Wendland
4
outlines three steps necessary for taking into account these cultural factors in biblical translation:
1. exegesis of biblical culture
2. exegesis of receptor culture
3. comparing and contrasting the two cultures with the purpose of making any
necessary adjustments in the translation. This paper shall attempt to follow Wendland’s counsel and gain an in-depth
understanding of the theme of sacrifice: a theme of fundamental importance both to the biblical message and to the Supyire people. As the topic of sacrifice in the Bible
is too vast for a work of this size, this study needs to be limited. It will compare Supyire sacrifice with the system of sacrifices instituted in Leviticus 1-7, which is
foundational for sacrifice in the rest of the Bible. The understanding gained will inform preliminary proposals as to how the
various sacrifices should be translated. Two caveats need to be entered at this point. Firstly,
though comparing and contrasting the two cultures’ view of sacrifice is an essential foundation, it will not automatically yield the “correct translation”. Van der
Jagt stresses the need for creativity: “Translators must have an open and creative
mind and base their choices on research of both the biblical text and the culture of the receptor audience in order to assure a faithful transfer of meaning.”
5
Gutt stresses that it is both an analytical and an intuitive process.
6
Secondly, the preliminary nature of any proposals presented herein needs to be emphasized. The work of translating the Scriptures is, in fact, never complete, as
can be seen in the continuing work on translating into English six hundred years after Wycliffe’s English Bible appeared. It would therefore be presumptuous to propose
any definitive solutions in this paper, especially so as it will be completed outside the context of the Supyire community. As Gutt remarks, the comparative study should
ideally involve representatives of the community for whom the translation is intended.
7
4
See Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.82.
5
In Stine, Philip C. and Ernst R. Wendland, Bridging the Gap, African Traditional Religion and Bible Translation, UBS Monograph Series No. 4; Reading: United Bible Societies, 1990, p.150.
6
Gutt, Ernst-August, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation; USA: Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies, 1992, p.70.
7
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
The most that should be attempted is firstly, putting forward suggestions which will need to be pondered collectively by the translation team and tested in all
sections of the Supyire community, and secondly, highlighting areas which will require further research.
A potential additional benefit of the study is that the comparison and contrasting of the two worldviews should inform discussion on the translation of
other biblical key terms which relate to the concept of sacrifice, such as priest, altar, sin, atonement, guilt, temple, and tabernacle.
1.2 USAGE OF TERMS
Some scholars distinguish between the words “offering” and “sacrifice”. On the basis of their etymology, some contrast them by using “offering” to refer to the
presentation of a gift, and “sacrifice” as a presentation to a divinity. Others use the word “sacrifice” to refer to any “offering” that involves killing.
For the purposes of this paper we shall avoid making any distinction between the two terms. We are seeking to compare Hebrew and Supyire customs, and it
seems simpler not to introduce English semantic divisions, which might confuse the discussion. Hence, we will use “sacrifice” and “offering” interchangeably.
1.3 THEORIES OF SACRIFICE
For much of the 20th century it has been commonly held among ethnologists that sacrifice in religions throughout the world have evolved from totemic beliefs, in
which certain animals are regarded as sacred and unable to be used as daily food. The totemic animal represented both the tribe and its god, and the ritual slaying and
eating of this animal created a communion between the god and his people. Robertson Smith, for example, argued that since totemic practices call for ritual
killing and eating of the forbidden animal, therefore sacrifice originated with these practices.
8
This is however a non-sequitur, and in 1964, in their influential work “Sacrifice: its Nature and Function”, Hubert and Mauss demonstrated the weakness
8
De Heusch, Luc, Sacrifice in Africa, A Structuralist Approach; Bloomington, Indiana: University Press, 1985, p.2.
of the argument.
9
They rejected the evolutionary schemes of their predecessors, and aimed rather to provide a general model applicable to all religious systems. For them,
the opposition between sacred and profane is the foundation of all societies.
10
Sacrifice is the means par excellence of establishing communication between the sacred and the profane worlds. Sacrifice is a rite of passage.
When a victim is consecrated, it becomes progressively divine. As it penetrates the sacred zone, it becomes so sacred that the sacrificer hesitates to
approach it. But he must, as his personality and that of victim are merged. The killing separates the divine principle in the victim from the body, which continues to belong
to the profane world. The sacrificer then performs an exit ritual to return to profane, and to rid himself of any contamination that he may have suffered in the ritual.
However de Heusch in his critique of Hubert and Mauss points out that their model suits Vedic Indian, but not necessarily the African or Indo-European
contexts.
11
There is a real danger in imposing a model from outside. An example of how easy it is to fall into this trap of imposing a model is
Evans- Pritchard’s study of the Nuer religion. If a Nuer man infringes an interdiction,
he is in a state of nueer, kor or rual, depending on the circumstances. Evans- Pritchard translated all three by the word “sin” and argued that sacrifice fulfils a
purifying and expiatory function among the Nuer. Indeed Evans-Pritchard himself clearly admits that these concepts have been imported from the Judeo-Christian
worldview: “I must confess that this is not an interpretation that I reached entirely by observation, but one taken over from studies of Hebrew and other sacrifices, because
it seems to make better sense than any other as an explanation o f the Nuer facts.”
12
Averbeck, surveying the different theories, comments that most “have been both reductionistic i.e. illegitimately reducing the diversity of
sacrificial phenomena to one rationale and evolutionistic proposing that all offerings and sacrifices evolved from one primal form. Scholars today tend
to disregard the reductionist and evolutionary features and treat them as
9
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.2.
10
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.3.
11
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, pp.3-4.
12
Quoted in de Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.9.
