Continued from previous post…
Baptism: Whereas the key term "holiness" gave us a loaded concept for which the Gmz language lacks the already pre-packaged equivalent, "baptism" presents us with a very different set of problems, problems which began with heated conflict. It stands to reason that some of the most difficult trees to topple are those well-rooted in the soil, by which I refer to words that the churches have already well-accustomed themselves to using. In the case of baptism, there are two words which have sunk their roots deep and spread them wide within their respective meadows of ecclesiastical tradition. To put it lightly, we walked right into a scrappy brawl between the "dunkers" and the "sprinklers".
"We need to use datahalik'w (meaning literally, 'pour on head') because the majority of our churches are already using that!" (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.)
"No, we need to use dalimok'w (meaning 'to submerse in water') because that is what was done more commonly in the early church, so as to make it more historically accurate! (Baptist, Full Gospel Charismatic, etc)
"No, we can't use dalimok'w because when a Gmz person hears that one person dalimok'w another, the most common meaning of that is that one DROWNED the other. Hey, meet my cousin, he's called John the Drownder!"
And on and on. From day one, my advice was a strong and clear, we CANNOT choose either one of those without favoring one church tradition over the other, therefore we ought to forget about the contentious MODE of baptism, and instead go back to what the Greek word baptizo generically means – washing. The Gmz language has a nice general word for washing - ma'efatsa. It is a well-known Gmz word and communicates the idea of cleansing/purification, why not use that? The three translators, however, shot me down in unison - saying that such a generic word cannot be used for a special ceremony like the Christian baptism. A fair argument, just as many of us wouldn't fancy changing our English Bibles to read "John the Washer". But, thinking quickly on my feet, I remembered that generic words can be modified by limiting phrases. In the case of baptism, many times it is linked with repentance and the washing of sin so I then suggested adding the phrase alamakwaaeya nilaganasa, meaning "washing of the return from within sin (ie. washing of repentance)." Hoping that that would silence the "too common" argument, I was immediately disappointed to catch expressionless looks on all three of the translators' faces. "No, it will never work, people don't know what that means, there is no other way than "pouring on head" (or "submerse in water" depending on which translator you ask). Grrrr… and so the argument simmered over low heat for months.
A year later, during our first consultant check, we were asked to consider solving the problem by simply borrowing the Amharic word t'imk'et, since that had been done in many other projects. The translators were equally unexcited about this option, but slightly satisfied since t'imk'et couldn't be argued to be "too common" of a word. The fact that it communicated absolutely nothing to Gmz speakers outside the church wasn't a big deal to them since baptism is a ritual unique to Christianity and can be taught as a new concept. After all, the English language didn't come up with its own term for baptism, but instead stole the Greek word baptizo. Ok, I thought, my role in this project is one of an advisor, not as a dictator. And so with that, they stated their slight preference toward t'imk'et (though clearly still disgruntled about not being able to highlight their particular church's mode of baptism) and I promptly made the changes throughout the book of Luke.
At that I thought the issue was closed, that is, until the very last time we brought the book of Luke before the review committee. Much to my surprise, one of the review committee members questioned the use of t'imk'et, hoping, it seemed, to re-open the topic of using datahalik'w, "pour on head". The three translators, however, having heard it from me like a broken record, successfully defended our stance of why we must avoid both datahalik'w and dalimok'w and moved the discussion back to the two options still on the table: the Amharic word t'imk'et or the Gmz phrase ma'efatsa alamakwaaeya nilaganasa (washing of repentance). I sat back and listened and after much conversation a vote was taken:
t'imk'et – 8 votes
ma'efatsa alamakwaaeya nilaganasa – 9 votes
Seeing that six of the eight votes for t'imk'et came from one denomination, the denominational support for the ma'efatsa alamakwaaeya nilaganasa was much more diverse and therefore the winner. And so, without making a single argument in that final decision, I was given the green light to make the changes I had proposed first proposed back in 2012. Changing key terms that are already well-rooted in people's minds can be very difficult, if not impossible. But for the sake of producing a Bible in the GMZ language which ALL denominations will use, it was worth the demanding process, whether it takes days, months and even years to satisfactorily complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment