Journal of Mother-Tongue Biblical Hermeneutics and Theology (Oct 2022)
An Analytical Study of the Translations of Genesis 1:26-27 in the Akuapem-Twi Bible
Abstract
In Ghana, the Western missionaries who introduced Christianity into the country reduced some Ghanaian languages into written form and then translated the Bible into these languages. After the missionaries left the country, the task of Bible translation was continued by Ghanaians to make the Bible accessible to various linguistic groups in the country. Out of the numerous problems that Bible translators encounter in their work is the non-availability of a word in the receptor languages to carry the exact meaning of a word in the source language. This and other challenges sometimes lead to obscurity in the translated text and the resulting theology. Of interest to the present paper, is the translation of Genesis 1:26-27 into Akuapem-Twi mother- tongue. As an exegetical study, the source texts were semantically and morpho-syntactically analysed and their renderings in the Akuapem-Twi Bible were compared. The philosophy behind the texts under study in the Akan/Twi Bibles could be largely, formal or literal equivalence (word-for-word). Though in some instances in all the Twi dialects and some other instances, in one or two dialects, the translators employed the dynamic equivalence (thought-for- thought) approach. In each of the instances, the approach adopted has either aided or distorted the interpretation of the target text. The rendering of the text (Gen.1:26-27) in the Akuapem-Twi Bible presents deviations from the source text and should consequently be revised and reread. For instance, after a careful study of ancient (source) texts such as the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and their comparison with the Akuapem-Twi Bible translation concerning Genesis 1:26-27, this paper argues that the Hebrew verb āsāh (v. 26), translated as bcc, “created” could be rendered as yɔɔ/yjj, “made” and the pronoun, ‘ōṯo (v. 27), presented as wɔn, “them” should be interpreted as no, “him,” in order to establish literary consistency with the source texts.
Keywords
