DIFFERENT IDEAS OF SACRIFICE

1 A sacrifice may be given individually or communally. In the case of Israel, many sacrifices were offered on behalf of the whole nation, while in Supyire the largest group represented would be an extended family or a village. 2 The presentation of the sacrifice is made through an intermediary. Yahweh designated Aaron and his descendants to be consecrated as his priests for the nation, to represent him to the people and the people to him. Among the Supyire, the suitability to fill an intermediary role in a family is determined by one’s position in relationship with that family. Typically the eldest male fills the role, as he is closest to joining the ancestors. 3 Sacrificing animals is expected to be costly to the person making the offering. In neither society is a wild animal an acceptable sacrifice. Only domestic animals that have been cared for and fed by the individual or his family qualify. The offerer is, in a way, giving of himself. In the procedures for several of the Levitical sacrifices, it is stated that the beast should be unblemished. 4 The life of the animal is substituted for that of the individual. This concept, which is central to substitutionary atonement at the heart of the Old Testament sacrifice, is also found on the periphery of Supyire thought. Erstwhile sacrifice of human life has now been replaced by animal sacrifice see above p.31. 307 5 There are certain dangers involved in dealing with the supernatural realm. As noted above, the Supyire exhibit a certain wariness in relation to supernatural powers see p.53. In Leviticus, those who are ritually unclean are not permitted contact with the holy. For example “if anyone who is unclean eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from the people” Lev 7:20. So, for the Israelites, it was important to keep meticulously the instructions Yahweh had given them in relation to sacrifices. The Supyire seek to protect themselves from the potential dangers as best as possible. One old man sacrificing to the ants seen as messengers of the earth gods in order to have good rains, had his fetish with him, in order to keep away any evil that might threaten him by touching the sacrifice. 307 A folk story shows that the idea of substitution is not totally foreign to Senufo culture. In the story, a family suffering from famine cultivated a new field, but as payment to the jinas who occupied the field they had to give a sacrifice which turned out to be a boy. The boy was tied up, but at the last moment the jinas released him and allowed a sheep and a goat to be sacrificed in his place. The story was recounted in 1983 by Yaandurugo, a griot in Burkina Faso who speaks Sicite, whose language and culture is closer to Supyire than any other in the Senufo family. Differences 1 Who demands the sacrifice? The ancestors are part of the extended family, and the jinas are also seen in mainly human terms because they inhabited the area before the village founders arrived. The homage offered is to those who are more ancient and thus more powerful creatures, rather than to the uncreated God who is wholly other. The Supyire sacrifice to a plurality of beings, the Israelites to one alone. Thus, while Yahweh demands uncompromising loyalty, the Supyire will at times neglect one sacrifice or change loyalty depending on what seems most expedient. 2 Who benefits from the sacrifice? In Supyire thought, sacrifice is founded on the principle do ut des : “I give in order that you give.” In other words, it is a transaction of mutual benefit. The power of the worshipped increases and in return, he will execute the prayer of the worshipper. In the Pentateuch, Yahweh and Israel are in covenant relationship with obligations on both parties. If Israel fulfils its obligations, which include sacrifice, it is promised blessings in return. However, there is a fundamental difference from the Supyire perspective: unlike their deities, Yahweh is already omnipotent and stands in no need of any sacrifice to increase his power. Indeed, it is he who ultimately provides the means of sacrifice to his people so that they can sacrifice to him for their benefit. 3 Why is sacrifice necessary? As we have seen, Israelite and Supyire sacrifice can both have in view reconciliation between estranged parties. The reasons for the estrangement though are not identical. In the Pentateuch, sin and rebellion against a holy God constitute the reason. Due to his holy character, he has an implacable, unwavering antithesis to sin. For the Supyire on the other hand, the strained relationship does not have this ethical dimension to the fore. The strain may come as much from one side as from the other, due to the human-like unpredictable moods of the ancestors and spirits. Another contrast along similar lines is that the Hebrew sacrifices in order to purify himself of his filth before Yahweh due to his sin, while the Supyire sacrifices in order to protect himself from the ¤…m… of his wrong actions, something which is outside himself. 4 How is sacrifice effective? The shedding of blood is a powerful symbol in both cultures, but at root the symbolisms are very different. For Israel, it is a symbol of death exacted by God in just punishment for sin. For the Supyire, it is a symbol of life-giving force, 308 which has been transferred from the slaughtered animal to the recipient of the sacrifice. Just as the fetish increases in size as more and more blood congeals on it over the years, so too does its power as it receives increasing power from the life-giving force of many animals. Jonckers talks of fetishes being fed by the blood of sacrifices. 309 For the one, it is efficacious because the living God so prescribed it. For the other, its efficacy is founded on an animistic view of the universe with each object having its own life force which can be transferred to another through sacrifice. 5 When is sacrifice carried out? The Supyire will make sacrifices both on an annual basis and on other occasions when circumstances require it. In Israel, as well as the annual festivals, there was need for an ongoing system of sacrifices, day in, day out, on behalf of the community as the presence of Yahweh with his people was also ongoing. Lev 6: 9,12 stipulates that the “burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, till morning, and the fire must be kept burning on the altar … The fire on the altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the fellowship offerings on it.” Conclusion Despite a fair number of similarities in terms of form and function, and even the sharing of some important concepts between the Supyire and Levitical sacrifices, there are at heart fundamental differences. The proto-typical Israelite animal sacrifice is aimed at atonement for sin before a holy, omnipotent God who has provided 308 Escudero, L a Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie. p.256 notes that in a northern dialect of Supyire, the word for blood is the same as that for sweat, a symbol of man’s toil. A proverb runs “Sweat from a man’s toil in the fields becomes cool water symbol of happiness for his descendants.” Henri Gravand writes: “Parce qu’il véhicule les forces de la vie humaine ou animale comme la sève des vegetaux, le sang est un symbole de la vie. Celui qui offre une poule en sacrifice en prend une goutte et se touche le front pour se communiquer la force vitale. Le sang stablilise et renforce la puissance de la parole dans le sacrifice. Il augmente la puissance des talismans. Un gris- gris est plus efficace si on a verse sur lui un peu de sang.” Quoted in Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.255. 309 Jonckers, La Société Minyanka du Mali p.75. sacrifice as a means of redemption. Vegetable and other sacrifices are offered in homage to him in recognition of total dependence on him as Creator and Provider. The proto-typical Supyire sacrifice is, in contrast, a plea for help based on the concept of a reciprocal bargain: the transfer of life force through the shedding of blood to some greater power in return for answered prayer. While there is some overlap between the concepts of sacrifice in the two cultures, there are also major differences. Consequently, there can be no neat categorization by which one could say that this word in Supyire corresponds exactly to that word in Hebrew. The similarities and differences of emphases add to the complexity of translating the key sacrificial terms. So the next section will look at the principles which can be used to guide the translator in this complex task.

