The Japanese Translations of the Hebrew Bible : History, Inventory and Analysis [1 ed.] 9789004243484, 9789004243477

Citation preview

The Japanese Translations of the Hebrew Bible

Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik Section Five Japan Edited by

M. Blum R. Kersten M.F. Low

VOLUME 15

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ho5

The Japanese Translations of the Hebrew Bible History, Inventory and Analysis By

Doron B. Cohen

Leiden • boston 2013

Cover illustration: Genesis Chapter 1 in the Japanese “Classical Language Translation” (1887), from a 1999 reprint by the Japan Bible Society Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cohen, Doron B.  The Japanese translations of the Hebrew Bible : history, inventory, and analysis / by Doron B. Cohen.   pages cm. — (Handbook of oriental studies. Section five, Japan, ISSN 0921-5239 ; v. 15)  Includes bibliographical references (pages) and indexes.  ISBN 978-90-04-24347-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-24348-4 (e-book) 1. Bible. Japanese—Versions—History. 2. Bible—Translating. 3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, ­interpretation, etc. I. Title.  BS315.J39C64 2013  221.5’95609—dc23

2012040272

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0921-5239 ISBN 978-90-04-24347-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-24348-4 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgements ................................................................. Writing Conventions ....................................................................................... Abbreviations ....................................................................................................

ix xiii xv

PART one

HISTORY AND INVENTORY 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1.1 The Bible in Japan ........................................................................... 1.2 Christianity in Japan ....................................................................... 1.3 Translation ......................................................................................... 1.4 Scope and Methods .........................................................................

3 3 7 12 13

2. Historical Review of Bible Translations .............................................. 2.1 The Kirishitan Period ...................................................................... 2.1.1 On the Problem of Translating Religious Terms and the Word for God ....................................................... 2.2 The Bible in China ........................................................................... 2.3 The 19th Century and Early Meiji ............................................... 2.3.1 On the Japanese Written Language in a Time of Change .................................................................................... 2.4 From Late Meiji until World War II .......................................... 2.5 The Post-World War II period .....................................................

18 18 25 27 30 41 45 48

3. The Translations of the Hebrew Bible ................................................. 50 3.1 Full Translations ............................................................................... 51 3.2 Partial Translations in Book Form ................................................ 93 3.3 Fragmentary Translations, Early Digests and Partial Translations in Magazines ............................................................ 115 3.4 Some Further Editions of the Bible, Using Previous Translations ....................................................................................... 140 3.5 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................... 143

vi

contents PART two

ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATED VERSES 4. Translations Compared: Deuteronomy 32:8–9 in Japanese .......... 4.1 Text Analysis: Comparing 13 Translations ............................... 4.1.1 A-1 The Meiji Translation (1887) ................................ 4.1.2 A-2 The Colloquial Translation (1955) ...................... 4.1.3 A-3 The Sapporo Translation (1954) .......................... 4.1.4 A-4 The Sekine Translation (Begun 1956; Deuteronomy Published 1993) ............................ 4.1.5 A-5 Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Begun 1958; Deut. Published 1989) ................... 4.1.6 A-6 Barbaro I (1958–64) ................................................. 4.1.7 A-6a Barbaro II (1980) ...................................................... 4.1.8 A-7 New Revised Translation (1970) .......................... 4.1.9 A-8 The Living Bible—Paraphrased (1978) ............. 4.1.10 A-9 New World Translation (1982) ............................ 4.1.11 A-10 Modern Japanese Bible / Oyama Reiji (1983) .... 4.1.12 A-11 New Interconfessional Translation (1987) ....... 4.1.13 A-12 Iwanami Shoten Translation (2001) ................... 4.2 Some Further Discussions ............................................................ 4.2.1 Peoples and Nations ......................................................... 4.2.2 On Transliterating the Name YHWH ........................... 4.2.3 A Troublesome Little Word ............................................ 4.2.4 The Use of Honorifics and the Passive ........................ 4.2.5 A Test-Case: Gen. 4:8 ........................................................

147 149 149 160 162

5. Translations Compared: Psalm 23 in Its Numerous Versions ...... 5.1 A Few Notes on Biblical Poetry and its Translation ............. 5.2 Psalm 23 and Its Translations; Introducing 27 Japanese versions  . ............................................................................................. 5.2.1 Psalm 23 as Japanese Poetry .......................................... 5.2.2 The Meiji Translation and Other Early Translations ......................................................................... 5.2.3 The Protestant Translations of the 1950’s ................... 5.2.4 The Catholic Translations from the 1930’s to the 1980’s ..............................................................................

201 202

164 166 168 169 170 171 171 172 173 175 176 176 180 186 189 193

204 206 210 220 225



contents

5.2.5 Protestant and Sectarian Translations from the Late 1960’s to the Early 1980’s ............................... 5.2.6 The Most Recent Two ..................................................... 5.3 Analysis of Words and Expressions ............................................ 5.3.1 The Title  ‫ מזְ מֹור לְ ָדוִ ד‬. ִ .............................................. 5.3.2 YHWH ro‛i  ‫ יהוה ר ִֹעי‬................................................ 5.3.3 lo’ ’eḥsar ‫ ֹלא ֶא ְח ָסר‬........................................................ 5.3.4 bine’ot deše’ yarbiṣeni  ‫יצנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ ּבנְ אֹות ֶד ֶּשׁא יַ ְר ִּב‬. ִ ....... 5.3.5 ‘al mei menuḥot yenahaleni  ‫ על ֵמי ְמנֻ חֹות יְ נַ ֲהלֵ נִ י‬. ַ 5.3.6 napši yešobeb  ‫ׁשֹובב‬ ֵ ְ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי י‬...................................... 5.3.7 yanḥeni bema‛glei ṣedeq  ‫ יַ נְ ֵחנִ י ְב ַמ ְעּגְ לֵ י ֶצ ֶדק‬...... 5.3.8 lema‛an šemo  ‫ לְ ַמ ַען ְשׁמֹו‬......................................... 5.3.9 gam ki ’elek begei’ ṣalmawet  ‫ּגַ ם ִּכי ֵאלֵ ְך ְּבגֵ יא‬ ‫  ַצלְ ָמוֶ ת‬.................................................................................. 5.3.1o lo’ ’ira’ ra‛  ‫ ֹלא ִא ָירא ָרע‬........................................... 5.3.11 ki ’atah ‛imadi  ‫ ּכי ַא ָּתה ִע ָּמ ִדי‬................................. ִ 5.3.12 šibteka umiš‛anteka hemah yenaḥamuni  ‫ִשׁ ְב ְטָך‬ ‫ ּומ ְשׁ ַענְ ֶּתָך ֵה ָּמה יְ נַ ֲח ֻמנִ י‬...................................................... ִ 5.3.13 ta‛arok lepanay šulḥan  ‫ ּת ֲערְֹך לְ ָפנַ י ֻשׁלְ ָחן‬. ַ .......... 5.3.14 neged ṣoreray  ‫ נֶ גֶ ד צ ְֹר ָרי‬........................................... 5.3.15 dišanta bašemen ro’ši   ‫ֹאשׁי‬ ִ ‫ ּד ַּׁשנְ ָּת ַב ֶשּׁ ֶמן ר‬......... ִ 5.3.16 kosi rewayah  ‫ ּכֹוסי ְרוָ יָ ה‬........................................... ִ 5.3.17 ’ak tob waḥesed yirdepuni  ‫ַאְך טֹוב וָ ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫  יִ ְר ְּדפּונִ י‬................................................................................. 5.3.18 kol yemei ḥayay  ‫ ּכל יְ ֵמי ַחיָּי‬. ָ ................................... 5.3.19 wešabti bebeit YHWH  ‫ וְ ַשׁ ְב ִּתי ְּב ֵבית יהוה‬............ 5.3.20 le’orek yamim  ‫ לְ א ֶֹרך יָ ִמים‬....................................... 5.4 Some Aspects of the Translation ................................................ 5.4.1 Translating Psalm 23 as Poetry .................................... 5.4.2 A Question of Faithfulness ............................................ 5.4.3 The Variety in Translation ............................................. 5.5 Psalm 100 and the Identity of the Meiji Psalms Translators .... 5.5.1 The Three Early Versions of Psalm 100 ...................... 5.5.2 The Identity of the Translators ....................................

