the threat of Emperor Worship. By the time John put pen to paper the emperor cult
had so penetrated the political and economic institutions of the Roman Empire, that it
had become increasingly difficult for conscientious Christians to remain loyal to Christ.
… The second reason for the centrality of worship in Revelation is John’s concern over
the influence of pagan worship upon the Christian congregations of Asia Minor. We
detect this concern in the messages of rebuke to six of the seven churches. … In John’s
time false worship was promoted especially through the emperor cult which forced
Christians to choose between Christ or Caesar. Today false worship is promoted by a
variety of satanic agencies through both Christians and pagan religions.”
Granted that worship is an important aspect of the Lord’s message to his Church
of every age, does this fact about Revelation have any implications for the book’s
translation today – or can it be safely ignored and left up to the theologians and Bible
commentators to deal with? Explain your answer.
Articulation: How was the original text proclaimed?
Below the Greek text of Revelation 4 has been set out in the form of a hypothetical
oratorical representation of the discourse, that is, one that is deliberately composed
in anticipation of an oral articulation when the discourse is delivered. While this
representation (including the various formatting devices) is highly conjectural, it is
guided by the perceived interaction of a typical constellation of phonological stylistic
features such as, rhythm, balance, variation for either foregrounding or backgrounding,
recursive patterning (in sets of seven, especially with καὶ – initial utterances), and
periodic, boundary-marking stress points. Read the text aloud and see if you agree;
note the points where you would like to suggest a revision in terms of line length or
a discourse break:
1
Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον,
καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα
ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγων,
Ἀνάβα ὧδε,
καὶ δείξω σοι
ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι,
καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος,
3
καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ,
καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ.
4
καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρες,
καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους
καθημένους περιβεβλημένους ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν στεφάνους χρυσοῦς.
5
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ
καὶ φωναὶ
καὶ βρονταί,
καὶ ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες πυρὸς
καιόμεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου,
ἅ εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ,
6
καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ὡς θάλασσα ὑαλίνη ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου
καὶ κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου τέσσαρα ζῷα
γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν.
7
καὶ τὸ ζῷον τὸ πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι
καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ
καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου
καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετομένῳ.
8
καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα,
ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ,
κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν,
καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες,
Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ,
ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
καὶ ὅταν δώσουσιν τὰ ζῷα δόξαν
9
καὶ τιμὴν
καὶ εὐχαριστίαν
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ
τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,
10
πεσοῦνται οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι
ἐνώπιον τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων
καὶ βαλοῦσιν τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου λέγοντες,
11
Ἄξιος εἶ,
ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν,
λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν
καὶ τὴν τιμὴν
καὶ τὴν δύναμιν,
ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα
καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν
καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.
EXERCISE-14
 Evaluate the preceding discourse as it has been displayed: What do you think of
its aural potential and structural credibility – e.g., with respect to the poetic lineation
based on the sequence of καὶs? What about the additional complex formatting for v.
11? Where would you propose that changes be made, and why?
194 Ernst Wendland
 What does the phonological organization suggest about the composition itself in
terms of genre?
 Do you feel that the text is more poetic or prosaic in nature, and why?
 Do you detect any special thematic significance or rhetorical emphasis at points

where the sound pattern appears to deviate noticeably from expectations? Describe
what you observe (hear!) in this respect – and suggest what significance this may
have in relation to the surrounding cotext.
 What are the translational implications of your phonological analysis of this peri-
cope, for example, those passages that seem to make a special rhythmic impression?
How can you render this text with equal phonic appeal and impact in YL? Make some
suggestions – with examples.
 As you think about translating this passage into YL, consider the following advice
(from Thomas and Thomas 2006:71-72). Do you agree with everything that is said?
Pick out one or two of these observations by oral-translation specialists and tell how
they can help you prepared a more oral-aural-sensitive version in YL. Give an actual
example, if possible.
Making a translation particularly for oral presentation requires special attention to

the needs of listeners. Orality is primarily about sound. Clues for understanding and
emotional appeal are communicated through sound. While it is true that signals for
some sound qualities are rarely recoverable from anything written (e.g., volume), others
are strongly signaled through the written text (e.g., repetition, rhythm) and still others
are indicated by the context (e.g., tone of voice). Effective oral communication is also
highly structured. The hearer needs to be able to remember what was said through
what has been heard. The structure that provides the framework for memorability
need not be simple and is often highly complex. Predominantly literate peoples may
stereotype orality as simplicity, perhaps even connecting it with lack of education or
intelligence; they should be reminded of those prized, highly refined literary treasures
around the globe that are primarily recited orally, including by persons who do not
have reading skills.
Disjunction: How is the discourse demarcated into segments?
Here we look for likely break points in the pericope, which may be defined as a
distinct, “meaningful” (cognitively enriching, coherent, relevant, etc.) unit of written
discourse. Such breaks in the text are normally marked by shifts in form, content,
setting, speaker, and/or function; the more there are at a given point, the stronger the
perceived disjunction. Temporal, spatial, or logical transitional expressions and con-
junctions also serve to signal the beginning of a new compositional unit – a paragraph
in prose, a strophe (stanza) in poetry. In addition, the prominent close of one section,
e.g., by means of an emphatic quote of direct speech, automatically distinguishes the
following passage as being the onset of a new structural unit. The distinct discourse seg-
ments of a text normally combine with one another to form a hierarchically-integrated
structure, with smaller portions being included within larger ones to comprise the
compositional whole, which is naturally greater in sense and significance than the
sum of its constituent parts, considered as isolated units.
Uncertain or ambiguous cases normally appear in the analysis of a given text – that
is, where one cannot be sure whether or not a substantial break (pause) in the pas-
sage occurs. But such debatable points can often be resolved on the basis of recurrent
patterns that are developed over large stretches of discourse produced by the same
author (speaker). The broad compositional patterns of a text often vary according to
the literary genre from one language to the next, hence the importance of this feature
to Bible translators, who will usually be seeking to approximate a natural, easy-to-
follow manner of expression (especially vocally!) in their language. Well-formed
sentences (utterances) alone are not sufficient however; translators must be able to
render unified paragraph (strophic) and larger units in the TL, for this provides a vital
conceptual framework for the interpretation of a text – and also acts as an essential
guide to its oral articulation and aural comprehension.
Analyzing the textual segmentation of Revelation presents special challenges be-
cause its author does not always observe the normal rules of koine Greek composition,
for example, in his predilection for formal patterns of seven. This produces a lot of
variation in the standard English (French, Spanish, German, etc.) versions, as a quick
perusal of several translations quickly indicates. What are translators to do in such
cases – when the most standard or dependable versions fail to provide an answer, or
when commentaries and other resources do not agree either on a single demarcation
of the passage at hand? Determining the “majority opinion” is one solution; simply
choosing a single traditional version to follow is much less reliable. But it is help-
ful for translators to be able to analyze the original text themselves so that they can
make a more informed, and defensible, decision in this matter, which, as suggested,
must also be guided by the normal patterns of composition in the TL, according to
the discourse genre concerned.
EXERCISE-15
 Identify the segments (paragraphs) into which the Greek text given above has
been divided.
 How many standard translations that you regularly consult when translating agree
with this segmentation of Revelation 4? Do these versions seem to agree, more or less,
with a different demarcation of this pericope? If so, outline that particular structural
organization (give the verses that comprise each text constituent).
 What textual evidence appears to support the structure given above, that is, with
breaks indicated at verses 2, 6b, and 9 (note the dotted lines)?
 If you wish to propose a modified structure for Revelation 4, give your reasons
for doing so – based on the major points of disjunction that you have identified in
the text.
196 Ernst Wendland
 So, what difference does it make, as far as the Bible translator (or even the preacher)
is concerned, how the original text is divided up? Give an example from Rev. 4 to
support your answer.
Recursion: What syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns appear?
Recursion, which may be exact (repetition) or synonymous (restatement), is perhaps

the single most important literary feature in biblical discourse, whether Hebrew or
Greek, prose or poetry. Distinctive examples of phonological, morphological, lexical,
and syntactic recursion may be manifested syntagmatically (in an adjacent or proxi-
mate sequential position) or paradigmatically (the analogous or associated instances
being spatially removed from one another). Recursion thereby acts to create diverse
bonds of cohesion within a segment of text, thus reinforcing its integrity and the unity
of message being conveyed. Paradigmatic recursion is also used by the biblical writers
to construct different patterns of formal correspondence – parallels that serve to mark
the boundaries (the beginning and end points) of distinct discourse units both within
a passage and without, that is, defining the outer borders of the pericope under study.
Literary analysts designate the various kinds of recursion by different terms, but for
our purpose it is not the particular forms of classification that is important, but rather
the various functions which they perform in the text – that is, communicative goals
that need to be reproduced in any translation, whether by repetition itself, or by some
suitable rhetorical device in the TL.
Some of the notable instances of recursion to be found in Rev. 4 are listed below,
along with a brief description of their ostensible function within this pericope (some
of these occurrences have been marked in the format of the Greek text displayed
above):
• The prominent sequence of (usually) utterance-initial καὶ-s acts as the structural

backbone and rhythmic foundation of this pericope (as elsewhere in the book
of Revelation).
• Μετὰ ταῦτα (“After these things” – i.e., “Here’s the next vision…”), found at
the beginning and ending of v. 1, forms an inclusio that demarcates this as the
introduction to the throne room vision. Note that there is some disagreement
among scholars as to where v. 1 ends, that is, either before or after the second
occurrence of μετὰ ταῦτα (cf. Omanson 2006:530). Where would you place
the break – and why? (This decision will affect the analysis of the next instance
of recursion below.)
• The mention of πνεύμα in v. 2 and v. 5b creates a minor inclusio on the borders
of paragraph 2. This literary correspondence has possible exegetical implica-
tions by identifying the ambiguous “spirit” of v. 2 as referring to the same

Nearly ¾ of the sentences of Revelation begin with καὶ (Aune 1997:270). Thus, where it does
not appear (the absence of an expected form) may mark a point of significance in the discourse,
as at the beginning of v. 2, the onset of a new paragraph. Elsewhere in chapter 4 the omission of
καὶ announces a unit-concluding segment of direct speech (vv. 1b, 8b, 11b) and may also indicate
background descriptions (e.g., vv. 5b, 6b, 8a, 9b).
divine being who is associated with “the seven spirits of God” (v. 5), i.e., the
Holy Spirit.
• The key word θρόνος (“throne”) is of clear thematic significance, for it occurs
throughout this pericope, from beginning (v. 2) to end (v. 10b), but with a special
concentration (9x) in paragraph 2 (vv. 2-6a). “Throne” appears in the nomina-
tive case only on its first occurrence, when it is preceded by ἰδοὺ (“behold!”
– v. 2; cf. a similar construction at the onset of v. 1, i.e., anaphora). Otherwise,
the term takes the case of its preceding preposition (the only exception being
at the onset of paragraph 3 in v. 6b, when “throne” is in the genitive following
the prepositional phrase ἐν μέσῳ –“in [the] middle of”).
• Reference to an important participant group of this vision – namely, ζῷον / ζῷα
“living creature(s)” creates a cohesive bond in paragraph 3 (vv. 6b-8). The plural
form introduces this exalted order of heavenly beings in v. 6b, and it occurs
again by way of structural anaphora at the onset of paragraph 4 (v. 9).
• The doxology that marks the climactic close of paragraph 3 (v. 9) begins with
the emphatic Trisagion “Holy, holy, holy!” (Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος), with obvious
reference to Isaiah’s corresponding vision of God’s throne room (Isa. 6:3).
• The last paragraph includes several notable instances of chiastic recursion
that form a thematic inclusio and contribute to the sense of “end stress” that is
manifested here at the close:
A “glory and honor” (9a)

B “to the one who sits on the throne and lives forever” (9b)
B’ “before the one who sits on the throne…to the one who lives forever” (10a)
A’ “[the] glory and [the] honor” (11a)
Finally, to conclude the pericope (11b):
C “you – you created”

D “all things”
C’ “and through your will they came into being and were created!”
(added length foregrounds C’)
In closing, we might note also several crucial instances of intratextual recur-

sion that tie the present throne room scene into the discourse that has preceded it in
Revelation:
• The key image of a “throne” (θρόνος) noted above (4:2) occurs twice in the
passage that rounds out the previous pericope (3:21) and the major discourse
unit that covers chs. 2-3. This instance of structural anadiplosis functions both
to link the two pericopes together and to announce, or foreshadow, the latter text
at the end of the former (cf. also the corresponding mention of a “door” θύρα
in 4:1 and 3:20). This reiteration of “throne” also connects the scene of ch. 4
with that of the book’s opening vision (1:4; cf. also the “seven spirits/sevenfold
Spirit before the throne” in this verse as well as in 4:5).
• Our supposition that the vision of ch. 4 is a resumption of the one that opened
the book is reinforced by several important examples of reiteration that appear
198 Ernst Wendland
at the beginning of this pericope, for example: the emphasis upon physical sight
(“I saw,” “I will show,” “behold!,” “in appearance” – 4:1-3; cf. 1:2, 11-12, 17,
19-20); also the reference to hearing (“And the voice I [had] first heard speak-
ing to me like a trumpet said…” – 4:1; cf. 1:3, 10, 12, 15-16).
Recursion, whether exact or synonymous, never appears gratuitously in the Scrip-

tures; rather, it always has some formal (structural), semantic (thematic), or pragmatic
(e.g., esthetic, emotive, relational, ritual) function to perform within the text at hand
– and often beyond.
EXERCISE-16
 Evaluate the evidence for significant instances of recursion that has been presented
in this section. Do you have any corrections to suggest? If so, be sure to give your
reasons, based on the actual text.
 Do you have any additional examples to offer? (Give these forms as well as their
apparent discourse functions.)
 Does all the repetition that we find in ch. 4 (e.g., “throne,” “living creature[s]”)
sound natural in YL? If not, point out those instances that you would eliminate. Who/
what in particular does most of this lexical recursion serve to emphasize? Explain your
answer. Is the same communicative effect apparent by a more or less literal rendition
in YL? If not, what might be done to compensate for the loss of focus?
 Is it clear in your translation that the two expressions ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
(v. 8d) and τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ (v. 9b; cf. 2a) refer to one and the same person?
Does the added attribution τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (v. 9c) help in this
regard? If not, what can you do in YL to clarify this essential reference?
Accentuation: How is the text artistically and rhetorically heightened?
The typical biblical text is accentuated by a diverse array of literary devices that may
be broadly classified as being more or less artistic (focus on formal embellishment or
semantic heightening) or rhetorical (focus on pragmatic persuasion). The feature of
parallelism, for example (cf. “recursion” above), is especially prominent in Hebrew
poetry, but as our study of Rev. 4 has indicated, it is also frequently manifested in prose
texts (poetic prose). Other important techniques, such as rhetorical questions, figurative
language (especially metaphor and simile), hyperbole, irony, word order manipulation,
direct speech, and the use of intensive devices (e.g., full pronouns, deictic pointing,
non-finite verbal predicates, exclamations, etc.), may be found in just about any type
of discourse. These special stylistic forms, especially when combined, are variously
employed in Scripture to reinforce the beginning (aperture) or end point (closure)
of distinct text units, to highlight items of particular interest or concern to the author,
and/or to draw attention to some major point of climax (emotive/pragmatic) or peak
(thematic/structural) within the composition.
As the preceding analysis has indicated, Rev. 4 is a discourse that is dominated

by several different types of recursion. But a number of other important accentuating
or foregrounding devices are also present, as listed below:
• Use of the pragmatic deictic particle ἰδοὺ (“look!”) calls attention to a new
visionary scene (in this case resumed from the end of ch. 1) – first from a more
general perspective: “a door standing open in heaven” (v. 1a), and then more
specific: “a throne standing in heaven” (2a). The listener’s perspective is then
deftly shifted to “someone seated on the throne” (2b).
• Dramatic suspense is created when the identity of this obviously focal person-
age in heaven is not immediately revealed, as would be expected in an ordinary
narrative description. Interestingly enough, the throne, as noted above, is kept
in the see-er’s vision throughout the episode, as is the scenery around the throne
(vv. 3b-8a). But the person occupying that crucial place is not identified by the
prophetic speaker, though he is picturesquely described (v. 3a) and referred to
indirectly only as the “one who is seated on the throne” (vv. 9-10).
• At last the central divine character is revealed – not by the speaker, John, but
by the heavenly host – and significantly, in the form of direct discourse (vv.
8b, 11a). This person is none other than “the Lord God Almighty” (κύριος
ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ) – the eternal YHWH, “the one who was, and who
is, and who is coming” (ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). The Deity being
identified by these praise epithets is further spotlighted at the very end of the
pericope through additional attribution set within direct address: “…because
you-you [are the one who] created all things…” (11b). The stage has thus been
carefully set for the vivid disclosure of ch. 5, when the identity of God the
Creator is merged with that of “the Lamb who was slain” – implied: Jesus the
Christ – the Son and God are indivisibly one! This is indeed a masterful use of
descriptive perspective and the manipulation of conceptual frames of reference
to enhance the progressive, hence more impact-generating, articulation of one
of Revelation’s supreme theological truths.
• As part of the build-up within the dramatic interlude before the great revelation
(to John, and us) of the one who occupies the throne, there are many graphic
images that appeal to the sense of sight (e.g., a brilliant aura “of jasper and
carnelian” – v. 3, an emerald-colored “rainbow” – 3, 24 elders seated on thrones
and “dressed in white with crowns of gold on their heads” – 4, “flashes of light-
ning” – 5, “seven blazing lamps” – 5, a great “sea of crystal” – 6) along with
several references to attention-getting sound (e.g., the sound of a “trumpet” – 1
and “rumbling thunder” – 5). The effect of all this diverse imagery is to evoke
a dynamically rich, kaleidoscopic frame that surrounds the enduring throne in
the middle of view and the focal personage sitting upon it – whom we never
do see at all. Most surprising of all in this remarkable angelic scene are those
fantastic “four living creatures” (τέσσαρα ζῷα) – with their “six wings” and
manifold “eyes” – which surround the heavenly throne and momentarily divert
our attention from the One who sits there (vv. 6b-8). They are not security
guards of course (why would the Lord need to be protected?), but seem to be
chosen worship leaders, who in their ceaseless chorus of praise also disclose
the God who alone is “worthy” to be so exalted (v. 11).
200 Ernst Wendland
• Brilliant syntactic balance and an equally captivating poetic appeal are dis-
played in the beasts’ enthusiastic utterance of acclamation at the end of v. 8.
Each line of the tricolon consists of three parallel segments, in probable allusion
to the triune God who is being magnified (“Spirit” – v. 2a, “Lord” [Christ], and
“God Almighty” – v. 8):
Ἅγιος – ἅγιος – ἅγιος

κύριος – ὁ θεὸς – ὁ παντοκράτωρ,
ὁ ἦν – καὶ ὁ ὢν – καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
This hymn is the first of five that punctuate the vision of chs. 4-5, also anticipat-
ing many similar paeans that distinguish similar throne room scenes throughout
the book (4:11; 5:9-10, 12, 13; 7:12, 15-17; 11:15, 17-18; 12:10-12; 15:3-4;
16:5-7; 18:2-8; 19:2-6). These poetic inserts not only lend a perceptible level
of stability and cohesion to the rapidly changing vistas of the text, but they also
serve as an important hermeneutical framework by offering fervent reflections
on the theological significance of the visions in which they are embedded.
• Metzger notes only one major text-critical issue in Rev. 4, that is, concerning
the seemingly awkward verb ἦσαν in v. 11: “The difficulty of the text (where
we might have expected the sequence ἐκτίσθησαν καὶ ἦσαν) was alleviated
in several witnesses either by reading οὐκ ἦσαν or by omitting ἦσαν καὶ”
(1994:665). Metzger gives the present UBS4 text an “A” rating. A literary
argument supports this reading, namely, one based on the presence of an accen-
tuating device in the current text. Thus, here at the end of the pericope, the author
concludes the closing paean of praise with an emphatic epexegetical καὶ: “And
by your will they existed – yes, they were created!” (cf. Aune 1997:269). The
final verb ἐκτίσθησαν is anticipated phonologically by the active form ἔκτισας
at the start of the sentence and by ἦσαν at the end of the preceding line.
EXERCISE-17
 After completing your own discourse analysis of this text, point out any other
artistic or rhetorical features that have not been mentioned in the preceding descrip-
tion. How do these serve to accentuate the account? How can these be best rendered
in YL? Point out any special problem areas and discuss these in class.
 Which are the principal speech acts that occur in ch. 4? How do you recognize
these as such; how are they marked? Do these SAs need to be signaled in a special
way in YL? Explain.
 Do you observe a distinct climax of emotion in ch. 4? If so, where does this oc-
cur, and what are the markers of climax that you feel are most prominent here? Do
such “communication clues” operate in the same way in YL? If not, what functional
substitutes can you propose?
 What about a peak of thematic significance? Or do you conclude that these two
potential high points in the discourse, the emotive climax and thematic peak, happen
to coincide in this pericope? Explain.
EXERCISE-18
 Do your scholarly resources point out any other text critical issues in Rev. 4 that
need to be considered? If so, summarize the most important of these and suggest, in
addition to the normal arguments in such cases, one that is based on the results of a
literary (artistic-rhetorical) analysis.
 If you cannot find another case study, try this one:
In v. 6 “the phrase ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου, lit. ‘in the midst of the throne’, is problematic
because it is followed by the phrase κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου, ‘and around the throne’. The
two phrases are apparently in tension, for it is not at all clear how the four cherubim can
be both ‘in the midst’ and ‘around’ the throne at the same time” (Aune 1997:271).
Consequently, some commentators (and versions?) propose omitting the initial ‘in the
midst of the throne’ as a gloss of some type, though it certainly does not clarify the
text and thus the original is by far the harder reading. Do you see anything in John’s
distinctive structure and style of writing in Revelation that would further support the
present Greek text?
EXERCISE-19
 What about formulating an appropriate section heading for the discourse unit
beginning in ch. 4? Evaluate the suggestion given in the UBS Translator’s Handbook
(Paratext 6 version):
TEV “Worship in Heaven.” Other possible headings include: “A vision of God on his
throne in heaven,” “A vision of God being worshiped in heaven,” “John sees God on
his throne in heaven,” or “John sees God sitting on his high chief chair in heaven.”
 Do you have a better alternative to offer? If so, explain your wording. How does
such a section heading serve to create an appropriate conceptual frame of reference
for the following section of text?
 How do you go about the process of identifying and formulating such “relevant”
titles for the various discourse units that occur in your translation? What is your
methodology? (Discuss different options.)
EXERCISE-20
Text critics and commentators alike have noted, with some consternation, the rough-
cast style that is manifested in the book of Revelation – normally attributing this to
the low-level literary skills of its unknown author, who “is often ungrammatical and
uses barbarous idioms” (Beasley-Murray 1997:1032): “The Greek of Revelation is the
most peculiar Greek in the NT, in part because it exhibits interference from Semitic
languages. ... The Greek of Revelation is not only difficult and awkward, but it also
contains many lexical and syntactical features that no native speaker of Greek would
have written” (Aune 1997:clxii, cxcix).
202 Ernst Wendland
But could there be another explanation for this seemingly inferior and deficient use
of language – could the text in fact be deliberately “defamiliarized” as a comprehen-
sive rhetorical technique that realizes an important hermeneutical objective? That is
what Saunders proposes as a crucial aspect of what he terms the author’s “discursive
tactics” (2003:135), which fall into three general categories:
a) Genre bending: “Revelation ‘transgresses’ prior rules, offering its audience multiple
generic options and interpretations from which to choose, thereby ‘providing more
room for the reader to participate in the production of its meanings’ ” (Saunders
2003:127, citing G. Linton).
b) Idiolect creation: “John is intentionally speaking an ‘idiolect,’ an artifice that employs
grammatical transgressions as part of an attempt to alter the collective consciousness
of its audience. … John intentionally adopts and decolonizes the (Greek) language of
the (Roman) colonizer. … The effect of John’s peculiar dialect…is to tell the story
of Jesus in the language the people heard everyday, but to speak this language with
an alien inflection and alternative meanings” (ibid:131).
c) Scenic dislocation: “Revelation’s visionary movement carries the audience back and
forth between heavenly and earthly realms, blurring both temporal and spatial orienta-
tions in the process. … Amid the shifts and the dislocations that follow [4:1 – note
this pivotal point in the text, ew] throughout the book, the narrative reconstructs the
audience’s perspectives on reality (1) by reorienting the audience to a different defin-
ing center of identity and power; (2) by affirming that human perception of time and
space is partial and limited … (5) by articulating a new vision of where the creation
is headed” (ibid:135-136).
 Evaluate the significance and possible relevance of Saunders’ observations and

conclusions – that is, with regard to how the style and use of language creates a unique
cognitive frame of reference which is essential for the book’s interpretation.
 Does such a stylistic and compositional evaluation, whether positive or negative,

have any implications for the translation of Revelation in YL? If so, what are these?
(Give an example or two.)
Varied intertextual notes and chords resound in Revelation 4 (5)
[W]e have seen that John’s use of the Old Testament is not a matter of pluck-
ing phrases at random out of contexts, but consists in careful and deliberate
exegesis of whole passages (Bauckham 1993:246).
Strictly speaking, intertextuality – the deliberate use of one text within another – is
another important literary feature (a type of recursion, as noted above), one that every
author (or orator) depends on, but due to its ubiquity in Revelation, it is considered
here as a special topic. Commentators differ on exactly which OT and extra-biblical
texts they see alluded to in the various visions, but they all agree that a great many
are involved, originating primarily (and not surprisingly) from the Psalms and the
four “major” prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Thus the massive

For a handy listing of “Old Testament and other texts alluded to in Revelation,” see Rowland
(1998:737-743).
intertextuality that constitutes the warp and woof of this book naturally has an im-
portant bearing on its interpretation – intimating, in the first place, that the text offers
a prophetic perspective and message for God’s people in the here-and-now across
the generations of time, not for some ill-defined audience living in the unrealized,
far-away future.
When it comes to specifics, however, the task of identifying the various intertextual
threads is not so easy, as a close, comparative glance at any two scholarly commen-
taries quickly reveals. This is because John does not appear to cite the OT directly,
or exactly – whether from the Hebrew text or that of the LXX Greek – and never do
we find diagnostic quotative markers, such as, “as it is written,” “this was done, that
it might be fulfilled,” or anything similar. His interpretation and use of the received
Scriptures is thus covert and not explicit but perhaps, since he does not view himself as
“the author” of the text he is writing, this lack of attribution is not surprising. Rather,
his message is viewed, in its entirety, as being “the word of God and the testimony
of Jesus Christ” (1:2), who commands “his servant John” exactly what to “write” of
the things he sees and hears (1:11, 19; 2:1). Due to its varied, but untraceable inter-
textuality, the prophecy evokes an ever-current intimation of its own relevance and
is, in effect, self-renewing in essence, despite the fact that it is comprised of so many
familiar words, images, and ideas that have been culled from the former Testament
to God’s people. Revelation is, for all God’s people, Apocalypse now – not just then
(whether past or future)!
Beale categorizes the use of the OT in Revelation into three types of allusion:
“clear allusion: the wording is almost identical to the OT source…; probable allu-
sion: [where]…the wording is not as close [but]…still contains an idea or wording
that is uniquely traceable to the OT text…; [and] possible allusion: the language is
only generally similar to the purported source…” (1999:78). But again, rather than
getting too involved in matters of formal distinction, for us a more important consid-
eration would be that of communicative function: What is the point and purpose of
all this intertextuality operating so prominently throughout the book of Revelation?
What sort of an interpretive frame of reference does it provide? What is the thematic
or pragmatic impact of any prominent OT textual element (word, phrase, idea, etc.)
on the present text of Revelation? In my opinion, Beale provides a credible answer
(1999:96-97):
Perhaps one reason for the high degree of OT influence in the Apocalypse is
that the author could think of no better way to describe some of his visions than
with language used by the OT prophets to describe similar visions. … [T]he
place of the OT in the formation of thought in the Apocalypse is that of both a
servant and a guide: for John the Christ-event is the key to understanding the
OT, and yet reflection on the OT context leads the way to further comprehen-
sion of this event and provides the redemptive-historical background against
which the apocalyptic visions are better understood; the New Testament
interprets the Old and the Old interprets the New.
Beale has made a detailed study of Rev. 4-5 in relation to the influence of possible
204 Ernst Wendland
OT intertextual pre-texts and concludes that the most consistent and comprehensive
background is that which is supplied by Daniel 7. His list of likely correspondences
is indeed impressive (1999:314-315; cf. Pattemore 2003:107, 205-208):
• introductory vision phraseology (Dan. 7:9 [cf. 7:2, 6-7]; Rev. 4:1)
• a throne(s) set in heaven (Dan. 7:9a; Rev. 4:2a [cf. 4:4a])
• God sitting on a throne (Dan. 7:9b; Rev. 4:2b)
• God’s appearance on the throne (Dan. 7:9c; Rev. 4:3a)
• fire before the throne (Dan. 7:9d-10a; Rev. 4:5)
• heavenly servants surrounding the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 4:4b, 6b-10; 5:8,
11, 14)
• book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1ff.)
• the book(s) opened (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5, 9)
• a divine (messianic) figure approaching God’s throne to receive authority to
reign forever over a kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7, 9a, 12-13)
• the kingdom’s scope: “all peoples, nations, and tongues” (Dan. 7:14a [MT];
Rev. 5:9b)
• the seer’s emotional distress on account of the vision (Dan. 7:16; Rev.
5:5a)
• the seer’s reception of heavenly counsel concerning the vision from one of
the heavenly throne servants (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a)
• the saints given divine authority to reign over a kingdom (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27a;
Rev. 5:10)
• concluding mention of God’s eternal reign (Dan. 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)
EXERCISE-21
 Check out a selection of the correspondences between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5
that have been proposed above: How strong or credible does the intertextual resonance
seem for you? Point out any weak or doubtful cases.
 If you agree with Beale’s proposal, how much actual “meaning” is contributed by
Daniel 7 (its text and context) to Revelation 4-5? Must the semantic and associative
significance of the pre-text be “translated” along with the rest of the present text? If
so, how can this best be done? What does this intertextual relationship tell us about
the structural integrity of the pericope of Rev. 4-5 as a thematic unit?
 Ezekiel 1-2 is also a possible source for the OT prophetic-eschatological voice in

Rev. 4-5. Examine these two chapters to see if you can find some likely intertextual
pre-texts. In you opinion, are these weaker or stronger than the ones that have been
specified from Dan.7? What are your criteria for determining this?
 Do hermeneutical conclusions such as the following contradict, disprove, modify,

or augment Beale’s thesis regarding intertextual influence in Rev. 4-5? (Explain your
answer.)
John’s depictions of these figures [i.e., the ones mentioned in 4:4-9] are apparently
meant to be multivalent, allusive, and elusive. The description of the four living beings
near the throne of God is a conflated vision drawn from the throne scenes in Ezek.
1:4-21 and Isaiah 6. (Saunders 2003:144)
EXERCISE-22
Evaluate the following conclusion concerning the implications of the paratactic com-
positional style of Revelation in relation to its manifold intertextuality:
All interpretation is a matter of probabilities and possibilities, and this was no less
true with John’s use of the OT. The juxtaposition of texts or ideas that are seemingly
incompatible interpretively is likely to be viewed as part of John’s overall Semitic
style: it is an expression of Semitic paratactic thinking, which allowed him to set in
close proximity two different, and sometimes seemingly contradictory, ideas of a word,
without the discomfort experienced by twentieth-century readers; the broader context
usually resolved the tension when parataxis was used in the OT. (Beale 1999:99)
 Perhaps the mental process of “resolving the tension” referred to above might be
elaborated on by relevance theorists from the perspective of “shared cognitive con-
texts” and the “principle of relevance,” while cognitive linguists might add some
insights based on “mental space theory” and the hypothesis of conceptual “blends.”
A challenging textual case study to test such theories would be an exposition of
prominent aspects of the throne room scene of Rev. 4 in relation to possible corre-
spondents in the visions of Isaiah (6) and Ezekiel (1-2). Which of the latter two seem
uppermost in John’s mind as he looks past that open door into the heavenly scenario
that is revealed to him (4:1)?
 What are the most salient implications of such intertextual studies for Bible trans-
lators? Give an example of how some of this information might be included in a
translation that you are working with.
EXERCISE-23
Comment on the hermeneutical significance of the substantial use of intertextual

allusion in Rev. 4 as a “frame of reference” that guides listeners towards an under-
standing of the relevance of what is being described in the heavenly throne room
vision. Evaluate the following perspective on this issue as you consider it in relation
to Rev. 4 and suggest a way of conveying such essential background information to
the receptors of audio and visual presentations of the biblical text:
In Revelation 4, with its obvious indebtedness to Ezekiel and Isaiah, the ancient scrip-
tures provide the medium whereby John enters the door of perception to see, hear,
and communicate the divine mysteries. … Revelation is not an exegesis, a conscious
attempt by the sophisticated scholar to offer a precise interpretation of the biblical text.
It is an interpretation – but it comes through the use of Scripture as the medium of
fresh apocalyptic insight. This is evident in every line of Revelation, where words and
images of Scripture are subtly transformed, elements from earlier texts are dropped,
and others are emphasized. … Revelation licenses imagination and insight and the use
of Scripture as the vehicle of new insight. (Rowland 1998:595)
206 Ernst Wendland
 What “new insight” did you gain from the preceding study of Rev. 4 – with special
reference to the translation and communication of this passage in your language and cul-
tural setting? Compare the different responses to this question in a group discussion.
 On the other hand, is there some other subject that came up during your study that
has not been considered in sufficient detail – or questions that arose that have not
been answered? Bring all such matters up in a final class discussion concerning the
results of your joint text-analysis of Revelation 4.
9. Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary
Chewa text auditors
Having completed a discourse analysis (albeit rather cursory) of the context, the cotext,
the intertext, and the biblical text itself, we are ready to communicate Revelation 4 to
a new, contemporary audience, one that is very different from the people who shared
the same language, religious perspective, historical setting, and wider conceptual
frame of reference as did the original author. In short, the question now is: How clearly
does the Seer’s vision appear (sound) for see-ers (hearers) today? The emphasis is
on listeners rather than readers because that is how most text consumers appropriate
the Scriptures throughout the world today, especially in regions where the level of
functional literacy is low, as in south-central Africa.
The current communication setting of the text

In reply to the question above, one could justifiably ask: How intelligible was the
Apocalypse then to those whom “John” had in mind as he penned this text on behalf
of the Lord? While this query cannot be answered with any certainty, one can take
for granted that readers and hearers of Revelation 4 around 100 AD had considerably
more background information (“encyclopedic knowledge”) to assist them in the task
of interpretation. Thus, not only were they familiar with the common koine Greek
language, but presumably they also grasped the significance of much, if not most,
of the scenery and imagery that comprises such a large portion of the discourse – a
royal throne room, to begin with, and all that surrounded it in the heavenly scenario
so fleetingly depicted: a loud “trumpet,” “the appearance of jasper and carnelian,”
“24 (the specific number) elders,” the “crowns of gold on their heads,” “7 (the spe-
cific number) lamps,” perhaps even “the sea of glass.” Other aspects of the vision
might be more problematic for them – like “the four living creatures…covered with
eyes…[with] six wings,” and the wings too “covered with eyes all around.” Early
audiences would have also been in touch with many of the intertextual threads that
comprise the fabric of this discourse, especially the keynoting choruses of verses
8 and 11. All this cognitive and emotive information was most likely a prominent
part of the religious tapestry and literary-liturgical tradition that was alive and well
– hence most relevant – when Revelation was first composed and circulated in oral
(primarily) and written form.
However, this dense conceptual reservoir of “meaning” in terms of primary textual
explicatures (expressible as logical propositions) and context-generated implicatures
is not immediately available or accessible to many contemporary audience groups.

Weber provides a clear discussion of the difference between grammatical-semantic explicatures
and inference-driven pragmatic implicatures from the perspective of Relevance Theory (2005:15-
16), including the following pair of formulas:
EXPLICATURE: FORM + CONTENT  grammar+semantics+enrichment (e.g., disambiguation, referent
identification)  EXPLICATURE
IMPLICATURE: EXPLICATURE + CONTEXT = inference  INTERPRETATION
208 Ernst Wendland
The situation thus presents Bible translators with a formidable communication barrier,
or intelligibility gap, one that must be bridged in some way for the book of Revelation,
chapters 4-5 in particular, to convey a corresponding measure of significance – includ-
ing sense, interest, impact, appeal, and application – today. Every translation project is
somehow unique of course, and the different cognitive, sociocultural, organizational,
situational, and textual frames of contextual reference must be carefully considered
by planners as they endeavor to develop a functionally relevant job commission
(Brief) for a particular target audience. This includes the primary communicative goal
(Skopos) that the version under study is intended to achieve within the community
(i.e., a Functionalist perspective; cf. Wilt 2003:43-80), for example, as a primarily
liturgical, common-language, literary, audio, or visual version.
In this opening section, we will consider a little translation “case study” that is
based on a modern version of the Bible in the Chewa language (technically referred to
as Chichewa in Malawi, but as Cinyanja in Zambia). How do mother-tongue speakers
presently hear and read this text in comparison with the other major translation that is
available – and is there room yet for a third rendition? What needs to be done to create
a more adequate frame of conceptual reference in order to facilitate understanding
and application (Scripture “life-engagement”)? The following is a partial overview
of the situational setting for this most recent translation:
Chichewa Buku Loyera (BY – “Holy Book,” published 1997)
Sociocultural frames:
Producers: A periodically changing cast of mother-tongue Malawian transla-

tors comprised the three-man translation team (2 Presbyterian pastors and a
Roman Catholic priest) during the course of its three decades of production
(mid 1960s to mid 1990s). They were advised by a succession of UBS transla-
tion consultants over the years along with a number of individual reviewers
and review committees, consisting of both clergy and also lay members,
Africans as well as expatriates (but only a few women), representing most
of the major church bodies in Malawi and Zambia, the main-line Protestant
denominations in particular.
Chichewa is the national language of Malawi (spoken by over 75% of
the population, ca. 9 million) and one of seven “official” Bantu languages of
Zambia (“Cinyanja” is used as a first or second language by some 40% of the
population, particularly in the capital city and the region bordering Malawi,
ca. 2.5 million). It is also spoken by perhaps 20% of the people living in west-
central Mozambique and northeastern Zimbabwe, again largely in border
areas (ca. 1 million). In both Malawi and Zambia, English is the language
of government, general commerce, big business, the major media, and most
educational institutions (all except the lower primary grades).
The Chewa people are traditionally a matrilineal and matrilocal – but patri-
archal – African society, who in pre-Independence years (prior to 1964) were
primarily rural subsistence agriculturalists, supplementing their income through
small livestock management, hunting, and/or fishing. Since Independence there
Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors 209
has been rapid urbanization and the development of small businesses and local
industries, though Malawi, and to a lesser extent also Zambia, remain by UN
standards one of the poorest nations in the world. Literacy levels are relatively
low (ca. 60%--Malawi, 70%--Zambia), but the overt profession of Christianity
is correspondingly high (ca. 60%--Malawi [30% Islam], 70%--Zambia [5%
Islam]). Sad to say, the HIV infection rate is also seriously high, ranging from
20-30% of the general population – more in urban, less in the rural areas of
both countries.
Consumers: The principal audience target group may be broadly described as

young-adult (i.e., 20-35 years of age), mother-tongue speakers of Chichewa
who have had an average grade seven level of education and at least a year
of basic Christian instruction. In addition, the special comprehension needs
of mature women, second-language speakers, speakers of various dialects
of Chichewa, and non-Christians were also taken into consideration by the
translation team.
Organizational frames:
Churches: Two old “missionary versions” were in widespread use at the time
of the new translation, the Buku Lopatulika (BL – “Sacred Book”, 1923)
for Protestants and the Malembo Oyera (MO – “Holy Writings”, 1966) for
Catholics. Both versions are of the formal correspondence variety, the MO
somewhat less so, and they “read” with a heavy foreign, sometimes archaic,
accent. However, many older theologically conservative Protestant denomina-
tions were/are not convinced of the need for a modern translation (BY) and
therefore do not support it. Newer, “evangelical” churches are much more
positive in their attitude towards the BY. The Catholic Church, on the other
hand, has stopped reprinting the MO and have adopted the Deuterocanoni-
cal edition of the BY completely for all purposes, formal (public worship) as
well as informal (personal devotions). The fact of having two widely used,
ecclesiastically “mutually exclusive,” Bibles in existence at the start of the BY
project meant that a compromise had to be reached with regard to the usage of
all key theological terms. This was necessary so that the new version would
not be perceived as favoring either the Catholic or the Protestant constituency
in its wording; at times a completely new term or expression had to be found
that would be acceptable to both groups, e.g., “grace,” “Yahweh,” “believe,”
“temple.”
Bible Societies: Enthusiasm and support for a new Chichewa translation in

the Bible Society of Malawi (BSM) tended to vary in accordance with the
convictions and ecclesiastical experience of the Protestant (Presbyterian)
General Secretary who happened to be at the helm. The long-serving GS of
recent years was very committed to the project and actively participated in
most translational, review, and organizational meetings. All UBS TC supervi-
sors have strongly promoted a “popular-language” method of translating the
BY, and for the last decade this included an emphasis on utilizing more local
idioms and Chichewa literary features in the text.
210 Ernst Wendland
The Bible Society of Malawi tried to get all Christians involved in the new
popular-language translation project. Several conservative church bodies,
however, were not happy with the more idiomatic style of version that was
being prepared so they quietly appealed to the Protestant-based International
Bible Society (Africa) for support in producing their own, more literal rendi-
tion. The IBS agreed and organized a parallel project that published the New
Testament (Chipangano Chatsopano) in 2002. Work continues on the Old
Testament (but not the Deuterocanonical books). Initial text-comparative
studies have shown that this new IBS Chewa version is simply revising the
old BSM copyrighted translation (BL) in the light of the New International
Version (NIV), which is the widely popular English translation produced by
the IBS (cf. Ex. 5 of Ch. 6).
Textual frames:
Primary goal: The aim of the Buku Loyera is to convey the essential sense and
significance of the biblical text in a manner that is as meaningful as possible
for the majority of the Chichewa-speaking population, that is, in a function-
ally equivalent manner. Thus the text of the translation must sound dynamic
and natural, in keeping with the primary genre at hand, as well as clear and
understandable, in accordance with the author’s intended meaning, while it is
being publicly read aloud in the hearing of all segments of its large and diverse
envisaged receptor group.
The officially-recognized or standard form of Chichewa in Malawi is, generally-

speaking, the model to be emulated with regard to vocabulary, grammar and
spelling (orthography). This would be the style of language that is taught in
schools and used in government publications as well as in mass media produc-
tions (e.g., radio broadcasts).
Basic unit of translation: The basic unit of text for analysis and transfer is not
the individual verse. It is rather the larger segments of compositional meaning,
paragraphs in particular (strophes in poetry), that comprise a given pericope.
The discourse, conceived primarily in its oral/aural form of presentation, must
be considered as a whole composed of meaningfully interrelated parts.
Style: This is fairly uniform throughout the translation. It generally reflects

the idiomatic speech and writing style of the chief translator, a Catholic priest
and recognized expert in Chichewa. More final-draft shaping and stylistic
shading might have been done in this respect, both to reflect the variety of
styles in the original texts and also to exploit the diversity of discourse types
in Chichewa verbal art. Unfortunately, this was not possible in later years due
to the poor health of the main translator, who died of leukemia shortly before
the BY finally appeared in print.
Translation method: Since the translators were not able to translate directly
from or even refer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts (though several
expatriate reviewers could do so), they followed the base-models method of

translation. This is essentially a comparative procedure whereby a relatively
literal English version (in this case, the Revised Standard version, RSV) is
employed as the “source” to give translators at least some idea of the actual
form of the biblical text. This is then compared with a selected number of
freer English and other idiomatic Bantu language model translations which
illustrate how the literal base version may be modified in various ways in
order to more clearly express the intended meaning of the biblical message
in a more natural style.
The normal translation process followed a basic four-step method (analyze,
transfer, restructure, compare) that is ultimately circular in its final outcome,
but within which one usually shifts back and forth between the different steps
in their specific application. It is a standard procedure in popular-language
Bible translation to change the lexical and grammatical forms of the message
in the SL whenever necessary to preserve its intended significance, including
pragmatic implications, in the TL. That was the positive goal of this operation,
and meaning here was viewed as comprising not only semantic content, but also
the specific speech intent, or communicative function(s), of the original text.
Stated negatively, the procedure of textual restructuring was applied, more or
less, whenever a literal translation of the biblical text would have turned out
to be meaningless, misleading, or simply too difficult for average receptors to
understand when heard.
Production management and quality control: A rigorous check-and-balance

system within the 3-man team was employed in the production of every
draft. A four-stage “translate-and-test” method was consistently followed, as
outlined below:
(a) a first draft translation is prepared, usually by the chief composer, and then carefully
checked and revised as necessary by the entire translation team;
(b) a revised draft is prepared by the team as a whole on the basis of comments received
from all key reviewers as well as a number of specialist respondents (e.g., Hebrew
and Greek as well as Chewa experts);
(c) a joint, second revised draft is prepared on the basis of a selective checking workshop
conducted by a UBS translation consultant;
(d) a final draft is prepared on the basis of comments received from a complete manuscript
examination carried out at the Lusaka UBS Translation Centre.
Evaluation: More widespread popular critical feedback in relation to the new

translation was gained through the publication of a series of small portions
(John, 1 Peter, Psalms) as well as the entire New Testament (Chipangano
Chatsopano – 1979). The Catholic Church made use of pre-final drafts in
their annually circulated liturgical readings. Other project promotional activities
were also attempted, such as: radio interviews, secular and religious newspaper
reports, and talks at various church-organized meetings. Approval of the final-
final text submitted by the translation team was given by the current United
212 Ernst Wendland
Bible Societies Translation Consultant in conjunction with the General Sec-

retary of the Bible Society of Malawi. A number of comments regarding this
translation have been received since it was published, and a revision is cur-
rently being carried out in conjunction with the preparation of a more heavily
annotated “study Bible” edition (from 2001 to date).
EXERCISE-1
 Consider the Chewa BY project outline above. It is only a partial sample of what a
full translation “job commission” (Brief) should consist of. What additional informa-
tion would you like to see included in such an essential contextualized, contextualizing
document – or, which aspects of the preceding report require a fuller explanation,
and why do you think so?
 Prepare a similar project summary of a translation project that you are either cur-
rently working with (or know about), or have assisted in the past, or are planning to
participate in at some future date. Try to do this, as above, in terms of the pertinent
frames of reference – the sociocultural, organizational, and textual. Include the most
relevant information that relates to the type of translation that is being considered.
Perhaps, in the case of an already completed project, you might comment on how well
the translation has satisfied the goals that its organizers and sponsors originally set
out to achieve. If these were not satisfactorily accomplished, offer some suggestions
as to why – or what might have been done to improve the final result.
Textual techniques: Contextualizing the translation from

within
One possible way to create greater understanding and a fuller appreciation of the
Scriptures on the part of a particular (listening!) audience is through the translated
text itself – namely, via a more TL-oriented rendition (i.e., “bringing the original
text to the readers”). There is a limit of course to what can be done by this means,
unless one is attempting at the outset to produce a “free translation,” paraphrase, or
adaptation. This was not an option in the recent Chewa setting outlined above: The
local constituency wanted their translation to be a “faithful” as well as a “meaningful”
version that would serve all the Christian churches in the country (i.e., an intercon-
fessional, popular-language version). In the sections that follow, I will first present
a little comparative study to illustrate how comprehension is affected by the chosen
style of a translation and then add a more dynamic rendering to the mix – namely,
an “oratorical” version that seeks to better reflect the poetic sound qualities of the
original text for an actual listening audience.
A comparison of versions, old and new (Rev. 4:6b-11)
The two most widely-used Chewa translations, Buku Lopatulika (BL) and Buku Lo-
yera (BY) are reproduced below, as originally formatted but with a larger typeface,
along with a fairly literal English back-translation. The latter indirectly suggests some
of the difficulties that present-day readers and hearers experience with the former
version and gives a rough indication of how the modern rendition attempts to both
clarify the text and also give it more of an impact in the vernacular. In the interest
of space, I have restricted this comparison to the climactic second half of the Rev. 4
pericope (vv. 6b-11) since this portion literally cries out for a more dynamic, vocally
dramatic, manner of reproducing the original text – in any TL. First the BL version
is given, and then the BY:
Buku Lopatulika (BL)
…ndipo pakati pa 6 [no break in the sentence]...and in the middle of
mpandowo, ndi pozinga mpandowo, that chair, and circumscribing that chair,
zamoyo zinai zodzala ndi maso four living things filled with eyes
kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo. 7 Ndipo in front and behind. 7 And
camoyo coyamba cinafanana nao the first living thing was like unto (sic)
mkango, ndipo camoyo caciwiri cina- a lion, and the second living thing was li-
fanana ndi mwana wa ng’ombe, ndi ke the child of a cow, and
camoyo cacitatu cinali nayo nkhope the third living thing had its face
yace ngati ya munthu, ndi camoyo as of a human being, and the fourth
cacinai cinafanana ndi ciombankha- living thing was like an eag-
nga cakuuluka. 8 Ndipo zamoyo- le going flying. 8 And those four living thi-
zo zinai, conse pa cokha cinali nao ngs, every one by itself had
mapiko asanu ndi limodzi; ndipo six wings; and they
zinadzala ndi maso pozinga ponse were filled with eyes all around everywhere
ndi m’katimo; ndipo sizipumula usa- and inside; and they do not rest day-
na ndi usiku, ndi kunena, Woyera, time or nighttime, and say, Holy,
woyera, woyera, Ambuye Mulungu holy, holy, Lord God
Wamphamvuyonse, amene anali, Almighty, who was [doing something],
amene ali, ndi amene alinkudza. and is [doing something], and who is on the way.
9 Ndipo pamene zamoyozo zipereka 9 And when those living things offer
ulemerero ndi ulemu ndi uyamiko glory and honor and praiseworthiness
kwa Iye wakukhala pa mpando waci- to Him who is sitting on the thro-
fumu, kwa Iye wakukhala ndi moyo ne, to Him who has life
kufikira nthawi za nthawi, 10 aku- unto time after time, 10 the big on-
lu makumi awiri mphambu anai es four and twenty
amagwa pansi pamaso pa Iye wa- fall down on their faces toward Him who is sit-
kukhala pa mpando wacifumu, na- ting on the throne, and are re-
mlambira Iye amene akhala ndi vering Him who has
moyo kufikira nthawi za nthawi, life unto time after time,
ndipo aponya pansi akorona ao ku and they throw down their crowns toward
mpando wacifumu, ndi kunena, the throne, and say,
11 Muyenera inu, Ambuye wathu, 11 You really ought, our Lord,
ndi Mulungu wathu, kulandira ule- and our God, to receive glo-
merero ndi ulemu ndi mphamvu; ry and honor, and power;
cifukwa mudalenga zonse, ndipo because you created everything, and
mwa cifuniro canu zinakhala, nizi- in your will they became, and were cre-
nalengedwa. ated.
214 Ernst Wendland
Buku Loyera (BY)
Pakatimpakati, pozungulira mpa- In the midst of everything, around the thro-

ndo wachifumu uja, panali Zamoyo ne [already mentioned], there were four
zinai, zokhala ndi maso ponseponse, Living things with eyes everywhere,
kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo komwe. 7 Cha- in front and in back as well. 7 The fir-
moyo choyamba chinkaoneka ngati st living thing looked like
mkango, chachiŵiri ngati ng’ombe, a lion, the second like a cow,
chachitatu chinali ndi nkhope ya mu- the third had the face of a hu-
nthu, ndipo chachinai chinkaoneka man being, and the fourth looked
ngati chiwombankhanga chouluka. like an eagle flying about.
8
Chamoyo chilichonse chinali ndi ma- 8
Every living thing had six wi-
piko asanu ndi limodzi, ndipo zinali ngs, and they had
ndi maso ponseponse ndi m’kati mo- eyes were everywhere even on the insi-
mwe. Usana ndi usiku zimaimba mosa- de. Day and night they would sing with-
lekeza kuti, out ceasing,
“Ngoyera, ngoyera, ngoyera “He’s holy, he’s holy, he’s holy
Ambuye, the Lord,
Mulungu Mphambe, God the Almighty One,
amene analipo, amene alipo, who was there, who is here,
amene alikudza.” who is coming.”
9
Zamoyozo zimapereka ulemerero, 9
The living things offer glory,
ulemu ndi mayamiko kwa uja wokhala honor and praise unto the one sitting
pa mpando wachifumuyu, amene ali on the throne, who has
ndi moyo wamuyaya. 10 Pamene ziku- life everlasting. 10 Whenever they do th-
chitika zimenezi, Akuluakulu 24 aja ese things, those 24 Elders throw
amadzigwetsa pamaso pa wokhala pa themselves face down at the one sitting on
mpando wachifumuyo, ndi kumpembe- the throne, and they wor-
dza wokhala ndi moyo wamuyayayo. ship that one who has life everlasting.
Ndipo amaponya pansi zisoti zao zau- And they cast down their cro-
fumu patsogolo pa mpando wachifu- ns in front of the thro-
muwo ndi kunena kuti, and say,
11
“Inu Ambuye athu ndi Mulungu 11
“You our Lord and our
wathu, God,
ndinu oyenera kulandira it is you who are worthy to receive
ulemerero, ulemu ndi glory, honor and
mphamvu, power,
pakuti ndinu mudalenga zinthu for it is you who created all
zonse. things.
Mudafuna kuti zonsezo You willed that all things
zikhalepo, ndipo would be there, and
zidalengedwa.” they were created.”
A comparison of these two texts, even by way of back-translation, reveals a number

problem areas and major differences in translation technique. Some of the most im-
portant of these from a communication perspective are listed below:
• The traditional, narrow double column, justified format presents a more difficult
text to read in both versions. Meaningful words are broken up, often in awkward
places, and the eye is forced to jump from the end of one line to the beginning
of the one below to complete the sense. But at least the BY text makes use of
quote marks and indented paragraphs to distinguish the incorporated hymn
segments.
• The BL reproduces all the original Greek kai-s with a single correspondent
conjunction (i.e., ndipo); not surprisingly, this results in a very unnatural Chewa
discourse style (no matter what the genre).
• Verse 6b begins an important new aspect of the heavenly court scene as the four
angelic creatures are introduced as a prelude to the praise choruses that further
spotlight ‘the one seated upon the throne’. The break here is idiomatically in-
troduced in BY (‘In the midst of everything, around the throne...’), whereas BL
does not begin a new paragraph and presents an apparently contradictory setting
(‘...and in the middle of that [throne], and circumscribing that [throne]...’).
• The sentences in BL are far too long to be easily comprehended. Use of the
semicolon, perhaps in imitation of the AV or RSV, greatly distorts the structure
of the translation (and all other Bantu language versions that have blindly fol-
lowed this mechanical procedure!).
• Many unnatural lexical formations, selections, and collocations reveal that the
BL translation was composed by a non-mother-tongue speaker of Chewa – for
example, when the four heavenly creatures are introduced, they are described
as being ‘filled up [like a container!] with eyes’ (v. 6b). BY, on the other hand,
exhibits a corresponding number of idiomatic usages, e.g., these creatures are
said to ‘have eyes everywhere [on them]’. BL tells us that each creature ‘was
like’ some familiar earthly animal (human), while BY narrows the scope of
the comparison by saying that each creature ‘looked like’ (= resembled in ap-
pearance) its counterpart. The heavenly creatures in BL ‘praise’ God by telling
him in effect that ‘you ought [to do something – implied]’, while in BY they
utter a more overt word of commendation: ‘you are worthy to receive...’
• On several occasions the BL either poorly or wrongly renders the sense of the
original text; for example, the ‘four and twenty’ (old-fashioned enumeration)
‘big ones’ (akulu – ‘big’ in what respect?) are said to throw their ‘rosaries’
(akorona – an old loanword that has shifted meaning) down before the throne
(v.10). BY employs the now familiar Arabic numeral (‘24’) and has the ‘El-
ders’ (Akuluakulu) casting down their ‘crowns’ (zisoti zao zaufumu – lit., ‘royal
hats’). In BL the second living creature is likened to a ‘calf’ (lit., ‘the child
of a cow’), which is a possible gloss for the Greek μόσχος; the BY’s ‘cow’ is
nearer the mark (i.e., the ‘ox’ of modern commentators, e.g., Aune 1997:298),
but the image could have been strengthened in Chewa by reference to a ‘bull’
(ng’ombe ya mphongo).
• In some places the text of the BL is simply unintelligible as it stands, e.g., at
the beginning of v.8: ‘And those four living things, every one by itself had six
wings...’ – or quite alien-sounding, e.g., ‘has life unto time after time’ for ‘lives
216 Ernst Wendland
forever’ in vv. 9-10 (cp. BY: ‘life everlasting’, an idiomatic expression based
on an ideophone).
• Finally, it is important to note the lexical creativity demonstrated in the BY
on a number of occasions, for example, the song of v. 8 features use of the
traditional Chewa divine praise name for ‘Almighty’ (Mphambe), which is
preceded by a dynamic predication ‘He’s holy (ngoyera)...’ and followed by a
much more accurate circumlocution for the divine name Yahweh: ‘‘who was
there (= present/existent), who is here, who is coming!’
On the basis of a close comparative examination of this nature, one would have
to conclude that the BY provides the majority of Chewa receptors with a much more
meaningful textual frame of reference for interpreting Rev. 4 (as well as the Bible
as a whole). It is not preferable for every purpose, however; for example, if one’s
goal is to prepare a concordance-based word study, or to employ the translation as a
scholarly window to reveal the language forms of the original text, then the BL version
is what is needed. But where a communicative rendering is desirable and clarity and
intelligibility are paramount, then there is little doubt as to the superiority of the BY.
In view of their respective pros and cons then, we might conclude that the practice of
individual or joint Bible study in Chewa can be profitably carried out with reference
to both translations. Such a differential comparative procedure enables one version to
complement another and also serves to highlight those areas in the biblical text that
probably need to be more carefully investigated so as to draw out more aspects of the
meaning of the original in the light of its contemporary setting of use.
A literary rendition for oratorical equivalence
An auxiliary translation, assuming that it is well done, can serve to augment or enrich
the textual frame of reference for a given target constituency (or a portion of one),
giving them a fresh, thought-provoking perspective on the ancient text of Scripture.
Such a version in Chewa is given below for the purpose of comparison with the pre-
ceding BL and BY translations. The specific Skopos (communicative goal) for this
rendition may be summarized as follows: It is a literary functional equivalence
(LiFE) translation that has been composed in a more vivid, dynamic, and idiomatic
vernacular style (Wendland 2004:83-97; 2005a). This version is intended primarily
(though not exclusively) for oratorical (oral-aural) enunciation to the members of a
target audience who desire an accurate semantic as well as pragmatic representation of
a particular passage of the Bible, yet who also appreciate a version that accomplishes
this goal while more fully utilizing the artistic and rhetorical resources of their mother
tongue. It is hoped that such a rhythmic vernacular style, coupled with a more legible
discourse-formatting procedure in print, will also allow the text to be more easily and
vigorously read aloud in public. Such a version can also be more readily adapted for
presentation in music (song) or as a drama.
Pakatimpakati, zonsezi zikuchitikako, In the middle of it all, while everything is taking

pozungulira mpando wachifumu uja place there, / around that royal throne
panali zamoyo zakumwamba zinai, there were four heavenly creatures,
zokhala ndi maso paliponse m’thupi, having eyes everywhere on [their] body,
inde, kutsogolo ndi kumbuyo komwe. yes indeed, in its front as well as in back.
7
Choyamba chinkaoneka ngati mkango, 7
The first one looked like a lion,
chachiŵiri ngati ng’ombe ya mphongo, the second like an ox (‘a male cow’),
chachitatu chinali ndi nkhope ya munthu, the third had the face of a human,
chinai chinafanana ndi chiwombankhanga. the fourth resembled an eagle.
8
Chamoyo chilichonse chinali ndi mapiko, 8
Each living creature had wings,
mapiko asanu ndi limodzi – pamodzi siikisi, five plus one wings – together six,
maso naonso ponseponse ndi mkati momwe. eyes again everywhere, even on the inside.
Usana ndi usiku zimaimba mosalekeza kuti, Day and night they sing without ceasing,
“Ngoyera, ngoyera, ngoyera – “He’s holy, he’s holy, he’s holy –
Ambuyetu, Mulungu Mphambe! Lord indeed, God the Almighty One!
Iye amene analipo, amene alipo, he who was present, who is present,
ndipo alikudza, Mulungu ndithu!” and he is coming, God most surely!”
9
Zamoyozo zinali kuyimba nyimbo yao, 9
Those living creatures were singing their song
kupereka ulemerero, ulemu ndi uyamiko offering glory, honor, and praise
kwa uja wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyu, to this one who is seated on the royal throne,
iye yekha amene ali ndi moyo wamuyaya. he alone who has life everlasting.
10
Nthawi ili yonse zamoyo zikachita izi, 10
Now every time the living creatures do this,
onse akuluakulu 24 amadzigwetsa pansi all those 24 elders cast themselves down
pamaso pa wokhala pa mpando wachifumuyo, in front of the one seated on that royal throne,
nkupembedza wokhala m’moyo wamuyayayo. and worship that one who has everlasting life.
Iwowa amaponyanso pansi zisoti zao zaufumu They also throw down their royal crowns
patsogolo pa mpando wachifumuwo ndi kuti, in front of the royal throne and say,
11
“Inu Ambuye ndi Mulungu wathu, 11
“You O Lord and our God,
ndinu woyenera kulandira kwa ife you are worthy to receive from us
ulemu wolemekeza mphamvu yanu, honor in praise of your power,
pakuti ndinu mudalenga zinthu zonse. for it was you who created all things.
Inde, mudafuna kuti zonsezo zikhalepo, Yes, you willed that all things be there,
ndipo za pansi pano zidalengedwa nde!” and everything on earth was created fully!”
Some redundancy has obviously been built into this translation in order to craft a
more poetic-sounding manner of composition in Chewa. The text has also been en-
hanced stylistically by means of balanced lineation along with a more idiomatic use
of deictic particles, word order variations, lexical condensation, intensifiers, some
artistic euphony, and focused vocabulary choice, including a climactic ideophone
(nde!) at the close. There is a novel interpretation too in that final chorus, namely,
the third line, which clarifies the fact that the elders are not offering their “power” to
God (as implied by both BL and BY), but are rather praising him for the might that he
manifested in creation (referred to in the next line). This is not necessarily a “better”
218 Ernst Wendland
rendition than the standard Chewa versions described earlier, for such an evaluation
can be made only in the light of the specific target group for whom the translation is
being prepared – and what their needs, wishes, and preferences are (as determined in
advance by comprehensive audience sampling techniques and independent research
surveys – see below).
EXERCISE-2
 What do you think about the possibility of composing a more dynamic literary-
oratorical (artistic-rhetorical) version of the biblical text in YL?
 Would there be a special audience, setting, or purpose that such a translation might
better serve than a more literal, standard rendition? If so, how would you go about
composing such a vernacular text – which particular TL features would you want to
capitalize on in this type of translation?
 If you are ready to give it a try, prepare a literary version of Rev. 4:6b-11 in YL
and provide a back-translation into English so that you can better share with others
what you (or your team) have done.
 Note that with this sort of a rendering (cf. Wendland 2004:289-317) you are creating
in the TL an expressive-affective (esthetic-emotive) context, or psychological frame-
work, for perceiving and responding to the original text – a dimension of meaning
that is normally ignored when translating. The importance of this factor varies, of
course, with the genre of discourse involved, but certainly it is an issue that needs to
be considered when poetic and strongly rhetorically-toned texts are being dealt with
(e.g., prophets/epistles). What is your opinion on this matter?
 As a follow-up to the preceding question, consider the following thoughts on the

translation of poetry, made by a distinguished literary critic and professor of compara-
tive literature at a secular state (USA) university (citations from Barnstone 1993, page
numbers in parentheses). Do these sentiments have any relevance to your concept of
Bible translation and/or to your practice of translation as you are currently applying it
in a particular project? Summarize your opinion on the various issues raised by these
appeals for a more “literary” approach when translating the diverse literature of the
Scriptures. These could also form the basis for a group discussion with reference to
a particular translation or project-in-progress.
(229) In reality, although the notion that a literal translation proposes that content can
be translated indifferent to form works with regard to information transfer, it becomes
an act of aestheticide with regard to art.
(229-230) But the translator has no quarrel with the original content in free translation.
And no desire to change it per se. It is rather to transpose it with some degree of honesty
one must also transpose its aesthetic / connotative coloring as well.
(234) Rigidly literal translation that omits connotative meaning may doggedly assume
equivalence, but equivalence is not there.
(256) “Thus no case for literalness can be based on a desire to retain the meaning”
(citing Benjamin 1969:77).
(259) The Italian maxim traduttore, traditore (translator, traitor) is in the end correct.
… When a translation passes as original, it is profound betrayal. … So betray we must,
otherwise the work is truly an impoverished counterfeit.
(260) Now we know the meaning of traduttore, traditore. The translator must be a traitor
to the letter in order to be loyal to the meaning, art, and spirit of the source text.
(261) [T]here remains one enduring ethical principle in literary translation: the true
ethical task of the translator is to be a good writer, to produce a work that is clear and
beautiful, however close or distant the inspiring voice.
(265) Translation is the ART of revelation. It makes the unknown known.
(266) A translation dwells in imperfection, using equivalents and shunning mechanical

replicas – which is the dream of literalists who believe in truth.
(266) A translation dwells in EXILE. It cannot return. … The translated poem should
be read as a poem written in the language of the adopted literature, even if it differs
because of its origin from any poem ever written in its new tongue.
(269) An artist translator is a MASTER potter. The potter transforms the spirit of an
old pot, the recollection of its shape, into a new pot. MASTERY lies in the MANIPU-
LATION of the clay. She pours content into a form of her own creation in her own
language.
(271) A translation is an X-RAY, not a XEROX. A poet translator is a XENOPHILIAC.

… Good translation of poetry is essential to a hungry reader in a decent book store and
to a global village of letters.
EXERCISE-3
 Compare the two English translations of Rev. 4:6b-11 below – the GNT and the
CEV. Two similar versions have been selected for this exercise in order to reduce
the number of differences. Select 5 major differences in wording and/or translation
technique and assess these in terms of their relative quality with respect to three
important criteria that you may select – perhaps also with reference to some of the
sentiments expressed by Barnstone above.
 Which rendition do you prefer – for which particular audience and purpose? Give
reasons. Finally, select what you consider to be the most important verse of this pas-
sage and try to re-express it in a more dynamic, “oratorical” or dramatic manner (in
English).
220 Ernst Wendland
GNT CEV
Surrounding the throne on each of its sides, Around the throne in the center were four
were four living creatures covered with eyes living creatures covered front and back with
in front and behind. 7 The first one looked like eyes. 7 The first creature was like a lion, the
a lion; the second looked like a bull; the third second one was like a bull, the third one had
had a face like a human face; and the fourth the face of a human, and the fourth was like a
looked like an eagle in flight. 8 * Each one of the flying eagle. 8 * Each of the four living creatures
four living creatures had six wings, and they had six wings, and their bodies were covered
were covered with eyes, inside and out. Day with eyes. Day and night they never stopped
and night they never stop singing: singing,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord,
who was, who is, and who is to come.” the all-powerful God,
who was and is
and is coming!”
9
The four living creatures sing songs of glory 9
The living creatures kept praising, honoring,
and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the and thanking the one who sits on the throne
throne, who lives forever and ever. When they and who lives forever and ever. 10 At the same
do so, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before time the twenty-four elders knelt down before
the one who sits on the throne, and worship him the one sitting on the throne. And as they wor-
who lives forever and ever. They throw their shiped the one who lives forever, they placed
crowns down in front of the throne and say, their crowns in front of the throne and said,
11
“Our Lord and God! You are worthy 11
“Our Lord and God,
to receive glory, honor, and power. you are worthy
For you created all things, to receive glory,
and by your will they were given existence honor, and power.
and life.” You created all things,
and by your decision they are
and were created.”
EXERCISE-4
From major genres and texts to minor ones, from New Testament to Old Testament,
the same literary principle applies. Dr. Cynthia Miller offers the following insights
concerning the challenge of translating proverbs in African languages (2005:142-144;
this entire article is highly recommended):
Translating biblical proverbs into African languages is both challenging and exciting.
Because language at its very nature is an indivisible composite of form and meaning,
it is impossible to translate meaning without also using linguistic forms. There is, after
all, no meaning and no translation without words and words have forms. We cannot
escape the question of how to balance competing concerns about accurate meaning
and appropriate form. …
A third kind of translation technique would produce our final versions of the proverb
that “sound like” proverbs in English and could be used as proverbs to influence be-
havior. In this third way of translation, the translator must balance competing concerns
of form and meaning in order to accurately convey the meaning using a proverbial
form. As we saw, African translators use a variety of techniques to achieve this goal.
They will attempt to make the proverb as succinct and pithy as possible. They may
use vivid imagery to translate metaphorical expressions. They may use phraseology
borrowed from traditional proverbs. They will be alert to instances where they must
make adjustments for ways in which their cultures differ from that of ancient Israel.
…
If the goal of translating the book of Proverbs into African languages is academic or
purely informational, the translators need not consider whether the shapes that biblical
proverbs take within African languages sound like proverbs within that culture. But
if the goal of translating Proverbs is that the biblical proverbs should be meaningful,
powerful, compelling observations about life, which transform those who hear them,
then the translated proverbs must have a proverbial shape. In African cultures, which
are permeated with proverbial sayings, a translation of Proverbs will be successful to
the extent that the biblical proverbs are assimilated into the language and become part
of the cultural fabric of the society.
The following is an example that illustrate this transformative literary technique

(ibid:141):
Prov 25.26 (NIV)

Like a muddied spring or a polluted well
is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. …
Prov 25.26 (Luwo)
A righteous person who accepts the words of an evil person
is the same as a pond where gourds are soaked.
In this African culture, people soak gourds in pond in order to remove the husks. The
gourds make the water bitter and undrinkable. In the same way, a righteous person who
does not oppose, but rather accepts, the words of an evil person is utterly corrupted.
 Evaluate the preceding argument and the example cited as an illustration: Is this
convincing enough for you? Give reasons for your answer.
 Do you have a similar example to offer in support of this literary principle of

translation equivalence (whether in relation to a proverb, or some other short biblical
(sub-)genre)? Prepare a little case-study to present and illustrate your choice.
 Finally, how would you translate the following pair of apparently contradictory
proverbs (Prov. 26:4-5, NIV)?
4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Does it help to adopt a different situational “frame of reference” for each verse? This
is what was done in the following Chewa poetic rendition of this proverbial pair.
Evaluate the pros and cons of this translation – then revise, if necessary, your own
rendering given above.
222 Ernst Wendland
Kodi n’kwabwino kuyankha chitsiru? Say, is it expedient to answer a fool?

Iyai kapena inde – yankho lili pawiri. No or yes – the answer is twofold.
Chitsiru usamachiyanka Do not answer a fool

potsata ucitsiru wakewo, by following his own folly,
kuwopa kuti nawenso fearing that you yourself
ungafanefane nachotu; might readily resemble him;
ichi sichingakome konse. that would be not be good at all.
Komanso mwina mwake, However at certain times,

uzichiyankha chitsiru inde, you must answer a fool, yes indeed,
potsutsa wake uchitsirutu, by rebuking that folly of his,
kuwopa kuti icho nachonso fearing that he for his part
chingamadziyese chanzeru! might consider himself wise!
Paratextual and extratextual tools for enriching one’s

frame of reference
The paratext refers to all those standard supplementary features that serve to “con-
textualize,” that is, cognitively frame, the text of a translation, thus shedding light on
certain selected key aspects of it. This manifold paratextual strategy would include
devices such as section headings, associated sectional introductions, foot- (or mar-
ginal) notes, cross references, glossary entries, a condensed concordance, illustrations,
graphs, tables, maps, and a topical index. These different aids, especially the descrip-
tive-explanatory annotations, assume their most developed form in a study Bible,
which is specially designed to promote and facilitate a more in-depth investigation of
the Scriptures in terms of its text (translation) and context (cf. Pritz 2006).
Such illuminating “frames of reference” for the Bible (cf. Wilt 2003:43-58) can
also be created through the use of various accompanying publications (including
video productions, e.g., vander Jagt and Pritz 2004) that explain, describe, illustrate,
cross-reference, or situate different aspects of the overall setting of the Scriptures
within a local perspective, for example: crucial events of Bible history, a parallel
sketch of world history during Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) times, the flora and
fauna of Palestine, geography and climate of Israel, Jewish or Greco-Roman culture
and customs, key concepts and topics of the Bible (e.g., the kings of Israel, prophets,
parables, miracles of Christ), and so forth. These ancillary extratextual products (i.e.,
“out-of-text solutions,” Hill 2004:10), whether presented in print or an audio or video
format, must be carefully geared to the educational-interpretive competency of the
primary target audience of the version that they are intended to accompany (normally,
the formal stylistic level of the translation itself). Of course, such subsidiary tools
can do little, if any good if people do not know how to make use of them – or use

Some samples will be given in chapter 11. Ralph Hill refers to these devices as “in-the-text
solutions” – i.e., for solving the problem of an inadequate cognitive contextual background for
interpreting a particular text of Scripture (Hill 2004:9).
them properly. These are practical educational matters pertaining to a translation’s

wider setting of usage (the organizational frame) that also need attention on the part
of an administrative (management) committee, as specified in the project’s job com-
mission (cf. ch. 12).
In terms of general context management, one cannot overemphasize the importance
and potentially great value of paratextual and extratextual techniques for increasing
the overall communicative quality of a given Bible translation. A few decades ago,
less so in many regions of the world, such text supplements were often viewed with
suspicion and hence appeared as very much the exception and not the rule. Most
Scripture translations, at least in UBS circles, were presented in the main “without
editorial note or comment.” Nowadays, however, most of us cannot get along without
such “contextual adjustment strategies” (Hill 2004) aimed at creating a broader, more
accurate conceptual framework for interpreting the Scriptures in translation. Such a
reservoir of background information enables one not only to understand, but also to
see the relevance of and hence to personally apply the biblical text at hand. But it is
also important to point out the need for an adequate amount of prior localized, situa-
tion-sensitive research and testing so that our efforts at “communicating context” (Hill
2003) are actually going to serve the purpose for which they are intended in relation
to a specific target audience and primary setting of use, whether these be relatively
broad or narrow in scope.
A thorough evaluation of the different types of extratextual supplementation needed
for the book of Revelation lies beyond the scope of my study. In short, this would
require a considerable amount of setting-specific audience surveying and directed
research that is carried out in conjunction with local church bodies which are com-
mitted to providing their members with such hermeneutical helps for the Scriptures.
Some possible topics of special interest and importance with regard to Rev. 4 would
include the following:
• Notes on key aspects of the varied liturgical worship of ancient Israel as well as
the Jews in NT times, including alternating speakers/chanters/singers, such as
we find manifested in the incorporated psalm-like segments of verses 8 and 11.
• A detailed biography of the Apostle John, as derived from the Bible as well as
early Christian sources.
• A NT historical survey and time-line to show the proposed ANE temporal
setting of the book of Revelation in relation to the other canonical books and
secular events of importance that occurred during the first century AD.
• A parallel biographical survey of the different Roman emperors who lived
during this period along with their main achievements or infamous activities,
including persecutions carried out against Jews and Christians.
• A geographical, historical, economic, and ethnographic survey of the seven
cities of Asia Minor that are mentioned in the “letters” of chs. 2-3.
• An illustrated overview of the typical stylistic features of the apocalyptic litera-
ture of the Bible and of extrabiblical, especially Jewish sources, and with special
reference to corresponding examples found in the book of Revelation.
• A structural-thematic study of the book of Revelation – one that is specifically
224 Ernst Wendland
related whenever possible to the sociocultural and religious setting of the pri-
mary target group.
• A context-sensitive topical survey of the principal intertextual prophetic
“sources” (pre-texts) that appear in Revelation – i.e., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Daniel.
• An exemplified examination of the nature and purpose of figurative language
and symbolism in the NT, including the use of significant numbers: 3, 4, 7, 10,
12, 144,000.
• An illustrated reference work that defines and explains the significance of the
main examples of ANE flora and fauna that are referred to in the NT, Revela-
tion in particular.
The preceding discussion has focused on providing an orientating frame of ref-

erence for printed presentations of the biblical text in translation. Corresponding
methods for contextualizing the verbal text of audio, video, and electronic Scripture
products are also essential. Considering just the medium of sound, for example, we
might ask: how are paratextual tools (e.g., explanatory notes, section titles, cross ref-
erences, illustration substitutes, etc.) most effectively presented via an aural medium
of communication (alone) – that is, to clearly distinguish these different auxiliary
devices from each other and from the text of Scripture itself? Various possibilities
are available, but these must first be audience-tested for viability, e.g., the use of dif-
ferent voices, a musical interlude, a standard signal (bell, gong, buzzer, etc.). These
are challenges that need to be carefully investigated and resolved from the specific
perspective (needs, preferences, abilities, etc.) of the wider TL community, using
the available human and other resources that can be also contributed by local Bible
consumers and communicators (e.g., drum or some other traditional instrument for
public “announcements,” local music or graphic art forms).
EXERCISE-5
 Consider Revelation 4 in the light of the sociocultural and religious setting in which
you work and identify five points in the text that would be likely to cause problems
of understanding for average Bible readers. Then formulate appropriate explanatory
notes that would succinctly clarify these issues. If you compose these notes in YL,
give an English back-translation alongside.
 Take two standard study Bibles that you have available (e.g., the NIV and GNB)
and evaluate the various study notes that have been included for Revelation 4. Pick
out two problems with these notes in each of these study Bibles – that is, considered
from the perspective of your own primary target group. Explain the nature of these
difficulties and propose solutions that would be helpful in your translation context.
Finally, evaluate which set of study notes you prefer and give reasons – again, from
the viewpoint of possibly using these as a model in your overall situational setting
and considering the average level of biblical literacy of Christians living there.
 Do you have any suggestions to add to the listing of possible “extratextual supple-
ments” for Rev. 4 above? If so, give these with your reasons.
 Are you currently engaged in the production of some type of “non-print” (audio,
visual, electronic) version of the Scriptures? If so, summarize some of the main chal-
lenges that you are facing along with some of the key strategies that you have adopted
for dealing with these – especially with a view towards sharpening the eyes and ears
of your target audience with respect to the biblical text and its situational context.
What controls have you put into place so that you do not deny or overly distort the
Bible’s particular frame of reference?
 What type of “paratextual” tools are you using to supplement the text and create a
fuller cognitive environment for consumers to interpret it more accurately? Explain
one of these methods in more detail.
 Consider the following advice concerning “imaging the metaphors” of Peter’s First
Epistle (Thomas and Thomas 2006:130). Would this visualization strategy with regard
to preparing the illustrations for a specific biblical text be helpful in your translation
setting? Is it a plan that you would like to try out? Why or why not?
The author of 1 Peter has created a constellation of metaphors that convey particular
meaning. They produce a larger whole than any one of its parts. Tracing the components
of such metaphors requires study. [Local] artists might be given opportunity for con-
versation with translators and biblical scholars about the metaphorical material. They
will need to hear about its significance in the original context. They can then begin
asking what might convey this significance to a particular audience today. The role of
the translator in this process should be one of providing insights into the text itself.
Here are some questions for further consideration (ibid:131):
• Will there be any testing of the visualization of your translation with members
of the potential audience?
• Have images from the metaphors of the original text been used?
• Has the artist been able to portray the metaphors in a way that will be under-
stood metaphorically
• or have images been used in a way that will freeze the metaphors into literal
interpretations?
• Is this acceptable? What suggestions do you have for conveying the sense and
significance of these biblical metaphors more effectively in your particular
setting, including medium, of communication?
10. Evaluating the overall quality of
communication via translation
A consideration of the diverse facets of “context” is also relevant for a Bible trans-
lation while it is being tested with respect to its primary target constituency, either
during the draft stages of production or after it has been published. Such audience
assessment procedures are an essential part of the various quality control measures
which a project’s administrative and/or management committee will want to have
included in the formal job commission (Brief) that is documented for the translation.
The various dimensions of “quality” that may be investigated during this experimental
operation are in effect also significant aspects of contextual concern that involve the
entire complex communication process as it develops with reference to the source
text/setting and progresses to a textual representation in the particular consumer set-
ting of use.
Applying a multiple framework for qualitative assessment
The diagram of Figure 16 (from Wendland 2005b) is intended to suggest a possible

model that may be used – whether as is, or perhaps in some modified form – when
judging the relative acceptability of a certain draft or published translation in relation
to a given audience. It reflects an attempt to integrate a number of the key factors
that may affect the translation’s appraisal from the perspective of different aspects of
the SL text and the TL version of it. This evaluative frame of reference is presented
simply to illustrate some of the chief contextual concerns that may be incorporated
into the testing process:
Focus  Source Text Target Text


accuracy intent
Content 3. FIDELItY < reliability 5. INtELLIGIBILItY< content
+ +
microstructure written
Form 4. PRoXIMItY< macrostructure 6. IDIoMAtIcItY< oral-aural

 
form processing cost
Function 1. AUtHENtIcItY< meaning 2. RELEvANcY< cognitive gain
Figure 16: Variables that interact to determine the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation

Figure 16: Variables that interact to determine the ACCEPTABILITY of a translation
Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation 227
The primary focus of each of these variables is briefly explored in the box below
by means of a series of critical investigative questions that are intended to elucidate
the wider contextual setting of reception for a given translation project (for several
applications of this method of testing, see Wendland 2004:337-347, 2005b:12-24). In
this case, the six qualities are to be evaluated primarily from the standpoint of diverse
representatives of the primary target audience (e.g., clergy/laity, new/old Christians,
well-educated/non-schooled, literate/non-literate, younger/older generation, male/fe-
male, etc.). In other words, trained members of the target community carry out the
actual testing process, evaluate the results, and formulate their conclusions on that
basis. A corresponding assessment made by an outside investigator or analyst might
well produce a different overall conclusion or specific recommendations, which
though clearly secondary, may still be useful in highlighting certain blind-spots in the
indigenous perspective. Furthermore, it is obvious that a given translation program
cannot satisfy, achieve, or emphasize all six factors at once. Rather, a set of priori-
ties will have to be established – one that is determined on the basis of various local
considerations, e.g., the designated audience group, setting of use, history of Bible
translation and past usage in the community, available resources, including overall
staff competence and commitment, and so forth.
FIDELITY: How accurate is the translation in terms of representing the prime

essence of the semantic content of the biblical text (including all ex-
plicatures and principal implicatures), and how reliably does the text
verbally express this conceptual inventory in the TL?
PROXIMITY: How closely, relatively speaking, does the translation reflect the
structural and stylistic forms of the Hebrew or Greek text, that is, with
respect to the original document’s macro- as well as micro-level of
compositional organization?
AUTHENTICITY: How “authentic” do TL speakers perceive the translation to be
in relation to its form (proximity) and/or meaning (fidelity); in other

The following quote defines the key terms in parentheses: “Thus, in the process of inferring
meaning, the audience combines the set of utterances from the communicator and the explicatures
they yield with additional contextual assumptions serving as premises, and draws conclusions, which
are called contextual implications. Both the premises (contextual assumptions) and the conclusions
(contextual implications) are referred to as implicatures” (Hill 2004:5). An effective way of testing
different aspects of audience comprehension in terms of their culturally-based “cognitive context”
is described and illustrated in Harriet Hill (2003; see also below). The “semantic content of the
biblical text,” as near as we can come to the intended propositional meaning (an inevitably partial,
yet ultimately a sufficient understanding), is ascertained by means of a careful discourse analysis
of the original and a study of reliable scholarly commentaries on the passage at hand. However, the
full “communicative significance” of that same text cannot be fully perceived or explicated without
reference to the original extralinguistic context, or situational setting, in which the text was conceived
of, composed, transmitted, and received. The related figures of irony and sarcasm often operate
on the basis of implicature. For example, when Job tells his three friends, “How you have helped
the powerless!” (26:2a) the normal implication that Job is expressing gratitude for their support is
contradicted by the setting of their ongoing discourse. Thus, instead of praising them, the implicatures
is that he is bitterly criticizing them for their lack of sympathy for his present condition.
228 Ernst Wendland
words, how trustworthy o credible do they regard their translation in

terms of re-presenting the “complete” or “true” Word of God in their
mother-tongue?
INTELLIGIBILITY: How clear and understandable is the TL text with respect to
both content and also intent – the latter embracing the principal functional
aims and associated connotative aspects of the original as expressed in
the vernacular translation?
IDIOMACITY: How natural is the translation stylistically in terms of literary artistry
and rhetoric with respect to its various major and minor genres, both in
writing (print) and also when heard, as the vernacular text is being audibly
articulated (spoken, recited, chanted, or sung)?
RELEVANCY: How difficult is the translated test to handle conceptually (i.e., “pro-
cessing cost,” or mental effort) in relation to the beneficial cognitive,
emotive, and volitional effects (“psychological gains”) that a majority
of the target audience derive from this hermeneutical activity as applied
to their current life setting?

