Ferry Mamahit, Senior Lecturer, Southeast Asia Bible Seminary, Malang, Indonesia
Abstract
The primary purpose of the reading of the Gospels is to understand their meaning(s) and to apply their messages to life. Since the writings of Gospels are initially in ancient Koine Greek, there are hindrances for achieving a better contemporary reading of them, namely linguistic and cultural gaps. There are stark differences between the ancient original contexts of the texts and the modern settings of the readers. To bridge the gaps, one may simply use a good translation of the scripture. However, the main questions are, is there any good and useful translation available, particularly, for the readers who live in an Islamic context like Indonesia? What are the criteria for measuring these adjectives or qualities?
The article aims to answer these questions. It argues that the Kitab Suci Injil, the Indonesian (1912 Translation)–Greek Diglot Gospels is considerably the most significant Gospels’ translation available in Indonesia. Its features have met the standards of an effective translation: the faithfulness to the ancient original texts and the sensitiveness to the modern Islamic context of the readers. To support the argument, this study will analytically expose both the features and the significances of that translation. Beside encouraging one to use such a translation for a meaningful reading of the Gospels within an Islamic context, the study will also be beneficial for those who want to engage in practices of Muslims and Christians reading the scriptures together.
I'd be interested to hear more of how various Muslims and Christians in Indonesia have received this translation, Ferry.
I very much look forward to your reflections on the significance of this text for Christian readings as well as for 'scriptural reasoning'-type readings. Is it making any different to Indonesian interpretations of the Bible?
Hi Ida. Thank you for asking this. For the Muslim communities there will be no problem to use and read this version. Some would even appreciate it for its "reader friendly" features. However, this version were not very much known to Christian communities. Some were hesitate to use "Isa" instead of "Jesus"because they might reduce the biblical concept of Jesus by exchanging or replacing it with "Isa." So the problem is more on Christian side than the Muslim one. IN my opinion, this translation should be more exposed and introduced to both Indonesian Muslim and Christian communities so that they may have a different interpretation of the Bible in terms of understanding the biblical messages that are authentically rooted in the Islamic context. At the end of the day, we all know that every translation, liked it or not, is an interpretation.
Thank you, Ferry, for this interesting introduction to the Kitab Suci Injil, as well as for your reflections on what practices make for a good translation. I wonder if you could reflect some more on some of the Arabic loan words that you have noted appear in Kitab Suci Injil, and how those have impacted readings of the Gospels. For example, does the usage of "nabi" for prophet influence how Christians think about prophecy in Indonesia (given the differences in the understanding of prophethood between the Bible and the Qur'an, on which Ida has reflected deeply)? (I don't see 'prophet' appearing in Matthew 1:17, by the way.) Or the use of "imam" for priest, given that historically the roles of an imam as "head prayer" were quite different from the roles a priest played?
I was also struck by your reflection on the impact word order can make ("God our Lord" rather than "Lord our God")? As Ida asks above, I'd be interested to know how Indonesian Muslims have responded to this. Do they in general find it unobjectionable?
Thank you again for this contribution, Ferry. I look forward to interacting more with you during the conference.
Hi Steven, thank you for your comments on my paper. Your suggestion for adding and exploring more Arabic loan words (including "nabi") in my study and its impact on reading the Gospels are worth to be considered.
Regarding the word "nabi" in Matt 1:17, indeed the word does not appear in standard Indonesian translation (the TB) or even English translations. But, it does appear in Kitab Suci Injil, since the text mentions: "Nabi Ibrahim (for Abraham)" and "Nabi Daud (for David)." I consider it as part of the distinctive features of the translation. In Islam, Abraham and David are called "nabi" (prophet) too.
As I answered Ida's, the Muslim communities responded to this translation positively. As far as I know, there is no problem for Muslims if a Christian like me uses and reads this translation before them. Some would even appreciate it for its "reader friendly" features.
I look forward to interacting with you too soon.
Hi Pak Ferry, glad to "meet" you in this conference. Thank you for your paper. I am wondering if today's Christian communities are still using this version and, if so, what kind of Christian community? Also thanks for providing several examples of Arabic proper names and terms. I used to wonder why "Jesus" is not translated as "Isa" while many biblical characters are using Arabic (or Quranic) names. Moreover, I find the term "rasul" for "apostles" interesting because the meaning they convey are not parallel and I think it was translated that way for the purpose of converting non-Christians, especially Muslims. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.
Halo Hans, apa kabar? I am glad to meet you here too. So far, Christian communities are not familiar with, or even hesitate to use this translation due to its "Arabicness." They were afraid of being labelled as "reductionists" for reading the translation which is closer to the Qur'an than the "proper Christian" Bible. If you read closely to my paper manuscript, "Jesus" is indeed translated as "Isa," just like other Arabicized proper names used in the translation.
I think the translation is not necessary for converting Muslims. As I mentioned in my newly uploaded paper that one of the purposes of a diglot publication is for evangelistic purpose, meaning "to become a means of communicating to people a message which they have presumably not heard before or with which they are only partially familiar." Besides, as affirmed by one of translation team members, Dr Daud Soesilo from LAI (Indonesian Bible Society) that the motif of publishing it was to cater the request from a group of Christians who had Islamic backgrounds, and still had a hard time to read and understand the Gospels in the standard Indonesian translation (the TB). From here, I attested that, for some Indonesians with those particular backgrounds, even the widely known Bahasa Indonesia used in the TB is not a vernacular one. It's pathetic, isn't it? :{)
Hi pak Ferry I just have a little comment. I think you need to rethink the use of your example on Mark 12:29. Because the example of KSI is in fact change the construction significantly compare to the greek version (UBS GNT5) in order to be accepted. For me it is a questionable example because it is a diglot and it was put together with greek version while the translation is not that close to the greek version. Terima kasih pak.
Hi Ibu Lady. Thanks a lot for your valuable comment on my paper. Yes, I agree with you that KSI has made a significant change to the translation of Mark 12.29, especially compared to UBS GNT5. I put this example based on my discussion with Dr Daud Soesilo. However, I would like consider your thoughts (including others from the conference) as I am planning to revise my paper. I also have mentioned that one of the the significance of a diglot is that it could be a cross-checker of a translation. It will help a reader to see if the translation is in agreement with its Greek source or not. I am in line with you about this. Terima kasih banyak.
I hope the final paper will also tell us a little of why the diglot format (rather than, say, interlinear, and why the Greek was included) was chosen in relation to the particular Islamic context.