7. TRANSLATING LEVITICAL SACRIFICES INTO SUPYIRE

7.1 APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION

There is a range of approaches to the translation of the Scriptures: at one end of the continuum there is the highly literal translation and at the other what is called transculturation. A literal translation is highly influenced by the form of the original or source language, and uses as far as possible the “same parts of speech, grammatical forms, word order and sentence length.” 310 Transculturation at the other extreme is adapted to the receptor culture: it seeks to recreate the original events as though they took place in today’s context. Both of these approaches distort the original message. Because forms do not correspond across languages, the literal app roach sometimes results in “nonsense, wrong sense or ambiguity.” 311 Transculturation distorts the historical and cultural context of the Scripture. Today many translators take an approach midway between the extremes, variously called an idiomatic, dynamically equivalent, or meaningful translation. They aim for a translation that is: 1. accurate, i.e. does not add or take away from or distort the meaning of the original; 2. clear, i.e. is unambiguous unless there is ambiguity intended in the original text 312 ; 3. natural, i.e. does not sound stilted. Gutt, building on the work of Sperber and Wilson on the principle of relevance, has recently contributed to the understanding of the translator’s task. He summarizes the principle as follows: “Whenever a person engages in ostensive communication, she creates the tacit presumption that what she has to communicate 310 Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.64. 311 Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.68. 312 “It is an … unwarranted assumption that greater clarity equals ‘better translation’; rather, a translation should match the degree of comprehension of the source text.” Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.93. will be optimally relevant to the audience: that it will yield adequate contextual effects, without requiring unnecessary processing efforts.” 313 The importance of this for the translator is that he needs to uncover the message the author intended to communicate, and then translate it in such a way that the reader will understand this message. If what first comes to the reader’s mind is a different message, or if he is left groping in the dark for a meaning, then the principle of relevance has been breached. This raises the further wider question: to which audience are we seeking to communicate? For what may be relevant and clear to one reader may well be obscure to another depending on his background. What Supyire audience are we translating for? Christian, Islamic or animist? Male or female? Adult or child? Educated or uneducated? These issues have been aired within the Supyire translation team but have yet to be fully discussed with the churches that are interested in further involvement in the work. We are presently working on the assumption that the translation is aimed at as wide an audience within the Supyire community as possible; that the Scriptures will be read and taught in church to build up the believers in their faith and will also be used in evangelism to explain the Christian faith to Muslims and animists. So the goal is that the Scriptures will communicate with all those who speak the Supyire language fluently, from all faiths, educated or uneducated, male or female. But this does not mean that the language will necessarily be at a simple level. The rich complexity of the Supyire language should be exploited so that the Supyire Scriptures will reflect as much as possible the richness and variety of the original texts. 313 Gutt, Ernst-August, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation; USA: Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies, 1992, p.24.