Of course, any rather general and approximate model of this nature reveals some
pertinent aspects of the problem or phenomenon being investigated and overlooks or
ignores others that may be equally important in the setting concerned. The proposed
heuristic framework also adopts a particular theoretical or experimental viewpoint
and probes the information at hand to a limited degree in relation to all the available
data or variables that might possibly be examined. Furthermore, the actual testing
process from beginning to end – its rationale, method of questioning, general format,
and assessment procedures – needs to be stipulated in detail with reference to a specific
audience, time frame, group of investigators, and so forth (cf. Wendland 2004:347-
363, 395-418). In short, the evaluative model itself needs to be fully contextualized
and then carefully appraised and adapted (as necessary) with respect to its intended
goals and achieved results in mind.
EXERCISE-1
 Critically evaluate the preceding plan for testing a translation from your perspec-
tive, that is, from the viewpoint of an actual Bible translation project that you know
about or have participated in. Which contextual factors have not been given sufficient
consideration? How would you remedy this?
 What alternative model for translation assessment can you suggest, if you are not
satisfied with the one that has been described above? Be as specific as possible in
terms of principles and procedures with regard to the sociocultural setting that you
are (or will be) working in.
 If you have actually participated in testing the different stages of a translation,

describe the methods that you used and the results that you obtained.
EXERCISE-2
 Make an adaptation (if necessary) and application of the following general “revi-
sion parameters” (Mossop 2001:99), which have professional secular translators in
mind, to the process of quality control in Bible translation. Do you have any additional
parameters or queries to suggest?
Revision parameters are the things a reviser checks for – the types of error. … [I]n
order to think about and discuss revision, it is convenient to have a reasonably short
list of error types. …
Group A – Problems of meaning transfer (Transfer)

1. Does the translation reflect the message of the source text? (Accuracy)
2. Have any elements of the message been left out? (Completeness)
Group B – Problems of content (Content)

3. Does the sequence of ideas make sense: is there any nonsense or
contradiction? (Logic)
4. Are there any factual, conceptual or mathematical errors? (Facts)
Group C – Problems of language and style (Language)

5. Does the text flow: are the connections between sentences clear? Are the
relationships among the parts of each sentence clear? Are there any awkward,
her-t-read sentences? (Smoothness)
6. Is the language suited to the users of the translation and the use they will
make of it? (Tailoring)
7. Is the style suited to the genre? Has the correct terminology been used?
Does the phraseology match that used in original target-language texts on
the same subject? (Sub-language)
8. Are all the word combinations idiomatic? Does the translation observe the
rhetorical preferences of the target language? (Idiom)
9. Have the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, house style and correct
usage been observed? (Mechanics)
Group D – Problems of physical presentation (Presentation)

10. Are there any problems in the way the text is arranges on the page: spacing,
indentation, margins, etc.? (Layout)
11. Are there any problems of text formatting: bolding, underlining, font type,
font size, etc.? (Typography)
12. Are there any problems in the way the document as a whole is organized: page
numbering, headers, footnotes, table of contents, etc.? (Organization)
EXERCISE-3
 Now evaluate Mossop’s more specific and directive translation “revision principles”
(2001:149) in relation to the preceding “parameters.” Which do you find more helpful
or pertinent to your work – and why? Do you have any additional principles to sug-
gest, based on your own translation experience? Do you find any of these principles
230 Ernst Wendland
problematic or in need of some modification? Consider your individual conclusions

during a group discussion in class.
1. If you find a very large number of mistakes as you begin revising a transla-
tion, consider whether the text should be retranslated rather than revised.
2. If you cannot understand the translation without reading it twice, or without
consulting the source text, then a correction is definitely necessary.
3. Do not ask whether a sentence can be improved but whether it needs to be
improved. Make the fewest possible changes, given the users of the transla-
tion and the use they will make of it.
4. Make small changes to a sentence rather than rewriting it.
5. Minimize introduction of error by not making changes if in doubt whether
to do so.
6. Minimize revision time through unilingual re-reading unless the longer
comparative procedure is dictated by the likelihood of mistranslation or
omission (difficult text, untried translator, etc.) and by the consequences of
such errors.
7. When you make a linguistic correction or stylistic improvement, make sure
that you have not introduced a mistranslation.
8. When you make a change, check whether this necessitates a change elsewhere
in the sentence or a neighboring sentence.
9. Do not let you attention to micro-level features of the text prevent you from
seeing macro-level errors, and vice-versa.
10. Do not let your attention to the flow of linguistic forms prevent you from
seeing errors in meaning (nonsense, contradiction, etc.), and vice-versa.
11. Check numbers as well as words: they are part of the message.
12. Adopt a procedure which maximizes your opportunity to see the text from
the point of view of the first-time reader.
13. Adopt a procedure which allows you to strike a suitable balance between the
degree of accuracy of the translation and the degree of readability.
14. In the final analysis, give preference to the reader’s needs over the client’s
demands.
15. Avoid creating an immediate bad impression: make sure there are no spelling
or typographical errors on the front page of the translation.
16. Do not make changes you cannot justify of revising the work of others.
17. Do not impose your own approach to translating on others.
18. Do not impose your own linguistic idiosyncrasies on others.
19. Make sure that client and reader receive full benefit from revision work:
ensure that all handwritten changes are properly input and that all changes
are saved before the text is sent to the client.
20. If you have failed to solve a problem, admit it to the client.
EXERCISE-4
 Study the following pieces of advice regarding “translation criticism” by Katarina

Reiss (2000; separate pages are listed below in parentheses). Propose modifica-
tions where needed as you apply these suggestions to the activity of checking a draft
translation for general acceptability for a specific target constituency. Answer the
interposed queries as you proceed:
(T)ranslation criticism is possible only by persons who are familiar with both the tar-
get and source languages, and is accordingly in a position to compare the translation
directly with its original. (2-3)
 Is such a strict criterion for criticism (reviewing) possible in your translation setting?
If not, what are the main limiting factors, and what might be done to come closer to
satisfying this ideal?
What is meant by objective translation criticism? In the present context objectivity

means to be verifiable as in contrast to arbitrary and inadequate. This means that every
criticism of a translation, whether positive or negative, must be defined explicitly and
be verified by examples. … In a negative criticism the critic should try to ascertain what
lead the translator to make the (alleged) error. … But then this also raises the challenge
of matching any negative criticism with a suggestion for improvement. … [W]hen
translations are criticized there should always be a proposed remedy. (4-5).
 According to the principle set forth above, how “objective” is the process of transla-
tion (draft) criticism in your setting? How might ordinary and experienced “reviewers”
be encouraged and equipped to be more objective in their work, for the benefit of the
entire review process? Certainly the final “challenge” can be accomplished, at least
to a certain degree – how, or by what methods?
[T]he translator of a form-focused text should also be creative in deviating from

the norms of the target language, especially when such “erosions” have an aesthetic
purpose. … The most thorough justification of this practice is the statement by W. E.
Sueskind…: “The original author wrote with full command of his own language, and
he can therefore demand exploitation of the full range of subtle implications peculiar
to expressions which our language, and our language alone, can offer.” (36-37)
 What do you think of this argument – how valid or applicable is it when translating
the literature of Scripture? Have you thought about this issue before – or better, applied
it in your translation practice? If so, give an example to illustrate the point.
So the evaluation of a translation should not focus on some particular aspect or section
of it, as is so often done, but it should begin rather with a definition of its text type.
Once this has been done and the appropriate translation method has been identified,
then the degree to which the translator has met the relevant criteria can be assessed. In
other words, in a content-focused text, it is whether primary concern has been shown for
accuracy of data; in a form-focused text, whether special attention beyond the general
concern for accuracy of information has been paid so that rhetorical structures will
achieve a comparable esthetic effect; in an appeal-focused text, whether it achieves the
purpose intended by the original; in an audio-medial text, whether the relevant media
have been accommodated and their contributions duly incorporated. (47)
 Have you ever thought about Bible translation, specifically translation criticism,
in these terms? Do you think that this is a valid concern – and more, is it a realizable
goal to try to achieve? If you have already translated or evaluated a certain text of
232 Ernst Wendland
Scripture according to a functional methodology, describe what you did, how you did
it, and what the effect was on your target audience. If you have never considered Bible
translation from a functionalist perspective before, do you think that this approach is
worth considering? Explain why (or why not).
The critic must examine the translation with regard to each of these linguistic ele-
ments: the semantic elements for equivalence, the lexical elements for adequacy, the
grammatical elements for correctness, and the stylistic elements for correspondence.
Attention must be paid to how each of these elements relate not only to each other, but
also to the demands of the text type. On the one hand these elements are not indepen-
dent entities; on the other hand their value differs in each of the various text types. In
content-focused texts verbal semantics (the lexical element) and syntactical semantics
(the grammatical element) assume priority, while in form- and appeal-focused texts the
phonetic, syntactic and lexical elements are especially important. (66)
 Have you ever evaluated, or critiqued, a translation in terms of the categories that
Reiss sets out above – more or less? Explain. Are the different “linguistic” distinctions
and associated criteria that she makes clearly differentiated for you? If so, give an ex-
ample of each of the four categories; if not, propose a modification of her system.
[I]n order to evaluate a translation objectively – “it is not enough to learn the language.
One must study its culture, not just as an interested visitor, but from the ground up,
and…systematically.” (George Mounin). (78)
 How does one go about studying a culture “systematically”? Is it necessary for a

mother-tongue speaker of the language to do this? Why (or why not)? Give an example
of the importance of this principle as applied in Bible translation.
The critic should test whether these implications (i.e., affective values) are appropri-
ately echoed in the target language. He should notice whether the linguistic means for
expressing humor or irony, scorn or sarcasm, excitement or emphasis in the original
have been recognized by the translator and rendered appropriately in the target language.
Frequently the linguistic elements of the original alone do not call sufficient attention
to particular affective aspects, so that these must be detected in other ways. Naturally
in appeal-focused texts these determinants call for the greatest attention. (83)
 Which biblical texts would seem to be especially “appeal-focused’ in nature? Give

an example or two of “humor or irony, scorn or sarcasm, excitement or emphasis,”
for example from John 9. Point out the “determinants” of such affective values in
the original Greek – and correspondingly, how these sentiments have been rendered
in YL.
EXERCISE-5
Scripture products in non-print media also need to be carefully researched and then
tested both during and after production. The following excerpt of a case study car-
ried out in India on audio recordings of the Bible illustrates some of the aspects and
considerations involved in such testing (Sundersingh 2003:2,5,8).
 Compare this study with any testing that you may have carried out on audio (cas-
sette, CD, MP3) texts: What are the similarities and differences?
 Which other dimensions of an audio text need to be considered during such test-
ing and why?
 Are audio Scripture texts an important means of communication in your cultural

setting? Tell why or why not. If so, describe the various types of products that are
being prepared and the popular response to them. If apparent, also mention some of
the difficulties that have developed during the course of these audio productions – as
well as any satisfactory solutions, if found.
I selected Zondervan’s NIV Audio Bible, Visual Bible’s Mathew video and Hosanna’s
Dramatized NT as three products for testing, since all three used the New International
Version, followed a reading from Mathew’s gospel, and stuck pretty close to the bibli-
cal text in reading.
In this research, therefore, I am making a deliberate attempt to study the issue of
density and how it affects users’ perceptions. Consequently, I bring a two-fold enquiry
into this research:
1) to compare the dramatized reading style with straight reading
2) to compare the dramatized style of Hosanna which is quite compact with the
dramatized style of Visual Bible that is quite elaborate and leisurely paced.
The Visual Bible seems to be leisurely paced giving the listener enough time to
chew the material. The number of words is the same and it is spread over that much
more time. Music, sound effects like the splashing of waves, screaming of disciples,
etc, help reduce the density of material presented. The listener is not bombarded with
so much of information. Zondervan and Hosanna would have probably covered three
or four stories in the same duration taken by the Visual Bible.
The preliminary findings of this research seem to confirm my hypothesis that Vi-
sual Bible’s dramatization is the most preferred option of listeners in Bangalore and
the primary reason for this choice appears to have a direct bearing on the density of
presentation. It came as a real surprise to the respondents when I revealed to them, after
the research was over, that the second reading I played for them was an audio track of
a video program. All my respondents affirmed that the audio track of the Visual Bible
was complete in itself and was worthy of being compared with other audio products.
The Visual Bible is leisurely paced giving the listeners more time to engage with the
material. This kind of an approach reduces the density of content presented via audio
media and thereby contributes to better communication, comprehension and retention
of the message. In my presentation of this paper in TTW, I will also display the wave
formations of these recordings on screen and demonstrate density concerns.
Zondervan and Hosanna try to cover the whole New Testament within a certain number
of audio cassettes or audio CDs and thereby they automatically increase the message
density. The higher the density, the more the strain in listening, comprehension and re-
tention. The higher the density, the less attention span the program is likely to hold.
 What are the implications of this particular testing program with regard to the
production of audio (only) materials?
234 Ernst Wendland
 What additional extra-textual aspects of performance would need to be considered

in the case of an audio-visual (video) production? List what you consider to be the
two most critical factors.
 Suggest some ways in which such a testing program might be carried out in your
setting.
Assessing a specific conceptual context of text reception

The short passage of Revelation 4 includes quite a number of important concepts that
are either alien to, or not fully compatible with, a south-central African cognitive model
of existence (world-view) – the people’s religious reality in particular. The following
are some examples: John hears a mysterious voice sounding “like a trumpet” (v. 1)
which directs him to someone sitting on a rainbow-encircled throne (v. 3), one that
emits lightning with thunder (v. 5) and is preceded by a vestibule consisting of a “sea
of glass, clear as crystal” (v. 6a), a royal throne that is also surrounded by six-winged
“living creatures” covered with eyes (vv. 6b, 8). In addition, there are certain struc-
tural and stylistic features of the original text that will certainly be missed in any bare
translation, English or Chewa, no matter how idiomatic, unless they are elucidated
through some paratextual or extratextual devices. Appropriate contextual adjustment
strategies are needed, therefore, in order to promote a greater degree of comprehen-
sion (or, quality of communicability) with regard to most, if not all, biblical texts.
These auxiliary techniques too need to be evaluated in terms of their relative quality
just like the translated text itself. From a cognitive perspective then, the issue is as
follows (Brown 2003:53; italics added):
The key technique for assessing and improving communicativeness is to test

the translated text and associated contextual helps with the receptors to as-
sess the cognitive effects, and then to revise the text and contextual helps in
the light of the deficiencies that are discovered. Again, testers need to give
more weight to intended conclusions than to premises, and much less weight
to incidental implicatures that arise from the original communication situation
but were not part of authorial intent.
I am not in a position in the present study to develop the practical implications

that would be associated with a full testing program of this kind – one that must be
applied to both the translated text and the accompanying paratext. I can simply call
attention to several important aspects of such an exercise that will need to be more
fully explored in future research – research that some Bible translation investigators
are already vigorously pursuing. For example, Harriet Hill has suggested that the
various problems of comprehension which arise in intercultural communication may
be classified into several different types, as exemplified in quadrants 2-4 of Table 6
displaying four possible conceptual relationships (adapted from Hill 2003:2).
A key biblical concept from Hearer thinks it is shared Does not think it is shared
the perspective of TL audi-
ence  and the original text

Actually shared 1. Intended Context, e.g., 3. Unrecognized Context, e.g.,
an open door (v. 1), lion beasts covered with eyes (v.
(v. 7) 6b)
Not actually shared 2. Unintended Context, 4. Missing Context, e.g., a
e.g. royal throne which person with the appearance of
emits lightning and thun- jasper and carnelian stones
der (v. 5) (v. 3)
Table 6: Cognitive contextual possibilities
We may start from the shared concepts that largely overlap with respect to both
denotation (referential meaning) and also connotation (associative meaning), hence
causing little problem for a specific target group, e.g., quadrant 1: most African
Christians of course are well aware of the awesome characteristics associated with a
“lion,” and many will also understand the invitational symbolism of “an open door.”
However, various difficulties of comprehension and/or communication are presented
by other important concepts found in Rev. 4 (and elsewhere in the Apocalypse), for
example, those that people recognize but do not fully or even partially share with the
actual biblical cognitive domain (quadrant 2) – such as, the “lighting and thunder”
that appear to emanate from the royal chair of the chief (“king”). In Africa such a
phenomenon would undoubtedly be associated with the practice of sorcery and the
use of protective magical charms.
Even more problematic are concepts that people have in their world of experience
but do not realize the implicit correspondence that there is with the biblical notion
(quadrant 3). We note, for example, the strange winged beasts covered with eyes
which people naturally have had no personal contact with – but which are certainly
not unfamiliar to or uncommon in their (Chewa) oral narrative (nthano) tradition.
Most difficult of all are those concepts that are foreign to the target culture and
are not even recognized as such (quadrant 4), for instance, the precious stones of
“jasper” and carnelian.” These seem to be mentioned not in terms of their value as
items indicative of wealth and status, but simply with reference to the brilliant colors
that they reflected to illuminate or to spotlight the unidentified person sitting at the
center of the heavenly throne room scene. In any case, they are completely opaque
in transliterated vernacular form.
What then can be done about such communicative contextual gaps? Harriet Hill
makes the following suggestion (2003:3):
To enlarge the mutual cognitive environment so that it replicates the one the
first receptors shared with the biblical author, the contextual assumptions of
Quadrants 2–4 need to move into Quadrant 1. Then the secondary receptor
can process the text in the same way that the first receptor did. This enlarge-
ment can take place in two directions: 1) receptors can access more of their
cognitive environment by recognizing similarities that are actually present,
and 2) they can learn new assumptions from the first receptors’ environment.
Both processes are necessary to enlarge the mutual cognitive environment. The
236 Ernst Wendland
first allows the biblical message to permeate more of the receptor’s cognitive
environment. The second serves to expand their cognitive environment.
Whether different “cognitive environments” can ever be made to fully coincide (made
“mutual”) in all respects is doubtful, but that does not render the various attempts to
do so any less worthwhile, or indeed necessary as part of the process of communi-
cating a more complete “package” of Scripture. A more reasonable aim would thus
be to achieve as large or precise a correspondence as possible in the most situation-
ally relevant respects, using all the means available, in view of the target audience
concerned. What would be the paratextual potential in relation to Revelation 4 (cf.
Chapter 9)? The following is a selection of possible examples that would be helpful
in a Chewa contextual setting:
• Section headings (e.g., for ch. 4 as a whole: Praise be to the Lord God Almighty
who rules all creation from his heavenly throne!)
• Glossary entries (e.g., “throne” (4:2): a specially made chair for the king
or chief, which symbolizes his presence, rule, authority, and power. This
earthly image of royalty is often used in the Bible to represent the universal
authority (sovereignty) of the Lord God who rules in heaven over all things
in his creation. It is a place where angels and other heavenly creatures are
gathered to offer ceaseless honor and worship to God in praise of his great
goodness and glory. God’s throne also represents the place where he makes
judgment upon all human wickedness [see Rev. 6:1-8,16; 8:3-6; 16:17] and
also the source of eternal blessings for all redeemed saints in the new, heav-
enly “Jerusalem” [Rev. 21:2-7].)
• Cross references (e.g., for “living creatures” – the four wonderful beings in
charge of worship activities around God’s heavenly throne, whose descrip-
tion in Rev. 4:6-9 reminds us of similar awesome creatures, the cherubim,
reported in Ezekiel 1:5-21 and 10:12-15, 20-22; see also Isa. 6:2-3 and Rev.
5:6, 8, 11, 14; 6:1, 3, 5-7; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4.)
• Illustrations (e.g., of the three animals referred to in v. 7: a lion, an ox/bull,
and an eagle in flight – Comment: Though one or another of these animals
are known to many Chewa people, they are not all known by everyone, and
so, to more fully set the scene, it would be helpful to illustrate each one. To
add further detail, however, such as bodies covered with eyes and six wings,
would probably only result in confusion and might even be frightening, an
emotion which these creatures are most likely not intended to evoke.)
• Introductory notes (e.g., under the section heading noted above: In this
chapter John receives a new vision, but one which seems also to continue the
initial scene of ch. 1:12-16. The door into heaven is opened to reveal God’s
wondrous glory and great power, which is praised by heavenly beings. The
worshipful activities pictured for us in this chapter prepare the way for an
introduction in ch. 5 to the book’s chief character, Jesus, the Lamb of God,
who was sacrificed to save us.)
• Explanatory notes (e.g., v. 5: “flashes of lightning and roaring and crashes

R. Hill distinguishes between an “explanatory” note, which reveals certain important contextual
implications along with contextual assumptions, and a “descriptive” note which deals only with the
latter type of background information (2004:20-21).
of thunders” – Such awesome activities in nature are symbolic of the supreme

majesty and power of God and recall their initial occurrence when the LORD
revealed himself to the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai [Exo. 19:16; cf. Ezek.
1:4, 13]. This type of imagery often accompanies OT accounts of God’s
mighty interventions in history to deliver his people and to defeat their earthly
enemies [e.g., 1 Sm. 7:10, 12:18; Job. 38:1, 40:6; Ps. 18:12-15, 77:18; Isa.
29:6; Hab. 3:3-7]. In Revelation this expression is repeated at the conclusion
of each major cycle of seven divine judgments [8:5, 11:19, 16:18]. These
symbolic manifestations of omnipotence therefore assure believers of every
age that God is in control and will not forget those who persecute his people
[e.g., Rev. 19:20, 20:9-10, 21:18]. )
These different paratextual features would, in turn, have to be evaluated contex-

tually in terms of their relative quality with respect to the primary consumer group:
How well do they pass the tests of intelligibility, idiomacity, relevancy, and fidelity
in particular? Other important issues could be assessed at the same time: First of all,
do readers really want such helps? Do they even realize that they may actually need
them in order to better understand the biblical text? Have they been sufficiently in-
structed as to how to properly use these aids to enrich their study of the Scriptures? Is
there any other type of background information that they would like to have included
with their translation? A (mini-)concordance (listing of key words with references)
is often requested, but this would probably add considerably to the cost of any ver-
sion that included one. The visual quality of the printed format should probably be
tested too, several times in fact, based on some prior education of readers as to the
available options and their typographical significance. Project administrators must
obtain reliable answers to such immediate contextual questions that concern the qual-
ity of text-processing before a complete Bible or Testament is published. Once the
translation is fixed in print (or some other mode of transmission), the text producers
will be limited to extratextual solutions until the next opportunity arises to carry out
a revision of the published version.
EXERCISE-6
 Evaluate the preceding paratextual aids from the perspective of the language /
cultural setting that you are working in: Which are the three most important supple-
mentary helps and why?
 Now create some actual examples of your own with reference to the items cited
from Revelation 4. Assume that all these devices would be allowed in the Bible that
you are working on, or one that you know of. If you give examples in an actual TL,
which is the ideal, then in order to permit comparison and a discussion of them, you
will need to provide English back-translations.
 What is one obvious problem with illustrations in the case of the book of Revelation
– the “seas of glass” for example (4:6)? On the other hand, would some illustrations
help in the case of Rev. 4:7 in your own cultural setting? Explain why or why not.
238 Ernst Wendland
How about the illustration of Figure 17: would this be helpful to create an interpre-
tive frame of reference for Rev. 4:5? Explain why or why not:
Figure 17: Lampstand
EXERCISE-7
How the would you respond to the following suggestions regarding the practice of
contextualized cognitive conditioning (from H. Hill 2005; for further details, see H.
Hill 2006)? Whether you agree or disagree with these points, give reasons to support
your own position and practice regarding such matters:
Given the lack of one-to-one correspondence between biblical and receptor conceptual
categories, translators have two basic choices: 1) they can create new expressions in
the language to refer to biblical concepts (the non-local solution), or 2) they can use
existing conceptual categories (the local solution). …
Developments in our understanding of communication show that meaning is inferred
from the dynamic interaction of the text with information (contextual assumptions)
the text evokes in the audience’s mind. Meaning is not in the text alone. Providing the
text of Scripture in the local language does not ensure comprehension if the audience
does not also have access to the intended contextual assumptions. One constraint on
the search for the intended context is that hearers only consider assumptions they think
they share with the speaker or author. When communication is direct, hearers often
identify the intended context, but in secondary communication such as Scripture, when
a message designed for one audience is given to another, contextual mismatches are
frequent. Rather than accessing the intended context, hearers may access an unintended
context, or may not have the intended context, or may have the intended context but
not access it because they don’t recognize it as the intended context.
When translators use a non-local solution, they create new expressions in a language
by borrowing from another language or by making up new combinations of existing

Used by permission: Illustration by Horace Knowles © The British & Foreign Bible Society 1954,
1967, 1972; Additions & Amendments by Louise Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society
1994.
words in the language. Although the words are in the mother-tongue, the conceptual
categories are new. This strategy is often used with the intent of communicating the
message accurately, without the distortion the available local categories might intro-
duce. Often, the more translators understand the local categories, the more they become
aware of differences between them and biblical ones, the less likely they are to use
local conceptual categories. …
The other option translators have is to use existing local conceptual categories. Lo-
cal terms evoke a context for the audience, so they are able to infer meaning. The risk
is that the meaning may not be the intended one. Translators who opt for this solution
prefer that the audience infer some meaning rather than no meaning, and trust that
the biblical context will reshape the local conceptual category so that it resembles the
biblical concept more and more over time. The long-term effect is worldview trans-
formation as the category is contradicted, strengthened, or added to repeatedly. John
Beekman wrote: “When a referent occurs in, say, twenty or more contexts, experience
has shown that what is said about that referent shapes and may correct the reader’s
understanding. This procedure depends upon the frequent use of a word in different
contexts to ultimately result in an adequate understanding of the Scriptural concept.
. . . The successful use of vernacular terms, even if some may need to depend on the
corrective influence of context, makes a translation more relevant from the very first”
(1980:39).
EXERCISE-8
Discuss the following quotation (from Baker 2006:335) with special reference to
its relevance to the important process of translation assessment. Also consider the
distinction that is made between static “context” and dynamic “contextualization.”
How does such a perspective affect or influence your perspective on the practice of
Bible translating (versus “translation”!) in your particular setting?
The past decade or so has witnessed a general shift in scholarly discourse away from
static concepts such as that of context and towards active processes of engagement,
implied in notions such as contextualization, which underline the fluidity of interaction
and the fact that it is socially and jointly constructed, partly in advance but also to a
great extent at the point of interaction itself. Similar shifts have been taking place in
translation studies, for example away from static concepts of equivalence and norms
and towards recognition of the fact that the process of translation does not consist of
passive responses to cultural, social and aesthetic conventions but of active negotia-
tion among participants with shifting agendas and unequal levels of control over the
interaction.
EXERCISE-9
Consider the following “case study” in contextualizing a Bible translation (adapted

from Wendland and Hachibamba 2000a). It arises from some of the lexical and se-
mantic (conceptual) problems that the Tonga translators in Zambia experienced when
trying to render certain key terms relating to “the powers” from Paul’s letter to the

Beekman is using the term “context” to refer to what we would now refer to as co-text (H. Hill ibid).
240 Ernst Wendland
Ephesians. Evaluate the different problems that are pointed out in this excerpt and the
various solutions that are offered from the perspective of the language and cultural
setting that you are currently translating the Bible in. What would you do differently
and why with respect to the several key Pauline expressions and key terms that are
discussed below?
Problems with “the powers”: A case-study of

recontextualization
Some significant translation difficulties are encountered with regard to the novel
expressions that appear in two crucial passages: First of all, “the names that are
named” in Ephesians 1:21 could easily be mistaken to refer either to a specific type
of sorcery (where one’s opponent’s name is mentioned in the malicious occultic rite),
or to traditional prayers for intercession (where the ancestral spirits are called upon
for some type of major assistance). Again in 6:12, with reference to “evil spiritual
forces in the heavenly [realms],” a difficulty arises due to the literal non-equivalence
of the concepts concerned, e.g., in the old Tonga version: “evil breezes [or breaths] in
the regions up above,” which might possibly be (mis)construed as an allusion to the
familiar “spirits of possession” (basangu) which are believed to send such air-borne
messages (e.g., in the form of a sudden warm-air pocket) as a notice to people of their
presence and a warning not to get too close. In short then, the problems presented by
the several “spiritual power” passages in Ephesians stem largely from the fact that
ordinary readers/hearers do not correctly understand to whom the various technical
terms and expressions actually refer. Therefore, if the sense and significance of the
original text is not properly grasped, it is not surprising that its translation into Tonga
will have comparatively little impact or relevance to the faith-life of Christians. A
“recontextualization” of this biblical text is urgently needed.
The term recontextualization refers to the various techniques whereby skilled
translators attempt to replace or compensate for the loss and “leakage” of meaning
that inevitably occurs in the case of any translation, no matter what kind it is. They
thus seek to provide a translated text that is the closest “functional equivalent” of the
original document in terms of both form and content (de Waard and Nida 1986:36).
This can be done both textually by means of a meaning-based rendering and para-
textually through various supplementary aids which serve to enlighten receptors with
regard to crucial aspects of the relevant biblical setting. These are efforts aimed at
providing readers and hearers with a more complete and accurate cognitive framework
for interpretation with which they might approach the original text and determine
the author’s primary communicative intentions. I will give several examples of this
recontextualizing process as they concern the principal Ephesian passages under
consideration.

I would like to think that my use of the term “recontextualization” here anticipates its more recent
usage by Juliane House where it is defined as ‘‘taking a text out of its original frame and context
and placing it within a new set of relationships and culturally-conditioned expectations” (cited in
Baker 2006:318).
An idiomatic translation of the biblical text
What is envisioned here is a rendering that is meaning-oriented in terms of adequately

conveying the intended theological-ethical sense and functional significance of the
biblical text by means of a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the re-
ceptor language. The aim of this type of translation is to utilize the full linguistic and
literary features of the TL in a popular, readily understandable style in an effort to
accurately and naturally recreate the essential message (not necessarily all aspects of
referential significance) of the source language document, that is, in terms of content,
intent, impact, and appeal. Such an idiomatically “faithful” version is not intended
to replace an older, more literal, often venerated (“missionary”) translation of the
Bible (should one already exist), but rather to complement it. The principle here is
that, when used intelligently, in a comparative manner, two versions of the Bible are
better than one (assuming of course that each has been done well with respect to its
own terms of reference).
The preceding policy would seem to be an ideal one to follow when dealing with
the translation of the various spiritual powers that are referred to in the Ephesian
epistle. Several difficulties remain, however, and it turns out that there is no easy
translational solution in this instance. This fact has been pointed out by a number
of commentators and biblical scholars. In their “semantic-domain” dictionary of the
Greek New Testament, for example, Louw and Nida observe that “in many languages
it is simply not possible to speak of such supernatural powers without in some way
identifying them with various kinds of spirits” (1988:147). However, if this implicit
recommendation were carried out in Tonga (and many other Bantu languages), it
would produce a definite anthropomorphic understanding of all these demonic spirits,
i.e., they would turn out to be ultimately of “ancestral” origin, whether favorable or
harmful. Now this is an excellent way to contextualize Paul’s message; the problem
is that it also “transculturizes” his intended meaning and in effect transfers it from a
biblical to a Bantu sociocultural setting.
In other words, we are not dealing with human-derived spiritual forces in these
passages, but demonic ones that are under the control of Satan, the evil one (cf. 6:11,
16). Surely the malignant, frequently fatal potency of evil (ancestral) spirits, magic,
and sorcery is very real in a Tonga cultural setting, but people must be shown that
their traditional predicament is even worse than they realized or could even imagine
because, as Paul says (if I might paraphrase him): “We are not grappling with pow-
ers and principalities (etc.) that were once human (‘flesh and blood’) in nature, but
with the diabolical forces of the Devil himself” (6:12). In a similar way, however,
the resources at our disposal for defense and ultimate victory are infinitely greater,
for these too are not of human origin (i.e., mystical bwaanga magic as dispensed and
delivered by diviners and medicine men), but they are providentially supplied by God
the omnipotent Father Creator, guaranteed by Jesus Christ his Son, and distributed
by the Supreme divine Spirit (1:17, 19; 3:14-19; 6:10).
If the substitution of classificatory names for local spirits and magical forces does
not seem to be a satisfactory solution when translating these passages into Chitonga,
what else might be done? Pattemore makes the following suggestion: “Translations
242 Ernst Wendland
should aim to cover this area of meaning [i.e., pertaining to the spiritual powers],
whether by telescoping, using a generic term qualified in different ways, or using
an indigenous set of terms. To attempt a consistent, one-to-one match of source and
target words is unnecessary, and often unlikely to succeed” (1994:128). The use of a
modified generic expression in one form or another is commonly turned to in a mean-
ing-based version in an effort to convey as much as possible of the intended sense or
purpose of some foreign or unfamiliar biblical concept. But here we again encounter
a conceptual difficulty that is presented by the obligatory noun-class prefixal refer-
ence system of Bantu languages. If the powers (at least some of them) are conceived
of as animate beings (which appears to be the case in Paul’s usage), then a personal
prefix needs to be used (i.e., mu- sg, ba- pl). However, as was noted, this humanizes
(hence also subordinates) them all, making them much less of a potential danger or
threat to the ultimate spiritual well-being of believers.
The only option is to put all these powers into the nominal class of ‘things’ (i-
sg, zi- pl), which also fortunately incorporates many animals and other creatures so
that it is not a completely inanimate category. Thus the pertinent terms of 6:12, for
example, are rendered as follows: njakulwana azyeezyo zijisi nguzu, bwami, abween-
delezi bwa mumudima waansi ano, alimwi azipati zili muluuwo lubi lwatumbizyi
– literally, ‘[we] are fighting with those things/creatures that have power, rule, and
leadership of the darkness of here below, and also with the big/bad ones in the wicked
wind of whirlwinds (“dust-devils”)’. The last expression represents a double Tonga
contextualization (i.e., for the complex Greek ta pneumatika tês ponêrias en tois
epouraniois), namely, with metonymic reference to the indefinite negative force
behind an “ill wind” plus the evil powers thought to stir up the appearance of destruc-
tive whirlwinds (tumbizyi). The preceding are several proposed changes in the light
of our present study of Ephesians. They will have to be carefully tested and honestly
evaluated by typical receptors to determine what, if any, meaning is conveyed by these
new renderings in the light of the context supplied by the biblical text.
The provision of a situation-specific conceptual context
In addition to a translation that at least points members of the target group in the
right direction of interpretation, it will probably be necessary to add some concisely
worded footnotes in order to clarify those expressions in the text that refer to entities
and events that lie outside their traditional frame of reference and everyday experi-
ence. These contextualized explanations are intended to help readers (and, via a
more enlightened elocution, also hearers) to bridge the great conceptual gap that lies
between the biblical setting and a contemporary Tonga perspective on such important
matters as the diverse evil forces that wage war against the Christian (community)
in this life. Such situation-specific supplementary comments make it possible for

More helpful than the incorporation of a larger number of individual footnotes attached to the
passages found in a conventional Scripture text is an integrated, full-scale study Bible. This format
would permit the inclusion of more detailed explanatory and descriptive (but still “user-friendly”)
comments of a contextualized nature, that is, applicable to the local life-setting. Such an extended
annotated Bible is currently being produced in Tonga.
perceptive readers to enter further into the setting of the biblical text, and conversely
also to apply the religious and ethical significance of the biblical text to the familiar
world that most Batonga live in today.
To what extent does Paul’s instruction or exhortation, if clearly understood, as-
sist modern Christians to deal with the traditionally-conceived, hostile powers and
malevolent forces that continue to hound and harass them on a daily basis? Footnotes,
especially those designed for basic readers, cannot explain everything that is needed
or desired of course; a selective choice will have to be made and supplemented as
always by the in-depth teaching ministry of the church. But at the very minimum,
succinct notes of this nature can serve to suggest to readers that the meaning of these
passages goes beyond their usual frame of reference and thus additional, more de-
tailed study or assistance is required to more fully understand the intended biblical
message. Another obvious problem with footnotes is that inexperienced readers must
first learn how to use them correctly, for example, to realize that they are not to be
read as part of the text of Scripture, but are provided as a means of shedding light on
what the text is saying. In addition, an efficient, unobtrusive way of conveying this
supplementary information to listeners must also be devised (e.g., via vernacular
cassette recordings).
The following is a sample of such a contextualized footnote that is intended to
enlighten hearers about what Paul is getting at with the list of powers that he men-
tions first in 1:21:
In this passage Paul is referring to any type of power, rule, or authority that
Satan uses to attack and oppress believers on earth. This would include all those
good or evil forces that are either trusted or feared by people today, such as,
ancestral spirits, sorcery, witchcraft, magic (‘medicine’), and various sorts of
protective charms. Even though demons may be able to give a certain degree
of power to such persons and things, Paul assures Christians that they are all
completely under the control and authority of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Indeed, God raised Christ from the dead and exalted him in heaven to mani-
fest his complete victory and supreme rule over the entire world (vv 20-23)
– both the one in which we are now living and also the next (2 Pet 3:12-13).
Therefore we need fear and should put our trust in no one or nothing else but
our all-powerful Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His surpassing strength, which
enables one to stand fast against all the attacks of Satan and his evil angels, is
immediately available to every Christian by faith (1 Pet 5:8-9). Christ alone
provides us with a sure hope of ‘salvation’ in this present life and, more im-
portant, in the age to come (see 1:13-14,18; 4:30).
In explanatory comments like this, however, it is important not to overstate the case
– that is, to attribute more power and influence to the devil than he really deserves
from a biblical perspective. This is particularly important in an African context where
such a spiritual viewpoint has already been greatly distorted due to the strong influence
from a prevailing cognitive environment that is saturated, as it were, with traditional
religious beliefs and practices. Such an indigenous perspective tends to give a great
priority in terms of interest, attention, concern, and commitment to the subordinate
244 Ernst Wendland
spirit “world” rather than to the almighty Creator God, which is just the opposite of
the biblical position as clearly expressed in both testaments.
Finally, it should be pointed out that such descriptive and expository notes are
only part of a wider strategy of providing paratextual supplementary helps for Bible
readers, which includes such diverse features as: illustrations, section headings, cross
references, glossary entries, time-lines, and suggestive or elucidating typographi-
cal techniques involving the page format and type style. These are all intended and
specifically designed to give consumers a more complete and accurate picture of the
original historical and cultural setting in which a given text of Scripture needs to be
conceptually situated (or creatively imagined) in order for them to correctly understand
the author’s intended meaning. They will then be able to make a more effective and
relevant application of that same message in the present-day context of their immedi-
ate life world and belief system.
The need for a relevant contextualization

A prominent emphasis in contemporary biblical hermeneutics, especially in non-
Western settings, is upon “reception (receptor-oriented) theory.” The importance of
this particular focus cannot be denied if appropriate communication is going to be
the result, that is, with regard to the two main conditions of obtaining what has been
termed “optimal relevance,” namely, the relative ease of “processing effort” coupled
with the stimulation of an adequate measure of conceptually-based “contextual effects”
(Gutt, 2000:30). Ten years ago, a special volume of Semeia (no. 73, West and Dube,
eds.) was devoted to an exploration of this issue as it concerns the communication and
interpretation of the text of Scriptures in various settings of reception that featured
groups of ‘ordinary’ African readers/hearers, namely, those who tend “to read [and
hear] the Bible pre-critically” (West and Dube 1996:7). These studies, in the light of
our own examination of Ephesians, helped clarify for us a set of seven basic qualities
that should (ideally) characterize the process of contextualization, or “familiarization,”
as it is carried out in many, if not most, contexts of significant Scripture use among
the Tonga (and no doubt most other Zambian peoples as well).
It is not possible to elaborate on these procedures here. However, they are sum-
marized below for reference and possible future follow-up. A significantly “relevant
contextualization” of the biblical message (the book of Ephesians, for example) is
more likely to take place under these conditions:

“Reader response criticism, or reception hermeneutics, has introduced biblical scholars to a reader
[or hearer] who is no longer perceived as a passive receiver of authorial or textual meaning, but
who is now recognized as an active creator of meaning .... The practice of ‘reading with’ invites
scholarly readers, and their allied ‘implied’ readers and other surrogates ... , to read the Bible with
actual readers from poor and marginalized communities [but not necessarily limited to such groups],
even when many of these readers are only ‘readers’ in a metaphorical sense” (West 1996:27).

