In his article that appeared in Mukai/Vukani issue 45, Fr Chidavaenzi cited two notable points, that is, the history leading up to the new Shona Bible and some points on terminology – like muchinjikwa and Tenzi. I did find in the new Shona Bible, among a few others, a term, or rather, a word that is not pleasant to my semantical preference. It is the term “vine” which is translated as “muwaini” in the 1979 Shona Bible, an edition which Fr Chidavaenzi lays aside in relatively strong terms that
“the faithful are to be advised that they should no longer buy or use the 1979 version Bhaibheri Rinoera rine Apokirifa which was found to be faulty by all the churches, making this new translation necessary” (Mukai/Vukani # 45).
It is without doubt that there are misgivings about the 1979 edition of the Shona Bible. However, I quite prefer the term “muwaini” to “mugirepisi” that is used in the new Shona Bible. I am not interested in hair-splitting so much as I am keen to point out that language changes, but the change may not necessarily have a universal sway. Old versions of words or expressions may remain in use even when new ones are promoted. Therefore, we need to note that those who are in fact comfortable with the term chipiyaniso instead of muchinjikwa, Mambo instead of Tenzi, muwaini instead of mugirepisi should not think that the terms they use have immediately become useless because it is our faith in the Risen Lord and the mysteries of the faith that really speak to our souls.

It may be helpful to mention here that when any of these ‘old’ terms is used in a sentence as an expression of faith, there must be no cause for worry or anxiety because it is not words in themselves that we are concerned about, but their meaning. A sentence is a particular verbal expression, in a particular language while a proposition is the meaning which the sentence intends to express. The meaning of the words which express our faith has been transmitted successfully, I think, since time immemorial, otherwise if we render these ‘old’ words immediately obsolete we would not be able to claim to have properly received and proclaimed the faith, at least from a linguistic point of view. We would need to make a new start with the onset of new and somewhat exact words. Terms of expression may change, but I want to think that the substance of faith remains, even if, where possible, new expressions may add to a better grasp of meaning and understanding. The new Shona Bible is a welcome development, but I do not think that a semantic revolution in terms of replacement of terms and words in ordinary prayer and religious talk should be anticipated. Most of our formal prayers, especially in the Catholic Church, will still have an uninhibited use of terms like Mambo and chipiyaniso among others because the texts that are used for liturgies are yet to conform to new terminology. By the way what I mean by ‘new’ terminology is simply words that have not been used ordinarily in Catholic parlance. However, I personally appreciate the exclusion of the word masvikiro in the new bible. Some words, because of their association with a ‘rival’ religion are not useful to the Christian mindset.

Besides an encounter with new terms or words in the new Shona Bible, it is good to appreciate some of the new features that make this bible readable including its use of “language spoken by those between 18-35 years old and understood even by those who had never been to any church” ( Mukai/Vukani # 45). Notably, the brief summaries at the beginning of each unified piece of writing, be it a book, a collection or a letter, is obviously useful. It gives an easy panoramic view of the material or stories that one can find in the respective writing. These summaries, to my mind, can assist individual or group reading in the case of bible study. Location of biblical stories is also made easier by these summaries. The insertion of explanatory footnotes is also useful because the notes aid the reader in understanding the importance of a good translation, while paying close attention to the meaning of words or expressions that can be found in the Hebrew or Greek texts.

The new Shona Bible, in many cases than one, carries a great deal of clearer and picturesque sacred stories and expressions than the 1979 edition. I have selected a few passages, which I consider as ‘Catholic passages of interest’, chosen at random to highlight the above point. The best way to appreciate this point is by making a simultaneous comparison of the texts in the new bible and the 1979 edition. I find the language used in the following passages supportive of my Catholic expectation on such texts as Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:46-56; 67-80; Luke 2; Matthew 16:13-19; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29; Revelation 12:1-18. However, the use of the word “kutenda”, although determined by the context, does not properly meet my current Catholic mindset in regard to distinguishing between thanksgiving (kutenda) and belief (kutendera) as we find in John 6:11 and Luke 22:19 both of which speak of thanksgiving as opposed to John 11:25-26, which refers to belief (faith). Another point of interest, at least for Catholics, is Exodus 20:4 that constitutes a sharp departure from what we are used to, that is, from “Usazviitira mufananidzo wakavezwa…” in the 1979 edition to “Usazvigadzirire chifananidzo chokunamata…” in the new bible. The latter can bring an exaggerated controversy. This difference in expression is also apparent in the Deuteronomy version on the same matter (cf. Deut 5:8 in both bible versions). This article is not the place to discuss that particular issue about idolatry and sacred images, but is worthwhile to note it, I think.

The one place where I noticed something of a grammatical error (there could be such others since I do not claim to have read the whole new Shona Bible) is John 14:2. It reads “Mumba maBaba vangu kune dzimba dzakawanda….” One would expect to read either “Mumba maBaba vangu mune dzimba…” or “Kumba kwaBaba vangu kune dzimba….”

I hope that the availability of the new Shona Bible, that is, Bhaibhiri Idzva ReChishona Rine Dhuterokanonika of 2002 and its comparative difference from the 1979 Bhaibheri Rinoera Rine Apokirifa will help readers to avoid a fundamentalist reading of the bible. It is clear that the need for correct and appropriate translation of the bible into any language is an important undertaking. However, grasping the deep and real meaning of scripture is, to some extent an on-going endeavour, as evidenced by the need for a good translation, based on the original sources in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. We adhere to the Bible as the Word of God, yes, but we do not stop seeking the proper meaning of scripture because fundamentalism poses the following danger, among others:
“it refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993, sub,. “Fundamentalist Interpretation”).
God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ is definitive, our salvation in him is certain if we are faithful, the articles of faith we hold and profess are true, but our comprehension of scripture is and indeed can be a life-time enterprise under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads us to the truth.

By Fr Emmanuel Gurumombe SJ