vii 239 246 250 250 252 258 261 266 268 273 276 278 281 283 286 289 293 295 298 300 305 306 309 310 310 315 316 317 318 322

6. Translations Compared: A Variety of Examples ............................... 334 6.1 Genesis ................................................................................................ 334 6.1.1 Genesis 1:1–3: From the Earliest Digest to the Latest Translation ............................................................. 335

viii

contents

6.1.2 Nakazawa’s Translation for Great Books of the World (B-13, 1968) .............................................................. 6.1.3 Kida’s Translation for World of the Bible Series (B-14a, 1970) .......................................................................... 6.2 Proverbs .............................................................................................. 6.2.1 Nagata’s Early Translation (C-3) .................................... 6.2.2 Yuasa’s Translation (B-4b, 1936) .................................... 6.2.3 Ogaeri’s Translation (B-7, 1947) ..................................... 6.2.4 Matsuda’s Translation (B-12, 1967) ................................ 6.2.5 Further Comparisons ........................................................ 6.3 Job  ........................................................................................................ 6.3.1 Fujii’s Translation (C-10, 1923) ........................................ 6.3.2 Matsuda’s Translation (B-12, 1954) ................................ 6.3.3 Gotō’s Translation for World of the Bible Series (B-14d, 1970) ......................................................................... 6.3.4 Nakazawa’s Translation (B-13b, 1991) ........................... 6.3.5 Fujisaki’s Translation (C-13, c.2000) .............................. 6.4 Hebraisms in the Japanese Translations? ................................. 6.4.1 Hebraism Retained ............................................................ 6.4.2 Hebraism Avoided ............................................................. 6.4.3 Conclusion ............................................................................

340 343 345 346 347 349 350 352 355 355 358 359 361 363 364 366 378 379

7. Concluding Observations ......................................................................... 7.1 Types of Translation ........................................................................ 7.2 Faithfulness ........................................................................................ 7.3 Comparative Analysis ..................................................................... 7.4 New Translation or Revision? ...................................................... 7.5 A Personal Perspective ...................................................................

381 381 383 389 395 399

Appendix: Bible Translation Debates from the Meiji Missionaries Conferences .................................................................................................. a. The 1883 Osaka Conference .......................................................... b. The 1900 Tokyo Conference .......................................................... Chronology ......................................................................................................... Glossary ............................................................................................................... Bibliography ...................................................................................................... List of Japanese OT Translations, with Quotations Index .................. Personal Names Index .................................................................................... Biblical Verses Index ....................................................................................... General Index  .............................................................................................

403 403 405 408 413 417 433 439 443 445

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book recounts the story of the translation of the Bible into Japanese against the background of the transplanting of Christianity in Japan, with particular focus on the translations of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). It includes a detailed inventory of full as well as partial OT translations into Japanese, describing the background for each translation, the history of its making and the identity of the translators. Later, selected verses from the various translations are quoted, compared with the Hebrew original, with each other and with other translations that influenced each one of them (mainly Chinese, Latin and English), and analyzed linguistically and theologically, utilizing up-to-date biblical scholarship. Finally some general observations on the nature of biblical translations into Japanese are made, using certain theories developed in the framework of Translation Studies. The intention is to offer both a comprehensive source-book on Japanese OT translations, as well as a selective anthology, not only of biblical passages but of what has been written about the translations by the translators themselves and by reviewers and critics. It is the first comprehensive study of the Japanese Bible to be published in English, and the first book in any language to impart a detailed inventory of OT full and partial translations into Japanese. The book was written with numerous categories of readers in mind: those specializing in the history of the Bible in Japan and in the history and sociology of Japanese Christianity, students of translation generally and of Bible translations in particular, as well as other readers interested in various cultural and linguistic aspects of modern Japan. Accordingly, an effort has been made to quote extensively, in my own English translation or digest, from many Japanese sources on both general issues and specific translations, thus making such material available to readers with limited or no knowledge of Japanese (for the benefit of such readers a glossary of Japanese historical and linguistic terms has also been added). Many quotes have also been taken from an array of English sources which are relatively inaccessible, particularly outside Japan. The current volume is a thoroughly edited version of my Th.D. dissertation submitted in 2010 to Doshisha University and titled: “Japanese Translations of the Hebrew Bible in a Comparative View”. It is a truth universally acknowledged that during the long process of writing a ­doctoral

x

preface and acknowledgements

dissertation, and the even longer period of studies leading to such endeavor, a great amount of debt to numerous persons and institutions is inevitably accumulated; it is now my pleasure to acknowledge at least some of the most obvious ones. First and foremost I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my first adviser on my thesis, Prof. Nomoto Shinya, who retired from his official duties at Doshisha University’s Shingakubu (School of Theology) before I could complete my work. I am grateful to Nomoto-sensei for sharing with me his experience as a Bible translator, for his guidance and advice, and for his unlimited kindness to my family and myself. I hope this effort will be considered at least a small token in return for a debt I can never hope to fully repay. The support and advice extended to me by my other advisers at Shingakubu is also acknowledged with gratitude. I am grateful to Professors Echigoya Akira, Mizutani Makoto, Ishikawa Ritsu and Hara Makoto for their encouragement and help. I wish to thank the Alumni Association of Shingakubu for several grants bestowed upon me during my years as a doctoral student. I would also like to take this opportunity to remember a few of Shingakubu teachers who are no longer with us. Like so many others who had the good fortune of knowing him, I will always cherish the memory of Takenaka Masao-sensei, who advised me during my master studies, and whose presence is greatly missed. Also remembered fondly are Dohi Akio, Hashimoto Shigeo, as well as Nishimura Atsushi, whose untimely death shocked and saddened us all. Before coming to Doshisha as a graduate student I graduated from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. From those years I owe a special debt to my very first teacher of Japanese, Tsujita Mariko-sensei, who was also the first to introduce me to the Japanese Bible. To her, and to her husband Kyōji, a gifted linguist and the kindest of men, I feel deep gratitude on numerous accounts. I am also grateful to Prof. Ben-Ami Shilloni for proposing the Japanese Bible as a possible subject for a doctoral thesis, to Prof. Andrew H. Plaks for helping solve a certain puzzle, and in particular to Dr. Lihi YarivLaor for her sound advice and uplifting encouragement. My biggest debt regarding the writing of this book is to Prof. László Cseresnyési, a wonderful linguist and a very dear friend, for reading, correcting, commenting and recommending on matters small and large. Had I only heeded his advice more carefully, this book might have turned out much better. As it is, I must assume sole responsibility for any error, omission or misjudgment.