In the case of literary texts, instead of “optimal,” we should seek “maximum relevance,” which
“involves getting the greatest possible effects from what is heard or read” (Boase-Beier 2006:42).
Thus, “certain points in a text, and especially a poem, serve as focal points for converging stylistic
patterns; difficulty in processing at such points “holds up”…the reader. The result of this is that the
reader searches for significance” (ibid:42-43; cf. exercise 16 of ch. 7).
• The communication leader/initiator/guide/facilitator (whether in the case of a

sermon, Bible study, instruction class, etc.), especially if a cultural “outsider,”
must clearly realize that she or he is “reading [listening] with” a pre-critical,
non-academic group of receptors. She or he should therefore make every ef-
fort to promote a free expression of their distinctive individual and common
hermeneutical perspectives, input, and feedback.
• An interactive, dialogic, participatory, communal method of instruction ought
to be encouraged, that is, to the extent possible in keeping with the specific
type of religious setting and purpose concerned. The primary aim is to work
towards a general consensus (not necessarily a complete compromise) with
regard to the main issue(s) of a particular text and, in addition, to facilitate
understanding and the opportunity for each participant to make his or her
individual contribution to the overall, group “communication event.”
• This interpersonal “dialogue” with the Scriptures in relation to a particular
sociocultural setting should normally be conducted in the principal vernacular
language that is represented so that key biblical notions and terms may be
isolated, conceptualized, and verbalized (discussed) immediately, directly,
and contextually, without any linguistic-semantic “interference” from another,
especially a Western, language.
• The discussion leader must ensure that a sufficient amount of background ma-
terial pertaining to the biblical text under consideration is provided, whether
all at once as an introduction or, better perhaps, periodically as the need arises,
e.g., culturally appropriate visual aids and a careful selection of descriptive-
explanatory comments pertaining to hermeneutically relevant items and issues
found either explicitly or implicitly in the passage concerned, particularly those
of an important sociocultural, ethical, and religious nature.
• Any significant oral-aural features of the biblical text need to be pointed out
and discussed critically and comparatively in relation to both the receptor
language and literary tradition as well as the contemporary setting of com-
munication, such as: the original genres (e.g., poetry vs prose), structural
organization (e.g., parallelism), stylistic features (notably patterned rep-
etition), rhetorical shading (e.g., lexical connotation), typical music (as an
evocative background), etc. In keeping with this particular aspect of message
transmission, an appropriate mode of verbal instruction ought to predominate
in the current setting, that is, orally interactive as opposed to (but not neces-
sarily eliminating entirely) the practice of silent reading and writing.
• All teaching in Africa should be effected primarily by means of a traditional,
inductive, non-analytical, dialogic method, one that features the integrated
and holistic use of familiar indigenous modes and popular artistic models of
oral teaching like proverbs, maxims, folk narratives, riddles, praise poetry,
initiation precepts, songs (of various types), and so forth, including plenty
of pertinent examples and life-related illustrations.
• A multicultural type of presentation should be encouraged if possible, namely,

Surprisingly, this crucial point received almost no mention by contributors to the Semeia volume.
It was either overlooked or, more likely, simply taken for granted. However, as our examination of
Ephesians in the light of Chitonga has shown, this should not be done because one’s interpretation
of the biblical text is greatly affected by the type of translation that one is working with, whether
more or less literal/meaning-oriented.
246 Ernst Wendland
where participants from diverse ethnic groups happen to be present (including

the discussion leader). Such a differential and comparative approach, keep-
ing the biblical setting continually in mind, can encourage a clearer critical
perception of one’s own cultural and linguistic idiosyncrasies and can also
serve to promote beneficial inter-group awareness and cooperation in religious
and other affairs.

In closing, I wish to emphasize the point that during any contextualizing exercise
aimed at “domesticating” the biblical message, the original text and context cannot be
ignored or allowed to recede too far into the background of the process as a whole. In
other words, the presumed authorial intention, as determined on the basis of a careful
analysis of his selection of theological and ethical content as well as his rhetorical
shaping of the structure and style of his discourse, should always be used as a guide
for disclosing what he selected to be the main themes, objectives, and emphases of his
message to the saints. These in turn ought to be accorded due consideration today when
the particular passage is studied and applied in any sort of religious communication,
whether formal or informal.10 This principle is important for preserving a “faithful”
(factually accurate) testimony to the inspired text and context of Scripture as well as
preventing a subjective, over-contextualization of its message.11 In the Tonga situa-
tion, for example, it is important to convey to contemporary Bible readers/hearers the
crucial difference between the type of spiritual “powers” that Paul had in mind (i.e.,
demonic) as distinct from those that populate the typical Tongan world-view and world
of experience (i.e., demotic). Furthermore, it is necessary to stress in greater measure
the surpassingly “power”-ful attributes of the God of the Bible and their accessibility
by faith in Christ, for these are infinitely superior to any malevolent energy that is
supposedly wielded by the evil spirits and/or their human agents in this world.
However, all our efforts at contextualizing the biblical message should also be
convincing (rhetorically compelling and esthetically pleasing) in the sense that they do
a good job of it. That is to say, there may be better or worse instances of this compo-
sitional-communicative process from a purely technical or compositional standpoint.
Thus it is important that Bible translations (the primary source) and other forms of
Christian communication are able to stand as artistically excellent instances of reproduc-
ing the original text in the TL, including the use of possibly a more appropriate media
of transmission, e.g., the audio cassette, and a more dynamic style of translation, for
10
The method of introducing such source-oriented “scholarly” material into an informal TL setting,
as well as the amount of such information needed, will of course vary according to the situation and
occasion. The ideal source would be a gifted, previously instructed, fellow member of the particular
group concerned, one who knows their specific life-setting, needs, aspirations, limitations, gifts, etc.
11
The purpose of a “valid’ (informed) contextualization is not to blur or “fuse” the two so-called
“horizons” of interpretation (Thistleton 1980:xix) – the Scriptural/canonical and the contemporary
– thus “transculturizing” the original message. Rather, the point is to distinguish the principal
correspondences and distinctive contrasts in relation to the two contexts based on a thorough
understanding of this religious communication event within its biblical setting. In this way then
receptors today are drawn “closer” in their understanding of the text of Scripture, on the one hand,
while the latter is enabled in turn to “speak” more directly and relevantly to the former within the
framework of their actual life and thought-world.
example, an “oratorical” rendition, created especially for the artistically sensitive and
appreciative ear. This high standard of quality should be reflected too, as suggested
earlier, in the task of providing descriptive/explanatory notes that get at the heart of
contextual problems which relate to both understanding the intended message (SL
focus) and also adapting it with respect to the sociocultural and religious setting of
the target group. This is not an easy assignment, hence not one for Scripture novices
and/or culturally naive enthusiasts. There is an obvious need first of all for competent
and creative national-led “contextualization teams”, supplemented (if necessary) by
sympathetic and experienced foreign (especially fellow African) assistants to help
out in particular areas of hermeneutical or technological deficiency (e.g., biblical
languages, contextual [Ancient Near Eastern] background, oral poetics, multi-media
expertise, publication typography, research and testing).12
Our ultimate communicative objective is to follow Paul’s example and to per-
suasively (2 Cor. 5:11) “recontextualize,” as it were, his powerful, Christocentric
message to the Ephesians concerning spiritual powers, both good and evil, so that
it is more clearly understood, precisely examined, and pervasively applied to a
contemporary Tonga environment, religious as well as secular. Strictly speaking, a
re-contextualization is involved because Paul has already provided the original pat-
tern and an excellent model for us to follow in terms of form (a dynamic, captivating
literary style), content (focused upon the strength to be found in union with Christ
and one’s fellow-Christians), function (featuring integrated instruction, admonition,
encouragement, appeal), and method (supremely need-related and relevant to everyday
life) when dealing with the various critical issues that can arise when biblical text and
teaching confront a vigorous local context and culture.
EXERCISE-10
 The following are several examples of how non-traditional media are being used
nowadays to convey the Scriptures in different parts of the world – from Azerbaijan to
Zimbabwe. Try to put yourself in the place of the developers of these new methods of
Bible communication: In each case, tell what “control measures” you would put into
effect in order to help ensure the quality of Scripture production in the first place
12
I might posit the following scheme of hermeneutical types/aspects pertaining to possible Scripture-
based “contextualization” procedures, as presented above:
a) Intuitive (unacceptable)
i- skewed: influenced entirely by the resident hermeneutical framework provided by African
traditional religion and individualized or localized personal experience
ii- selective: influenced unsystematically by isolated elements in the cotext of the
individual passages concerned, especially if taken from a formally and
semantically more difficult, literal translation
b) Informed (desirable)
i- textual: effected within the actual text of an idiomatic, meaning-based vernacular
Bible translation
ii- paratextual: supplied through perceptive supplementary notes that are conditioned to the
principal setting of reception, including the people’s world-view and way
of life (including theirreligious beliefs, value system, customs, traditions,
social institutions, felt needs, etc.)
248 Ernst Wendland
– and then to assess the quality of the message transmission process thereafter. Even
if you have not been involved in such novel projects in the past, give some thought to
the critical issues that they raise for Bible translators and transmitters today:
In our country [Azerbaijan], putting on a Christian concert is probably one of the most
effective ways to share the Bible with large groups of people. … The Azeri are a people
who love music, poetry, and dance, so whenever there is an opportunity to go to an event
that offers these things, they go. … Vahid wrote most of the songs that are performed at
the concerts, and they vary from prayers (one is simply the Lord’s Prayer, performed as
a rap), to passages of Scripture. Very often the singers sing straight out of the book of
Psalms. … [T]hey are hoping to mount a full-scale ballet based on the story of Jesus’
life as told in the four Gospels. Ballet and opera are very popular in Azerbaijan, and
people flock to Baku’s theatres to watch ballets from both the local and international
repertoire. A ballet about the life of Christ will attract a great deal of attention. The text
is already written, and we have a very well-known composer working on writing the
score, which will take at least a year… (Smeno and Rhodes 2007:3-4).
“My son never read a book uninterrupted – until he got hold of the Graphic Bible!”
This is typical of the reaction of parents who have bought copies of the Lion Graphic
Bible from the Bible Society of Zimbabwe. Sub-titles ‘The Whole Story from Gen-
esis to Revelation’, the book is a retelling of Bible stories in strip-cartoon format for
children ranging from 10-year-olds to teenagers. … Mr. Mutema [the Bible Society’s
General Secretary] says that the highly illustrated and reader-friendly presentation of
the large-format paperback makes it ideal for young people. … “Our challenge is to
make it available in the two other major languages, Shona and Ndebele…in order to
ensure wide readership.” … The daily newspaper The Guardian said, “Jeff Anderson’s
stunning pictures literally cover every page with glorious images, while Mike Maddox’s
text successfully preserves the epic tone.” When the book was first published, Mr.
Maddox was asked…what he thought about turning the Bible into “a cartoon with
bubbles coming out of people’s mouths.” “I think comic can handle serious subjects
quite easily,” he replied. “There’s no problem getting across an adult or serious thing in
a comic… The medium itself doesn’t necessarily lend itself only to children’s stories…
You can use a comic to tell a more adult story quite well. We’ve made an effort to be
as accurate as we can to the historical facts.” (Matthewson 2007:19)
 Do you think that either of the media described above (songs – cartoons) would
be appropriate for communicating the Apostle Paul’s message concerning “the pow-
ers” in Ephesians in your sociocultural and religious setting? Explain why or why
not in each case.
EXERCISE-11
I conclude this chapter on translation assessment with an extended, actually a multiple,

case study – one that pertains to several Dutch Bible translations (from de Vries 2003,
used by permission). These involve some rather specific problems and possible solu-
tions which need to be evaluated in terms of their respective religious and sociocultural
settings as well as Skopos (purpose) specifications.
 Read through this comparative study from the perspective of the different qualita-
tive categories that were proposed at the beginning of the chapter: fidelity, proximity,
authenticity, intelligibility, idiomacity, and relevancy, and point out areas in the discus-
sion where such considerations seem to apply or were taken into consideration in the
situation at hand. Make a note of the particular aspects of these translation situations
that are similar to those which you have experienced or know about. Was the case
handled differently in your setting with regard to translation approach or communica-
tion strategy? Explain, using a specific example or two.
The case I selected is that of Ruth as found in the Hebrew Bible. I focus on the way
translators have handled conceptions of personhood as reflected in the Hebrew text of
Ruth and I try to show how specific religious functions or skopoi, the things religious
communities want to do with the Bible, determine translation decisions in this area of
linguistic practices that reflect cultural practices of personhood.
Local conceptions of personhood have been studied in cultural anthropology in
terms of egocentric and sociocentric ideologies. In sociocentric communities persons
are largely understood to be their social positions, the person is a summation of the
network of social roles and relations. Two misunderstandings should be cleared away
immediately. First, there are crucial differences between the various sociocentric
communities and these lead to different articulations of sociocentric understanding
and ideology. Second, sociocentric conceptions of personhood may co-occur with
well-developed awareness of one’s individuality. The Korowai and other egalitarian
communities of New Guinea for example combine an emphasis on the physical and
oratorical strength of individuals as crucial for achieving authority with a sociocentric
conception of personhood (Van Enk and de Vries 1997).
Geertz (1983:59) defines the egocentric conception of the person along these lines:
“The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated
motivational cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgement,
and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other
such wholes and against its social and natural background…” In Dutch society it
considered essential to distinguish an individual sharply from his or her position in
society. To ‘reduce’ a person to a cluster of roles and positions would go against the
fundamental value of the individual, autonomous person. People exchange personal
names as soon as possible and these, rather than positional or relational terms, are then
used to address and refer to people.
The Old Testament is a collection of writings originating in strongly sociocentric
communities where a person is primarily seen from the perspective of social roles and
relations, and of the prerogatives and obligations that go with these roles and relations.
Since kinship and descent is a crucial factor in determining a person’s social role and
position, there is constant mentioning of the lineage, family, tribe or nation in which a
person is born. Besides genealogy, place of birth, profession or occupation, political af-
filiation or other things directly relevant to a person’s social position may be mentioned.
In the little book of Ruth, participants like Boaz, Ruth and Naomi are good examples of
persons that are referred to in sociocentric terms: there is a constant mentioning of their
kinship relations, ethnic origin and the social obligations and prerogatives that go with
their social position. Take the dialogue between Naomi and Ruth when Ruth returns
from the field of Boaz (2:19-23). At that point in the story the readers know very well
that Naomi and Ruth relate to each other as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Yet
the Hebrew text refers to Naomi and Ruth in 2:19 to 2:23 five times in five verses in
terms of their affinal kinship relation, combining these kinship references with proper
name references.
250 Ernst Wendland
Let us see how three major Dutch translations of the Bible deal with the sociocentric
aspect of the text. I will concentrate on the translation of the expression: “[…]” ‘Ruth,
the Moabitess’ and of the terms “[…]” ‘daughter-in-law’ and “[…]” ‘mother-in-law’.
The three translations are the Statenvertaling (1637), the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996)
and the Nieuwe Vertaling (2004).
Let me start with the Statenvertaling (1637). I will first describe the specific reli-
gious function or skopos of that translation in Dutch Calvinistic communities in the
first half of the 17th century. The Statenvertaling is the best known and most influential
translation of the Bible into Dutch. It was commissioned by the Staten-Generaal, the
highest authority in the young Republic, and translated according to the decisions of the
Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) of the Reformed Churches. This Calvinistic Reformed
Church was the community for which the Statenvertaling was intended to function,
but the Statenvertaling was also to function in the national context as the Bible of the
young Republic. The Statenvertaling was intended to replace the Deux-Aes Bible that
had been the major Dutch Bible for Reformed people in the Low Countries since 1561.
The Deux-Aes Bible was inconsistent because its Old Testament was a Dutch adaptation
of Luther’s relatively free German translation whereas its New Testament was a much
more literal translation clearly showing the influence of the so-called Bible of Calvin.
The fact that this Deux-Aes Bible was an adaptation from a German version clashed
with the growing national consciousness and its too ‘free’ Old Testament clashed with
the Dutch Reformed spirituality that took the Word of God to be inspired by the Holy
Spirit in such a way that only a very literal translation was appropriate. According to
de Bruin and Broeyer (1993:271), Reformed notions of inspiration made the Dutch
translators perceive the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source texts as the language of the
Holy Spirit and in this inspiration theology the Spirit became so tightly connected to the
Word that the Word almost completely ‘absorbed’ the Spirit. Noticing that the Hebrew
word moreh occurs twice in Joel 2:23 the translators of the Statenvertaling remarked,
‘Dit kan den H. Geest alsoo belieft hebben, om de beteeckeninge van ‘t eerste Moreh
t’ onderscheyden van ‘t tweede.’ (‘The Holy Spirit may have wanted it this way to
distinguish the significance of the first Moreh from the second.’) The example is from
de Bruin and Broeyer (1993:271).
God is not just speaking through the Bible (divine inspiration), He speaks clearly
in his Word (perspicuitas), God’s Word contains an essentially clear proclamation of
salvation for His chosen ones, even when the Scriptures contained duystere plaatsen
(parts that were not clear). The klaarheid der waarheid, the clarity of the (scriptural)
truth, a favourite Dutch Reformed expression for the perspicuity of the Scriptures,
should be understood in the context of the importance attached in Reformed theology
to the unmediated, direct access of every believer, guided by the Holy Spirit and ap-
plying the hermeneutics of schrift met schrift vergelijken (comparing Scripture with
Scripture), to the knowledge of salvation in the Holy Scriptures, without mediation by
clergy or tradition (sola scriptura). Lay theology was essential in this context and the
translation of Scriptures should be as clear as possible to serve the community of lay
theologians.
Both the motives of the perspicuitas of the Scriptures and of the divine inspiration
determined the religious skopos of the Statenvertaling. Two translators, Baudartius
and Bogerman, explicitly formulated the link between their inspiration views and their
translation skopos when they wrote that they had wanted to remain as close as possible
to ‘de oorspronkelijke woorden Godts, die in den Hebreuschen ende Chaldeuschen
text staen..’ (‘The original words of God that are in the Hebrew and Aramaic text.’)
It is important to see both motives, of the sacred aspect of the biblical texts, of God
speaking through that Word, and of the perspicuitas, in the intended skopos of the
Statenvertaling. The translation of the Bible had to reflect both the sacred inspiration
and the perspicuitas. The inspiration notions led to a selection of certain form aspects
of the source text as the key aspect to be retained in the translation, nouns stayed nouns,
verbs verbs and Hebrew and Greek syntax were followed as much as possible.
The translators and the commisioners of the Statenvertaling were aware of the fact
that giving preference to this form aspect would do damage to conveying the meaning
and message of the Scriptures and would create tensions with the idea of the perspicui-
tas. De Brune, secretary of the Staten van Zeeland, a Calvinist with a good knowledge
of the Hebrew text remarks in 1644 that ‘de Nieuwe Over-zetters den Hebreeuwsen
text zoo gantsch nauw end’ nae hebben uytghedruckt, dat zy oock veeltijdts de ordre
end’ stellinghe der woorden hebben naeghevolght…waerdeur de zin niet zoo klaer end’
onbekommert wert uytghedruckt’ (‘the new translators have expressed the Hebrew text
so precise and close that they also often followed the order and position of the words...
because of which the sense was not expressed all that clear and fluent’; de Bruin and
Broeyer 1993: 308).
To solve this dilemma the Synod of Dordrecht decided that the translators should
combine paratext and text in such a way that both key elements in the religious function
of the text, the divine inspiration and the perspicuitas, could be done justice. When
a literal translation would lead to obscure Dutch, the translators could opt for a more
free translation but should then give the literal translation in a marginal note as in the
note to the translation with sijnen heyligen arm (with his holy arm) of Isa 52:10 which
says: ‘Hebr. den arm sijner heyligheyt. D (=Dat is) sijne Goddelicke almachtigheyt, die
hy in het verlossen sijnes volcx bewesen heeft.’ (‘Hebr(ew). The arm of his holiness.
That is his divine omnipotence which he proved in the saving of his people’ (example
quoted in de Bruin and Broeyer 1993:273). Alternatively, the translators could give
the more difficult, literal translation in the main text and give the clearer, more free
version in a marginal note. In most cases the translators used the latter option (de Bruin
and Broeyer 1993:274). It is clear that the nota marginalia were crucial to balance the
perspicuitas and the inspiration motives and that text and paratext together ensured
that this translation could perform the religious functions the Reformed leaders and
communities in the Netherlands demanded.
Now given this religious function of the text, all sociocentric aspects of the text of
Ruth were translated literally because the translators wanted to remain as close as pos-
sible to ‘de oorspronkelijke woorden Godts, die in den Hebreuschen ende Chaldeuschen
text staen..’ (‘The original words of God which are in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts’).
Since translating sociocentric expressions literally did not create major perspicuity
problems, translating literally satisfied both the inspiration and perspicuitas elements
in the skopos of this translation.
Because of the enormous impact of the Statenvertaling on Dutch society, literature
and language, a variety of Dutch came into being that is called Tale Kanaans, ‘the
language of Canaan’, a sociolect of Dutch still used in sermons, meetings and written
materials of certain Dutch denominations. In the Tale Kanaans patterns of Hebrew as
reflected in the Statenvertaling, including patterns belonging to the ethnography of
speaking such as sociocentrism, are followed in Dutch. This formed the basis for what
I call mimetic traditions of the Dutch language community. Mimetic traditions make
it possible in one language to switch from the default patterns of language use to sec-
ondary mimetic patterns that are recognized by addressees as a kind of representation
of other, foreign ethnographies of speaking. This Tale Kanaans is just one example of
the porousness of ‘cultures’ and of intercultural spaces of overlap created by contact
between communities.
The translation of the Statenvertaling of Ruth 2:19-22 is as follows. I have placed
sociocentric terms in italics:
252 Ernst Wendland
“Toen zeide haar schoonmoeder tot haar: Waar hebt gij heden opgelezen en
waar hebt gij gewrocht? Gezegend zij, die u gekend heeft. En zij verhaalde haar
schoonmoeder, bij wien zij gewrocht had, en zeide: De naam des mans, bij welken
ik heden gewrocht heb, is Boaz. 20 Toen zeide Naomi tot haar schoondochter:
Gezegend zij hij den HEERE, Die Zijn weldadigheid niet heeft nagelaten aan
de levenden en aan de doden. Voorts zeide Naomi tot haar: Die man is ons na-
bestaande; hij is een van onze lossers. 21 En Ruth, de Moabitische, zeide: Ook
omdat hij to mij gezegd heeft: Gij zult u houden bij de jongens die ik heb totdat
zij den gansen oogst dien ik heb, zullen hebben voleindigd. 22 En Naomi zeide
tot haar schoondochter Ruth: Het is goed, mijn dochter, dat gij met zijn maagden
uitgaat, opdat zij u niet tegenvallen in een ander veld.”
Since the King James is a translation of comparable type, I quote the King James
in Ruth 2:19-22:
19 “And her mother in law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to day? and where
wroughtest thou? blessed be he that did take notice of thee. And she shewed her mother
in law with who she had wrought and said, The man’s name with whom I wrought
to day is Boaz. 20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the
LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi
said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen. 21 And Ruth,
the Moabitess, said, He said unto me also. Thou shalt keep fast by my young men,
until they have ended all my harvest. 22. And Naomi said unto Ruth, her daughter in
law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee
not in any other field.”
Notice that kin terms for mother-in-law and daughter-in-law occur four times in these
four verses, just as in the Hebrew text, and that Ruth is referred to as Ruth, the Moabi-
tess in 21. In the Goed Nieuws version of 1996 these sociocentric aspects are changed
into egocentric participant references:
19
`Waar heb je vandaag aren geraapt?’ vroeg Noömi. `Bij wie heb je gewerkt? God
zal de man zegenen die naar je heeft omgekeken.’ Toen vertelde Ruth dat ze die dag
gewerkt had bij een zekere Boaz. 20 `Moge de Heer, die trouw blijft aan de levenden
en aan de doden, hem zegenen,’ zei Noömi. `Die man is nauw aan ons verwant, hij is
een van degenen die als familielid verplicht zijn voor ons te zorgen.’ 21 `Hij heeft me
ook nog gezegd dat ik bij zijn arbeiders mag blijven werken tot ze helemaal klaar zijn
met de oogst,’ zei Ruth. 22 `Het is inderdaad maar het beste, kind, dat je optrekt met de
vrouwen die bij hem in dienst zijn,’ zei Noömi. `Op het land van een ander zouden ze
je wel eens lastig kunnen vallen.’
The Common English Version (CEV) has a comparable skopos and I quote the CEV
in Ruth 2.19-22:
19 Naomi said, Where did you work today? Whose field was it? God bless the
man who treated you so well! Then Ruth told her that she had worked in the field
of a man named Boaz. 20 The LORD bless Boaz! Naomi replied. He has shown
that he is still loyal to the living and to the dead. Boaz is a close relative, one of
those who is supposed to look after us. 21 Ruth told her, Boaz even said I could
stay in the field with his workers until they had finished gathering all his grain.
22 Naomi replied, My daughter, it’s good that you can pick up grain alongside the
women who work in his field. Who knows what might happen to you in someone
else’s field!
In the whole book of Ruth the Common English Version removed 8 out of the 10
‘mothers in law’. The constant sociocentric mentioning of a person’s tribe, clan, family
relationship and so on, is highly redundant and ‘unnatural’ from the point of view of the
ethnography of speaking of Dutch and accordingly the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996) elimi-
nates the four references to the affinal kinship relation of Naomi and Ruth in 2:19-2:22
while retaining them in 2:18 and 2:23. Also, the Moabite origin of Ruth, mentioned in
the Hebrew text of verse 21, is left out. The result is a text conforming to the egocentric
ethnography of speaking of most Dutch speakers of the late 20th century.
Although the way the translators of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel carried out their inter-
cultural, mediating role, is a total reverse of that of the Statenvertaling, their translation
decisions in this regard are also based on a religious skopos. The Goed Nieuws Bijbel
is a so called common language version, a translation of the Bible meant for those
audiences that are not familiar with church languages like the Tale Kanaans, nor with
Biblical cultural practices. Common language versions are message-oriented; the com-
missioners of such translations want to bring the message of the Bible to the hearts and
minds of people. They have an external function: a tool in the hands of the churches to
reach people outside the Churches with the message of the Bible.
The Preface of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (edition 1998, p.9) explicitly formulates this
skopos: “Vooral voor hen die weinig of niet vertrouwd zijn met kerkelijke prediking en
toerusting, blijkt de boodschap van de bijbel moeilijk toegankelijk in een traditionele
vertaling. Voor de Goed Nieuws Bijbel is daarom gekozen voor een taalgebruik dat voor
elke Nederlandsssprekende volwassene begrijpelijk en aanvaardbaar is.” (“Especially
for those with little or no affinity with preaching and teaching of the Church, the mes-
sage of the Bible turns out to be difficult to grasp in a traditional translation. Therefore
for the Goed Nieuws Bijbel a form of language use has been chosen that every adult
speaker of Dutch can understand and accept.”) The translator of both Statenvertaling
and Goed Nieuws Bijbel tried to make a text that could perform specific religious func-
tions in the target community and that skopos fully determines the way they mediated
between the cultural and linguistic practices of source and target communities.
Let us now turn to a third translation, the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling, to be published
in 2004. In Ruth 2:19-22, the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has this text:
“Toen Noömi zag hoeveel ze verzameld had, en toen Ruth haar ook nog gaf wat
ze van het middagmaal had overgehouden, 19 riep ze uit: ‘Waar heb jij vandaag
aren gelezen, waar heb je gewerkt? Gezegend zij de man die jou zoveel aandacht
heeft geschonken!’ Ruth vertelde haar schoonmoeder dat de man bij wie ze die
dag gewerkt had Boaz heette. 20 Toen zei Noömi tegen haar schoondochter: ‘Moge
de H E E R hem zegenen, want deze man heeft trouw bewezen aan de levenden
en aan de doden.’ En ze vervolgde: ‘Hij is een naaste verwant van ons; hij kan
de familieverplichtingen op zich nemen.’ 21 En Ruth, de Moabitische, zei: ‘Hij
heeft ook nog tegen me gezegd dat ik bij zijn maaiers moest blijven totdat zijn
hele oogst is binnengehaald.’ 22 ‘Het is goed dat je optrekt met de vrouwen op
zijn land, mijn dochter,’ zei Noömi tegen Ruth, ‘want dan zal niemand je op een
ander veld lastig kunnen vallen.’”
In the dialogue between Naomi and Ruth (2:19-2.22) that we find in the Nieuwe Bijbel
Vertaling from the four references to mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relations
in the Hebrew two were removed. Also the qualification of Ruth as a person from
Moab, is retained in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel has
left ‘the Moabitess’ untranslated in this passage. In order to compare these versions
more realistically, we should of course not restrict ourselves to the small passage
254 Ernst Wendland
of Ruth 2:19-22. Table 1 gives the number of times the various versions of Ruth have
retained sociocentric expressions for mother/daughter-in-law in the whole book:
Statenvertaling 17
Goed Nieuws Bijbel (1996) 11
Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling 12
Table 1: Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law in Dutch Bibles
The Goed Nieuws Bijbel and the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling have practically the same
amount of deletion of mother-in-law/daughter-in-law terms, and do not differ in
this aspect of the change from sociocentric to egocentric text but with the repeated
sociocentric expression “[…]” ‘the Moabitess’ the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and the
Goed Nieuws Bijbel follow different strategies. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling retains
the sociocentric expression of the source wherever it occurs: in 1:22/2:2/2:21/4:5/4:10,
four times in appositional form (Ruth, de Moabitische) and once as ‘uit Moab’/’from
Moab’ but the Goed Nieuws Bijbel leaves hÃCyibá’OGmah twice untranslated (in
2:2 and 2:21).
We can understand the way the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling translators mediate this
aspect of the text by studying the skopos. The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling aims to be a
broad ecumenical translation for all Christian and Jewish communities in the Neth-
erlands and Flanders, in natural Dutch. Naturalness is an important purpose but this
does not make the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling a common language version like the Goed
Nieuws Bijbel; both Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and the Goed Nieuws Bijbel want to be
natural but the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling uses the whole range of lexical and stylistic
choices available in the Dutch language whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel restricts itself
to common Dutch. There is no avoidance of difficult words or long sentences as in the
Goed Nieuws Bijbel. Another important purpose of the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling is to
reflect the literary features of source texts, such as genres and styles. The Nieuwe Bijbel
Vertaling tries to produce a text that not only can function as a ecclesiastical text but
also as text for audiences that read the Bible as literature.
The two goals of naturalness and literary character explain why on the one hand a
number of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law terms has been left untranslated in the
Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling and in the Goed Nieuws Bijbel (naturalness norm) and on the
other hand the expression ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’ has been consistently retained in the
Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling (literary skopos) whereas the Goed Nieuws Bijbel removes
two references to the Moabite origin of Ruth (no literary skopos, to conform to target
redundancy norms). In a literary analysis of Ruth her Moabite origin turns out play a
significant role in the structure of the narrative (the opposition Israel-Moab is a Leitmotif
in the text) and because of the literary aspect, not because of the sociocentric aspect,
‘Ruth, the Moabitess’ has survived in the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling. The way the Nieuwe
Bijbel Vertaling translators handled sociocentric aspects of the Ruth text cannot be
said to be either ‘literal’ or ‘free’, either conforming to source linguistic and cultural
practices, or to target practices. The goals of these translators, and the hierarchy of
these goals, determined their translation choices and this leads in some cases to more
literal renderings, as with ‘Ruth, the Moabitess’, reflecting literary translation goals,
and in other cases to less literal renderings.
The skopos of Bible translations is always complex, because of the complexity of
the social and cultural and religious functions these texts have. Take the Nieuwe Bijbel
Vertaling discussed above; this version not only wants to serve Protestant, Catholic and
Jewish churches but also audiences with a literary interest in the Bible. But there are
more elements in its skopos, for example the Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling aims at an inclu-
sive translation, that is a text that includes women in contexts where generic, inclusive
readings of source texts are possible in the eyes of the translators. This element arises
from the functioning of the Bible text in communities who highly value the equality of
men and women whereas biblical source texts emerged from communities with often
patriarchical cultural and linguistic practices. Take the translation of the Greek term
for ‘(fore)fathers’ in certain contexts like Luke 1.55 where Mary says:


The Revised Standard Version translates τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν  with ‘our fathers’: “…as
he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” The inclusive Com-
mon English Version has: “The Lord made this promise to our ancestors, to Abraham
and his family forever!” The Dutch Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has: “zoals hij aan onze
voorouders heeft beloofd: hij herinnert zich zijn barmhartigheid, jegens Abraham en
zijn nageslacht, tot in eeuwigheid.”
By translating with the inclusive terms our ancestors and onze
voorouders these translations can function as religious base text in modern Christian
communities with strong sensitivities in terms of the exclusion of women. It is clear
that once again it is the function of the translation in the target culture that determines
the way these inclusivist translators mediate between the patriarchal cultural practices
reflected in biblical source texts and egalitarian practices of target communities. In-
clusivism has religious roots and I do not know of the translation of any other text of
Antiquity, say Homer or Herodotus, with an inclusivist skopos. In fact, an inclusive
translation of Homer is unthinkable because most readers of Homer want the translation
to reflect the cultural worlds from which these texts emerged.
Conclusions and discussion
For Christiane Nord (1991:28), “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).” I have tried
to apply this skopos insight to the way translators of three Dutch versions of Ruth car-
ried out their intercultural role, by investigating how they represented the sociocentric
ethnography of speaking of the Hebrew text of Ruth.
The Statenvertaling of 1637 functioned in a religious community that saw the
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source texts as verbally inspired and therefore translated
sociocentric expressions literally. Because of its authority and central role in the his-
tory of the Dutch community, this translation formed the basis for the development of
a mimetic tradition called the Tale Kanaans, a variety of Dutch that reflects biblical
Hebrew and Greek patterns. Such mimetic traditions allow translators to follow foreign
ethnographies of speaking in the target language.
The common language skopos of the Goed Nieuws Bijbel causes translation shifts
from sociocentrism to egocentrism and the texts reflects Dutch rather than Hebrew
linguistic and cultural practices related to personhood.
The Nieuwe Bijbel Vertaling has a skopos comprising both literary and natural-
ness goals and accordingly shows shifts away from sociocentric patterns (to serve
naturalness) but retains sociocentric patterns when they also play a literary role in the
narrative. Although I concentrated on sociocentric participant references, my claim is
256 Ernst Wendland
that target functions determine all aspects of intercultural mediation, for example the
inclusivist skopos of many modern Western translations determines how translators
mediate between the patriarchal cultural practices reflected in the language use of
biblical source texts and egalitarian practices of target communities.
To understand the intercultural role of translators and the intercultural aspect of
translation processes, it is of vital importance to get rid of false notions of ‘cultures’
as closed, unified, bounded and finite systems. For example, translation functions are
indeed fully part of target cultures but not as parts of closed, bounded ‘systems’. In the
area of Bible translations where theological and hermeneutical traditions of communities
crucially determine translation functions, these skopoi emerge from global traditions,
from the sacramental-ritual, celebratory perspective of the Orthodox to the message
and mission perspective of evangelical Christians. Of course, such transnational tradi-
tions have local manifestations and each language community has its own range of
Bible translations and local translation traditions in which new translations have to find
their unique functional place. In this way these religious translation functions are an
example of the interconnectedness and porousness of human communities and their
cultural practices.
Perhaps the most severe criticism against the notion that target cultures control
translation has come from the side of postcolonialist translation studies (see Richard
Jacquemond 1992). They point to colonial histories of imperial cultures like England
or the Netherlands where source cultures fully controlled translation of the Bible and
other texts into the languages of the colonies. Missionaries were sent to the colonies
to learn the languages and translate the Bible. However, even when powerful source
institutions initiate and control translation, they have to do their imperialist and hege-
monic things with the text in the target community. In other words, even in such case
of extreme power differentials the translation function or skopos is firmly positioned
on the target side.
Studies of the history of Bible translation in Indonesia confirm how the various
things Dutch institutions wanted to do with translations in Indonesian target communi-
ties determined the nature of the resulting translations (de Vries 2002). For example,
postwar missionary Bible translations meant to convert isolated minority communities
deep in Indonesian jungles who had no clue about biblical cultures tended to go very
far in adapting their texts to target ethnographies of speaking, target metaphorical
language, filling the texts with target realia from string bags to cooking pits with hot
stones, and so on in order to reach their missionary goals with the translation in the
target community. Postcolonial criticism has sometimes accused hegemonic and impe-
rial missionaries of reshaping target languages to fit source-linguistic norms (Rafael
1988/1993, Cheyfitz 1991, Niranjana 1992). The majority of missionary translations
in Indonesia shows exactly the opposite: reshaping sources to fit target norms.
It is true that Dutch Bible translators of the 17th century working in Indonesia had
inspiration views which often forced them to translate very literally, imposing source
linguistic norms on target languages, just like their own Dutch Bibles contained the
Tale Kanaans, that is Dutch with heavy lexical and syntactic interference from bibli-
cal Hebrew and Greek. The reshaping of both Malay and Dutch norms to Hebrew and
Greek norms points to the irrelevance of the political power differentials in this case.
The Dutch let their Bibles, whether in Dutch or Malay, be dominated by Hebrew and
Greek norms because of the same religious function of these texts in target communi-
ties, whether in Holland or Indonesia.
Apart from inspiration elements in the skopos that left little room for transcul-
turating translations, there is another factor that explains the nature of older Malay
Bible translations made by the Dutch: they simply did not have a missionary skopos
in the 19th and 20th century sense. When we carefully study the goals of these Malay
translations such as the Malay New Testament of Brouwer (1668), these Bibles turn
out to be Church Bibles: they were intended for multi ethnic, mixed Dutch Reformed
congregations of Dutch men with Malay wives, Moluccan Christians who had been
converted by the Portuguese and others who used Malay as lingua franca.
Criticism of the dominance of target-side factors did not only come from postco-
lonialist translation studies. Pym (1998) sees the emphasis on target cultures as “an
overreaction to the days when all causality was invested in source-side factors.” To
remedy this imbalance Pym (1998) introduces the notion of ‘intercultures’. Pym uses
the term ‘interculture’ to refer to beliefs and practices found in intersections or overlaps
of cultures, where people combine something of two or more cultures at once” and
interculturality is for Pym “not to be confused with the fact that many cultures can be
found within the one society or political unit (the term for which is ‘multiculturality’),
nor with the fact that things can move from one culture to another (which should be
referred to a ‘cross-cultural’ transfer).” Examples of intercultures given by Pym are the
translating Jews and Mozarabs from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries in the Hispanic
context, or the rabbis working on the island of Pharos to translate the Hebrew Bible
into Greek that mediated between the worlds of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek
world of Hellenized Jews. Pym’s writings are meant to undermine assumptions that
translators are part of the source culture and fidelity driven agents of that source culture
or part of the target culture and determined by systems and goals of that target com-
munity. Instead of placing translators in either source or target cultures, Pym proposes
the hypothesis that translators are part of the intercultural spaces, the overlaps between
cultures. The assumption that translators are part of the target culture and carry out
target culture agendas has indeed been the dominant assumption in most 20th century
theorizing. Pym (1998) quotes Gideon Toury (1995:172) for whom “translators are
members of a target culture, or tentatively assume that role.”
But even though we would agree with Pym that there are ‘intercultures’ and that
translators are not part of either target or source cultures but positioned in those inter-
cultural spaces, the products of those translators, their translations, are firmly located
in target communities. They are commodities in target communities where they have
to be sold to people that see a use for them. Commissioners and audiences want to do
specific things with translated texts in target environments. In the field of translations
of the Bible it is without any doubt the function of the Bible in the target communities
that dominates the translation process and no Bible translator can escape from these
various theological and hermeneutical skopoi of religious target communities if he
wants his translation to be accepted and used. But it is important to keep in mind that
these target functions are local manifestations of Bible translation functions emerging
from global religious traditions.
In the end both ‘domesticating’ and ‘foreignizing’ representations of source cultures
in translations follow from the functions of translations in target communities. For ex-
ample, Calvinistic spirituality and notions of ‘Bible’ form the basis for the skopos of the
‘foreignizing’ Statenvertaling of 1637 and the very ‘domesticating’ Goed Nieuws Bijbel
follows the agenda of communities that wanted to reach unchurched audiences with the
message of the Bible. Even translations with the explicit skopos to counter ‘domestica-
tion’ by ‘foreignizing’ translation strategies cannot escape what Venuti (2000b:469)
calls ‘domestic inscription’. In the words of Venuti (2000a:341) : “Fluency masks a
domestication of the foreign text that is appropriative and potentially imperialistic,
putting the foreign to domestic uses which, in British and American cultures, extend
258 Ernst Wendland
the global hegemony of English. It can be countered by ‘foreignizing’ translation that

registers the irreducible differences of the foreign text – yet only in domestic terms,
by deviating from the values, beliefs, and representations that currently hold sway in
the target language.” Another reason why neither ‘foreignizing’ nor ‘domesticating’
translations can escape from domestic inscription is the eternal problem of selectiv-
ity and ‘underdetermination’: source texts allow for various ways to ‘domesticate’ or
‘foreignize’ the linguistic and cultural practices of sources and it is the function of the
translation on the target side that decides which way to domesticate or foreignize. There
is no escape from domestic inscription!
References for the preceding Dutch Bible case study:

de Bruin, C.C. and F.G.M. Broeyer.1993. De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers. Haarlem:
Nederlands Bijbel Genootschap.
Cheyfitz, E. 1991. The poetics of imperialism: Translation and colonization from the tempest
toTarzan. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C. 1983. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Jacquemond, R. 1992. “Translation and cultural hegemony: the case of French-Arabic transla-
tion.” In L. Venuti (ed.), Rethinking translation. New York: Routledge.
Niranja, T. 1992. Siting translation: history, post-structuralism, and the colonial context.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nord, C. 1991. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of
a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pym, A. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Rafael, V. L. 1988/1993. Contracting colonialism: translation and Christian conversion in
Tagalog Society under early Spanish rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Venuti, L. 2000a. “1990s’.” In L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader. London: Rout-
ledge. 333-342.
Venuti, L. 2000b. “Translation, community, utopia.” In L.Venuti (ed.), The translation studies
reader. London: Routledge. 468-488.
de Vries, L.. 2002. “A survey of the history of Bible translation in Indonesia.” In H. Chambert-
Loir (ed.), Histoire de la traduction en Indonésie et Malaisie. Paris: CNRS.
11. Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its
analysis and translation
This section is intended as an additional practical exercise to allow those who wish
to further explore John’s exciting throne room vision an opportunity to view it for
themselves by extending the preceding investigation of Revelation 4 to the composite
scene’s second and climactic half in chapter 5. For this assignment, one may either
apply the methodology that was illustrated above or make use of some other set of
procedures for conducting a frame-cognizant contextual study of the biblical text. A
series of questions is presented along the way simply to stimulate the analysis and
also to suggest various issues of interest and debate that arise in connection with
an examination of this chapter in its original linguistic and extralinguistic setting.
Hopefully the process of answering these queries will serve to enrich the analyst’s
own cognitive context and hence promote a more complete understanding of this
passage with a view towards communicating it more effectively in another language
and cultural environment.
Identifying the cotext and context of Rev. 5

• What demarcates chapter 5:1-14 as an independent unit of discourse? List as
many distinctive features as possible that highlight its respective points of
beginning and ending. What is the significance of the initial expression “And
I saw…” (Καὶ εἶδον – cf. 4:1, 6:1)? What then is the structural function of
this same pair of words at the onset of vv. 2, 6, and 11?
• Now mention some of the main linguistic and literary features that link
chapters 4 and 5 into a major unit (a “scene”?) of dramatic discourse that
incorporates both chapters. Try to give a priority rating to the various factors
that you have discovered: which are more important for generating formal
cohesion and conceptual coherence? Which important formal or semantic
elements are found only in ch. 5?
• Describe the gradually intensifying progression that develops as one moves
from 4:1 to 5:14. Do you sense distinct special points of crisis, paradox, as
well as climax in this movement as you proceed through ch. 5? If so, explain
what creates or highlights these different impressions.
• Which items of new information in ch. 5 need to be further investigated as
to their contextual (extralinguistic) background in order to provide a more
adequate frame of reference for interpreting the text’s overt and covert
meaning?
• In connection with the preceding question, you will again have to unravel
the different threads of intertextuality that are manifested, whether strongly
or weakly, in ch. 5. Make a listing of the most prominent pre-texts that seem
to be operative in this passage, and summarize what their main relevance
appears to be in the current text of the Apocalypse as this vision unfolds.
• Evaluate the following pair of interpretations regarding the contextual setting
of Rev. 5; then suggest whether or not this sort of background information
260 Ernst Wendland
has any translational implications. The first selection is from Aune (1997:336,
338):
[T]he text of Rev. 5 reflects features of commission scenes with many

parallels in earlier biblical and extrabiblical literature. The argument that
Rev. 5 should be construed as the investiture of the Lamb is based on the
analysis of the text of Rev. 5 as an adaptation of Dan. 7 and Ezek. 1-2, and
by analogy with the investiture features of other visions of the heavenly
court, particularly 1 Kgs. 22 and Isa. 6. The term “investiture” is a more
appropriate designation for the narrative in Rev. 5 than “enthronement,”
since “investiture” refers to the act of establishing someone in office or
the ratification of the office that someone already holds informally. …
The author of Rev. 4-5 has taken the basic framework of Dan. 7:9-18 and
freely adapted it for a new purpose. The presentation of the “one like a son
of man” before the enthroned Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:13 results in his
investiture. John has grounded that investiture on the sacrificial death of
Christ, which now becomes the very basis for that investiture. The motif
of the sealed scroll does not occur in Dan 7 (there is only reference to the
books being opened; cf. Rev 20:12) but is imported from Ezek 2:9-10 to
serve as a symbol of investiture.
The second proposal is more cosmic in scope (Malina and Pilch 2000:71,
73, 75, 88-89):
The first object the visionary sees in the sky is a throne. In monarchic societ-
ies, the throne is the symbol of royal authority… In Revelation, the elders
are celestial personages…of exalted rank…and power…forming a core
group around the central throne. … The living creatures here, four constel-
lations in animate shape, are common to both Revelation and Ezekiel…
Constellations, of course, are constituted of stars, and in the Hellenistic
period nearly all constellations were regarded as rational, animate beings,
whether in the shape of human beings or animals. … The creatures marked
out by the constellations are full of eyes, that is, full of stars in front and
behind. … The best candidates for the four are the constellations now called
Leo (lion), Taurus (bull), Scorpio (the human face), and Pegasus (the flying
eagle)… In his vision, the seer locates a Lamb in the center of the cosmos
by the polar opening of the throne of God, at the center of the four constel-
lations on the horizon, and in the center of the twenty-four decans as well.
This Lamb is “standing as though slaughtered.” How does a slaughtered
lamb stand? This is not just any lamb, but the well-known celestial Lamb,
the constellation Aries. … Only a being with a broken neck could have its
head turned directly backwards as the celestial Aries does; and yet it remains
standing in spite of a broken neck.
• The following is a list of some key lexical-semantic expressions in Rev. 5

that entail underlying contextual issues of interest and importance. Check at
least two commentaries (including, if possible, non-standard context-oriented
Framing the text of Revelation 5 for its analysis and translation 261
works such as Keener (1993:777-779); Malina and Pilch (2000:87-91) and/or

study Bibles in order to summarize the special significance of the references
listed below, as evoked within their (co)textual setting (the translation is that
of the NIV).
o “the right hand” (v.1)

o “a scroll with writing on both sides” (1)
o “sealed with seven seals” (1)
o “a mighty angel” (2)
o “I wept and wept” (4)
o “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (5)
o “the Root of David” (5)
o “looking as if it had been slain” (6)
o “standing in the center of the throne, encircled by…” (6)
o “seven horns and seven eyes” (6)
o “the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (6)
o “a harp” (8)
o “holding golden bowls full of incense” (8)
o “sang a new song” (9)
o “with your blood you purchased men for God” (9)
o “a kingdom and priests” (10)
o “and they will reign on earth” (10)
o “the voice of many angels” (11)
o “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain” (12)
o “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea”
(13)
o “Amen!” (14)
Analyzing the source language text

We now turn to an analysis of the original Greek text, following the model outlined
in Chapters 3-7 and applied to Revelation 4 in Chapters 8-9. This question-driven
method has been broken down into a number of practical steps that seek to unfold
different facets of the textual onion, as it were – that is, to unpack the main formal
and semantic layers which constitute the discourse structure of Revelation 5. Our
aim in this exercise is to reveal certain important elements of the text’s underlying
artistry and rhetorical power which contribute an added dimension of meaning to the
message that the Lord wished to convey to his troubled Church through his prophetic
spokesman, John. Perhaps it will be possible then to reproduce or compensate for
at least some of these dynamic aspects of significance in a functionally equivalent
manner of translation that will be of special relevance to a particular target audience.
Readers are of course free to modify any of the suggested analytical techniques or to
substitute preferred procedures of their own.
EXERCISE-1
 The following is a reproduction of the unformatted Greek text of Revelation 5.

Read the text (if possible, or consult an interlinear version) and draw single slash
262 Ernst Wendland
lines where you wish to propose individual line breaks – that is, in order to render
the original text in a more readable/hearable display as “utterance units.” Next, make
an initial attempt to identify some of the more salient or significant divisions of the
discourse and indicate these with a line break (space) so as to partition the text into
larger paragraph units.
 Then compare your arrangement with that of the NIV given afterwards: Based on
your study of the SL text, what revisions to the NIV format would you like to pro-
pose, if any – or vice-versa with respect to your own initial proposal? (Give reasons
for your suggestions.)
1
Καὶ εἶδον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου βιβλίον γεγραμμένον
ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά. 2 καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον
ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Τίς ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ λῦσαι
τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ; 3 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 4 καὶ ἔκλαιον
πολὺ, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 5 καὶ
εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγει μοι, Μὴ κλαῖε, ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς
φυλῆς Ἰούδα, ἡ ῥίζα Δαυίδ, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας
αὐτοῦ. 6 Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς
ἑπτά οἵ εἰσιν τὰ [ἑπτὰ] πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεσταλμένοι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. 7
καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. 8 καὶ ὅτε
ἔλαβεν τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν
ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου ἔχοντες ἕκαστος κιθάραν καὶ φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας
θυμιαμάτων, αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων, 9 καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν
λέγοντες, Ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, ὅτι
ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης
καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους 10 καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς,
καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 11 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων πολλῶν
κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν
μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων 12 λέγοντες φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Ἄξιόν
ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ
ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν. 13 καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα
ἤκουσα λέγοντας, Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ
τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 14 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα
ζῷα ἔλεγον, Ἀμήν. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν.
NIV
The Scroll and the Lamb

Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing
1
on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in
a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in
heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.
4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or
look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the
tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its
seven seals.”
6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the
throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and
seven eyes, which are the seven spiritsi of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came
and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he
had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before
the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense,
which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song:
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”
11
Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon
thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the
living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”
13
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and
on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”
14
The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
We recall the five aspects of discourse analysis that were illustrated earlier: cat-
egorization, articulation, disjunction, recursion, and accentuation. The following
questions for consideration will explore these dimensions in somewhat greater detail
as a starting point (but only a beginning!) for a more comprehensive and thorough
investigation of this pivotal pericope in the book of Revelation:
• How would you categorize the text of Rev. 5 as a whole in terms of genre or
text-type, and what is your evidence for this conclusion – e.g., with regard
to the principal stylistic characteristics of this particular text-type? How does
your categorization of the genre in this case influence your perception and
interpretation of this passage?
• Are any sub-genres incorporated within the larger discourse of Rev. 5? If so,
which are these and what is the apparent communicative function of each in
relation to its immediate co-text?
264 Ernst Wendland
• From whose perspective is the discourse of Rev. 5 recounted, and who is

the focal personage in the text? By which stylistic means is the latter – the
central participant – foregrounded on the stage of this text (as distinct from
the scene set in ch. 4)?
• Following up on the discussion of disjunction above, how would you demar-
cate the text of Rev. 5 into smaller paragraph units? Is there another major
break (or two) in the discourse, such as we noted in 4:6b? If so, where does
this (these?) occur, and what distinguishes this particular structural boundary
from the others?
• Where do the main instances of recursion occur in Rev. 5? Make a listing of
these along with your interpretation of the specific rhetorical function that
you see operating in each case?
• Identify the double inclusio (unit with similar beginning and ending) that
appears to divide ch. 5 into two major sections: 1-7 and 8-14. Underline the
salient reiterated material. Then propose appropriate section headings for each
of these sections which indicate their relationship to each other. Then point out
how these units also relate in terms of content and function to ch. 6.
• Identify the principal literary devices that you detect in Rev. 5 and suggest
what sort of function they have in the discourse at their respective points of
occurrence.
• Mention any distinctive features of sound that you noticed when analyzing
(and when uttering aloud) the Greek text of Rev. 5. Are these instances of
pure artistic embellishment, or do they serve an additional communicative
purpose in the text? What could you use to duplicate this phonic effect in
your language (YL)?
• Review all of the different artistic and rhetorical forms that you discovered
during the preceding study of Rev. 5, and suggest how you will handle these
when translating into your language. Which ones have relatively close func-
tional “matches” in YL, and which others do not? How will you handle the
latter group (give 3 specific examples)?
• Do you notice anything unusual about the word order of v. 1 (the default
sequence for verbal predications in Greek is V—S—O)? What does the
particular syntactic constituent arrangement of call attention to (plus the
added attribution)? Do word order variations work the same in YL, e.g.,
placing the locative phrase before the object phrase? If not, how would you
foreground “the scroll”? How is the verbal spotlight kept on this scroll in vv.
2-5? What/whom does this same ordering device serve to introduce and to
highlight in v. 6? What discourse function is performed by the front-shifting of
the lengthy object phrase (bounded by the repeated lexical stem “all” – πάν)
in v. 13? How could you duplicate this effect in YL?
• Is the chapter’s central thematic contrast between the “Lion” and the “Lamb”
(vv. 5-6) apparent in your vernacular text? How then can you bring out the
irony of the fact that these are references to the same personage?
• What about the significance of the Lamb’s enigmatic depiction as having
been “slain”? Point out any problems of comprehension that are likely to
occur for the average text consumers (readers / hearers) of YL, and suggest
how these might be resolved in the most appropriate way. Would some sort
of illustration or drawing help? Explain how – or why not.
• Where do you think that the climax of ch. 5 occurs – at vv. 9-10, 12, 13, or
at some other point? Give reasons for your choice. How would you “mark,”
or stylistically spotlight, this emotive climax in YL? Do you have any formal
markers available for such a purpose?
• How can you best represent the poetic style of vv. 9-10, 12, and 13 in YL?
Mention some specific stylistic devices that are featured in the poetry of YL.
What communicative functions does poetry perform in your oral, literary,
musical, and dramatic tradition of verbal art forms?
• In your cultural setting, what would it mean when people “fall to the ground”
(prostrate themselves) before a single individual (vv. 8, 14)? Is there a basic
equivalence involved with this culturally symbolic action or does it have a
different significance and connotation? In the latter event, what would be the
closest cultural equivalent – and could that be used in your Bible transla-
tion? If not, explain what you would do to communicate the intention of the
original.
• Note the OT intertextual background for the “new song” mentioned in v.
9a. Mention some of the salient passages in this regard. How can you best
convey the resonant sense of this concept in YL?
• What is the symbolic meaning of the number “ten thousand times ten thou-
sand” (v. 11)? What would be the closest corresponding expression in YL?
• Quite a diversity of speech acts are manifested in ch. 5 (many more than in
ch. 4). Identify the different types that you find and tell how they are distin-
guished from each other. Point out any instance of a SA that would cause
listerners some difficulty if rendered literally. Explain the problem involved
and suggest how it might be resolved when translating into YL.
• Point out five additional translation problems that arise from the perspective
of YL in Rev. 5 and propose how you would deal with them in translation.
Do these difficulties arise due to linguistic differences, a cultural (conceptual)
clash, or both – for example: “a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed
with seven seals” (v. 1)?
• Having carefully studied this chapter as a whole, what would you propose as
an appropriate overall section heading? What is the problem with suggestions
like “The sealed scroll” or “The Lamb appears in heaven” (UBS Translator’s
Handbook on Revelation)?
• Finally, skim through the content of the entire book of Revelation and then
suggest why chs. 4-5 should be regarded as a pivotal unit of discourse within
the apocalypse as a whole. On the other hand, you may disagree with this
assessment. If so, give reasons, along with a counter-proposal.
Providing an appropriate and relevant paratext

The possibility of using various paratextual tools as a means of creating a fuller,
more appropriate (suitable for as well as accepted by the audience intended) and
relevant (readily understood, conceptually salient) contextual frame of reference
for interpreting the biblical text was discussed in Chapters 9 and 10. We now wish
to apply this strategy by way of example with respect to Rev. 5 and your specific
translation setting:
266 Ernst Wendland
• Mention several of the items referred to in this chapter that could be visu-
ally explained to your primary target group by means of an illustration. If
you had space for only one illustration, what would you reserve it for—the
“scroll” (v.1), a typical “horn” (6), a “harp” (8), an “incense burner” (8), or
something else? Defend your choice. (Any artists in the group may try their
hand—and use this as a visual exercise for exploring the difficulties involved
in preparing suitable, culturally-relevant illustrations for the Scriptures
– whether a historical setting is involved or, as in this case, an apocalyptic,
heavenly one.)
• Evaluate the illustration of a scroll in Figure 18: How helpful would this
be to your primary target audience? Point out any possible difficulties. Do
you have any suggestions for making this illustration more meaningful to
readers?
Figure 18: a scroll with seven seals

Figure 18: A scroll with seven seals

Figure 19 is a montage aimed at depicting the central thematic aspects of
Rev. 5:1-7. Re-read this passage and evaluate the illustration. Then tell what
meanings the picture would most likely convey to the people of your cultural
and religious setting. In case of any potential problems suggest some possible
solutions.
Figure 19: the Lamb of Rev. 5

Figure 19: The Lamb of Rev. 5

Used by permission: International Illustrations © SIL International 2001.

From the website Christian symbols and their meanings (3rd ed.) by Doug Gray at http://www.
christiansymbols.net/; used by permission.
• Would you use a glossary entry or a study note to describe or explain the
items mentioned above that you cannot illustrate? Tell why in each case.
• Compose a sample study note to clarify the relationship of the “seven seals”
to the “scroll” mentioned in v. 1. Do this in YL and give a back-translation
into English. Compose similar notes for two other references in this chapter
that would require such background information in order to correctly un-
derstand the biblical text – or to prevent a misunderstanding of the passage
concerned.
With regard to this issue, evaluate the following interpretation (Malina and
Pilch 2000:88) in comparison with the commentaries or study notes that you
have at hand:
A sealed scroll written on the inside and the outside is no first-century

anomaly. One would write the contents of the inside of a sealed scroll on
the outside as sort of a summary of the contents of the scroll so one would
know what the scroll is about without breaking the seals. However, for
an authoritative and socially valid reading of the scroll’s contents, for the
contents to take effect, the seals must be broken and the actual contents
read. This required a being of the status of the cosmic Lamb to open the
scroll and thus to set the events under way.
Which “events” are being referred to here, and where does this great opening
(and “revelation”!) occur in the book?
• Compose an appropriate summary-introduction paragraph (no more than

100 words) that could be used at the head of this chapter in your translated
version, just below the sectional heading.
• There are several places in ch. 5 where a text-critical note might be needed
in a scholarly translation. Perhaps the most important of these occurs in v.
9: should the pronoun “us” (ἡμᾶς) be inserted as an object of the verb “pur-
chased” (ἠγόρασας) before (or after) “for God” (τῷ θεῷ) in the text? Which
reading best accounts for the origin of the others (cf. Metzger 1994:666;
Omanson 2006:531)? Would you require a note like this in your translation?
Tell why or why not.
• Again, with regard to the central “scroll” (5:1), consider the following text
critical issue (from Omanson 2006:530) – a crucial placement of a mere
comma! – and come up with your own decision on the matter, in the light of
available commentaries (e.g., Beale 1999:342-348):
If a break is made after ἔσωθεν (inside) and not after ὄπισθεν (on the
back), the sense is “a scroll written on the inside, and sealed on the back
with seven seals” (NRSV footnote). But if a break is made after ὄπισθεν
and not after ἔσωθεν, then the sense is “a scroll written on the inside and
on the back, sealed with seven seals” (NRSV).
• Due to the great amount of intertextuality that permeates the text of Revela-
tion, many cross references are needed to provide the OT setting that informs
268 Ernst Wendland
or is transformed by John’s vision. Where is the best place to locate such cross
references in your translation – as separate footnotes, all gathered together
in a special section on the page, or in some other position? List the 5 most
important (relevant) OT references that you can find for 4:1-6. How do you
determine “importance” (or “relevance”) in such cases – what are the criteria
that you use?
• Is there some other type of paratextual tool that you know of which could
be useful in creating a TL audience-oriented situational setting for Rev. 5?
If so, describe this device and illustrate how it might be applied here in your
vernacular translation.
Specifying, composing, and assessing the translation
All the preparatory stages of an analysis of the text and setting of a Bible pericope come
to fruition now as such essential background knowledge is applied in a translation into
some modern language and cultural setting. The following questions suggest one way
of carrying this out with reference to a translation project in your language (YL):
• Formulate a suitable job commission (Brief) for the particular project (and
type of version) that you have in mind (cf. ch. 4). This may be carried out
to the degree of detail that you wish, but its primary communicative goal
(Skopos) should be very clearly stated in terms of the primary target audience
that you specify.
• Review the various problematic exegetical and translational issues that arose
from your study of the biblical text and its posited contextual setting (6:1-2).
Do any of these matters require further research before you can begin your
translation work? If so, explain what needs to be done and how you propose
doing it.
• In preparation for your own translation of Rev. 5:1-6, comparatively examine
the two English versions given below (the NRSV and the GNT) and make
a note of all the major differences between them (perhaps this can be done
simply by underlining the corresponding expressions within the two texts).
Evaluate these variations from an exegetical and a stylistic perspective in
keeping with the job description that you have specified above for YL. Select
which of these renderings would work better as a model for your transla-
tion – and point out the places where neither one is satisfactory, and hence
a rewording is necessary in YL.
• In the final Exercise of chapter 4 (#11) a version called the “essentially literal
translation” was considered. This is being promoted as follows (Collins
2005:105-106; added italics):

A helpful tool for translators in this regard is Ott 2005; many more relevant issues are considered
in this resource.
NRSV GNT
The Scroll and the Lamb The Scroll and the Lamb
1
Then I saw in the right hand of the one seated 1
I saw a scroll in the right hand of the one who
on the throne a scroll written on the inside and sits on the throne; it was covered with writing
on the back, sealed with seven seals; 2 and I on both sides and was sealed with seven seals.
saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud 2
And I saw a mighty angel, who announced
voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the
break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on seals and open the scroll?” 3 But there was no
earth or under the earth was able to open the one in heaven or on earth or in the world be-
scroll or to look into it. 4 And I began to weep low who could open the scroll and look inside
bitterly because no one was found worthy to it. 4 I cried bitterly because no one could be
open the scroll or to look into it. 5 Then one of found who was worthy to open the scroll or
the elders said to me, “Do not weep. See, the look inside it. 5 Then one of the elders said to
Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, me, “Don’t cry. Look! The Lion from Judah’s
has conquered, so that he can open the scroll tribe, the great descendant of David, has won
and its seven seals.” the victory, and he can break the seven seals
and open the scroll.”
6
Then I saw between the throne and the four 6
Then I saw a Lamb standing in the centre
living creatures and among the elders a Lamb of the throne, surrounded by the four living
standing as if it had been slaughtered, having creatures and the elders. The Lamb appeared to
seven horns and seven eyes, which are the sev- have been killed. It had seven horns and seven
en spirits of God sent out into all the earth. eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that
have been sent throughout the whole earth.
…the kind of translation that best suits the requirements for an ecclesiasti-
cal translation, and for family reading and study. This is because it allows
the reader to listen in on the original act of communication, but refrains
from ‘clarifying’ based on what we think we know of the shared world and
the illocutionary force; it also aims to provide a translation that preserves
the full exegetical potential of the original, especially as it conveys such
things as text genre, style, and register, along with figurative language,
interpretive ambiguities, and important repetitions. Of course this lays a
heavier burden on the reader to learn about the shared world and its liter-
ary conventions… What does the reader want, and what can the translator
provide? An opportunity to listen in on the original foreign language com-
munication, without prejudging what to do with that communication.
o First of all, evaluate the preceding claim in view of what you have learned and
discussed thus far about contextual frames of reference in relation to Bible trans-
lation (note the italicized parts in particular). Is it a realistic goal, for example,
to aim to prepare a version that can serve both as “an ecclesiastical translation”
and also one that is suitable “for family reading and study”? Or in which testable
respects can translators “preserve the full exegetical potential of the original”?
Explain your position on such issues.
o Consider the following translation of Rev. 5:6 as it reads in the English Standard
Version (ESV), which claims to be an “essentially literal translation”:
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I
270 Ernst Wendland
saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with
seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
How intelligible is this text, even for mother-tongue speakers of English? What
sort of a “burden” is being placed upon the readers (let alone hearers) of such a
version? Discuss this passage (or if possible all of Revelation 5 in the ESV) as
a group and come up with a joint assessment of this translation for a particular
target group (which may encompass non-mother tongue speakers of English).
o Now read the preceding verse (Rev. 5:6) again as rendered by the ESV from
the perspective of a second (or third) language speaker of English: How easily
would such persons be able to answer these questions, and how correct do you
think that their initial answers would be?
Where was the text’s speaker (“I”) when he “saw” the scene recorded?
Does the translation suggest perhaps that he was in the near vicinity of “the
throne and the four living creatures”?
How could the Lamb be “standing, as though he had been slain”? Was he stand-
ing up or lying down (as if slain)? Explain.
Does the text sound as if the Lamb had been slain “with [= by] seven horns”?
If the answer to the preceding question is “yes,” then how do the “seven eyes”
fit into this overall scenario?
Verse 7 continues in the ESV: “And he went and took the scroll…” The question
is: To whom does “he” refer in this context of v. 6 and how do you know this?
Compare the ESV translation with that of the GNT given above: Which version do
you prefer and why? (Give specific reasons for your opinion.)
o An “essentially literal translation” presents some serious communication prob-
lems in many other languages as well. The following, for example, is an English
back-translation of Rev. 5:5-6 in the recent (2002) Chewa rendition being touted
as a “today’s language version” (cf. Exercise 11 of ch. 4):
Now one of those elders said to me, “Don’t cry! Look (at), the Lion of clan of
Judah, a Root of David, he has overcome. He can open a book with its seven
markers (signals).” Later I saw a Lamb looking like it was killed standing in
the middle of the royal throne who/which was surrounded by those four living
creatures and those elders. …
Pick out some of the potential problem points in this translation (at least as it
reads in English).
Any listener of this version would experience much greater difficulties, for ex-
ample: Why should the addressee (“me”) not “cry” out for fear if he is “looking
at a lion” – as an oral presentation would imply?
On the other hand, at least one potential difficulty is avoided – namely, the
reference to a “lamb that was killed.” Indeed, no lamb would last very long
in the land of the living with a lion on the scene. But the amazing thing is that
apparently this frail creature is still left there, “standing”!
o “In the 1994 principles of translation…Wycliffe Bible Translators requires of a

translator that the ‘otherness’ of ‘historical facts must be told without change’
(1998 and 1999 versions: ‘…expressed without distortion’); but that: ‘…in
seeking to represent the original situation and background culture accurately,
translators [must] keep in mind the very different situation and background
culture of the new audience, and seek to translate in a way that will help the new
audience to understand the original situation’ (italics added; the 1998 and 1999
versions express it as: ‘…may understand the message that the original author
was seeking to communicate to the original audience.’) We can describe this as

giving access to ‘otherness’.” (Evans and Krajewska 2006:144)
Do you regard the throne room vision of Rev. 4-5 to be an instance of “historical
facts”? Does a prophetic vision actually express a different sort of “otherness”
from a historical record? Explain your answers.
Which of the two wordings of WBT “translation principles” given above do you
prefer and why?
What is your main consideration when you attempt to render a passage like Rev.
5:5-6 in YL? Formulate your chief guiding principle in this endeavor – that is,
in the light of your language, sociocultural setting, primary target audience, and
communication goal(s).
• Finally prepare a translation of Rev. 5:1-6 in YL according to your project’s

specific Brief and Skopos statements. Give a literal back-translation into
English so that your version can be compared with others in the class/work-
shop. Make a brief listing of any special features of your translation that you
would like to call attention to, especially those that are needed to fulfill the
particular goal(s) of this rendition.
• Outline a proposal for thoroughly testing your translation among the pri-
mary target group that was specified in your project’s job commission (cf.
ch. 10). Be as specific as you can with regard to how you plan to carry out
this process of assessment in order to obtain the most relevant and reliable
feedback possible. How then will this feedback be handled then in terms of
applying it to an immediate or future revision of the translation? What sort
of a review and evaluation process would work out best in your project’s
present organizational setting?
12. Creating a contextualized framework for
teaching and learning
In this final lesson, I wish to give some further thought to the practice of teaching
and learning together, a task that has already engaged us throughout this coursebook.
Education is always a mutually effected, cooperative activity, for every teacher is,
or should be, learning from the group that she or he happens to be instructing. On
the other hand, serious, hard-working students always have something to teach their
instructor and should be respected for this capability.
The responsibility for creating a favorable atmosphere, or intellectual environment,
for learning of course rests first of all with the teacher as “team leader,” but all class
participants have a crucial role to play as well. If they are not prepared to contribute
their best to what must be a joint enterprise, they will not be able to fully achieve
their goals for the course, and the overall result will always be less than satisfactory.
We would expect Bible translators and their trainers to be highly motivated people
at the outset on account of the sacred object of their efforts, the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, they ought to be willing to put forth extra effort to assist one another during
any period of instruction, whether this is some formal course or a more informal time
of learning on the job, as it were, when translating a certain biblical text. They do
not compete on the job as individual translators; rather, they cooperate together as a
communal-support team.
In the following discussion, I will first consider the need for teachers to periodi-
cally assess their pedagogical style: Is there anything that they might do to improve or
enhance their teaching technique? During this process of self-evaluation, instructors
should feel free to call on their students to help them make this assessment by offering
constructive criticism aimed at benefiting their joint working relationship. After this
brief, but hopefully to-be-continued consideration of pedagogy, we will also explore
some different ways of creating a wider context of cooperation with colleagues who
are engaged in different aspects of Bible translation around the world. How can we
establish more of a global “context” for our task? Is it possible to create a more ef-
fective “network” for informing, advising, critiquing, and encouraging one another in
what is essentially a shared project of transforming the same text into a multitude of
different settings – namely, the Word of God into a host of diverse human languages,
cultures, and social situations across the globe?
Towards a more setting-sensitive pedagogy

The seven guidelines below (adapted from Wendland 2006a) are simply starting points
for what will hopefully develop into a more extended discussion of this crucial topic
on the part of all translation trainers and trainees concerned. The various electronic
tools available nowadays make it possible for widely separated persons to actually
“dialogue” rather freely regarding issues of mutual interest and concern. The focus
here is on Bible translating in Africa, but the various factors that have been noted
might be comparatively considered without much difficulty in relation to other areas
of the world:
Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning 273
Interactive
Teaching and learning is facilitated when the course instructor and students are able
to interact frequently with each other as a class is being taught. This is made possible
by a question-and-answer driven, dialogic style that encourages students to respond
either with answers, their own questions, or additional information that is of relevance
and benefit to the group. Most people have become used to the formal lecture type
of instruction from their school education, church indoctrination and sermons, and
political speeches, but the interpersonal, participatory method is more natural and
often much appreciated once students get used to it.
As anyone who has tried this approach knows, however, this is a much more
difficult mode of instruction to practice and perfect, because its outworking and
outcome are not so planable or predictable. But an interactive procedure can be very
beneficial in that it helps the teacher to tailor or adapt course content on the spot to
better serve special student needs, whether the topic happens to be establishing an
efficient orthography in the target language or analyzing the various source language
genres of discourse. Furthermore, instruction is then carried out more fully from the
perspective of the students – that is, where they “are at” in terms of their current
knowledge, perception, values, and personal opinions relating to Bible translation as
they have experienced it.
Inductive
Closely related to an interactive style of teaching is the inductive method, which

places great emphasis upon students discovering for themselves basic exegetical or
translation guidelines and analysis procedures by actually working through a number
of illustrative biblical texts and local cultural case-studies. They are thus trained to
move from an engagement with a variety of Bible passages and situation-specific
(“contextualized”) instances to arrive at workable conclusions or to identify and
describe the underlying principles of interpretation and application, which are then
further elaborated upon by means of additional pertinent, work-related examples.
The inductive method also favors a more holistic, experiential, intuitive approach
that moves from larger, complete texts to the various constituents that comprise them.
Students thus learn detailed points of SL analysis and TL synthesis (composition) – for
example, how to handle the complex genitive “of” construction – within the frame-
work of meaningful text units, always proceeding, where possible, from the known
to the unknown. This enables them to immediately apply what they have learned both
to the Scripture passage at hand as well as to some aspect of the overall translation
process. Some instructors may prefer to begin with a more deductive introduction that
briefly outlines a particular principle, problem, or procedure, but this proceeds quickly
then into concrete examples which students must analyze, classify, and evaluate for
themselves. Student assessments, too, are better made on the basis of meaningful,
goal-oriented exercises that interrelate a number of analytical or compositional skills,
rather than by means of standardized exams that measure only one’s ability to recall
and restate certain informational facts.
274 Ernst Wendland
Indigenized
The inductive method just mentioned is made more effective when it is localized
(e.g., “Africanized”) through the use of indigenous proverbs, riddles, stories, myths,
ancient and modern songs, well-known royal or funeral poetry, and other genres (in-
cluding the daily news) in order to illustrate or to practice translation principles and
procedures. Students are able to grasp points of instruction much more quickly if the
salient issues can be related in some way to their own sociocultural setting, oral or
written tradition, and the contemporary communication situation. In this facet of the
learning process, the students often become teachers as they educate their instruc-
tors (especially expatriates!) concerning the broad range of intellectual and artistic
resources that are available in their language-culture and advise them with regard to
the delicate nuances and intricate details that are necessary for proper usage.
If suitable local-language materials are not immediately available for class use, then
this need itself can be made the special focus of research for an entire workshop early
on in the training schedule. Such indigenized, contextualized instruction is especially
helpful when functional “matches” are being sought to represent either problematic SL
concepts or the artistic and rhetorical features of the major biblical literary forms, e.g.,
the great narratives of Genesis, the law codes and ritual instructions of Leviticus, the
wisdom poetry of Proverbs, the liturgical prayer-songs of Psalms, the divine prophe-
cies of Isaiah, the gospel account of Luke, the church history of Acts, the epistles of
Paul, and John’s Apocalypse.
An indigenous manner of instruction also favors apprenticeship training whereby
a student or disciple attaches him/herself to an expert or authority in the field who
then educates the person on-the-job, so to speak, over a more extended period. This
distinctly inductive teaching method can be made a part of contextualized translator
training workshops (and if possible, also afterwards) by inviting recognized African
authorities in the biblical languages or in the local vernaculars to introduce student-
translators to their own professional procedures of text analysis and/or expression
(in case of the TL). The relationships established during these formal sessions could
easily be extended on an informal basis after the workshop. Translators would thus
continue to learn from local communication experts and culture specialists, using them
as valuable resource persons whenever they confront difficulties in relating the biblical
text to their ancient world-view as well as their contemporary social setting.
Communal
In Africa and other places where the concept of community is strong, team-based,
collective learning is best, that is, when students are encouraged to work together
as a cohesive, collaborative group that ideally approximates their experience in a
normal translation project environment. This enables the team to identify and utilize
the differing gifts of the individuals that comprise it – for example, one person acting
as the source text “exegete” and technical resource person; another, the target text
specialist, as an initial composer (“translator”) or stylist; and yet another as the com-
puter text processor and/or translation draft tester. The individual members thus learn
to appreciate and complement each other while they jointly focus their intellectual
energy on carrying out the various aspects of the complete translation process more
effectively. In a workshop setting, the promotion of communal working procedures
also stimulates inter-group interaction, where one team simultaneously learns from
and instructs another.
This “community” of colleagues in Scripture communication naturally includes
the course instructor(s), who must always view themselves as being “learners” too.
What can they discover from their students, whether directly or indirectly, with regard
to the biblical subject at hand, as viewed from the perspective of the TL culture, or
the theory and practice of Bible translation itself (students always bring up certain
exegetical and related matters that their teachers never thought of!)? What can they
learn about how to teach effectively in the cultural setting and social situation that
they are all-together working in? A teacher who is not willing (or who does not see the
need) to be taught in turn by students is probably engaged in the wrong profession.
Developmental
By this I mean the development of cooperative, mutually respectful personal attitudes

in the communal setting of project performance. The manifestation of any individu-
alism, egotism, elitism, bias, or partiality (e.g., on the part of, or with respect to the
resident Hebrew or Greek “expert,” or someone with a university graduate degree)
within the framework of a team endeavor like this usually portends disaster, or at best
delays during all stages of the translation process. Individual weaknesses among team
members need to be dealt with as an essential part of their training experience, but
this must be done in a constructive, non-confrontational, culturally appropriate man-
ner (especially where “elders” are concerned, or minorities, e.g., women). Similarly,
displays of excellence and hard work ought to be encouraged, but sometimes this is
better communicated privately to avoid generating jealousy or suspicions, which may
lead to accusations of “favoritism.”
One of the most difficult attitudes and interpersonal skills to develop is that of
taking – and giving – productive (as distinct from disparaging) criticism. But it has to
be learned, practiced, and perfected. Closely related to this are attributes such as anger
management, exercising patience with slower colleagues, endeavoring to bring out
the best in each member of the team, and the practice of peace-making and problem-
solving. It may be that the public expression of criticism is felt to be inappropriate
behavior in the society concerned, but unless this can be somehow incorporated as
part of a team’s working procedures, they will undoubtedly fail to accomplish their
common objectives, to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it will be necessary at first
to find a more confidential, informal, or indirect (maybe metaphorical!) way of doing
this. In any case, honest performance evaluation and suggestions for improvement
must include all the course instructors, technical advisers, and translation officers too,
especially if they are new and unfamiliar with the culture in which they are serving.
Such mutual assessments need to be carried on, annually at least, as part of an ongoing
training program that goes beyond the scope of formal courses of instruction.
276 Ernst Wendland
Comparative
If the translation or training course cannot be taught in a local or regional African lan-
guage (which would be the ideal, where possible), then the instruction process should
be continually illustrated by examples from languages (cultures) related to those of the
projects represented. Perhaps it is possible to incorporate or adapt training materials
that have been prepared for use in a national language of wider communication, for
example, Swahili materials prepared in Tanzania but used also in Kenya or Uganda,
where this major lingua franca is widely spoken. In any case, it is helpful to adopt a
comparative-contrastive approach that regularly seeks to identify the main parallels as
well as disparities between the SL (Hebrew or Greek) and the various TLs involved.
This needs to be carried out, even on a very elementary level, with respect to linguistic
forms and structures as well as literary (oral) genres and associated stylistic (artistic
and rhetorical) characteristics.
I have found that it helps to teach close text analysis (exegetical) skills, which
do not often come easy, by referring students back through text comparison to their
respective mother tongues and the familiar expressive features and artistic devices to
be found there. The goal is to seek to capitalize on the similarities and to compensate
for the differences between the two (or more) languages and versions that are being
contrasted. For example, the highly differentiated past tense scheme of most Bantu
languages must be related to the relatively unmarked aspectual system of Hebrew
(“perfect,” suffix tense). On the other hand, many Bantu languages feature a “narrative
tense” very much like the Hebrew waw-consecutive (wayyiktol) construction that is
used to recount an extended sequence of past events.
Applied
The slogan “each-one-teach-one” may be usefully applied as part of any African

translator training program. Through this means translators consolidate what they have
learned and grow in knowledge and confidence by preparing for and actually teaching
others on various levels or in different settings. This procedure may be introduced at
any point during a workshop, for example, when every team is assigned an exegeti-
cal, practical, or technical topic as a special exercise (e.g., to make a detailed text
study of a given chapter of Scripture, to point out the potential translation problems
in that same chapter, or to prepare a Paratext-tools check-analysis of the passage).
They must first investigate or research their subject and then report their findings back
to the entire class. Teams can also participate in a mock “open forum” where they
present before the group a summary of and rationale for a particular type, or style, of
translation (e.g., liturgical version, popular language edition, study Bible, children’s
adaptation) and then overview the methodology that they have adopted for accom-
plishing the project’s principal goals. Such an activity would well prepare a team’s
members for actually going out and making such informational, or indeed, persua-
sive presentations to review committees, supporting churches, influential seminaries
and theological schools in the area, or to the governing administrative-management
agency for the translation.
One of the weakest links that I have noted in different projects over the years is
that essential person-to-person connection between translators and the primary target
group, its laity as well as clergy, for whom a translation is being prepared. In most
cases, much more community involvement is needed, and one way to arouse this
is through various educative and public relations initiatives. It cannot be assumed,
however, that the members of a translation team can automatically go out and pro-
mote such interaction. They must first be trained as communicators so that they can
“sell” their project to their constituency and thus gain increased local understanding,
support, and participation.
EXERCISE-1
 Consider the preceding seven suggestions in relation to the specific circumstances

of your own translation project and cultural setting – whether you are an instructor or
a student. Which proposals are most applicable to your setting in the sense that they
might possibly/would probably improve the quality of the training process?
 What modifications or additions would you like to make to this set of guidelines
to make them more appropriate for your own local situation – in effect, contextual-
izing the manner of teaching in order to render it more effective and relevant to the
training of Bible translators?
 Evaluate the following quotation in relation to your particular teaching-learning

setting (it comes from an article on literacy training, but the observations made are
of general relevance):
If cross-cultural trainers do not consider what their trainees believe to be effective

learning strategies, an unconscious conflict between the trainer and trainee may well
arise. … It is essential for us to know how people think and how they learn when we
teach them to read. Whatever method is designed, it must make sense, and it is vital
that it is culturally logical to the people with whom the designer tries to communicate
and to teach. … It will be helpful for the literacy worker to know the similarities and
differences between their own learning styles and those of another [culture] in order
to design a method. (Nagai 1994:40, 46)
 Donald Kiraly proposes the encouragement of a translator’s “self-concept” coupled

with a “social constructivist” approach to translator training. This methodology would
involve the following components (as summarized in Kelly 2005:15):
• Teaching should emphasize the acquisition of interlingual, intercultural, and

intertextual associations.
• … Based on error analysis, teachers can provide guided practice to improve
the acquisition of intuitive skills and then teach conscious strategies as meth-
ods for problem resolution and the production of translation alternatives.
• A major objective should be the fostering of a translator self-concept and a
functioning translation monitor.
• As students advance, skills are less likely to be acquired by repeated practice;
less likely to develop naturally without specific training and pedagogical
278 Ernst Wendland
intervention, and more likely to involve translation quality at levels beyond

that of mere semantic and syntactic correctness. …
• “[L]earning is best accomplished through meaningful interaction with peers as
well as full-fledged members of the community to which learners are seeking
entry. […] Rather than attempting to build up students’ translation-related
skills and knowledge atomistically in simulated exercises prior to translation
practice, it would be much more constructive to start each pedagogical event
with a highly realistic, and if possible genuine, translation project.” (Kiraly,
2000:60, cited in Kelly 2005:18)
 What do you think of these proposals? How do they relate to the seven training
principles outlined above? Can you apply (or, if a student, recommend) anything
mentioned here with respect to your own Bible translation training programme? If
so, mention the relevant points with reasons for this selection.
In a recent electronic forum publication (2007), Dr. Richard Starcher offers the follow-
ing thoughts on planning more effective courses of instruction. Consider these in the
light of your own teaching or learning experience in the field of Bible translation.
Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, noted American experts on assessment and instruc-
tional design… propose [the following] approach. It involves a three-step process called
“backward” design: 1) identify desired results, 2) determine acceptable evidence, and
3) plan learning experiences. It is backward “from the perspective of much of habit
and tradition in our field. A major change from common practice occurs as designers
must begin to think about assessment before deciding what and how they will teach”
(Wiggins and McTighe 2005:19). …
[When] “identifying desired results,” instructors ask themselves, “What should students
know, understand, do and value at the end of the instructional unit” (be it a lesson,
a course or an entire program of study)? Following Dick, Carey and Carey (2001), I
prefer thinking in terms of four domains (instead of the classic three mentioned above),
namely: 1) verbal information (i.e., recitation of facts), 2) intellectual skills (e.g.,
forming concepts, applying rules and solving problems), 3) psychomotor skills (gener-
ally coordinated mental and physical activity), and 4) attitudes (e.g., right choices or
decisions). Of course, not every lesson will seek to achieve all four types of objectives,
but it is worthwhile to consider the importance of all four in the planning process. …

Even at this stage of the instructional design process it is imperative to “think
like an assessor” (Wiggins and McTighe 1998:12) because educational objec-
tives must be measurable to be operational. However, let me quickly add that
I’m not using the term “measurable” here in a strictly quantitative sense. Rath-
er, I mean the instructor must have some way of knowing whether or not the
objective has been achieved. For example, one educational objective in a course
on homiletics might be, “Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize stories to
illustrate a biblical or theological truth.” This is only a valid course objective if
the instructor conceivably can know whether or not students have achieved it. …

When setting educational objectives and planning assessment activities it is help-
ful to establish curricular priorities. If we stop to think about it, we quickly realize
not everything we present in class is of equal importance. Wiggins and McTighe

(2005:71) frame this distinction in terms of: 1) that which is “worth being familiar
with,” 2) that which is “important to know and do,” and 3) “big ideas and core tasks.”
 If you are a Bible translator or translation student, are there any points in the
preceding quotes that stand out for you – that you would like your instructors to
implement? Try to be as specific as you can in your response and share your thoughts
with your instructor or translation trainer.
 If you are a translation teacher or trainer, what do you think of the notion of
“backward design” when developing a course of instruction? If possible, give an
example of how you have already implemented such a procedure or principle of
teaching/learning.
 Give examples of how you (as a teacher) make student assessments with regard
to the four “domain” areas listed above. Give a specific example of a “measurable”
objective that you have used (or that you would now plan to use) when teaching the
principles and/or practice of Bible translation.
 With reference to the work of Bible translation, how would you distinguish between
what is “important to know and do” and the “big ideas and core tasks”? Can you give
any examples to illustrate this distinction? Then discuss these notions in relation to
the particular project that you are currently engaged in (or recently participated in
– or plan on implementing in the near future).
The power of dialogue-based, student-centered education

One of the prominent general teaching-learning methods that underlies or is integrally
involved with each of the points listed in the preceding section is dialogue. This
technique is features in the subtitle of Jane Vella’s (2002) helpful book entitled, “the
power of dialogue in educating adults.” In this text the author proposes an alternative
to what she describes as Newton’s hierarchical and mechanistic view of the world,
which conceives of the universe as a vast cosmic machine of greater and lesser parts
that operate on the basis of the principle of cause-and effect. She goes on to allege
that this philosophy has dominated the classical Western approach to education in the
past, with its preference for deductive reasoning, analysis (separation) over synthesis
(combination), learning certain facts and objective cognitive tasks, plus clearly defines
roles that distinguish honored teachers from subservient students.
Instead, Vella proposes a new, metaphoric egalitarian perspective based on the
science of quantum physics and the principle of energy release and exchange, which
pays much more attention to inductive learning and a participatory, dialogic method
of instruction that involves teachers and learners alike. Whether Vella’s figurative
application of physics to pedagogy is valid or not, I am not qualified to judge, but
her conclusions are interesting. She explains what she calls “dialogue education”
in terms of a set of six fundamental concepts “that emerge from the world-view of
quantum physics” (adapted from Vella 2002:30-31):
280 Ernst Wendland
o Relatedness: All that we do in design, teach, and learn should be inter-related.

o Holism: The whole is far more than the sum of its parts, for we teach and learn
as a group.
o Duality: Make use of contrasts, both/and thinking, open questions to promote
dialogue.
o Novelty: Learing is reinforced by continued application to new and challenging
contexts.
o Participation: Encourage regular contributions from all present to benefit from
their unique personal, social, and cultural perspectives on the problem, task, or
issue at hand.
o Energy: Learning and teaching demand energy, but the active individual always
gains more from the group intellectually and emotionally than what she or he
puts into it.
These six concepts are made more concrete in the form of twelve principles that
revolve around the process of dialogue. The basic assumption then is that willing
learners come to an educational event with enough life experiences and personal
reflections arising from these to be “in dialogue” with any teacher about any sub-
ject. Thus they both have a valid and necessary contribution to make to the learning
experience in which they are engaged. Vella’s 12 principles are as follows (extracts
from 2002:5-25):
1. Needs assessment: Listening to learners’ want and needs helps shape a

program that has immediate usefulness to adults. The dialogue begins long
before the course starts.
2. Safety: The principle of safety enables the teacher to create an inviting set-
ting for adult learners. … One of the first learning tasks I do in any course
is to invite learners to work in small groups to name their own expectations,
hopes, or fears about a learning event or norms they want to see established
in the large group. … Beginning with simple, clear, and relatively easy tasks
before advancing to more complex and more difficult ones can give learners
a sense of safety so they can take on the harder tasks with assurance.
3. Sound relationships: Sound relationships for learning involve respect,
safety, open communication, listening, and humility. … [A] dialogue about
the learners’ expectations is a way to confirm our perception of their needs
or amend it.
4. Sequence and reinforcement: Sequence means the programming of knowl-
edge, skills, and attitudes in an order that goes from simple to complex and
from group-supported to solo efforts. … Reinforcement means the repetition
of facts, skills, and attitudes in diverse, engaging, and interesting ways until
they are learned.
5. Praxis: Praxis is doing [something] with built-in reflection. It is a beautiful
dance of inductive and deductive forms of learning. … In a learning situa-
tion, we can use case studies inviting description, analysis, application, and
implementation of new learning – that is, praxis.
6. Respect for learners as decision makers: Adults need to understand that
they themselves decide what occurs for them in the learning event. … This
approach makes the content an open system inviting critical analysis, editing,
and additions by adult learners.
7. Ideas, feelings, actions: We know that learning involves more than cogni-
tive material (ideas and concepts). It involves feeling something about the
concepts (emotions) and doing something (actions). … Real change requires
a fundamental shift at each of the three levels. This can be accomplished by
designing learning tasks that have cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
components.
8. Immediacy: Research recognizes that adult learners need to see the immedi-
ate usefulness of new learning: the skills, knowledge, or attitudes they are
working to acquire. … A question that we can offer at the end of each learning
session is, How can you use this new skill most effectively?
9. Clear roles: Another vital principle of adult learning is recognition of the
impact of clear roles in the communication between learner and teacher. …
[I]f the learner sees the teacher as “the professor” with whom there is no pos-
sibility of disagreement, no questioning, no challenge, the dialogue is dead in
the water. … We wish to move adults to learn together in dialogue. Whatever
impedes that dialogue must be courageously addressed and eradicated.
10. Teamwork: Teamwork is itself both a process and a principle. … The as-
surance of safety and shared responsibility available in teams has always
proved welcome, no matter what the cultural setting. … In a team, learning is
enhanced by peers. We know that peers hold significant authority with adults,
even more authority than teachers. … I have seen significant mentoring go
on in teams: peers helping one another, often with surprising clarity, tender-
ness, and skill. … Constructive competition is structured so that teams work
together in the learning process, manifesting their learning with a certain
pride in their achievement as a team....
11. Engagement: Through learning tasks, we invited learners to engage them-
selves actively in the strategic issues of their organizations and of their
community. … When learners are deeply engaged, working in small groups
or teams, it is often difficult to extricate them from the delight of that learning.
… There [are] no levels of participation; everyone [takes] part in the needs
assessment and strategic planning.
12. Accountability: First, the design of learning events must be accountable to
the learners. What was proposed to be taught was taught; what was meant to
be learned must be learned; the skills intended to be gained must be visible
in all the learners; the attitudes taught must be seen… Second, the learners
in teams are accountable to their colleagues and to the teacher. They are ac-
countable to themselves to recreate the content so it really is immediately
useful in their context. Accountability is a synthesis principle – it is the result
of using all the other principles.
Vella later illustrates how the preceding 12 principles may be used to develop a
specific program of adult education, which entails an additional sequence of seven
recommended steps for course design (2002:37-44): WHO (the course participants),
WHY (the contextually determined or motivated desired outcome of the course),
WHEN (the agreed-upon time frame), WHERE (the place of meeting), WHAT (the
course content selected to teach the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to
achieve the outcome), WHAT FOR (a plan of measured achievement-based objects
designed to accomplish the eventual intended outcome), and HOW (the methods em-
ployed in order to carry out the learning tasks, skills practice, attitude development,
and progress assessment).
There is a lot of common sense included in Vella’s recommendations, and she
282 Ernst Wendland
manages to package them is a way that is easy to follow and invites one to try at least
some of her proposals out in practice. To be sure, it will perhaps require teachers to
put more energy into their instruction plans or planning for instruction, but we would
expect that this additional effort would be repaid by a more energetic and enthusiastic
student involvement in the lessons when presented, an experience that can only result
in a re- energizing of the teacher her/himself.
EXERCISE-2
 Evaluate Vella’s teaching principles and pedagogical suggestions that have been
summarized above. List three in particular that you find most helpful in your current
role as a practicing student or teacher. Are there any recommendations that are not
very clear, or that you are in doubt about? Do you have any other comments per-
taining to the dialogue method: do you like to teach or learn in this manner? Give
reasons for your answer. Then have a dialogue regarding these principles in a group
learning session.
 Principle 2 – regarding “safety” – is vital for stimulating and maintaining an ef-

fective learning environment. As educational psychologists Politano and Paquin
point out:
When the brain goes into survival mode, it tends to revert to instinct, becomes more
automatic, is less able to take clues from the environment, and is less able to perceive
relationships and patterns. When we feel overstressed and threatened, we are less able
to solve problems. … For students, threat and distress can come from many sources:
fear of physical harm from classmates, staff, family, or others; time pressures and lack
of resources; cultural and social disrespect; intellectual intimidations; and emotional
jeopardy. … Under stress, it is difficult for students to track a page of print or stay
focused on a small area of print because the eyes become more attentive to peripheral
areas, scanning for danger. … As teachers, we can be the source of stress or we can
create a non-threatening environment.
With your primary translation setting in mind then, mention some of the major factors
that might create a feeling of “threat and distress” for the translators that you work
with in a typical training session. What are some things that you as an instructor can
do to reduce this real or potential stress level in order to enhance the overall learning
process?
 “Research suggests that student-centred approaches are more likely to produce

quality outcomes, that is, higher level learning and understanding” (Kelly 2005:56).
The following is a listing of features that characterize such a “student-centred” meth-
odology in contrast to a “teacher-centred” approach (adapted from Kelly 2005:57).

These quotes are cited in an unpublished paper, “Teaching adults across cultures – Put love into
the learning” by K. Cherney and M. Zarling (World Mission Seminary Conference, August 7-11,
2006, Mequon, Wisconsin).

Note to Bible translation teachers and trainers: There are a number of excellent secular coursebooks
and workbooks available that include many possible applications to translating Scripture texts, for
example (a brief selection): Baker (1992), Hatim and Munday (2004), Katan (2004), Kelley (2005),
and Mossop (2001).
Which of these attributes most characterize your teaching style (you may select from
either pair of features)? Which techniques would you especially not agree with, or
wish to modify? Tell why.
If you are a student, pick out the five characteristics that you value most in your
present instructor – or those that you would like to see your instructor exemplify.
Give reasons.
In what ways would a training programme for Bible translators modify either of
these two approaches?
TEACHER-CENTRED STUDENT-CENTRED
Most or all decisions regarding content and Choices regarding content and method should
method should be made by teachers alone. be made partly or mostly by students in con-
sultation with their teachers.
Emphasis (including responsibility for as- Emphasis (including responsibility for assess-
sessment) should be on individual subjects or ment) should be on the overall programme
course units. and its aims.
The teacher is an expert who should transmit The teacher should be an expert guide for
knowledge and make all student assessments students and facilitate their learning; she or
from a personal perspective. he should somehow enlist students in the as-
sessment process.
The teacher transmits information. The teacher asks questions to elicit information
and to stimulate the search for information.
Student activity should be mostly individual. Cooperative learning is more effective.
Students learn in the classroom or in pro- Students can learn anywhere, anytime, but may
grammed activities. need to be instructed how to do this.
Achieving good marks and praise from teach- Intellectual curiosity and personal responsibil-
ers is a major motivation. ity are major motivations.
Class arrangements should be planned before- Class arrangements can, indeed should be
hand and not modified. modified as the course develops.
The most important goal and outcome is for The most important goal and outcome is for
students to learn syllabus content. students to acquire learning and evaluation
techniques.
Student assessment should be summative and Student assessment should be formative and
strictly syllabus governed. also involve a creative learning experience.
The whole class is expected to progress to- Individual students should be allowed to prog-
gether at the same pace; some students will ress at their own pace, but advanced students
have an easier time of it than others. should be encouraged to assist slower col-
leagues.
All students should learn the same things, as Individual students are allowed to learn dif-
governed by the syllabus. ferent things, following their special interests
or aptitudes.
Teachers work alone on their assign portion of Team work is also an essential part of teach-
the curriculum. ing in order to complement, or compensate for
individual strengths and weaknesses.
Teachers and individual subject departments or Teachers and academic units should consult
academic units should have autonomy. and work together in close collaboration.
The focus is on deductive pedagogical theory The emphasis is on inductive pedagogical
and practice. theory and practice.
284 Ernst Wendland
 Professional translators should possess the following set of job-related proficiencies

(after Kelly 2005:64, 73-78):
• communicative and textual, including genre-based, competence in at least

two languages (i.e., SL and TL);
• cultural and intercultural competence, i.e., with respect to both SL and TL
cultures;
“Moreover, culture is a much broader concept than simple institutional,
historical and geographical knowledge about different peoples and societ-
ies. For translators, it is essential to acquire competence (know-how) in their
working cultures’ perceptions, myths, beliefs, values, stereotypes, and so on”
(Kelly 2005:74).
• subject area competence (that is, with regard to the main thrust of the material
being translated);
• professional and instrumental competence (including also translation tech-
nologies, such as research techniques, work-processing skills, editorial
competence, etc.);
• attitudinal or psycho-physiological competence (e.g., student self-concept,
confidence, social awareness, sense or responsibility, etc.);
• interpersonal competence (i.e., the ability to work as the cooperative member
of a team);
• strategic competence (i.e., the ability to make valid assessments of com-
pleted translation tasks, accurate job completion projections, planning for
the future, etc.).
 Which of the preceding competences are required also for Bible translators (and
their trainers)? List the three most important in their order of priority, and give reasons
for your selection and ordering. Is their any other proficiency that Bible translators
should have? If so, explain which ones and why they are needed.
 The last several “competences” as given on the list above may be specified more
precisely as follows (from Gonzalez and Wagenaar 2003, cited in Kelly 2005:35).
What do you think of this inventory? Make any modifications that you think are
necessary from the perspective of your own translation setting, including the elimi-
nation of items that do not apply, or stating certain attributes even more specifically.
Which is the most important item in each of the three major categories listed – and
why do you say so?
Blank space is available along the margins of each section so you that you can add
any other characteristics that you feel are important.
Instrumental competences
Oral and written communication in the native language
Knowledge of a second language
Capacity for analysis and synthesis
Capacity for organization and planning
Basic general knowledge
Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession
Elementary computing skills
Information management skills (ability to retrieve and analyse information from

different sources)
Problem solving
Decision making
Interpersonal competences
Critical and self-critical abilities
Teamwork
Interpersonal skills
Ability to work in an interdisciplinary team
Ability to communicate with experts in other fields
Appreciation of diversity and multi-culturality
Ability to work in an international context
Ethical commitment
Systemic (= psycho-social??) competences

Capacity for applying knowledge in practice
Research skills
Capacity to learn
Capacity to adapt to new situations
Capacity for generating new ideas (creativity)
Leadership
Understanding of cultures and customs of other countries
Ability to work autonomously
Project design and management
Initiative and entrepreneurial spirit
Concern for quality
Will to succeed
 Another central consideration here is that of evaluation or testing the quality of

the learning experience: How do course planners and managers actually determine
the level of competence that a person manifests with respect to these different quali-
ties? Organize a round-table discussion in the class on that particular subject, and
write up your conclusions.
 It is especially important in adult education situations to develop specific lesson

objectives for their course of study, which are reinforced and practiced by collaborative
learning tasks. “Objectives” are specific, measurable, and attainable (SAM) as distinct
from more general or abstract, non-measurable “goals” for the project or enterprise
in mind. Objectives are action-oriented and answer the question: “What do I want
each student to know/do/feel when the session or course is over?” And how will they
(or the instructor) know that they know when they’ve done it – that is, satisfactorily
completed the stated objective(s)? Objectives are, for adults, often best accomplished
by means of “collaborative learning tasks” which engage small groups of students
in project-related “case studies” that are inductive (experience-based) in nature. Such

The ideas in this paragraph have been developed from Cherney and Zarling’s study of “Teaching
adults across cultures.”
286 Ernst Wendland
corporate exercises invite learners to immediately relate and apply new content to
their life and work. In the case of Bible translation, this would of course pertain to a
team’s work on a particular text of Scripture in a specific sociocultural setting.
 Evaluate the following objective and then make it more specific or pertinent to
your translation situation. Next, compose another objective that you feel needs to be
accomplished by your translation team today.
OBJECTIVE: Review the various major exegetical problems that your team discussed
yesterday and select one of these for further review. Summarize the various difficulties
that you faced with this particular problem as well as the different options available for
dealing with it. Why did you choose to handle this problem in the way that you did in
terms of both interpreting the text and then translating it in YL? Are you still agreed
on your final “solution” – or do you see now, a day later, that there are still some more
issues to consider or difficulties to take care of in this case? After this re-evaluation
exercise, come to a final conclusion and, if necessary, record this (with the date) in the
team’s daily translation log.
 At this stage in the course, it would be helpful to assess the teaching technique
that was applied in this particular coursebook: Take some time to make a note of
any good points of this text, but especially the areas that need some improvement as
far as you are concerned (e.g., too difficult, unclear, poorly ordered, etc.). Also list
and corrections that you feel are necessary, plus any important additions that would
complement the material that has been presented. You may work on this evaluation
in teams or assigned groups; submit your critique to the course instructor, who will
hopefully forward it to the author.
A process model for translator training

Based on many years of experience both as a translator and a trainer of translators,
Andrew Jameson has developed what he terms the “process model” of translating.
This provides a helpful frame of reference for understanding the techniques of trans-
lation and its teaching from a theoretical as well as a practical perspective. I cannot
consider the entire model here, but do wish to call attention to several aspects in
particular that have potential relevance to Bible translators, as summarized in the
following selection of citations:

Besides working part-time as a tutor and professional translator from Russian and German, Andrew
Jameson is Chair of the Association for Language Learning Russian Committee, Reviews Editor
of the journal Rusistika and Listowner of the Jiscmail Russian-teaching email list: 6 Gilbert Road,
Malvern WR14 3RQ UK, Tel/fax 01684 572466, a.jameson2@dial.pipex.com.

These citations were kindly supplied to me electronically by the author. They form part of a seminar
presentation (hence the oral style) entitled “Towards a theory of practical translation: the process
model,” which was given in the [TRANSLATION-STUDIES] CTIS (Centre for Translation &
Intercultural Studies, University of Manchester) Speaker Series on Monday, 2 October, 2006. These
ideas were initially developed in the article “Recent developments in translation theory applied to a
practical approach to teaching Russian-English translation” Rusistika 25:5-11 (Spring 2002).
My suggestion is that we could designate as translation authority the guiding

force or guiding light for the translator at each of my proposed three stages
of actual text work.
I would suggest that these three stages are, No 1, the initial re-writing of the
ST in the target language. Here the “authority” is the language of the original
writer in his or her native language. Stage 1 takes the text out of the SL, but not
yet into the TL. Stage No 2 is the second rewriting of the text as it is revised
by the translator. Stage 2 should (with luck) take us from the “interlanguage”
after Stage 1 into an acceptable version in the TL. Here the authority shifts from
the original writer to the translator. The Translator is the new authority. With
many, but not all types of text, Stage No 3 is the third re-writing (editing, style
alignment etc.), and here the authority may be the end-user or client who has
requested the Translation. “Responsibility” could be used for the first 2 stages,
but not for the 3rd, so it’s difficult to find an appropriate general term….
My approach proposes that we set out from the beginning to define what
features we consider the most important in our Source Text and therefore what
we wish to preserve and/or re-create in our Target Text. To give these features
a clear operational name, I have devised/coined the term TRANSLATION
PRIORITIES (TP). Translation is a long-drawn-out repeated decision making
process, or sequence of decisions, and priorities help with this.
What happens is that, after interrogating/analysing the Source Text and
collecting the necessary information about it, that is having gone through my
Process Model Stages 1 through 4, the translator makes a short series of deci-
sions (which are in effect these TRANSLATION PRIORITIES) and preferably
writes them down, at which time they become the guiding principles of the
translation.
So what exactly is a TP? The definition is sometimes objective, sometimes
subjective: It is, in the case of the translation that you are NOW working on
– simply the most important feature(s)/aspect(s) that you want (or need) to
get right. Sometimes these may appear to be obvious, even banal –, but as a
teacher of translation, I can assure you that these things are NOT obvious to
students who are encountering them in the classroom for the first time.
These TPs are whatever the translator decides pragmatically. Examples

might be:
• Technical translations – get the technical terms right [other TPs may well be
added]
• Plays – an actable/speakable text [other TPs may well be added]
• Opera libretto – a singable text (important criterion here: which vowels come
at which musical pitch)
• Report of a political speech – 1) accuracy of important statements (may be
politically crucial later) but ALSO 2) edit and correct so that rhetoric is fully
realised in the Target Language [converting spoken to written language could
also be an issue]
• Prose literature – 1) to produce a text which is sufficient in itself (without
e.g. footnotes), 2) which reads as if originally written in English, and 3) is
faithful to the emotional truth of the original
288 Ernst Wendland
As you’ve observed, the last two examples have two, and three TPs. As ex-
perienced translators you will probably want to say that you would list two or
three or even more features which you would want to make priorities, and I
agree completely. To define your overall task in making your translation, you
will need at least two or three TPs. Sometimes these two or three separate TPs
could appear to overlap or compete.
So far, so fairly obvious. TPs are useful for training students of translation.
Going on from this, I would like to develop this idea into a decision making
procedure. Here, I hope, comes the interesting part. I suggested that you write
down your TPs when you come to translate. I suggest that you write them
down and number them in order of importance for that particular text. Then
you think of the list of TPs as rules in rank order. No 1 is the most important,
No 2 the next most important and so on. So you do NOT implement TP2 if it
conflicts with TP1. …
You are working on your translation and you come to a point requiring a
decision. TP 1 is not relevant to that point, but TP 2 is relevant. But in order
to apply TP2, you would violate TP1. But we have already decided that TP1
is the most important overall. Therefore TP1 overrules TP2, and TP2 is NOT
observed….
There is no possible single set of Translation Priorities which will be valid
for all categories of translation. These short statements, the TPs, can be state-
ments of many different kinds:
1. Some TPs will be concerned with the treatment of specific Source Language
text-types or literary genres.
2. Some TPs will be concerned with the degree of faithfulness to the original
ST (scientific; medical; political statements by political leaders).
3. Some TPs will be concerned with the interpretation of one culture to another.
4. Some TPs will be concerned with the structure and style of the Target
Language.
5. In the real world some TPs may be forced on translators, concerned with
technical and publishing requirements, giving rise to the possibility of conflict
with the translator’s professional principles.
6. Some TPs will be assumed by translators to be obvious, and remain unstated.
(Queries concerning the TPs): How strong should we make the TP rules?
Maybe some of them are (real needs) imperatives, and others are optional
desirables?
Are they actually guidelines which can be broken when they are not convenient?
In the course of translation, translators may find that the order of the rules
needs to be changed; they may also find that a new rule is needed.
Does this adaptability invalidate the concept, or does it merely reflect the
fact that language is infinitely flexible? Personally, having got used to thinking
in these terms myself, I can’t now imagine working without them.
At what stage in the work do we define TPs?

In real life, translators have already formed judgements about how to treat
specific text-types and genres. However each new case of translation is different
and the possibility of change or the addition of TPs needs to be considered.
When a new translating job is taken on, we assume it is either a completely
familiar text-type, or it is examined at the start. At this point the TPs are stated
immediately, but with the proviso that they may change at a later stage. The
earlier TPs are applied, the easier decision making will be. TPs are also es-
sential at the checking/editing stage… (For example, Table 7).
Text-type Translation Priority 1 Translation Priority 2 Translation Priority 3

News report: Accurate translation Add brief explanations Translate in formal
Visa-free of significant political in running text for Brit- high style of English
Travel statements ish readers quality newspaper
RM Oct 2005 (Important for future Delete brief expla-
reference) nations inserted for
Russian readers
News article: Stay neutral even Get the government Translate in formal
Russians in though article is mildly and citizenship termi- high style of English
Estonia polemical nology right quality newspaper
Internet
Business Understand the statis- Research and recognise Formal neutral busi-
report: tics and translate them technical terms and ness style
World tour- correctly names
ism
L-Info Nov
2005
Prose Fic- Free flowing natural Retain Russian colour; Understand and portray
tion: Sasha English briefest cultural expla- emotional interplay of
(Panova) nations in running text characters
Political Accurate translation Realise the rhetoric and Get the political jargon
Speech: of significant political make it work in Eng- of the period right
Gorbachev at statements lish; Correct linguistic
UN 1988 (Important for future (but not factual) errors
reference)
Political Special attention to Research and annotate
Memoirs: passages giving politi- in foot- or end-notes to
(Yury Zhukov) cal / historical insights explain context
Table 7: Grid of text-types and translation priorities
EXERCISE-3
 Compare Jameson’s three stage model of translation with Nida and Taber’s three
stages of analysis – transfer – restructure (1969:33-34): What are the main simi-
larities and differences? Can you propose a combined, or hybrid, model that would
feature the insights of both?
290 Ernst Wendland
 Can you suggest some additional key questions that need to be asked when prepar-
ing a specific Translation Process Model to implement for a language group that
you are familiar with?
 Below is a proposed protocol (frame of reference) for a hypothetical job commission

that has been specified for a new English Bible translation. Evaluate the two versions
(consider them draft translations) that follow (samples A and B), using Rev. 5:6-10 in
terms of this particular protocol: Which version better fulfills, or satisfies, the protocol,
and tell why. Give several specific examples that support your assessment.