preface and acknowledgements

xi

I am grateful to Suzuki Norihisa, Professor Emeritus of Rikkyō University and a leading authority on the Japanese Bible, for patiently answering my questions through email, and for directing me to important archive material in Tokyo and in Kyoto. Thanks also to Prof. Tsukimoto Akio of Rikkyō University for his very generous assistance, and to Prof. Ikeda Yutaka of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Tokyo for sharing with me his experience in Bible translation. Materials for this book were obtained from numerous libraries and archives throughout Japan. Most of all I am grateful to the dedicated staff of my school library at Shingakubu. Various other libraries spread throughout Doshisha’s campuses also yielded much valuable material. Doshisha’s main library was especially helpful in obtaining books and photocopies from many other university libraries all over Japan. The warm welcome afforded by the staff of the Japan Bible Society’s library in Ginza, Tokyo, made my valuable visits there a pleasure. I am particularly grateful to Miss Takahashi Yūko for her knowledgeable assistance and for promptly mailing me photocopies between visits. Thanks also to Miyazaki Shūji for his help during my early visits, and especially to Dr. Shimasaki Katsuomi, current head of the Translation Department at JBS, for discussing with me issues relating to the translation of the Bible in Japan. I am also grateful to the Archives of History at Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, for allowing me to inspect the letters of G.F. Verbeck; to the staff of the St. Miki Jesuit Library in Tokyo for their kind hospitality; and to Tenri University Library, and in particular to Prof. Higashibaba Ikuo for welcoming me to Tenri City and introducing me to the library. Special thanks are due to the Kyoto Chapter of the Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan; Mr. Taniguchi Hiroshi and the Reverend Ōtsuka Masaru were extremely kind and helpful in letting me examine the archive material of Bishop C.M. Williams. Thanks for their advice on various matters are due to my friends Dr. Hanna Amit-Kochavi, Dr. Irit Averbuch, Dr. Tsipi Ivry, Dr. Rachel Weissbrod, Prof. Christian Morimoto-Hermansen and Prof. Mark Mullins, and for their help in matters of language to Asami Naoko and Iida Kenichiro. I am deeply indebted to Judy Remy for correcting my faulty English grammar. I wish to express my gratitude to the editors of Brill’s Handbook of Oriental Studies series for their guidance, to the anonymous reader of my manuscript for some valuable advice, and in particular to Ms. Patricia Radder for her consistent helpfulness, patience and kindness.

xii

preface and acknowledgements

And finally, or rather firstly, gratitude without measure is due to my wife, Ada Taggar-Cohen, the true Bible scholar in the family, who gave me her advice, but most of all her constant encouragement and support. My daughter Shirah Malka Cohen also encouraged and assisted me in various ways. Ada and Shirah, this book is dedicated to the two of you, with all my love. Kyoto, July 2012

WRITING CONVENTIONS 1. The various full or partial Japanese translations of the Hebrew Bible are identified in this book with a capital letter (A, B, C or D) followed by a number (for example, A-1 is the 1887 translation). See List of Translations at the end, and descriptions in Chapter 3. 2. The terms Old Testament (or OT for short) and New Testament (NT) are often used, although recently it is not uncommon to use the more neutral terms Hebrew Bible and Greek Scripture. I adhere to the older forms because they were the natural terms for the people who translated these books into Japanese, and because the Japanese Bible still comes under these headings. The more objective designations are familiar in academic circles, but are not expected to replace the older ones in common use. 3. It has become common in Translation Studies to use the term “target language” for the language into which a text is translated (as the opposite of “source language”), but I prefer the use of the term receptor language, which somehow sounds more appropriate. 4. The long vowels in Japanese words and names are indicated with macrons placed above the vowel letter (ō, ū or ē), except in the cases of internationally-used place names, such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe. Transliteration is according to the Hepburn Romanization system. 5. In typing the pre-1945 Japanese titles of books, names etc., the new form of the kanji characters is sometimes used instead of the old form common at the time (usually when the old forms are unavailable in the software). In quoting from Bible translations, an effort has been made to use the original orthography as much as possible. 6. Japanese names are given in the Japanese order, i.e. family name first. 7. English rendering of Japanese words is mostly according to Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, Koh Masuda, Editor in Chief, Fourth Edition, Tokyo, 1974 (Fifteenth Impression 1987), and A.N. Nelson, The Modern Reader’s Japanese English Character Dictionary, Second Revised Edition,

xiv

writing conventions

Tokyo: Tuttle, 1974. Other dictionaries are listed in the following list of Abbreviations, and indicated when used. Another vital aid used consistently is A New Concordance of the Bible [in Hebrew], edited by Abraham Even-Shoshan, one volume edition, 2000 printing. 8. Transliteration of biblical Hebrew is according to The SBL Handbook of Style. However, the letters waw and yod, when representing a vowel, are transliterated as the vowels -o, -u or -i (rather than with w or y) to facilitate reading.

ABBREVIATIONS ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) ABS American Bible Society ASV American Standard Version of the Bible (1901) BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [. . .], Edited [. . .] by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, Clarendon Press: Oxford, Seventh printing (1980) BOCP Book of Common Prayer (Anglican/Episcopalian) CC 『 新 共 同 訳 旧 約 聖 書 語 句 事 典 : Computer Concordance』    近藤司朗編集; Z・イエ ール監修 (教文館) (1992) DLLI 『羅葡日対訳辞書—Dictionarivm Latino Lvsitanicvm ac Iaponicvm [1595]』福島邦道 三橋建 解題 (勉誠社) Facsimile edition (1979) ELL The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Editor-in-chief R.E. Asher, Oxford: Pergamon Press (1994) HEP1 James C. Hepburn, A Japanese and English Dictionary; with an English and Japanese Index, Shanghai (1867) HEP2 James C. Hepburn, A Japanese-English and English-Japanese Dictionary, Second Edition, Shanghai (1872) HEP3 James C. Hepburn, A Japanese-English and English-Japanese Dictionary, Third Edition, Tokyo (1886) HNJ 『邦訳日葡辞書』(Hōyaku Nippo Jisho) 土井忠生、森田武、    長南実 編訳 (岩波書店) (1980) IKJ 『岩波古語辞典』(Iwanami Kogo Jiten) 大野晋、佐竹明広、    前田金五郎 編者 (岩波書店) (1974) JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBS Japan Bible Society (日本聖書協会) JCQ The Japan Christian Quarterly JPS Jewish Publication Society JSB The Jewish Study Bible, Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Editors, Michael Fishbane, Consulting Editor, Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, Oxford University Press (2004) KB L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Study Edition (2001) KEJ Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, Vols. 1–9 (1983) KJV King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version) (1611)

xvi

abbreviations

KN 『キリスト教年鑑』 (Kirisutokyō Nenkan) KSHD 『旧約聖書へブル語大辞典』 (Kyūyaku Seisho Heburugo Daijiten) 名尾耕作著 (聖文舎) (1982) MT Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible NASU New American Standard Bible (1995) NIDO New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Willem A. VanGemeren, General Editor, V. 1–5 (1997) NJ 『日葡辞書 [Nippo Jisho]—Vocabvlario da Lingua de Iapam [1603–4]』解題土井忠生 (岩波書店) Facsimile edition (1960) NJB New Jerusalem Bible (1986) NKD1 『 日 本 国 語 大 辞 典 』 (Nihon Kokugo Daijiten), First ed., Vols. 1–20 (1972–76) NKD2 『日本国語大辞典』(Nihon Kokugo Daijiten), Second ed., Vols. 1–14 (2000–01) NKRD 『日本キリスト教歴史大事典』(Nihon Kirisutokyō Rekishi Daijiten) 日本キリス ト教歴史大事典編集委員会 (教文館) (1988) NSHS 門脇清、大柴恒『門脇文庫日本語聖書翻訳史』(Kadowaki Bunko Nihon Seisho Honyaku Shi) (新教出版社) (1983) NT New Testament (or Greek Scripture) OED The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition OT Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) RSV Revised Standard Version of the English Bible (1952) RV Revised Version (or Revised English Version) (1881–85) SHK 『聖書翻訳研究』 (Seisho Honyaku Kenkyū) SKNK 『聖書集―近代日本キリスト教文学全集 14』(Seishoshū— Kindai Nihon Kirisutokyō Bungaku Zenshū 14) 笹淵友一編 (教文 館) (1982) TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Translator and Editor Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, V. 1–10 (1964–1976) TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Edited by G.J. Botterweck et al., Translated by John T. Willis et al., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, V. 1–15 (1974–2006) TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, Edited by Ernst Jenni & Claus Westermann, translated by Mark E. Biddle, V. 1–3 (1997) UBS United Bible Societies VL Letters of G.F. Verbeck, typed from handwritten originals by Takaya Michio and kept at the Archives of History at Meiji Gakuin University; quoted by page number of typed manuscript; a list of the letters is in Griffis 2003, 447–452

PART One

HISTORY AND INVENTORY

Chapter One

Introduction 1.1 The Bible in Japan The Bible, including its originally Hebrew part (the ‘Old Testament’) was introduced to Japan, as to most other corners of the earth, within the framework of the Christian mission, and this fact has had the most crucial and lasting effect on its translation, study and absorption into modern Japanese society. Since the middle of the 19th century, and especially in the period following World War II, the whole Christian Bible or certain parts of it have been translated repeatedly into Japanese, each translation giving rise to debate concerning its linguistic and theological qualities. And although some translations influenced to a certain extent even the non-Christian Japanese culture, the Bible’s image still remains mostly that of a Christian book, and the New Testament has a much stronger presence in Japan compared with its older counterpart. However, the spotlight here is turned towards the translations of the OT, which deserve a focused study of their own. The aim of this book is to introduce the historical background to the translations, to list and describe them, and to examine and compare specific translated verses in order to demonstrate the nature of each translation, the problems faced by the translators and the solutions they have adopted. Some general tendencies peculiar to the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Japanese will then be exposed. The primary motivation for translating the Bible has always been Christian missionary work, with the exception of Jewish translations undertaken for the benefit of non-Hebrew speaking Jewish communities, beginning with the Greek and Aramaic translations of antiquity, continuing with Arabic and other medieval translations, up to translations into Western languages in modern times ( JSB 2005–20). As Lamin Sanneh rightly observed, “the Christian Scripture had always been a translated Scripture, with implications for vernacular language and literature” (2009, 9). However, even within the Christian missionary drive there were conspicuous differences regarding translation; in the case of Japan, the Catholic mission of the 16th and early 17th centuries put the emphasis on translating catechisms and other instructions for its converts, and did

4

chapter one

not strive to translate the whole Bible, or even the whole NT (see below 2.1). The Protestant missionaries in the 19th century, on the other hand, regarded the translation of the Bible as a major and urgent task.1 And indeed, in a relatively short period of time the missionaries, with the help of their Japanese assistants, were able to complete and print the first full Japanese translation of the Protestant Bible by 1887. Many full or partial translations have followed (including Protestant, Catholic, sectarian and joint translations), and more are still expected. Translation, and in particular that of sacred texts, is a never ending task; it must be repeated again and again, as long as there are readers interested, and translators who are willing to pick up the task. During the early stages of translation work in the 19th century, and even until the late 20th century, preference in Japan was always given to translation of the NT. Whenever a translation of the whole Christian Bible was undertaken, the NT was always translated and published first, and the OT later.2 The number of NT translations exceeds considerably that of the OT. Moreover, whenever individual translators undertook the translation of specific OT books, the influence of Christian preferences was also clear; the books most often translated were Genesis (which introduces God the Creator and the story of the Fall, crucial to the understanding of the NT), and the Psalms (which are used in the Christian liturgy). While the NT has been translated several times independently of the OT, the OT has only been fully translated twice without the NT preceding it immediately, and even these two translations had their NT counterparts (see 3.5 below). Consequently, although the focus of this work is on the translation of the OT in Japan, it is impossible to ignore the NT translations, since many conventions, and especially the use of theological terms, were first determined in the translation of the NT, and later carried on to the translation of the OT. Christianity, therefore, was the main force behind Bible translations in Japan. However, even at the first stages of the introduction of the Bible, 1  In his letter to the American Bible Society, written from Kanagawa on February 14, 1861 (18 months after his arrival in the barely-opened Japan), J.C. Hepburn wrote: “We all feel that the translation of the Bible into Japanese is the most important part of our work, and are endeavouring [sic], by getting a knowledge of the language and reading their books, to fit ourselves for this duty”; Hepburn 1955, 41–42. 2 Speaking in 1880, J.C. Hepburn expressed the common missionary sentiment about this matter: “The New Testament alone is doubtless sufficient for salvation and establishment of the Christian Church in this land. But without the Old Testament it is incomplete, and much of it unintelligible without the living teacher”; reprinted in Sawa 1938, 110.



introduction

5

during the early Meiji period, there were some who saw beyond the missionary needs. One of the pioneer Western scholars of Japanese language, Basil Hall Chamberlain, wrote in 1880 (p. 285): But the Bible may be considered from many points of view apart from the strictly religious; and most foreigners and many educated Japanese will be ready to admit that, as the European student of Chinese or Japanese should first betake himself to the Confucian and Mencian books if he does not wish to be stopped at every stage of his later enquiries, so must every Japanese desirous of obtaining any adequate notion of the intellectual soil of Europe, and more especially of England and the other English-speaking countries, begin by finding out what has been written in the Hebrew Scriptures. So great has been their influence that, to say nothing of thoughts and feelings, they have moulded the very language,—the familiarity of all classes with them having introduced the use of innumerable phrases, similes and allusions, whose recurrence will render almost every book and conversation more or less a mystery to him who is stranger to the Old and New Testaments.

At this early stage, some Japanese with little or no Christian affiliation also grasped the importance of the Bible, and took some tentative steps towards translating and understanding it (Ebisawa 1981, 198–203). These efforts will be described in Chapter 3 below, and some will be quoted later. It is possible that even now at least some Japanese, when approaching the Bible, do so out of the wish to become acquainted with a major Western literary work, rather than with Christianity per se. This interest may partially explain the on-going sales of a surprisingly large number of Bibles every year, sales that by far exceed the needs of the small Christian community, whose members comprise less than one per cent of the Japanese population.3 In 1974 the Japan Bible Society celebrated 100 years of Bible publication in Japan, counting 1874 as the first year, after the ban on Christianity had been lifted and the first NT partial translations had been published. In the book to commemorate the first 100 years, the exact number of Bibles distributed each year is recorded, with the total number being 127,198,256 volumes, or 1.27 million on average per year ( JBS 1975, 240–242). The tendency of continual growth has not changed much over the years, except for a temporary decline during World War II, and the high sales figures continued throughout most of the 1980’s.

3 This opinion was already expressed by Nakazawa 1960, 87. On the other hand, the centrality of the Bible within Japanese Christian life itself has often been commented upon; see Phillips 1981, 208–209.

6

chapter one

A different source details the number of Bibles sold for the period 1970–1990:4 Full Bible OT NT Total

4,450,018 231,517 16,696,366 21,377,901

In this period the average for Bible sales was about 1.1 million per year, and considerably higher if we include single books. These are very impressive numbers for a country of 127 million people, with a Christian population of about 1 million. Of course, it is hard to estimate how many Bibles were actually opened and read on an occasional or regular basis, but still, the impression is that the interest in the Bible as a source of culture is spread somewhat wider than the interest in Christianity as a religion.5 Still, the numbers also show that even if the interest is cultural, there is a clear preference for the specifically Christian part of the Bible, i.e. the NT.6 This may mean that the Bible is still identified with Christianity and with the cultures of Europe and America, rather than, say, with Judaism or Israel, which are far less well-known in Japan. Only in a very few cases, as we shall see, is a different interest expressed. An update of the above statistics paints a slightly different picture. The JBS 125 year anniversary book includes statistics for the years 1975–2000 ( JBS 2001, 19). The tables here show a steady decline in the sale of Bibles from about the mid 1980’s, with the bottom year being 1997, when less than 380,000 volumes were sold. Then began a steady recovery, with a peak in 2000—perhaps because of the Millennium Year—reaching about 785,000 volumes (still much less than in the 1970’s and early 1980’s). The ratio between sales of the NT and the full Bible in 2000 was more than 4 Kumazawa & Swain 1991, 344–345. Their statistics also include the sale of individual biblical books, such as Psalms or one of the Gospels, the number for which comes up to over 8 million volumes for the same period of twenty years, as well as other related materials such as tracts and maps. 5 Other factors influencing the high ratio of Bible sales in Japan include the activity of the Gideons, who place the NT in hotel rooms, and the fact that Christian schools, attended mostly by non-Christians, give Bibles to new students each year. The appearance of new translations, which sometimes replace older ones in use in many churches and schools (A-2 and A-11 are the main examples), also boost the sale of Bibles. See also Olson 1982. 6 This fact is manifest in Japanese Christian life; according to Phillips 1981, 218: “. . . Japanese Protestant churches have been based largely on New Testament work, and on Pauline thought in particular . . .”. Phillips also observed that most Protestant sermons are based on the NT, “with occasional ventures into the Psalms, Genesis or Isaiah” (ibid. 217).



introduction

7

4 to 1; in other years the ratio was lower, but still, more NT volumes were sold than full Bibles. On the other hand, UBS data indicating global sales of Bibles (ibid. 20), show a slight, and sometimes larger increase in sales of full Bibles rather than the NT since 1985 (earlier the ratio was much more in favor of NT volumes).7 Thus, we may conclude that on the whole the tendency in Japan has been and still is to give precedence to the more strictly Christian parts of the Bible. But as we shall see, there are still some points to be found in favor of the ‘cultural’ aspect of the Bible, as manifest in the most recent full translation (A-12), which was the first in Japan to be initiated by a non-Christian publisher for a general audience. Another interesting fact is that among the OT books translated most often as individual books are those belonging to the ‘wisdom’ genre, such as Proverbs and Job. 1.2 Christianity in Japan The history of the Christian Church in Japan can be likened to a play in two acts with a long intermission between them. The first ‘act’ saw the introduction of the Catholic mission in the 16th and early 17th centuries, and what seemed to be its firm transplanting in Japanese soil. However, this ‘act’ ended tragically, when the Japanese authorities decided to expel the missionaries and to stamp out the foreign religion, often with blood and fire. Following a long hiatus, Christianity was reintroduced to Japan in the latter half of the 19th century, when Japan was forced to reopen its gates to the West. This time both Protestant and Catholic, as well as Orthodox missionaries arrived in Japan, driven by the conviction that a new Christian nation could be created. Contrary to their high expectations, the success of the various missions was limited; the second ‘act’ is still placidly underway, albeit with occasional dramatic occurrences. In all likelihood, the Japanese were introduced to Christianity for the first time with the arrival on their shores of the Jesuit missionaries, led by Francisco de Xavier (1506–1552), who landed in Kyushu in August 1549. There are some speculations, based on one possible interpretation of a few paragraphs in the Nihongi, the eight-century mythological-historical work, according to which some Christian stories may have been brought 7 Figures for 2009 show similar tendencies; see KN (2010), 1271; JBS figures include only its own Bibles, and not other translations sold by other publishers, some of which are quite popular.

8

chapter one

over almost a thousand years earlier by Japanese scholars who studied in China, and may have encountered Nestorian Christians there (Wada 2002, 1). There is also some evidence of contact with Nestorians in the 13th century (Mullins 2006, 116). However, these are matters open to speculation, much more so than the work of the Catholic mission in the 16th and early 17th centuries, which is relatively well documented. The missionaries, who won the protection of powerful Japanese lords, saw their work bearing promising fruit, with Christianity spreading steadily over vast parts of Japan. Their success, however, was relatively short-lived, and changes in the political situation brought a brutal end to the first period of the Catholic Church in Japan. The arrival of the Europeans opened the so-called ‘Christian Century’ (roughly 1549–1640) in the history of Japan,8 which is also commonly referred to as the ‘Kirishitan period’, according to the Portuguese-Japanese name for the followers of the religion. It occurred within the context of the Counter-Reformation and the European colonialist drive for discovering new lands and gaining untold reaches, as well as converts. It so happened that in a period when the leading colonialist powers were Spain and Portugal, Japan was part of the latter’s share, and that the missionaries arriving there were Jesuits who passed through the Portuguese court. Only decades later did Spanish missionaries from the Philippines, belonging to the Franciscan, Dominican and Augustine orders, start arriving there as well, creating tension and friction with the established Jesuits, who had made use of the Portuguese trade for their own missionary goals. The Jesuits, after some false starts, did their best to adapt to high Japanese culture while working ‘from the top down’: by converting the daimyō (samurai lords) they gained the mass conversion of their retainers. The mendicant orders, on the other hand, shunned the Japanese trappings adopted by the Jesuits, and worked among the lower strata of society. By the late 16th century the Jesuits had many churches, several seminaries and a

8 The starting point is, alternatively, 1543, with the arrival of the first Portuguese merchants in Japan, or 1549, with the arrival of the first missionaries. The end is even less clearly determined, since the gradual banning of Christianity and the banishing of foreign missionaries spread over several decades. The historical literature on the ‘Christian Century’ is bountiful, in numerous languages; in English, Boxer 1967 is still a classic in this field; Elison 1973 is another seminal work; Jennes 1973 gives a detailed description of the Christian mission; later studies include Moran 1993, which focuses on the Jesuit Visitor to the East, Alessandro Valignano, and Ross 1994, which covers the Jesuit mission in both Japan and China; for a concise historical description see Jansen 2000, 28–29, 57–58, 66–68, 72–84.



introduction

9

printing press operating in Japan, and tens of thousands of converts.9 The Spanish missionaries were also able to erect some churches and make many converts. However, by the early 17th century, political changes in Japan brought about their demise, their faith having been declared jakyō or ‘evil religion’. In 1603 Tokugawa Ieyasu established the dynastic Bakufu which would rule Japan for two and a half centuries, and which gradually closed Japan to almost any foreign interaction.10 Following several earlier expulsion orders which were not imposed rigidly, those of 1612 were enforced uncompromisingly, leading to many cases of martyrdom. Within a few short decades any public expression of Christianity and the almost century-old presence of Catholic missionaries disappeared from Japan. Secretly, a few isolated Japanese communities continued to maintain the faith during the long period of seclusion, and became known as Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians) when they reemerged from the shadows with the reintroduction of the mission in the 19th century (see further discussions of the Kirishitan period under 2.1 below). Christianity was reintroduced to Japan following the persuasive visits by the American Commodore Matthew Perry’s ‘black ships’ in 1853 and 1854, and the signing of the 1858 Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Japan and the USA, followed by similar treaties with other nations, including Britain, France and Russia. The missionaries started to flock to Japan as early as 1859 in the guise of spiritual care-givers to foreign residents of the treaty ports. In the early years, Protestant missionaries arrived mainly from the USA, then from Britain and other European nations; Catholic ones came mainly from France and Orthodox clergy from Russia. In the following decades more than 200 mission societies were established in Japan, representing a wide variety of churches, denominations and national cultures (Mullins 2006, 117). The first two decades were difficult, as Christianity was still suspect; public notice boards forbidding its practice were not removed until 1873, while freedom of religion was officially

9 Estimates vary considerably, but it is likely that by 1614 there were between 200,000– 300,000 Christians in Japan, out of a population estimated at 20 million (according to other estimates, 12 million); see Boxer 1967, 320–321, who mentions and rejects estimates of more than double the figure of converts, although these numbers sometimes still appear in the literature, for example, Miyazaki 2003, 7; see also Drummond 1971, 57–58. 10 It should be noted, though, that commercial and cultural contacts with China, and to some extent also with Korea, continued on a substantial scale through most of the period of ‘seclusion’; see Jansen 2000, 85–91. The Dutch were the only Western nationals allowed to continue trade under severe restrictions. However, the banning of Christianity was ferociously maintained to the end; ibid 92.

10

chapter one

guaranteed only with the Meiji Constitution of 1889. Still, the early success was so remarkable, and Christianity adopted so enthusiastically, especially among certain members of the former elite samurai class, that some optimistic missionaries believed the whole nation would be converted by the turn of the century (Cary 1909, V. 2, 166). The missionaries did their best to convince their converts that Christianity was an inseparable part of modernization, for which Japan was so enthusiastic. For a while many were indeed convinced, and even some non-Christian leaders advocated making Christianity the religion of Japan as a means of having it accepted as a member in the exclusive club of great world powers. However, even before the turn of the century enthusiasm faded, especially once State Shinto and the emperor system, rather than Christianity and democracy, were chosen and imposed by the government. The Christian community in Japan was a deeply committed one, but it remained a very small minority, and even after another period of great enthusiasm, during the years of Occupation following the defeat in WWII, it never surged to more than 1% of the population, and hardly even that (Mullins 2006, 118). Still, as has often been observed, the impact of the Christian mission on Japanese society was much greater and wider than the small number of actual adherents would lead to believe. This is particularly evident in the fields of education, social welfare and medical care (Mullins 2011a, 188–9). For example, it is estimated that approximately 350,000 students enroll yearly in Catholic educational institutions, from kindergarten to university, and another 300,000 in Protestant institutions. The majority of these students do not come from Christian households, but become acquainted with many aspects of Christian life during their years of schooling. Various Christian traditions have been adopted into Japanese folk customs even by non-Christians, including in particular the celebration of Christmas (although mostly without its religious contents) and church weddings. The study of Japanese Christianity passed through several phases, beginning with the documentation of the missionary enterprise by the missionaries themselves.11 The earliest history of the Protestant mission was compiled by one of its founders, and one of the heroes of this current work, Guido F. Verbeck (1883). He was followed by a later-generation

11 Study of the modern mission is referred to here; for the study of the Kirishitan period see footnote 8 above, and further notes under 2.1 below. For a concise and helpful review of current trends in research, including bibliography, see Mullins 2006.



introduction

11

missionary, Otis Cary, who compiled the first history of all the missions: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox (1909). In a much later generation a comprehensive history was offered by Richard Drummond (1971). The early history of the mission was later reexamined in great detail by contemporary scholars such as Hamish Ion (2009). Naturally, scholarship in the Japanese language has been much wider and more detailed. Dohi Akio offered fresh perspectives in his many volumes on the history of Japanese Protestantism (for example, 1987). The efforts of Ebisawa Arimichi, a leading figure in all aspects of the study of Japanese Christianity, including its Bible, and of many other collaborators, culminated in the massive Historical Dictionary of Christianity in Japan (in Japanese, abbreviated herein as NKRD). Japanese scholars have also published a myriad of meticulous studies on specific churches (both national and local), movements, personalities (foreign missionaries and Japanese Christian leaders), diaries, collections of letters and so forth. The literature is indeed vast, and was gratefully utilized in this current study. In recent decades many scholars have focused their attention on the original expressions of Christianity in Japan, or its ‘indigenization’. Various questions have been raised concerning the ways in which the religion brought over by the missionaries was absorbed and perhaps transformed through its encounter with Japanese culture. One of the earliest studies to ask these questions and give detailed answers was the one by Carlo Caldarola (1971), which is still a most valuable study with important insights. This was followed by a no less ground-breaking study of indigenous Christian movements in modern Japan by Mark R. Mullins (1998). Going back in time, the indigenous aspects of the faith in the period of the early Catholic mission were revealed by Higashibaba (2001). The various trends, themes and aspects in the study of Japanese Christianity by both Japanese and foreign scholars were brought together in the Brill volume edited by Mullins (2003), which is a valuable companion to all studies in this field, and includes extensive bibliographies of material in Japanese and English. The field is currently open for further studies along previous lines; on the one hand, reexamining the history of the missions (in works such as Ion’s) and the churches established by them, while constantly sounding out the pulse of recent developments in the ongoing indigenization of Christianity in Japan. The study of the Japanese Bible, as will be demonstrated in the following chapters, could also proceed along similar lines: collecting and analyzing data on the various stages of the translation work, and the gradual shift (which in the Catholic church has not reached