Sacred text: a A natural, readable style A text that is aurally in-
A scholarly, accurate
contemporary of English that will be telligible – that is, it can
translation of original
Bible transla- acceptable to and appre- be readily understood
in terms of essential se-
tion into ciated by young adults when spoken aloud or
mantic content
English of 20-35 years in public
A. 6 Then I saw a Lamb standing in the center of the throne, surrounded by the four
living creatures and the elders. The Lamb appeared to have been killed. It had seven
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that have been sent through
the whole earth. 7 The Lamb went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who
sits on the throne. 8 As he did so, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell
down before the Lamb. Each had a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the
prayers of God’s people. 9 They sang a new song:
and to break open its seals.
For you were killed, and by your sacrificial death you bought for God
people from every tribe, language, nation, and race.
10
You have made them a kingdom of priests to serve our God,
and they shall rule on earth.”
B. 6 Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb
standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the
one who was seated on the throne. 8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and
the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense,
which are the prayers of the saints. 9 They sing a new song:
for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God
saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;
10
you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God,
and they will reign on earth.”
 Now specify the main translation protocol for the version that you are currently
working on (or were involved with in the past). Then translate the text that was
considered above, Rev. 5:6-10, in your language according to the protocol that you
have specified. Mention one specific example of where each one of your translation
priorities has been satisfied in your draft version. Also summarize one problem that
arose, where two or more of these priorities came into conflict, and briefly explain
how the matter was resolved.
Expanding the teaching-learning context through networking

How then shall we continue the mutually-contextualizing dialogue already begun in
this coursebook? In the present chapter we have discussed a number of issues that
pertain to our current methods of training translators. Several suggestions have been
put forward regarding the possibility, in Africa at least, of making this crucial endeavor
more interactive, inductive, indigenized, communal, developmental, comparative, and
applied in nature. Other teaching techniques and models have also been explored. I
certainly don’t have answers for all the questions that may be raised in connection
with such efforts to achieve more effective pedagogy, and probably neither do you. But
training technique, educational strategy, and program assessment is a crucial subject
that definitely needs further consideration in relation to each and every world region
in which our various translation courses are being offered: Not only, What should we
be teaching, but also, How can we best be doing it? That includes the total conceptual
frame of reference in which the tutoring and learning process is expected to take place:
Just how adequate and amenable is the local educative environment?
This subject naturally includes a careful evaluation of the various published
translator training resources that are currently being used in the field, for example,
Hebrew poetry in the Bible: A guide for understanding and for translating (Zogbo and
Wendland 2004) in the UBS Helps for Translators series. What could be improved in
this text, and what needs to be corrected or added? Perhaps some of you will be in a
position to continue this discussion in your own respective areas of Bible translation.
It will then be up to the responsible consultants, team leaders, and administrators to
write down your ideas and put their heads together to find a way of bringing your
advice, suggestions, cautions, experiences, and so forth to a larger forum where they
may be shared with the wider Bible translation community. Certainly, there is a lot
that we have to teach and to learn from each other in this regard! Or as they say in
Chewa: Madzi achuluka ndi am’njira “The water [of a major river] is increased by
that [which is added] along the way [from its many tributaries].”
“Education is not merely the transfer of information,” but it also endeavors to
encourage students, as well as their instructors, “to interact with ideas, concepts,
tools” (Voth 2005:92). This must become an essential component of any translator
292 Ernst Wendland
training program, wherever in the world it is conducted. The vital process of educa-
tion, in turn, should be carried out in harmony with principles and procedures that
are most appropriate for the language, culture, setting, and church bodies concerned.
That has been the emphasis of this chapter, and I would like to close with an appeal
to all readers:
• Translation trainers: be sensitive enough to always keep indigenous methods

and styles of instruction, informal as well as formal, in mind as you investigate
local resources and prepare, present, and evaluate your various courses of
instruction. Be humble!
• Translation trainees: be bold enough to constructively advise your teachers

as to how to instruct adults in your sociocultural context and give them some
appropriate models and methods to follow. Be respectful!
In short, we need to educate each other about how to more effectively communicate
the Word of God both verbally and behaviorally in the situation that we share, whether
locally or with reference to our global translation fellowship.
I will close by reflecting on some of the diverse contextual issues and perspectives
that have been raised in this study, with special reference to all teachers and learners
engaged in translating Scripture. As the periodic references have indicated (and many
more could have been cited), a significant number of Bible translation theorists and
practitioners are currently working in the broad field of context definition, analysis,
management, research, and testing. Their goal is to understand more fully how perva-
sive and important an influence the total cognitive environment is during the process of
Scripture communication within a given sociocultural, religious, and linguistic-literary
setting. Secular scholars working in such domains as cognitive linguistics, information
technology, intercultural communication, mental-space theory, and others have similar
aims and objectives in relation to the different types of text that they study. How is it
possible in the first place to keep abreast with all that is being done – then to classify
and evaluate the results – and finally to apply what is most helpful and productive to
the tangible improvement of biblical literacy world-wide?
As research by Ernst-August Gutt (2000), Harriet Hill (2006) and others has shown,
such text (translation)-based knowledge alone is generally quite inadequate in terms
of the kind and amount of cognitive assumptions and contextual implications that it
makes available to ordinary readers and hearers about the Word of God as a whole.
So much more can, and must, be done to provide Bible users – everyday consumers
and communicators alike – with a broader, as well as a deeper, frame of reference for
interpreting and applying the text of Scripture to their hearts and lives. The point is
that all must make and effort to become more actively involved in what is essentially
an ongoing educative process of the greatest magnitude and importance. The more one
delves into the library of Scripture, the more meaning one discovers that there is to
dig out and then also to dispense, whether textually, para-textually, or extra-textually,
in another language and cultural setting. The problem is that many Bible translators
and trainers alike do not realize how much they need to carry on with their education
with respect to the original text and its manifold context. The learning never ends.
I will mention two specific examples that draw particular attention to this need for
ongoing instruction and constant assessment. First, concerning an exegesis (SL-based
analysis and interpretation) of the original text: What resources are available with
respect to a particular book of the Bible and how helpful or reliable are these? In other
words, what is the comparative quality of our immediate interpretive context in terms
of the scholarly studies (commentaries, handbooks, dictionaries, Paratext, Translator’s
Workplace, CONOT [Ott 2005], etc.) that we must depend on to establish the textual
as well as extratextual background and conceptual framework for a given passage
of Scripture? As we saw in our study of Revelation 4-5, we often find competing in-
terpretations, different proposed solutions, and disparate translations, so how do the
“non-experts” decide between and among them to determine which is better/best in
terms of credibility? For example, is the book of Revelation to be viewed and inter-
preted as a single, unified composition – the product of but one author (Beale) – or is
it a compilation, the product of several sources and editors (Aune)? And if we agree
that only one author was responsible, which “John” was it – the Apostle (Johnson) or
some early Christian prophet by that name (Beale)? The decision here is important,
for it will determine part of the necessary hermeneutical frame of reference that a
person depends upon, not only to understand what the author is saying, but also to
better hypothesize why he is saying it – that is, what is the ostensible communicative
intention of the text.
There are countless conflicts or options of this nature that confront translators
and their advisers on a daily basis as they work through the Scriptures. It is indeed
helpful, therefore, to have task-specific resources in print as well as in electronic
form, series such as the UBS Translator’s Handbooks or SIL’s Exegetical Summaries
and Semantic Structure Analyses, which help to sort out the wheat from the chaff in
terms of providing a narrower, more reliable and translation-oriented inventory of
exegetical alternatives from which to choose. However, what is currently available
can always be improved upon, especially some older studies that have not benefited
much, if at all, from the insights of discourse analysis, modern literary theory and
rhetorical approaches, lexical semantics, cognitive linguistics, or inferential reasoning
processes. A number of practical management factors are involved in this important
effort to promote a greater degree of updated “contextual conditioning” in our cur-
rent translation tools, for example, providing the Bible translation community with
competent resource and research experts whose job it is to encourage and coordinate
feedback, and then to ensure that all pertinent new information as well as corrections
get plugged in to any revised version of a given scholarly work. However, during
this initiative the matter of accommodating different levels of scholarly support also
needs to be addressed: What may work well for a translation consultant is not always
suitable for ordinary on-the-line translators.
Then, what about the theory and practice of translator training, which is the special
focus of this chapter and has become a factor of major importance to agencies and
programs all over the globe? In the first place, the necessary standards must be set and
maintained: For example, what should be set as the minimal contextual competence
in terms of background knowledge and practical experience that translators require in
order to be capable of doing an adequate and acceptable job? Do they need to know the
294 Ernst Wendland
biblical languages, and if so, how well, and how can this level of expertise be certified
and evaluated in a practical way? Are non-mother-tongue speakers able to prepare a
valid and trustworthy translation of the Scriptures for a people not their own?
Second, what is the most effective way of training translators – by means of an
inductive, deductive, or mixed method, or perhaps simply by a period ofapprentice-
ship to an experienced “master translator”? How important is it for translators and
their trainers to be able to visit the Holy Land and experience aspects of the biblical
history and setting on site? What is the most relevant theory of communication that
is currently available to provide a foundation for such text-heavy formal and informal
instruction? To what extent can publications like the Journal of Translation and the
Bible Translator (especially the Practical edition) contribute to the cause – how useful
are they in the overall educational effort if the information they disseminate does not
demonstrate a clear practical outlet for application? Of course, these are highly debat-
able issues because situations, settings, and circumstances vary greatly with regard
to the many different projects that are being carried out in the world today. The point
is, in short, that a Bible translation project requires a suitable model and method for
accurately contextualizing its current situation before staff actually get started, and
later then for monitoring, managing, and maintaining the program adequately while
the work is being carried out in a specific setting and for a particular purpose.
The preceding observations merely serve to highlight the need for a great deal
of (or – a greater degree of) interdisciplinary collaboration and inter-agency coop-
eration. The goal here would be to create a more conducive organizational frame
of reference – including a favorable and facilitative scholarly environment for in-
novative production – that will both inspire and also inform the diverse intellectual
skills that are required in the generation of successful Bible translations in this 21st
century. My study has suggested a number of the key factors in this regard (involv-
ing, for example, a comprehensive inventory of proven as well as needed translation
tools and techniques), but there are many others that need to be more fully explored.
Alternatively, the issues that I have raised may be better explained and exemplified
from the perspective of a different theoretical model and/or practical methodology. In
this connection, periodic international workshops or conferences that focus on some
fundamental issues in translation theory and practice (e.g., complementary modes of
communication, discourse analysis, staff training, non-print media transposition, audi-
ence engagement, research and testing) must be strongly encouraged and followed up
in terms of publishing and disseminating the results to all interested individuals and
groups. A good example in this respect is the annual workshop series being sponsored
by the Wycliffe Bible Translators (e.g., Bible Translation – 2005 on “quality,” BT
– 2006 on “context,” BT – 2007 on “training for translation”).

This question is of course rhetorical. In this case, seeing is understanding – with respect to a host
of specific biblical features and their verbal signs in the texts of Scripture. A proven program in
this regard, one that incorporates a first-rate Hebrew language course of study, is that offered by the
Home for Bible Translators (Dr. Halvor and Mirja Ronning), which operates in conjunction with the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (www.BibleTranslators.org). Here translation staff from various
parts of the world can also get together to enrich one another with their diverse perspectives on the
interpretation and re-presentation of the Bible.
These different aspects of the wider Bible translation process are in some ways
also analogous to the enveloping leaves of an onion which protect and nourish
the developing core embryo (a translation team and its text). Thus, all supporting
institutions that sponsor and promote the various research activities and products
relating to Bible translation in specific regions and settings of the world ought to
be more strongly sustained. In Africa, for example, we have the Centre for Bible
Interpretation and Translation in Africa (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa)
as well as a number of universities and recognized theological colleges which offer
special programs for the advanced post-graduate training of Bible translators (e.g.,
in Africa: NEGST, FATEAC, ISTEL). Furthermore, translation-oriented databases,
such as those maintained by both the UBS and SIL, must be streamlined and made
more accessible (i.e., to outside agencies) and user-friendly. Ditto for the electronic
technology that undergirds our work: At times what is currently available far exceeds
the competence of the average translators with whom we work in many parts of the
world (e.g., the present Paratext environment for generating Study Bible notes). All
relevant publications should be made readily available electronically to translators
or their advisers – and also localized with reference to particular global regions if
possible (and/or translated into major LWCs). It is encouraging to see more of this
being done via the continually developing websites of translation agencies like SIL
(www.sil.org), UBS (www.biblesocieties.org), and others. Along these same lines, joint
collaborative educational initiatives, such as the STEPS exegetical project (Salisbury
2002), need to be duplicated, when possible, elsewhere among the international fel-
lowship of Bible translation agencies.
A final word of advice concerning cooperation comes from the extensive Chewa
corpus of didactic proverbial lore: Chiswe chimodzi sichiumba chulu! “One termite
does not mold a mound!” So also, a concerted, coordinated effort is required to enable
the worldwide corps of Scripture translators to accomplish their mutually-supportive
goals – namely, to create an organizational “context” that fosters and sustains a much
greater sharing of human resources, ideas, tools, and methods. In this regard, the
Apostle Paul’s dynamic corporeal analogy too can be readily applied to the variegated
task of Bible translation and promotion (1 Cor. 12:4-5, 7, 27 – NIV):
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds
of service, but the same Lord. … Now to each one the manifestation of the
Spirit is given for the common good. … Now you are the body of Christ, and
each of you is a part of it.
EXERCISE-4
 List the three most important aspects of “networking” that have been brought up
in this section – that is, from the perspective of your translator-training programme.
Give reasons for your choices and try to set a priority: which factor is most vital to
your educational endeavor?

NEGST = Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (Anglophone – Kenya); FATEAC =
Evangelical Theological Faculty of the Christian Missionary Alliance (Francophone – Ivory Coast);
ISTEL = The Superior Institute of Evangelical Theology in Lubango (Lusophone – Angola).
296 Ernst Wendland
 Mention any broad inter-agency contextual factor that has not been considered in
this section, or treated in sufficient detail. What is the special importance of this factor
to your translator-training programme?
 How well are the different members of the “body” of your translation organization
integrated as far as their working procedures go and also encouraged to feel like a
unified team, engaged in a common effort to produce a significant product? What
more might be done to promote such an attitude and work ethic?
 How might the wider body of translation agencies or organizations cooperate more
in order to foster a more effective “context of collaboration” with regard to the various
aspects of producing a Bible translation and carrying out research that enhances our
common communication effort?
 Give a proverb (or two) from your cultural setting that effectively addresses the
issue of contextualized education in society from one key perspective or another.
Then tell how this proverb applies to some aspect of training Bible translators. Do
the same for a particular Bible passage of your choice.
Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality
Study the following article (de Vries 2000) from the perspective of the various
cognitive, sociocultural, organizational, situational, and textual frames discussed
in chapters 2-6. Then evaluate the author’s argument and tell whether or not you
agree with it and why (not) – that is, from the standpoint of your own cultural
setting. Finally, summarize the implications of what is said here as it pertains to
certain key aspects of your own translation setting and the relationship between
Bible translation and “primary orality.” To what extent should the “orality factor”
(whether primary or secondary) be an issue of serious consideration in the modern
age – for instance, when establishing a strategy of Scripture communication for all
segments of society? Give an example, if possible.
Introduction
In New Guinea but also in other parts of the world many Bible translation projects
were and are carried out in speech communities that did not know writing prior to
the commencement of Bible translation projects in their languages. The term primary
orality for societies that do not know writing was introduced by Ong (1982), and
the specification ‘primary’ was meant to clarify that we are not talking about orality
in societies that have a tradition of writing. Most Bible translators working in such
primary oral contexts want to incorporate in some way or other the oral perspective
of their readers and listeners in their translations (Noss 1981).
The central question of this article is what a primary oral context means for Bible
translations. First, I will describe the influential view of primary orality of Ong (1982)
against the background of the academic debates which informed Ong’s views. Then I
will relate the findings of Ong to the study of corpora of primary oral texts from New
Guinea. Finally, I describe the relationship between the (macro)genre of Bible transla-
tions and primary oral genres such as myths, tales, songs or informal conversations.
Although the present consensus in discourse studies is that there is no proof for
absolute differences between literate and oral societies (in terms of mode of thinking
or type of discourse), there are good reasons to start our discussion of Bible translation
and primary orality with Ong since his picture of primary orality is still influential in
the world of Bible translators.
Primary orality according to Ong

Since Ong’s (1982) views are crucially informed by three other academic debates, we
need to consider those first (cf. Foley 1997:417-424). The first debate is the debate
about oral and written styles in English. For Chafe and Danielewicz (1987:103; Chafe
1988) processing constraints are the critical factor distinguishing the styles of written
and oral texts: “In other words, there is a strong tendency for casual speakers to pro-
duce simple sequences of coordinated clauses, avoiding the more elaborate interclausal
relations found in writing. Elaborate syntax evidently requires more processing effort
298 Ernst Wendland
than speakers ordinarily devote to it.” Chafe emphasizes the syntactic fragmentation
of spontaneous, casual talk as opposed to the syntactic integration of written texts.
In addition to the integration factor, Chafe mentions the involvement factor: speech
is more involved whereas writing tends to be more detached.
Whereas we still find two parameters in the work of Chafe, in the important study
of Biber (1988) we find twenty parameters, like situation versus abstract content and
interactive versus edited text. Biber (1988) investigated around twenty genres of Eng-
lish texts but found no absolute differences between written and oral texts. Whether a
given text, say an interview or a scientific article, scored high for a certain parameter
could not be predicted on the basis of whether that text was oral or written. In other
words, Biber’s work undermined the whole idea of a style continuum with ‘typically
oral style’ and ‘typically written style’ as extreme poles and that notion was replaced
by genre-determined configurations of stylistic characteristics.
Besnier (1995) did a similar investigation in a non-western context in the Poly-
nesian society of Nukalaelae. Stylistically, personal letters group with conversations
on Nukalaelae whereas written sermons group with political speeches and radio
broadcasts. The genre of personal letters is determined by the cultural context of
Nukalaelae in which kinship and exchange relations are crucial. In Besnier’s work
it becomes very clear to what extent genre, the decisive factor of Biber’s work, is a
culturally and historically determined notion.
The second debate relevant to Ong’s view of orality is the anthropological debate
about universal cognitive dichotomies, like prelogical versus logical cultures (Lévy-
Brühl 1926) or cultures with thought processes tied to the concrete versus those that
can abstract from concrete circumstances (Lévi-Strauss 1966). In the work of Olson
(1994), such cognitive dichotomies are reformulated in terms of oral versus literate
societies. Olson (1994) emphasizes that written language is ‘decontextualized’ when
compared to speech. Speakers rely strongly on the context and situation of their utter-
ances and they expect their listeners to infer information by combining utterance and
context. Writers have to be much more explicit and cannot rely on implicatures to a
great extent. Olson (1994) links this explicitness and autonomy of writing to cognitive
changes in the direction of analytical and critical thinking of a type not possible in the
contextualized, more implicit communication of primary oral cultures. The second
element in Olson’s view is the fact that a written text is available to the reader as a
fixed object which can be compared to other texts, interpreted, summarized and so
on. Such operations would stimulate the distinction between text and interpretation,
and create a different meta-language consciousness, leading to grammars, lexicons
and, ultimately, to the development of logic.
This anthropological debate on universal cognitive dichotomies of cultures is a
thing of the past now, partly because of relativistic theoretical developments leaving
no room for universal, a-historical dichotomies, and partly because of the results of
empirical research on the cognitive effects of the introduction of writing. Scribner
and Cole (1981) for example studied the effects of writing among the Vai of Liberia.
Three writing systems are used by that community, the Arabic script for religious
instruction, the English script for school, government and the workplace and the syl-
labic Vai script for informal use at home, such as personal letters and shopping lists.
The Vai script is informally transmitted in the home. There are Vai people without
formal training who write just in the syllabic Vai. Those persons, although literate,
turn out to score low for tests involving abstract categorizations but high for tests in
which words have to be formed from syllables. In other words, there are cognitive
effects of writing but those effects are not universal, but local, determined by the local
cultural and institutional contexts in which writing systems function.
The third debate is the philological debate on the oral nature and origin of texts
from Antiquity as we find in the work of Parry (1928) on Homer and Kelber (1983) on
the Gospel of Mark. Parry emphasized the high density of epithets, formulas, standard
themes and other formulaic elements in the metrical epics of Homer. That formulaic
nature of the Homeric texts was attributed to the oral performance of such texts in
which performing artists produced their text by drawing from a rich store of fixed
formulas, standard themes and epithets, stitching such elements together in various
ways depending on the occasion and circumstances of the performance. Kelber (1983)
also observes formulaic elements and other oral narrative style features in Mark such
as triads (three times Jesus wakes up the sleeping disciples, three times the prediction
of Jesus’ death), the use of the narrative present tense and the use of the third person
plural instead of the passive. Kelber (1983) sees those oral features as concessions
of a writer to an orally oriented audience.
Many elements from the three debates mentioned play a role in the book Oral-
ity and Literacy by Ong (1982). Ong (1982:49) describes the oral mode of thinking
as situational rather than abstract, aggregative rather than analytic, conservative or
traditionalist, empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced. These
cognitive characteristics stem from the anthropological debate on universal dichoto-
mies as represented in the writings of Lévi-Strauss (1966) and others.
The textual and stylistic features mentioned by Ong include additive rather than
subordinative, redundant, formulaic and no sequential parallelism. Ong’s explication of
the feature additive style makes clear that the debate on speech and writing in English is
crucially linked to Ong’s portrayal of primary oral discourse. Referring to Chafe, Ong
(1982:37-38) writes that he misses in primary oral discourse “the analytic, reasoned
subordination that characterizes writing” and he continues with the observation that
“written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse
does because to provide meaning it is more dependent simply upon linguistic structure,
since it lacks the normal full existential contexts which surround oral discourse and help
determine meaning in oral discourse somewhat independently of grammar.”
The characteristics formulaic and no sequential parallelism in Ong’s portrayal of
primary orality have their origin in the philological debate on the so called Homeric
question as Ong himself points out. That debate, in which Milman Parry was the
central figure, is regarded by Ong as fundamental to the modern discovery of primary
orality. Below I will return to the presumed formulaicity and absence of sequential
parallelism in primary oral discourse.
Summarizing we can say that in Ong’s picture of primary orality the additive
parataxis from the linguistic debate about speech and writing in English, the context-
bound concreteness from the anthropological debate on universal cognitive dichotomies,
and the formulaicity from the philological Homer debate come together.
300 Ernst Wendland
Primary orality in transcribed texts from New Guinea

Let us now relate the findings of Ong to the study of corpora of primary oral texts from
New Guinea. As far as the cognitive characteristics from the anthropological debate
go, like ‘situational rather than abstract’, there is little left to verify since cognitive
anthropologists themselves have rejected universal dichotomies in which literate
societies were contrasted with illiterate societies in oppositions like rational versus
traditional and abstract versus concrete thinking. As we saw above, such universal
hypotheses were rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds and were replaced
by more limited hypotheses about local, culture-specific cognitive effects of writing
systems (see for example Scribner and Cole 1981).
Concerning the characteristics from the linguistic debate, the central feature here
is the additive parataxis, a characteristic from the area of clause combining, the way
speakers and writers combine clauses into larger syntactic and textual units. Ong
(1982) uses the term additive parataxis to refer to simple juxtapositions of clauses, with
coordinating conjunctions providing the links. As an example of additive parataxis,
Ong (1982) quotes Genesis 1 verses 1-5 in the Douay translation of 1610. That transla-
tion reflects the additive parataxis of the Hebrew original according to Ong:
“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was void and
empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God
moved over the waters...”
According to Ong, the meaning relations between the clauses in such additive
paratactic style are not coded in the utterances themselves but have to be inferred by
the receptor on the basis of the context, a typical oral style which contrasts with the
complex, interclausal relations found in written style, explicitly coded in the utterances
by forms of subordination. Notice that Ong (1982) takes a written text, from a literary
tradition in ancient Israel, to illustrate primary orality. Ong (1982) sees a massive oral
residue in ancient Israel enabling him to take such texts as examples.
However, to study primary orality there is a much more direct way: we can study
the texts and the languages of really primary oral cultures such as still to be found in
isolated parts of New Guinea. There are well-documented oral languages that have
subordination as the most frequent, unmarked way of clause combining, for example
Yimas of Papua New Guinea. Foley (1991:497) writes that Yimas “contrasts with
many other Papuan languages in making less extensive use of clause chaining…The
most common type of clause linkage in Yimas involves nominalization, both finite
and non-finite.”
It is indeed true that clause chaining is by far the most widespread type of clause
combining in the oral languages of New Guinea. In clause chaining languages, single
verb clauses of usually simple internal structure are chained together to form long
chains of clauses. The last clause of the chain has independent or final verb forms
whereas the preceding clauses have medial or dependent verb forms. The medial verb
forms express interclausal relations of switch-reference and temporality. Switch-
reference distinctions pertain to the question whether the next clause in the chain has
a different or the same agent as the preceding clause whereas temporality relations
pertain to relations of sequence or simultaneity of the events denoted by the verbs in
the chain. These medial morphological oppositions often play a major role in indicat-
ing textual coherence relations.
The functions of syntactic processes of subordination and coordination in Indo-
European languages, to express interclausal and textual relations, are carried out to
a significant extent in language groups such as Semitic and Papuan languages by
morphological processes. For Hebrew I refer to recent work by Baayen (1997) about
the textual role of morphological oppositions in Biblical Hebrew verbs. If one looks
at Semitic or Papuan languages from the perspective of Indo-European languages,
one easily overlooks the morphological expression of interclausal coherence, since
the morphological categories involved (like switch-reference in Papuan languages
and the opposition between prefix- and suffix verb conjugations in Semitic languages)
are unknown in Indo-European grammars. ‘Literal’ translations of Papuan or Semitic
clause chains often give an impression of a loose, additive ‘and...and…and’ style,
falsely suggesting a low level of interclausal integration in the Semitic or Papuan
source texts because the translations do not capture the morphological processes
of interclausal integration. The obligatory indication of switch-reference of Papuan
utterances for example is hard to translate explicitly and naturally in Indo-European
languages.
The philological debate on Homer is the source for the following three character-
istics ascribed by Ong to oral cultures: a formulaic style, a highly redundant style and
the absence of sequential parallelism. With the last feature Ong (1982:147) means that
oral narrators would have the tendency to start a story in medias res: “Oral narrative
is not greatly concerned with exact sequential parallelism between the sequence in the
narrative and the sequence in extra-narrative referents. Such a parallelism becomes
a major objective only when the mind interiorizes literacy.” The Homeric bards may
have had the tendency to use a in medias res narrative style, practically all Bible trans-
lators in New Guinea and also elsewhere (Callow 1974:43) struggle with the opposite
problem, namely that the target cultures tell stories in strict chronological order.
With a formulaic style Ong means the frequent use of epithets, proverbs, fixed
sayings, standard themes and so on. Indeed, anyone reading Homer will be struck
by the formulaic style. This style has been linked to the demands of the meter: to get
metrically smooth lines the oral performers of texts from the Homeric tradition could
choose from a large stock of epithets so that they could pick the epithet which best
suited the metric scheme of the line. But Ong goes further than this metric motiva-
tion, for him there is a mnemonic motivation: oral cultures cannot fix their insights
and knowledge in writing and in order to be able to fix knowledge in the memory,
knowledge is stored in easily storable rhythmic, formulaic form. Oral cultures think
in rhythmic, formulaic fashion, according to Ong (1982).
However, in the primary oral cultures formulaic elements do not appear to be

The importance of switch reference and temporality distinctions in clause chaining languages of New
Guinea does not imply the absence of overt grammatical marking of other semantic (interclausal)
relations like Cause or Reason (see for example De Vries and Wiersma 1992:63-64).
302 Ernst Wendland
significantly more prominent than in societies with writing. Rather, at least in some
oral societies, like the Awyu societies in south-east Irian Jaya, one has to look hard
to find evidence for formulaic elements. It is quite possible that the idea that primary
oral societies think in formulaic fashion has its roots in the fact that literate observ-
ers cannot imagine other ways of preserving and transmitting complex knowledge
than through language, in the form of easy to memorize verbal forms. But it is easy
to find other forms of preserving and transmitting knowledge in most oral societies.
The complex cosmology of the Marind and Asmat of Irian Jaya is represented in very
elaborate ritual actions, masks and woodcarvings. The totemic ancestors of Korowai
clans are remembered by food taboos concerning the totem animal. Of course, there
are myths which relate the same notions in verbal form but these myths have no
fixed linguistic form: it is the content, the intention of the mythology which counts.
The symbolic and dramatic representation of those contents in rituals and carvings,
together with the telling of the myths, ensures the transmission and continuation of
knowledge. It is not that the myths form the basis for the rituals, rather rituals and
myths express the same basic cosmological themes, in a mutually reinforcing way.
In the Awyu cultures which I studied even the magic ‘formulas’ had no fixed linguis-
tic form. In such magical expressions, the only fixed elements are proper names of
ancestors and spirits. These names are the fixed heart of the magic expressions since
the names evoke the powerful entities they are associated with.
Apart from additive parataxis, formulaism and the absence of sequential paral-
lelism, redundancy is stressed by Ong (1982) as a characteristic of primary oral
discourse: recapitulation, repetition and a low information rate. When reading the
reader can go back to what he has just read, the listener gets only one chance. When
writing, the writer can endlessly rephrase what he wants to write, the speaker has to
process his new utterance while performing the present utterance. Repeating infor-
mation and other strategies of reducing the amount of information per utterance all
help the speaker to win time to process his next utterance and the listener to process
the present utterance.
The verification of the claim that primary oral discourse has a high degree of
redundancy, by studying corpora of transcribed texts of oral societies, is not so easy
since the notion of redundancy is hard to define. What is redundant at the propositional
level may be informative at the interactional or rhetorical levels. Ong (1982) seems
to refer to redundancy at the propositional level. If we study text corpora from New
Guinea like the Korowai texts edited by Van Enk and De Vries (1997) from the per-
spective of propositional redundancy, two, at first sight conflicting, things strike the
observer. In the first place, tail-head linkage and generic verb linkage of clause chains
are two conventional recapitulative devices that occur very widely in New Guinea.
Especially in narrative texts these repetitive linking devices occur very frequently.
The other striking thing is the complaint by almost all scientific editors of such oral
texts that so much information is left implicit and is supposed to be known to the ad-
dressees that it is often impossible to know who is doing what and where the events
of the story are taking place.
These two at first sight contradictory aspects of New Guinea oral narratives, the
redundancy of the frequent recapitulative linkage devices and on the other hand the
avoidance of redundancy by leaving out known of inferable information both have

to do with the distribution of information in clause chains. The medial clauses in
the chains have a high information load: wherever possible, it is avoided to identify
participants with nominal phrases or pronouns. The addressees have to combine
switch-reference and agent cross-referencing morphology on the verb with context
and situation to identify participants of medial clauses. Not only participants but also
the time and place framework is left implicit wherever possible in medial clauses. The
clause chains are connected by tail-head linkage and generic verb linkage (Van Enk
& De Vries 1997). In tail-head linkage the last clause of the chain (the tail clause)
is repeated as the first clause (head) of the next chain. During tail-head linkage the
speaker talks much slower and repeats information. Thus the tail-head linkages pro-
vide conventional resting points between two chains for the speaker to process his
new chain and for the addressee to process the information from the previous one.
The highly redundant recapitulative linkages are badly needed to compensate for the
high rate of information in the medial parts of the chain.
Summarizing this section, we can say that very few universal claims about pri-
mary orality can stand the New Guinea test. The characteristics of primary orality as
additive-paratactic, redundant, formulaic, bound to concrete contexts and so on did
not emerge from empirical study of specific primary oral societies in their histori-
cal uniqueness but seem to result from universalistic projections on these societies
of pictures from various academic debates such as the Homeric debate, the debate
of written versus oral style in English and the anthropological debate on cognitive
dichotomies in terms of literate versus illiterate societies.
Oral genres and Bible translation

The complex relationship between oral genres and the genres which we find in
Bible translations can be clarified in terms of the notion of genre of Foley (1997).
Building on the work of Bakhtin (1986), Foley stresses that genre is not a abstract,
closed linguistic object like the grammatical notion of sentence but rather a historically
given way to produce and interpret texts in culture-specific settings and institutional
frameworks. Genres change when society changes and people use genre patterns
creatively for their own purposes. The ability to produce texts according to a specific
genre pattern is in many societies an important element in defining social roles, for
example, the pastor and the sermon, the scholar and the scientific article. This notion
of genre moves away from an a-historical, autonomistic and structuralistic notion
of genre and comes close, in several regards, to the notion of genre of scholars like
Gunkel, Bultman and Dibelius, for example in the link between genres and the social
and institutional frameworks in which genres function, the so-called Sitz im Leben.
The Sitz im Leben, the place of a text type in the life of a society, for example a wed-
ding ceremony or a harvest feast, was very much a diachronic notion for scholars
like Gunkel, embedded in nineteenth century thinking, it was the place where oral
Vorlagen of the biblical texts functioned. Modern notions of genre are both histori-
cal and synchronic, focusing on the way a text synchronically reflects the social and
institutional setting in which it functions.
304 Ernst Wendland
The historical and cultural dimensions of genres can be illustrated with the genre
lamolaup of the Korowai of Irian Jaya. The name of the genre means ‘history of the
world’. Only adult Korowai males may listen to and transmit these sacred origin sto-
ries. They are taboo for women, children and outsiders. They are told only in times
of crisis like severe droughts, solar eclipses, famines. The lamolaup stories relate
how the cosmic order came into being and in crisis situations, when Korowai people
feel that their world is falling apart, the narration of these stories is thought to help
restore the cosmic order of things.
In primary oral societies Bible translations are a new genre, or rather a new macro-
genre with sub-genres like psalms and apostolic letters. The newness of the genre of
bible translations does not only reside in the new medium, writing, but also in the
new social and cultural setting, the new Sitz im Leben, in which translated Bible texts
function, and in the secondary character of translations, secondary texts in the sense
that they represent texts written in the first place for other people, in another world
and in another language. These three factors are constitutive for the new macro-genre
of Bible translations and all three, the new medium (writing), the new social and
cultural functions (e.g., in church, with marriage and burial ceremonies) and the new,
secondary nature have tremendous impact on the way language is used in translations,
causing pragmatic innovations which set apart (Bible) translations as a new genre of
texts in oral societies.
Let us first discuss the new Sitz im Leben, the cultural function of translated Bible
texts and its concomitant pragmatic innovations. The translation functions first of
all as a religious base text in the young Christian community, in the liturgy but also
during other occasions such as marriage ceremonies and burials in a way entirely
different from the functions and roles of oral genres which have their own cultural
meanings following from their historically given Sitz im Leben. Compare the differ-
ences between a reading of Genesis 1 during a church service and a narration of a
Korowai lamolaup story of origin to adult males during a crisis situation in order to
overcome that situation.
The liturgical and ecclesiastical functions of Bible translations find their prag-
matic expression in the new genres found in these translations. Take for example the
pericopes with their headings found in translations. Whereas oral texts from narra-
tive genres like the Korowai lamolaup are narrated in long sessions of many hours,
in their entirety, the Biblical stories, like the Genesis narrative, are cut up in small
pericope units which are read to the congregation in readings of usually not more
than ten minutes. There is no place for the reading of whole books in the liturgy. The
pericope divisions tend to lead to repeated, strong identifications (by full nominal
phrases, pronouns) of participants in the beginning of new pericopes. This strong
identification of (given) participants at pericope breaks contrasts strongly with the
weak (usually verbal) identification of given participants in traditional oral narrative
genres. In addition to this, the headings form a new way to topicalize: oral genres
do not headings or titles to guide the addressees thematically and to identify short
story fragments.
In most oral societies of New Guinea, where most people remain functionally illit-
erate after literacy programs have been carried out simply because writing and reading
remain largely irrelevant for their daily lives, Bible translations tend to function as
follows: a small class of literati reads the translation during formal occasions to the
illiterate majority. In these circumstances it is of course essential that the translation
is easy to read aloud. Visual structuring signs, such as pericopes, headings, clearly
visible paragraph breaks, usually help those that have the task to read the translation
to other people. But the addressees in these circumstances need audible structuring
signals. If Achtemeier (1990) is right, many source texts in the Bible contain such
“acoustic clues”, audible signals structuring the text, because those texts functioned
in very similar fashion and were written to be read aloud to audiences. The apostolic
letters for example correspond in a certain sense to formal, public letters from Hel-
lenistic officials to the ekklesiai of the cities under their authority (Berger 1987: 212).
The ekklesia in the case of the apostolic letters is the Christian community and the
authority is apostolic and prophetic. Public reading of such letters to the Christian
community would fit that Sitz im Leben. Repetitions such as three times παρέδωκεv
αυτoυς ό θεoς in Romans 1 verses 24, 26 and 28 are examples of acoustic echoes in
the sense of Achtemeier (1990). Translations in oral settings should not translate away
such audible cohesion signals.
The secondary nature of translated texts, described by Hatim and Mason (1996:1)
as “an act of communication which attempts to relay, across cultural and linguistic
boundaries, another act of communication,” is the second factor behind the new
pragmatics of Bible translations. The world behind the translated text is a strange
world; it is the world of the ancient near east. The participants of the translation move
in that strange world. This makes the participants harder to trace, to keep apart and
the stylistic result is again a tendency to maintain given participants with relatively
strong, nominal means in addition to verbal means. This is in contrast with the weak,
verbal means commonly found in oral genres of New Guinea where participants, after
a single strong initial introduction, tend to be maintained by verbal agreements and
verbal switch-reference affixation. Biblical referents unknown to the receptor culture
like the Sanhedrin or phylacteries are often described in complex nominal phrases.
Both the pericope divisions (connected to the liturgical function) and the secondary
nature of translations have a nominalising effect on the style. Another factor favouring
participant identification by nominal means in Bible translations maybe the influence
of English, Indonesian and Tok Pisin base texts. This stylistic shift into nominal
direction in its turn leads to heavier, more elaborate clause structures. These heavier
clauses, the building blocks of clause chains, lead to shorter clause chains.
The genres that develop in translations of the Bible, like apostolic letters or psalms,
could be called secondary genres. Secondary genres mediate between primary genres
of source and receptor cultures; they will always contain elements from both source
and receptor genres but never coincide with those. For example, a translation of the
Song of Songs will always have genre continuities with Israelite love songs and with
love songs of the receptor culture but at the same time the translated text, as a second-
ary text, will be essentially different from both. A well-known secondary genre in
Dutch is the psalms. They have genre continuity with the Hebrew genre, for example
in paralellismus membrorum and in chiastic forms but the rhythm and sound patterns
are distinctly Dutch. At the same time the translated psalms received a crucial and
306 Ernst Wendland
special role in the liturgy of the various Dutch church traditions.

There are no general rules for the way in which secondary genres mediate between
primary genres of source and target cultures. Important factors are the function which
a translation has in speech and church communities, the cultural place of receptor
genres and the degree of formal and functional overlap between source and target
culture genres. The unique historically given cultural place of a genre does not mean
that there are no continuities of genres across cultures. When both source and target
cultures have similar institutions (like marriage or monarchy), there may be similarities
between the text types that developed in those institutional frameworks. There are also
formal similarities. Parallelism has been found in various forms in poetic genres in all
parts of the world (Foley 1997:366). Such genre continuities support the mediating
role of secondary genres. But in the end it is the creativity of the translator who creates
from the elements from source and target genres, new secondary genres.
The third factor distinguishing Bible translations as a new genre in oral societies is
the new medium, writing. The new medium has drastic effects for patterns language
use but not all pragmatic innovations should be ascribed to the new medium. One of
the most striking effects of the new medium is the sharp decrease in the use of topic
markers in written genres; in oral genres topic markers tend to be used frequently. The
change in the use of topic markers is not just a quantitative change. Bromley (1981)
notices a new constraint on the use of topic markers emerging in written genres of
Dani: one topic marker per clause. I have observed Papuan Bible translators re-editing
their translations and in the process they not only edited out topic markers in many
places but also inserted them sometimes in places where they had been absent in the
first drafts.
The drastic decrease of topic markers in translations follows from the double
functionality of topic markers in oral genres of New Guinea languages, they indicate
thematic coherence but they also have a processual function, to mark pause, in order
to give the speaker the chance to formulate what he wants to say and the addressees
to process what they just heard (Bromley 1981; Van Enk & de Vries 1997). The the-
matic function remains in translations, although it is realized in a different fashion in
translations than in oral genres, but the pause and hesitation function of topic markers
becomes irrelevant. Another effect of the written medium is the decrease of the use
of tail-head linkages in Bible translations; just like topic markers, tail-head linkages
have both thematic and processual functions and it is the processual function which
becomes irrelevant in written genres.
The combined stylistic effects of the three genre distinguishing factors of new me-
dium (writing), new cultural functions (church, burials, marriages) and the secondary
nature are pervasive and drastic: decrease and different distributions of topic markers
and tail-head linkages, increase of nominal participant identifications, heavier clauses,
shorter clause chains, to mention a few.
The fact that specific new pragmatic patterns develop in the new (macro)genre of
Bible translations makes it problematic to apply stylistic patterns from other genres,
such as traditional oral genres, in Bible translations. An example would be the use of
cohesive elements like topic markers. The way these are used in oral genres is not
automatically right for a genre like Bible translations. Renck (1990:96-97) gives
interesting data from the Yagaria area of Papua New Guinea. The New Testament
has been translated into two dialects of Yagaria, in the Move dialect and in the Kami-
Kuluka dialect. Renck (1990) gives Mark 15 verse 21 in both translations:
(1) Yagaria (Move dialect):

Gitoga ne’vagani ve bogo agi’a
path-on while they go-and he-man one name-his
Simo’, Gilene yo’ igopaloti’ de, Alesategi

Simon Cyrene village land-from manAlexander-and
Lufugiteti’ avoti’ama’ agaea hoyaviti’

Rufus-and both father-their dl. he garden-from
no’egapi fotu hida lebelebe hida

while he comes-and they meet they-and urge they-and
tagani Yesu malipuyava’a

do him they-and he Jesus cross tree-his
govile gapi idae.

he carries-and they they went
‘While they went on the street, a man by the name of Simon, a man from the settle-
ment of Cyrene, the father of both Alexander and Rufus, as he came from the field,
they met him and urged him, and (as) he carried the cross of Jesus, they went on.’
(2) Yagaria (Kami-Kuluka dialect):
Zisasibo bagesamahebo gavaileda

Jesus kill-they were going to him lead they-and
lida baleda ne’vaganahebo debogobo

take-and put-end while they go-and he man-one
no’egana fotu hae.

while he comes-and meet they
Fotu hama demo Sailini gaigali

meet they-that man Cyrene place
demo Alekesadagiti’a Lufasigiti’a

man Alexander-and both Rufus-and both
avo’ina’amabo gi’amo Saimonibo lina

father-their dl. name-his Simon take-and
balonae egana Zisasibo gavaileda

put-and come he-and Jesus him lead they-and
308 Ernst Wendland
ama vemo havu vemagimo hakeli’a

come they-that man bow men strong
gemo hapaedahebo kagaemo taginoka

word him tell they you you turn back-and
taloka Zisasibo bagesupa

you take and Jesus kill-in order that we shall
zavamo govilika vuvo hida hagana

tree you carry-and you go say-and speak they-and he
govilina vize.
carries he-and he goes
‘While they go, leading Jesus in order that they kill him, a man is coming, and they
meet him. The man they meet, a man from the place of Cyrene, the father of both Al-
exander and Rufus, by the name of Simon, he comes. As he comes, the men which lead
Jesus and come, the soldiers, tell him strongly: you turn back, and take the timber on
which we will kill Jesus, carry it and go! After they say that, he carries it and goes.’
The Kami-Kuluka version in (2) uses cohesive markers (and tail-head linkage)
as in oral Yagaria narrative genres: it has 17 cohesive markers (printed in bold) in 3
sentences which are connected by tail-head linkage (underlined). The Move version
does not use those devices in this fragment. Renck (1990) writes that the Kami-Ku-
luka version is harder to read than the Move version because of the high frequency
of cohesive markers and other ‘oral’ features.
Conclusion
We still do not know much about processes of pragmatic innovation in Bible transla-
tions in oral societies. The little that has been written on the subject approaches such
processes from assumed written/oral style oppositions. Renck (1990:87) interprets the
differences between the two Yagaria versions also from that point of view: He sees
the Move version as having a compact written style and the Kami-Kuluka version as
a long-winding, hard to read ‘oral’ style. However, when we look at the two Yagaria
versions from a broader notion of genre, within which the medium (writing versus
speech) is only one genre-determining factor, we see that the Kami-Kuluka version
indeed follows oral genres as far as topic markers is concerned but in terms of refer-
ent identification the Kami-Kuluka version has a typical secondary genre pattern:
the soldiers and the cross for example are identified with heavy nominal phrases. In
this regard, the Kami-Kuluka version deviates more from oral narrative genres than
the Move version.
New pragmatic patterns like reduction and redistribution of topic markers and in-
crease of nominal participant identifications emerge quickly in the new written genres
of oral societies. Just like lexical-semantic innovations, they emerge spontaneously

in speech communities as a response to new communicative needs. In the very initial
stage of new written genres, for example in first drafts of the first translated Bible
books, sometimes translators in New Guinea still use many cohesive markers and
recapitulative linkages. However, when reviewing and editing their texts, translators
tend to edit out many cohesive markers and recapitulative linkages but at the same
time they insert them in places where they were absent in the first draft. These edit-
ing tendencies are even stronger in later revisions of the translation. All this points
to processes of pragmatic innovation that are developing in the new written genres.
Sometimes this birth of new genres is not welcomed by translation consultants who
see the traditional oral genres as the natural model for translated texts and in such
a framework favour the use of topic markers, recapitulative linkages and sequential
parallelism as a ‘natural’ style for translations.
Given the influence and strong role of external translation consultants in many
translation projects in oral contexts, it is crucial that they view ‘naturalness’ from
a broad notion of genre and not from the perspective of oral-written style opposi-
tions and of stereotypes of primary orality. What is needed is a genre notion which
distinguishes between primary and secondary genres and which treats genres not
as a formal, structuralistic notion but as a pragmatic and historical category. In this
perspective, a natural style is a style which follows from the factors which are con-
stitutive of a given genre. In the case of the macro-genre of Bible translations, these
factors are the secondary nature, the written medium and the cultural role of these
texts in the church and in the speech community. The secondary nature is responsible
for the integration of elements from both primary source and primary receptor culture
genres into the new secondary genres found in the translations. These elements from
primary genres are not copied into the translations but rather creatively transformed
within secondary genres.
References for Appendix

Achtemeier, P. J. 1990. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the oral environ-
ment of late Western Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109/1. 3-27.
Baayen, Harald R. 1997. “The pragmatics of the ‘Tenses’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Studies in
Language 21/2. 245-285.
Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Berger, K. 1987. “Het Nieuwe Testament als literatuur.” In A.S. van der Woude (ed.),
Bijbels Handboek, deel III. Kampen: Kok. 194-221.
Besnier, N. 1995. Literacy, emotion and authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bromley, Myron H. 1981. A grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani (Pacific Linguistics
C-63). Canberra: Australian National University.
Callow, K. 1974. Discourse considerations in translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
310 Ernst Wendland
Chafe, W.L. and J. Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of spoken and written language.” In
R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. New
York: Academic Press. 83-113.
Chafe, W.L. 1988. “Linking intonation units in spoken English.” In J. Haiman and S.
Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benja-
mins. 1-27.
Gerrit J. van Enk and Lourens de Vries. 1997. The Korowai of Irian Jaya: Their language
in its cultural context. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: University
Press.
Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1996. The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Kelber, Werner. 1983. The oral and the written Gospel: The hermeneutics of speaking and
writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lévy-Brühl, Lucien. 1926. How natives think. New York: Knopf.
Noss, Philip A. 1981. “The oral story and Bible translation.” Bible Translator 32/3.
249-318.
Olson, D. 1994. The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing
and reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.
Parry, Milman. 1928. L’Epithète traditionelle dans Homère. Paris: Société Éditrice Les
Belles Lettres.
Renck, Günther. 1990. Contextualization of Christianity and christianization of language:
A case study from the highlands of Papua-New Guinea. Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.Luth.
Mission.
Scribner, S. and M. Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Vries, Lourens de and Robinia Wiersma. 1990. The morphology of Wambon of the Irian
Jaya Upper-Digul area. Leiden: KITLV Press.
References
Aune, David. 1997. Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52). Dallas: Word
Books.
------ 2003. The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature
and rhetoric. Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press.
Baker, Mona. 1992. In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York:
Routledge.
------ 2006. “Editorial: Translation and context.” Journal of Pragmatics 38, 317-320.
------ 2006. “Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-mediated events.” Journal
of Pragmatics 38, 321-337.
Barnstone, Willis. 1993. The poetics of translation: History, theory, practice. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.
Basco, Francesca M., Monica Bucciarelli, and Bruno G. Bara. 2004. “The fundamental
context categories in understanding communicative intention.” Journal of Pragmatics
36, 467–488.
Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation studies (3rd edition). London and New York: Routledge.
Bascom, Robert. 2003. “Lost in translation: Mental maps and the cultural understanding of
scripture.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop,
Foz do Iguassu, Brazil.
Bauckham, Richard. 1993. The climax of prophecy: Studies on the book of Revelation.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Beale, G.K. 1999. The Book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Beasley-Murray, G.R. 1997. “Revelation.” In R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids (eds.), Dic-
tionary of the later New Testament & its developments. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.
Belloc, Hilaire. 1931. On translation. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Benjamin, Walter. 1969. “The task of the translator.” In H. Arendt (ed.; H. Zohn, trans.),
Illuminations: Essays and reflections. New York: Schocken.
Blackmore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bluhm, Heinz. 1965. Martin Luther: Creative translator. St. Louis: Concordia.
Blumczynski, Piotr. 2007. “The Gospel in slang: with special reference to the contemporary
Polish context.” The Bible Translator 58:1, 19-30.
Boase-Beier, Jean. 2006. Stylistic approaches to translation (Translation Theories Ex-
plored). Manchester: St. Jerome.
Bock, Darrell L. 2005. “Are gender-sensitive translations safe or out?” Bible Translator
56:3, 169-187.
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, Richard. 2004. “New dimensions in communicative translation.” Power Point
presentation included on the CD: Bible Translation – 2003. Dallas: SIL International.
Slides 1-141.
Campbell, Charles L. 2003. “Apocalypse now: Preaching Revelation as narrative.” In Joel
B. Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading, narrative preaching:
Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 151-175.
312 Ernst Wendland
Chesterman, Andrew. 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath,” The Translator, 7:2,
139-154.
Collins, C. John. 2005. “What the reader wants and the translator can give: First John
as a test case.” In W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter,
Translating truth: The case for essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Cross-
way Books, 77-111.
Coulson, Seanna. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in mean-
ing construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crisp, Simon. 2000. “Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its
Implications for Bible Translation.” Unpublished paper prepared for the Triennial
Translation Workshop of the United Bible Societies, Malaga, Spain.
den Hollander, A. A. 1997. De Nederlandse Bijbelvertalingen 1522-1545. Nieuwkoop.
de Vries, Lourens. 2000. “Bible translation and primary orality.” Bible Translator 51:1,
101-114.
------ 2003. “Paratext and Skopos of Bible translations.” In W.F. Smelik, A. A. den Hol-
lander, U. B. Schmidt (eds.), Paratext and megatext as channels of Jewish and Christian
traditions. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers (Jewish and Christian Perspectives
Series), 176-193.
de Waard, Jan and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. Functional equivalence in Bible translating:
From one language to another. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Dick, W., L. Carey, and J. O. Carey. 2001. The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.).
New York: Longman.
Dooley, Robert A. 1995. “Combining functional and formal approaches to language.”
Notes on Linguistics 69, 5-34.
------ 2005. “Source-language versus target-language discourse features in translating the
Word of God.” Journal of Translation 1:2, 1-18.
------ and Stephen H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts.
Dallas: SIL International.
Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural symbols. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
------ 1993. In the wilderness: The doctrine of defilement in the book of Numbers (JSOT
Supplement Series 158). Sheffield: JSOT/Sheffield Press.
Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as
an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Barrie and Alina Krajewska. 2006. “ ‘Equivalence’ in the presence of ‘otherness’.”
The Bible Translator 57:3, 138-153.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. 1975. Revelation: Introduction, translation, and commentary
(Anchor Bible). Garden City: Doubleday.
Gonzalez, Julia and Robert Wagenaar. 2003. Tuning educational structures in Europe.
Final report: Phase one. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
Grudem, Wayne. 2005. “Are only some words of Scripture breathed out by God? Why
plenary inspiration favors ‘essentially literal’ Bible translations.” In W. Grudem, L.
Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating truth: The case for
essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 19-56.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1992. Relevance theory: A guide to successful communication in
translation. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
References 313
------ 2000. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St Jerome.
Hanks, William, 1992. “The indexical ground of deictic reference.” In Duranti, Ales-
sandro and Charles Goodwin, (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive
Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–76.
Hatim, Basil and Jeremy Munday. 2004. Translation: An advanced resource book. London
and New York: Routledge.
Hays, Richard B. 2005. The conversion of the imagination: Paul as interpreter of Israel’s
Scripture. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Hill, Harriet. 2003. “Communicating context in Bible translation.” Word & Deed 2:2, 1-31.
------ 2005. “The effect of key term choices on local theology.” Unpublished paper
presented at The Bible in Africa conference, September 19-23, University of KwaZulu-
Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 1-18.
------ 2006. The Bible at cultural crossroads: From translation to communication. Man-
chester: St Jerome.
Hill, Ralph. 2004. “Contextual adjustment strategies and Bible translation.” Word &
Deed 3.1, 1-25.
Hymes, Dell. 1962. “The ethnography of speaking.” In T.A. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant,
eds., Anthropology and human behavior. Washington: Anthropological Society of
Washington, 15-53.
Johnson, Alan F. 1994. “Revelation” in K.L. Barker and J. Kohlenberger III (eds.),
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary (vol. 2: New Testament). Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 1125-1232.
Katan, David. 2004 (2nd ed). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, inter-
preters and mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Keener, Craig S. 1993. The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Kelly, Dorothy. 2005. A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice
[Translation Practices Explained]. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Keita, S. and J. W. Dyk. 2006. “The scene at the threshing floor: Suggestive readings and
intercultural considerations on Ruth 3.” Bible Translator 57:1, 7-32.
Kiraly, Donald. 2000. Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: Kent
State University Press.
Kompaoré, Anne E. Garber. 2004. Discourse analysis of directive texts: The case of bibli-
cal law. M.A. Thesis, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart IN.
Lacey, Rob. 2003. The Word on the street. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. 2006. “Reasoning styles and types of hortatory discourse.” Journal
of Translation 2:2, 1-10.
Lindstrom, Lamont. 1992. “Context contests: debatable truth statements on Tanna
(Vanuatu).” In Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context:
Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
101–124.
Louw, Johannes P and Eugene A. Nida (eds.). 1988. Greek-English lexicon of the New
Testament based on semantic domains (Vol. 1: Introduction & Domains). New York:
United Bible Societies.
Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. Word-order variation in biblical Hebrew poetry: Differentiating
pragmatics and poetics. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster.
314 Ernst Wendland
Malina, Bruce J and Richard L Rohrbaugh. 1992. Social-science commentary on the

Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
------ and John J. Pilch. 2000. Social-science commentary on the book of Revelation.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Matthewson, Andrew. 2007. “Cartoon-style Bible hits the mark.” UBS World Report
408, 19.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (second
edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Miller, Cynthia L. 2005. “Translating biblical proverbs in African cultures: Between form
and meaning.” Bible Translator 56:3, 129-144.
Mojola, Aloo. 2003. “Bible translation in the context of the ‘text, church and world’ matrix
– a post-Nida perspective.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Trans-
lation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil.
Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and editing for translators [Translation Practices Ex-
plained]. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Moyise, Steve and Maarten J.J. Menken (eds.). 2004. The Psalms in the New Testament.
London & New York: T&T Clark International.
Nagai, Yasuko. 1994. “Reading theories and methods and their relationship to cognitive
and cultural learning styles.” Notes on Literacy 20:4, 33-54.
Nida, Eugene A and Taber, Charles R. 1969. The theory and practice of translation.
Leiden: Brill.
Omanson, Roger. 2006. A textual guide to the Greek New Testament: An adaptation of
Bruce M. Metzger’s Texual Commentary for the needs of translators. Stuttgart: Ger-
man Bible Society.
Ott, Willis. 2005. A consultant’s notes for Bible translators: Notes on the book of visions
commonly called Revelation (3 vols., CONOT). CD copy made available by the author
(Willis_Ott@sil.org).
Pattemore, Stephen W. 1994. “Principalities and powers in Urak Lawoi’, Introduction:
Contextualizing key terms.” Bible Translator 45:1, 116-129.
------ 2003. Souls under the altar: Relevance theory and the discourse structure of Revela-
tion (UBS Monograph Series No. 9). New York: United Bible Societies (CD copy).
Porter, Stanley. 1999. “The Contemporary English Version and the ideology of transla-
tion.” In Stanley Porter and Richard Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible – Problems
and prospects. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 18-45.
Pritz, Ray. 2006. Producing study editions of the Scriptures (CD format). Reading, UK:
United Bible Societies.
Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and text transfer. New York: Peter Lang.
------ 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Reiss, Katharina (trans. Erroll Rhodes). 2000. Translation criticism: The potentials &
limitations (Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment). Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Ross, Ron. 2003. “Advances in linguistic theory and their relevance to translation.” In
Wilt (ed., q.v.), 113-151.
Rowland, Christopher C. 1998. “The book of Revelation: Introduction, commentary, and
reflections.” In L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (vol. XII). Nashville;
Abingdon Press, 502-743.
References 315
Ryken, Leland. 1992 (2nd ed.). Words of delight: A literary introduction to the Bible.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
------ 2005. Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible translation differences. Wheaton:
Crossway.
Salisbury, Murray (ed.). 2002. Skills for translating and exegeting the primary Scriptures
(STEPS): An electronic resource for self-study and for training others (trial version).
CD copy provided by the author (murray_salisbury@sil.org).
Saunders, Stanley P. 2003. “Revelation and resistance: Narrative and worship in John’s
Apocalypse.” In Joel B. Green and Michael Pasquarello III (eds.), Narrative reading,
narrative preaching: Reuniting New Testament interpretation and proclamation. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 107-150.
Semantic dictionary of biblical Hebrew. 2000-2006. Reading, UK: United Bible Societies.
Smeno, Dag and Andrea Rhodes. 2007. “Sharing God’s Word with music-loving Azeris.”
UBS World Report 408, 3-4.
Spielmann, Ruth and Hart. 2003. “Secondary orality.” Unpublished paper presented at the
UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Foz do Iguassu, Brazil [Available from TIC Talk 53:
www.ubs-translations.org/cms/download.php?94fa9821fdc87de572e9fadd744b273d].
Starcher, Richard L. 2007. “Assessing for quality.” ACTEA Forum No. 6 (email message
of 15/01/2007).
Stockwell, Peter. 2002. An introduction to cognitive poetics. London & New York:
Routledge.
Strauss, Mark L. 2005. “Form, function, and the ‘literal meaning’ fallacy in English Bible
translation.” Bible Translator 56:3, 153-168.
Sundersingh, Julian. 2003. “Analysis of density in audio Scriptures: Implications for
translation.” Unpublished paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop,
Foz do Iguassu, Brazil.
Tamez, Elsa. 2006. “The Bible from the perspective of the deaf community.” Unpublished
paper presented at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya.
Terry, Ralph B. 1995. A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians. Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
Thiselton, Anthony C. 1980. The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philo-
sophical description. Exeter UK: Paternoster Press.
Thomas, Kenneth J. and Margaret Orr Thomas. 2006. Structure and orality in 1 Peter:
A guide for translators (UBS Monograph Series, No. 10). New York: United Bible
Societies.
Van der Jagt, Krijn. 2002. Anthropological approaches to the interpretation of the Bible
(UBS Monograph Series 8). New York: United Bible Societies.
------ and Ray Pritz. 2004. The Bible lands as classroom (7 CD series plus Presenter’s
Manual). Reading, UK: United Bible Societies.
Van Dijk, Teun A., 2001. “Discourse, ideology and context.” Folia Linguistica XXXV,
11–40.
Van Steenbergen, Gerrit J. 2007. “Worldview analysis as an exegetical tool (Part 1).” The
Bible Translator 58:1, 30-40.
Vella, Jane. 2002. Learning to listen – Learning to teach: The power of dialogue in edu-
cating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press.
Voth, Esteban. 2005. “Orality and writtenness in ancient near eastern prophecy: Its ef-
fect on translation as communication in Latin America.” The Bible Translator 56:3,
114-128.
316 Ernst Wendland
Voth, Steven. 2006. “Towards an Ethic of Bible Translation.” Unpublished paper presented
at the UBS Triennial Translation Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya.
Watts, R.J. 1991. “Cross-cultural problems in the perception of literature.” In P. Sell (ed.),
Literary pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge, 26-43.
Weber, David J. 2005. “A tale of two translation theories.” Journal of Translation 1:2, 1-40.
Wendland, Ernst. 1985. Language, society, and Bible translation. Cape Town: Bible
Society of South Africa.
------ 1992. “Temple site or cemetery? – A question of perspective: The influence of world
view on the interpretation of Haggai 2:10-19 and its implications for the handling of
implicit information in Bible translation.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics
5:1, 37-85
------ 2004. Translating the literature of Scripture: A literary-rhetorical approach to Bible
translation. Dallas: SIL International.
------ 2005a. “A literary (artistic-rhetorical) approach to biblical text analysis and trans-
lation, with special reference to Paul’s letter to Philemon.” Journal of Biblical Text
Research 16, 266-363.
------ 2005b. “Aspects of ‘quality’ and ‘quality control’ in Bible translation.” Bible Trans-
lation – 2005 Conference CD. Dallas: SIL International.
------ 2006a. “Translator training in Africa: Is there a better way of teaching and learning?”
The Bible Translator 57:2, 58-65.
------ 2006b. LiFE-style translating: A workbook for Bible translators. Dallas: SIL
International.
------ and Salimo Hachibamba. 2000a. “A central African perspective on contextualizing the
Ephesian potentates, principalities, and powers.” Missiology XXVIII:3, 341-363.
------ 2000b. “ ‘Do you understand what you are reading [hearing]?’ (Acts 8:30): The
translation and contextualization of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in Chitonga.” In G. West and
M. Dube (eds.), The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends, Leiden:
Brill, 538-556.
West, Gerald. 1996. “Reading the Bible differently: Giving shape to the discourse of the
dominated.” Semeia 73, 21-41.
------ and Musa Dube (eds). 1996. “Reading with”: An exploration of the interface between
critical and ordinary readings of the Bible (African overtures). Semeia 73.
Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 1998 (2nd ed., 2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria:
ACSD.
Wilcox, Michael. 1975. I saw heaven opened: The message of Revelation. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press.
Wilson, Mark. 2002. “Revelation.” In C.E. Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible
background commentary (vol.4). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 245-383.
Wilt, Timothy (ed). 2003. Bible translation: Frames of reference. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Winter, Bruce. 2005. “Revelation versus rhetoric: Paul and the first-century Corinthian
fad.” In W. Grudem, L. Ryken, C.J. Collins, V.S. Poythress, and B. Winter, Translating
truth: The case for essentially literal Bible translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books,
135-150.
Zogbo, Lynell and Ernst Wendland. 2004. Hebrew poetry in the Bible: A guide for under-
standing and for translating. New York: United Bible Societies.
index
accentuation 198 Bible translation, organizational frames 78

acceptability 226 Bible translation, project setting 15-16, 43-45, 72,
accountability 76, 281 123
acoustic clues 305 Bible translation, strategies 34
Africa 8, 13, 29, 37, 68 Bible translation, types 15
alliteration 160 Bible Translation: Frames of Reference v, xv, xvii, 72
allusion 112, 203 (Revelation), 205 Bible Translator 294
anadiplosis 155 biblical literacy 292
anaphora 152, 197 bibliolatry 79-80
aperture 153, 185, 198 blind spots, cultural 29
apocalypse 187, 190 Bluhm, Heinz 117, 118
appeal-focused text 232 Blumczynski, Piotr 104-105
applied learning 276-277 Boase-Beier, Jean 17-18, 156, 165
apprenticeship training 274 Bock, Darrell 58-59
appropriateness 51, 69, 275 borrowing, interlingual 119
argumentation 160 borrowing, intertextual 118-119
artistic 156, 198 boundary markers, compositional 146-147, 168, 196
assessment (evaluation) of translation xvii, 75-76, (Revelation)
101, 211, 226-227, 268, 271, 280, 285 breaks, compositional 144, 146-147, 194
assonance 160 Brief 71, 76, 101, 122, 208
audience, target xvi, 46, 60, 71, 85, 101-102, 208, Brown, Richard 234
216, 225, 226, 227, 235
audio articulation 207 canon, of Scripture 128-129
audio effects 160 capabilities 25
audio Scriptures 61, 135, 170, 224, 233 causality 19-20
Aune, David 175, 176, 180, 181, 190, 260 cell phone 10-11, 23, 40
authenticity 227-228 Centre for Bible Interpretation and Translation in
authorial intention 246 Africa vi, xviii, 295
authorship, of Revelation 174-175 challenge – riposte 63
channel of communication 93
Bacchiocchi, Samuele 191 Chewa xiii, xvi, 2, 49-50, 99, 119, 121, 174, 208,
“backward design” (pedagogy) 278-279 217, 234, 236, 291
Baker, Mona 75, 94, 239 chiasm / chiasmus 153, 154, 197
balance, syntactic 200 Christianity 33, 185
ballet 248 chunking 143-144
Bantu language/s 122 church 68
Barnstone, Willis 218-219 citation (quotation) 112
Bascom, Robert xi, 5, 7, 31-32 clashes in viewpoint 12, 16, 50, 72, 80, 166
base translation 120 clause chaining 300-301
base-models approach 120, 211 climax 156, 198, 200, 265
Beale, G.R. 175, 188, 189, 203, 204, 205 closure 153, 198
Beasley-Murray, G.K. 177, 186 coach 81-82
Beatitudes 26 cognitive contextual possibilities 235
beauty, literary 101, 164, 171 cognitive environment 27-28, 174, 183-184 (Revela-
behavior 25 tion), 235-236, 292
belief system 24 cognitive filters 23-25
Bible 13 cognitive frames 13
Bible translation xiii, xv, 6, 9, 71, 305-306 (genre) coherence 147
Bible translation, “essentially literal” 87-88, 269- cohesion 147, 157, 196, 308
270 Collins, John 269
Bible translation, administrative committee 71, 223, communal / collective learning 274-275
226-227 communication 12
Bible translation, challenges / problems 61-62, 69, communication breakdown 14, 29, 34, 53
85-86, 102-103 communication dynamics 94
318 Ernst Wendland
communication embedding 179-180 (Revelation) egocentric conception 249

communication gap 60 electronic literacy 66-67
communicative (hermeneutical) clues 11, 132-133 electronic media 11, 65, 293, 295
comparative learning 276 electronic text 66, 71, 77, 224-225
competition 21 emotion 6, 28, 41, 100, 106, 156, 218
concepts 35, 41, 49, 162, 235 enclavists 32
conceptual blending 42, 205 enculturation 38, 41
conceptual context 1-2, 182 (Revelation), 234 engagement, of the audience 101, 281 (pedagogical)
conceptual network formation 59-60 environment 20, 25
concordance 237 Ephesians 240-242
conditions of service 74 epiphora 153
connotation 7, 85, 99, 101, 106, 235 epistle 188
connotative clash 58 epithets 199
consultant 81-82 error types, translation 229
Contemporary English Version (CEV) 220 essential skills course 81, 83
context xvi, 2-3, 7, 17, 28, 59, 94, 173, 235, 292 ethics, in translation 90-91
contextual adjustment strategies 223 exegesis 293
contextual assumptions 227 Exegetical Summaries 293
contextual conditioning 117, 245-246 exercises on translation xv
contextual factors v, 177-178 (Revelation), 207 Exodus 136-137
contextual implications 227 explanatory notes 236-237, 242-243, 267
contextualization 124, 173, 212, 242, 246-247, 273 explicatures 18, 207
contextualized cognitive conditioning 238-239 extratextual resources 26, 222-223
convergence (combination of features) 155, 158 extratextual supplementation 223-224 (Revelation)
copyright 74
Corinthians, epistle 167-168, 169-170 faith 34
cotext 3, 7, 185 (Rev. 4), 186, 259-260 (Rev. 5) fidelity 227
Crisp, Simon 77-78 focus 156, 198
cultural orientations 19-21, 33 foreground 156
culture 22, 265 foreignization, of communication / translation 79,
customs 36 123, 257-258
format, typographical 161, 168-169
date of composition (Revelation) 176-177 formula, compositional 155
De Blois, Renier 50 frame / framing 5
De Vries, Lourens xi, xiv, 78, 85, 248-249, 296 frame interaction 6
defamiliarization 158, 202 frame prioritizing 10, 13
deictic particles 199 frames in competition / conflict 14-15
denominations, Christian 76-77 frames of reference xiii, xv, xvi, 2, 4, 17
denotation 85, 235 frames of reference, cognitive 18
dependency 74 frames of reference, organizational 68, 79, 209
Deuterocanon 129 frames of reference, situational 92, 179 (Revelation)
developmental learning 275 frames of reference, sociocultural 36, 69, 208
dialect 93, 103, 307 frames of reference, textual 110, 210
dialogue 272-273, 279 functional equivalence 133, 134
dialogue education 279-280 funeral 8, 13, 29-30
direct discourse (speech) 194, 199
gate-keepers 72, 75
discourse analysis 183 (Revelation), 185
gender issues 57-58
discourse marker 10, 49, 110-111, 132, 141, 146, 155,
generic-specific 4
183, 185, 200, 203, 306
genre bending 202
disjunction 143-144, 194 (Revelation), 264 genre selection / specification 135, 263
domestication, of communication / translation 60, 79, genre/s 43, 93, 110, 135-136, 177 (Revelation), 187,
123, 257-258 263, 303-306, 308
Dooley, Thomas 41, 45, 60 German 18, 117
Douglas, Mary 31, 79 goals 285
Drama 189 goals of communication 92, 159, 196
Dutch 85-86, 249-258 (translation) Good News Translation (GNT) 121, 220, 269
echo, intertextual 112-113 Graphic Bible 248
Index 319
Greek, koine 164 Irian Jaya 302-303

Greek-English Lexicon of the NT 49, 99-100, 241 irony 157, 158
grid 31 isolationists 32
grid-group perspective 31
group 31 James, epistle of 47, 134, 135
Gutt, Ernst-August 6, 10, 133, 242, 292 Jameson, Andrew 286
job commission 71, 76
Hays, Richard 115 Joel 149-152, 157-158
hierarchists 31 John 162-163, 176
high-context / low-context cultures 38-39 Johnson, Alan 175, 190
high-context communication (HCC) 38 Journal of Translation 294
Hill, Harriet 213, 227, 235, 236, 238, 292
Hill, Ralph 213, 227 Katan, David 19, 24, 38-39
holistic approach xv, 280 Keita, S. & Dyk, J.W. 53
honor – shame 44, 63 Kelly, Dorothy 277-278, 283-284
hortatory thesis 22, 159 key, communicative 92
human relation skills 81 King James Version (KJV) 119
human resource development (HRD) 80, 84 kinship 249
Hymes, Del 92
hymn 200 language of wider communication (LWC) 37, 120,
hyperbole 157 147, 295
hypertext 65-66 layout, compositional 170
Levinsohn, Stephen 22, 41, 159
ideology 23 literary features xiii, 132, 217 (Chewa), 264
idiolect creation 202 literary functional equivalence (LiFE) 216-217
idiom 7-8 literary translation 165, 219
idiomacity 228 literary(artistic)-rhetorical analysis xiv, 156, 166,
illocution 96 171, 186 (Rev. 4)
illocutionary force 134, 269 liturgy 189
illustrations 57, 96, 238, 266 locution 96
imagery 157, 180, 199, 261 logo 73
implication 18, 57, 100 love – hate 63
implicatures 18, 166, 207, 227 low-context communication (LCC) 38
implied audience 176 Lusaka Bible Translation Centre 70
implied author 176 Luther, Martin 117
in group – out group 64
inclusio 153, 154, 196, 197, 264 magic 49-50, 109, 241
indigenized instruction 274 Malina, Bruce & Pilch, John 260, 267
individualism – collectivism 20 Malina, Bruce & Rohrbaugh, Richard 62
individualists 31 memo of understanding, of translation project 123
Indonesia 256-257 mental representations (mental models) 17, 40-43,
inductive deductive style 22, 245, 273-274, 283, 285 45-47, 110
inductive – deductive thinking 20, 280 metaphor 42, 148, 157, 165, 198, 225
inference 18, 45, 61, 207 metonym 42, 148, 158, 185, 242
instruction (direction) 159 millennium 191
intelligibility 228 Miller, Cynthia 220-221
intention, translation 89 mimetic traditions 251
interactive / participatory instruction 273, 280 Mitchell, Bill 106
intercultural communication v model translation 120
intercultural mediation 256 Mojola, Aloo 9, 79
intercultural spaces 257 Mossop, Brian 229-230
interference, linguistic 118, 201, 245, 257
interpretive framework 129-130, 184 (Revelation) Narrative 188
intertextual pressure 116-117, 131 National Bible Society (NBS) 71, 209
intertextuality 110, 112-114, 131, 180, 202 (Revela- networking 291
tion), 259, 265 New Guinea 300, 304-305
intratextuality 131-132, 186, 197 non-print media 170, 205, 224, 225, 232, 247
intuition xiv, xviii non-verbal communication 30, 61
320 Ernst Wendland
norms of communication 92 prophecy 187

novelty 280 prose 141-143
proverbs 220-222
objectives 285-286 proximity 227
Ogden, G. & Zogbo, L. 124 public relations 72
Ong, Walter 297-299 purity – pollution 64
onion xvi, 1, 3, 173
oracle 153 quality control 73, 211, 226
oral articulation 192, 194-195, 224 Quechua (Peru) 106-108
oral culture 40, 298-301
oral narrative 301 reader-response criticism 244
oral style 308-309 recontextualization 240, 247
oral-aural dimension / discourse 160, 167 recursion 148-149, 152, 196-198 (Revelation), 264
oral-aural features 161, 264 redundancy 40, 218, 301-303
orality, primary 296-299, 309 Reformed Churches 250-251
oratorical text / translation 192-193, 216, 247 Reiss, Katarina 230-232
oratory 161 relatedness 280
organization 21, 23, 44, 68-70, 73-74, 80-81, 84 relations 41
organizations, competing 85 relationships 20, 183
Orthodox perspective 77-78 relevance principle 6, 42, 242
“otherness” 270-271 relevance theory 28, 97, 133, 135, 183
relevancy 228
paraenetic discourse (paraenesis) 181, 189 religious beliefs 14
parallelism 126, 133, 154, 157, 161, 162, 196, 198, repetition 40, 61, 133, 147-149, 196, 245, 302
200, 306 research 26, 35, 62, 65, 67, 77, 101-103, 122, 218,
parataxis 299-300 223, 233-234, 268, 276, 292, 295
paratext 222, 265 resources 25, 73-74, 120, 291
Paratext 43, 120, 276, 293 295 respect (pedagogical) 280
paratextual resources 26, 72, 222, 225, 236 restatement 148, 196
paronomasia (punning) 160 Revelation xvi, 10, 174
patron – client 63 revision parameters, for translation 229
Pattemore, Stephen 182 revision principles 230
pause points 181 revision, of a translation 102, 119, 237, 271, 309
peak 156, 158, 168, 198, 200 rhetorical 156, 158-159, 188, 198, 216, 229, 246
perceptibility 11, 115 rhetorical question 61, 155, 158
performance (Revelation) 184 rich – poor 64
performance management cycle 81 role-playing 83-84
pericope 194 Ross, Ronald 97, 99
personality, ancient – Western 27 Rowland, Christopher 202, 205
perspective 12, 189 (multiple), 191, 199, 264 Ruth 53-57, 249, 252-255
perspective, Western / non-Western 53-56, 69, 175, Ryken, Leland 87, 164
245
perspicuitas (clarity) 250-251 safety (pedagogical) 280, 282
persuasion 159, 198 Salisbury, Murray 153, 295
phonic enhancement 160 Saunders, Stanley 182, 184, 188, 190, 202
phonological analysis 192-194 scenario 43
poetic – prosaic 194 scenic dislocation 202
poetic insert 200 schema 43
poetry 18, 137-141 schema theory 44
point of view 12 script 43, 51
Polish 104 secondary orality 65-67
power relations 74-75 section heading 155, 201, 265
pragmatics 10, 18, 94 segmentation 195
praxis (pedagogical) 280 Semantic Domain Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew
prayer 98 (SDBH) 50-52
pre-texts 110, 204 (Revelation) semantic domains 48-49
process model, translator training 286-290 sense of identity 24
prominence 10 sermon 8-9
Index 321
setting of communication 92, 179-180 (Revelation) Thomas, Kenneth 40, 161, 166, 170, 194, 225
shifts, compositional 144, 147 thought 20
sign language 61 throne room (Revelation) 181, 186
signs, semiotic 59 time 21, 190-191 (Revelation)
simile 153, 157 Tonga 108-109, 241-242
Sitz im Leben 303-305 top-down / bottom-up text processing 42
Skills for Translating and Exegeting the Primary transculturize / transculturization 241, 246
Scriptures (STEPS) 135, 295, 315 translating 239
skopos/Skopos (translation goal) xiv, 71, 86, 122, 208, Translating the Literature of Scripture xvii
249, 254-256, 271 translation comparison 212-216 (Chewa)
slang 104 translation competence / proficiency 284-285
social-scientific criticism 62 translation criticism 230-232
sociocentric community 249 translation decisions xiv
sociocentric participant reference 255 translation equivalence 53, 265
sociocentric terms 252-254 translation policy 77, 132
sociolect 93, 103, 105, 251 translation priorities 287-290
sociolinguistic model (S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G) 92, 94, 106 translation process (methodology) xiii, 17, 210-211
solidarity 31, 74-75 translation style 77, 116, 123, 212, 216, 241, 276,
Song of Songs 124-128 289-290
sorcery 49-50 translation text frame 122, 210
space 21 translation trainers 292
speech acts 92, 97, 99-100, 200, 265 translation, primary – secondary – tertiary 120,
speech-act analysis 95-98 305, 309
Spielmann, R. & Wiens, H. 65 translational gender sensitivity 59
spirits / spiritual powers 240-242 translator training techniques 277-278, 287-290, 293
stanza 153 Translator’s Handbook 293
Starcher, Richard 278 triggers 17, 41
status 12 Tyndale, John 117, 119
Strauss, Mark 87-88 typography 168
strophe 136, 147, 149, 153-155, 157-158, 162-163,
194, 210 United Bible Societies (UBS) xviii, 9, 70
structure 2, 5, 19, 21, 28, 31, 40, 46, 68, 74, 133, universalism – particularism 20
136, 147, 148, 155, 158, 171, 179, 183, 195
(Revelation), 261 value system 24
study Bible 123-124, 222, 242, 276 values, Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) 62-64
style 8, 18, 22, 77-78, 93, 104, 123, 164, 165, 201, Van der Jagt, Krijn 27
202, 205, 210-211, 229, 265, 273, 297 Van Steenbergen, Gerrit 26
stylistic figures 18 Vella, Jane 279, 281
Sundersingh, Julian 232-233 vocative 155
supporting material 159 Voth, Esteban 90
suspense 199
symbolism 30, 42, 265 Wilt, Timothy v, xv, 92, 208
witchcraft 50, 109
tail-head linkage 303 word order 198, 217, 264
Tamez, Elsa 61 world view 4, 19, 22-23, 28, 30, 60, 92, 108, 234, 246
target language 120 worldview analysis 26, 275
teaching / instruction – methodology (pedagogy) 245, worship 191
272, 273-277, 278-279, 281
teaching translation xv, xvii, 282 Zambia xvi, 16, 37, 70-71, 102-103, 173, 208-209,
teaching, student-centred methodology 283 239, 244
team-work 272 281
text 38, 107, 110
text criticism 124, 200-201
text design 168, 170
textual problems 124-128, 267
The Message 48
The Word on the Street 105
theme 191 (Revelation)

Contextual Frames of Reference in Transl PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contextual Frames of Reference in Transl PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contextual Frames of Reference

St. Jerome Publishing

ISBN 978-1-905763-02-3 (pbk)

© Ernst Wendland 2008

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Contextual Frames of Reference in Bible Translation shows both the daunting

1. Contextual frames of reference: The mind’s construction of meaning 1

2. The context of the mind: Cognitive frames of reference 19

3. Why we do things the way we do: Sociocultural frames 36

4. The rights and responsibilities of allegiance: Organizational frames 68

5. Situational frames: Communicating in different circumstances 92

6. Textual frames of reference: The pervasive influence of intertext 110

Which “text”? The need for textual criticism 124

7. Intratextuality: A text’s internal frame of reference 131

8. Framing John’s vision of the heavenly throne room (Rev. 4) 173

9. Sharpening John’s vision for contemporary Chewa text auditors 207

10. Evaluating the overall quality of communication via translation 226

12. Creating a contextualized framework for teaching and learning 272

Appendix: Bible translation and primary orality 297

Roger Omanson, Editor of the Bible Translator (Technical Series) – general

Sheo Prasad of Augsburg-Fortress Publishers for permission to cite selections from

Prof. Lourens de Vries

• viewing the translation project in terms of its community, organizational, and

The present coursebook seeks to investigate these basic perspectives in somewhat

I will discuss, largely from a practical translator’s standpoint, several important

either in addition to, or in place of the ones currently given.

Figure 1: Onion layers

It no longer has a sustainable, transmittable significance or a useful function. All of

 Evaluate the accuracy or usefulness of the following minimal definition of context.

Consider the relationships involved in Figure 2:

Figure 2: A “nested” Russian doll set

 Dr. Robert Bascom (personal correspondence) offers the following thoughts on

 Which different sociological, including religious, frames of reference are packaged

Figure 3: Mighty Fortress Retirement Community

The interaction of frames

Cline of referential generality

Figure 4: Cline of referential generality

Example Idiom Image Pattern Agency/focus

Chip on his Good/wrong Burden/resentful - Patient/suffering/grudge

Table 1: Idioms related to “a cross to bear”

Notice in the next example (summarized in Table 2) how each successive

FRAMES ò Scenario A Scenario B

Sociocultural poverty-stricken, rural southeast prosperous, urban African-American

Organizational a non-traditional Christian sect a national Pentecostal denomination

Situational outdoor (graveside) address for indoor (a large megachurch) funeral

Textual oral vernacular, popular style of oral English, instance of revivalist

Table 2: Framing a funeral oration

The interaction of contextual frames includes the expected overlapping along

Prominence, perspective, perceptibility

namely: prominence, perspective, and perceptibility. These three pragmatic factors

 These examples illustrate, in a limited way, the implicit prioritizing, or salience-

SPEAKER’S cognitive frame of reference  HEARER ’S cognitive frame of reference

their cognitive (interpretive) frameworks regarding the “rock” metaphor of Matthew

 How or to what extent do such differences of opinion concern Bible translators

 Which passage of Scripture have you found to be particularly controversial in your

A different set of cognitive frames – modified by the variables of relative promi-

“A” is a young male aged 30

 What measures can be taken to more effectively/smoothly incorporate a qualified

 What potential interpersonal problems will have to be addressed by the translation

Translating and the Search for Context

 How do the variables of prominence, perceptibility, and perspective interact in our