12

chapter one

its conclusion) from the hands of the missionaries to those of indigenous biblical scholars, while simultaneously contemplating the unique aspects of the Bible in its Japanese guise. 1.3 Translation The problems of translation are as old as the Tower of Babel. The need to understand information conveyed in one language, or a system of signs, and express the same information in a different language or system, has always been an important but difficult undertaking, and something is always lost in the process. It is virtually impossible to convey in translation the exact meaning, nuance, and feeling of the original statement, and the translation must always be considered as a separate entity from the original. In recent decades the study of translation has evolved into a distinct academic field, and scholars have developed various theories to explain numerous aspects of the translation process and products. Academic literature in this field is now wide and varied, and some of its methods and observations will be put into use in this examination of the translation of the Bible into Japanese. Many problems that are shared by all translations become even more acute when translating a sacred text, and especially when the translator is a believer in this text and wishes the translation to be regarded as sacred in the receptor language as well. This is almost universally true in the case of Bible translations.12 The translator believes he or she has a special responsibility in conveying what to them is the Word of God, and must find the best solution for doing so. But optimal solutions hardly exist, and opinions always vary on methods and means. Should the translation adhere literally to the original text, at the risk of being at some points incomprehensible to the reader in the receptor language, or should it try to convey the assumed meaning, at the risk of straying too far from the letter of the original text? This is a constant dilemma for the translators. And when using the receptor language, which register, dialect, level of politeness, literary style, type of script etc., should be used? These too are questions that lead to a great variety of results.

12 See a concise review of this matter by Nida, “Bible translation”, in: Baker 2001, 22–28.



introduction

13

All Bible translators must constantly struggle with these and other problems throughout their work, and the solutions vary according to the norms of translation at the time, individual preferences, and other factors, such as the influence of other translations known to the translator. In the case of Japan, as we shall see, the Chinese translations exerted a strong influence on the first full translation, and earlier Japanese translations tend to influence later ones. English, German and French translations are also often consulted by the translators, and some of the Catholic versions were based on the Latin Vulgate or were affected by it. The problems of translation are universal, but every language has its own specific characteristics that influence the translation. The problem of language is sometimes a more generally cultural one, such as in the case of religious terms. Terms exist as linguistic units, but they convey a broader cultural meaning. For example, what does kami (神) actually mean in Japanese? Does it mean the same as ’elohim or Theos or God, for which it now stands? The meaning changes according to time and use, and several layers of meaning may be added or lost in different epochs. Also, the use of various kinds of honorifics is quite common in Japanese, but to what extent should they and have they been used in translating the Bible from languages that do not share such features? These and other related issues, which involve both language and theology, will be examined in the following chapters. An even more specific problem is studied in this work: the translation of Hebrew phrases and sentences into Japanese, these two being such different and remote languages. What happens to the Hebrew verbal system, syntax and many other linguistic aspects when translated into Japanese? And what do translators do with words that have specific cultural context with no equivalents in Japan? Also, while analyzing specific translations of Hebrew verses and phrases, not only the translators’ approach to the Hebrew source will have to be taken into account, but also the influence absorbed by them from the Chinese, English, Latin and other versions of the Bible which they have been using. 1.4 Scope and Methods The aim of this work is not to study the cultural impact, the ways of absorption, or the image of the Bible in Japan, although some questions regarding these intriguing issues can not be ignored along the way. The focus will be on the translations of the OT, and especially on comparing

14

chapter one

passages from many different Japanese translations with each other and with the Hebrew original and other sources, with the aim of learning as much as possible from such comparisons about the nature of the specific translations and the general tendencies and peculiarities of the translation into Japanese. The motivation for the translation, the background of the translators, and the methods applied by them, will also be examined. Questions of linguistic, theological, and of a general cultural nature will be asked, and answers will be sought through comparative work, without any preconceived assumptions being made, but rather going with the material where it leads, while occasionally resorting to certain theories from the contemporary field of Translation Studies. In principle, a descriptive analy­sis approach has been adopted for this book (see Naudé 2002, 62–63). At the risk of stating the obvious, it should nevertheless be mentioned that Japan had, and still has, many excellent biblical scholars.13 However, most of their work is published in Japanese, and therefore is scarcely or not at all known to most non-Japanese scholars. The same can also be said of the study of Japanese Bible translations. The main figure in this field was Ebisawa Arimichi (1910–1992), who summed up his detailed findings, beginning with the Kirishitan period, in his 1981 book (cf. Bibliography). However, Ebisawa concluded his survey with translations made in the 1910’s, while later periods were only covered by him in short articles. Several other scholars made their contributions in this field; among them was Nakata Minoru (1910–1978), who published a series of articles on the history of Bible translation in Japan, and in particular Suzuki Norihisa (b. 1935), who wrote and edited numerous books and articles on the subject, including the most recent ones published. Morioka Kenji made an important contribution to the study of the language of the early translations. Several Bible translators also published scholarly articles relating to their work or that of their peers, and those relevant to this study will be mentioned in due course. The book by Kadowaki & Ōshiba (1983, abbreviated herein as NSHS), also includes much useful information. However, comparative analysis of the type offered in the current work is uncommon; as far as I am aware, there has been only one substantial comparative study of OT Japanese translations, in the long article by Toki & Kawashima, which will be discussed later (see 7.3). So far only a little has been published on this subject in languages other than Japanese. A few articles by Ebisawa, Suzuki and other Japanese 13 For a concise but valuable review of their work see Phillips 1981, 208–227 and the bibliography there; see also Nakazawa 1968, 40–57.



introduction

15

scholars have been translated and published in English-language Christian magazines. F. Bernardin Schneider OFM, himself a leading translator, published several English articles in which he reviewed the history of Bible translation into Japanese and looked at specific problems. The only comprehensive work in English of which I am aware is an as yet unpublished PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester in 2007 by Junko Nakai Hirai Murayama, titled: “The Japanese Bible: A Historical and Analytical Study of its Development with Particular Focus on the Period 1837–1888” (referred to below as Nakai 2007). Nakai’s work overlaps only slightly with the current one; the methods and purpose are markedly different, although both dedicate some pages to the questions surrounding the translation of the Psalms in the Meiji Translation (see 5.5 below). It seems that the author conducted a thorough study of the very earliest 19th century translations of the Bible into Japanese, but as the sub-title of her work also suggests, she did not deal with the great majority of later translations discussed in this present book. Obviously, much is still left to be done in this wide and complicated field. In the following chapter, titled “Historical review of Bible translations”, the larger picture of Bible translation in Japan is portrayed. The chapter begins with an overview of the fragmentary biblical translations of the Kirishitan period, followed by a discussion on the difficulty in translating religious terms and the word for God into Chinese and Japanese. This is followed by a concise description of Bible translation in China, the results of which played an important role during the early period of translation into Japanese. Next is an overview of the Japanese translations of the Bible, first in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then in the post-WWII period up to the first decade of the present century. The part on the 19th century also includes a discussion of the Japanese language at a time of change. Chapter 3, “The translations of the Hebrew Bible”, includes a detailed inventory of every full and most partial translations of the OT into Japanese. Some translations are described and discussed here for the first time, and the stories behind many are given in detail. This chapter serves as the backbone for the entire work and is the departure point for its second part. In part II various Japanese translations of specific OT verses are analyzed and compared with each other, with the Hebrew original, and with translations in other source languages. Choosing verses for comparison was difficult, because conceivably the translation of almost any biblical verse can lead to intriguing analysis and meaningful results. Unfortunately, for the

16

chapter one

sake of thorough analysis the number of verses quoted had to be limited. Quotations from the Japanese translations are given in both the original Japanese script and in Roman letters transliteration; the latter has two purposes: to reflect the furigana reading attached to most translations, which often give unexpected pronunciation for some of the kanji characters, and for the benefit of readers who are not competent in Japanese script. Biblical verses are quoted also in the original Hebrew script (and in transliteration when necessary), in English translation, and occasionally, as the need arises, in Latin and Chinese. Chapter 4 focuses on the translations of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, comparing the versions from the 12 full Japanese translations of the OT (one of which has two dissimilar versions, bringing the number up to 13). These verses were chosen because based on the evidence of ancient external sources it is commonly assumed that the MT text was emended here by some later editors, to avoid a theological problem concerning monotheism. The comparative analysis of the Japanese translations exposes both their theological stances and their respective approaches to text emendation. On the latter point, the renditions of Genesis 4:8 in the same Japanese translations serve as a test-case. Throughout the chapter numerous grammatical and stylistic issues are discussed, as well as important questions such as the use of honorifics in the Japanese translations and the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. Terms borrowed from Translation Studies, such as ‘norms’ and ‘shifts’ are also brought to the discussion. Psalm 23 is the focus of Chapter 5, advancing various angles of discussion. The aim here was to analyze the translations of a full psalm, not only isolated verses, leading to in-depth discussion of the translation of biblical poetry, the handling of Hebrew syntax, the reflecting of cultural phenomena, and more. As many as 27 translations of the psalm are quoted and analyzed (the Psalms having been translated into Japanese more times than any other OT book), presenting thus the widest range of translations, from main-stream efforts to the obscure. Several observations concerning the nature of Japanese Bible translations are made throughout this chapter based on the findings, including a discussion of ‘faithfulness’, the phenomenon of the great variety in word choice—both comparatively and internally—found in the translations, as well as various lexicographical issues. Also included in this chapter is a discussion of the earliest translations of Psalm 100, which provides a rare glimpse into the process of the translators’ work through the examination of some yet unpublished documents of Guido Verbeck and Bishop C.M. Williams, two of the earliest missionary translators. This leads also to the consideration



introduction

17

of the intriguing interaction between the foreign missionaries and their Japanese assistants in the process of translation, an issue discussed also in other parts of the book. Chapter 6, unlike the two previous ones, examines a wider variety of verses, first with a focus on Genesis, Proverbs and Job. The aim here is to introduce examples from the work of several individual translators not represented in the previous chapters, and to offer a taste of the translations of several more OT books and textual styles such as dialogue, narrative and proverb. The focus then shifts to the examination of the extent to which Hebraisms can be detected in the Japanese Bible, particularly in comparison with the KJV, famous for its large amount of Hebraisms, and which was one of the sources of the early Japanese translations. Chapter 7 concludes the work with some further observations on the nature of OT translations into Japanese. First, a classification of the translations according to purpose of use is suggested, reflecting also the cultural (rather than the merely religious) function of the Bible. Then the question of the ‘faithfulness’ of the translations is examined once again, using some of the observations of the ‘Polysystem Theory’ which was developed in the framework of Translation Studies, leading to specific and general observations about translation and society in Japan. Next some conclusions based on the comparative analysis are examined, including the issues of consistency in translation and the influence of earlier translations on later ones; the only comprehensive comparative analysis so far by Japanese scholars is also critically examined. The future of biblical translation in Japan is discussed along the dichotomy of original translations vs. edited ones, and three translations anticipated in the near future are introduced. Finally, certain aspects are considered regarding the position of the OT in Japan, based on quotations from Japanese critics and some personal thoughts.

Chapter Two

Historical review of Bible translations This chapter reviews the history of Bible translations into Japanese, both OT and NT, beginning with the early time of the Catholic mission (the Kirishitan period), continuing with the 19th century efforts prior to and following the reopening of Japan to the West, and up to our own times. A sub-chapter in between is dedicated to the 19th century translations of the Bible into Chinese, some of which exerted a consequential influence on the earliest Japanese ones. Two other sub-chapters are dedicated to questions of language. A more detailed inventory of the OT translations can be found in the following chapter. 2.1 The Kirishitan Period During the period of the early Catholic mission (see 1.2 above), stimulating intellectual contacts developed between the European foreigners and the native Japanese. Although the missionaries maintained a position of religious and moral superiority and exclusivity, rejecting indigenous traditions and Buddhism, all of which they judged ‘heathen’, ‘pagan’, and useless for salvation, in order to succeed in their mission they had to undertake a great deal of learning; this they did with considerable effort and immense talent. Some of them became true experts in the language, history and different cultural aspects of Japan, and produced several outstanding works of scholarship. They translated several books from Japanese and into it, thus influencing Japanese scholarship and art, although most of their heritage was eradicated by the Bakufu after their expulsion in the early 17th century. The translations of the missionaries and their Japanese disciples included mainly doctrinal and devotional Catholic works, such as Lives of the Saints or Imitatio Christi; they also composed catechisms, such as the famous Dochiriina Kirishitan,1 and other such books for the use of the

1 For an interesting discussion of this text in English see Higashibaba 2001, 50–75; see also Laures 1957, 41–43, 63–64. More on this text below.



historical review of bible translations

19

converts ( Jennes 1973, 79–81). But these efforts did not include a full translation of the Bible, and probably not even of the whole NT. It should be remembered that the Catholic Church had sanctified its Latin Bible, the Vulgate (which was canonized by the Council of Trent during its fourth session in 1546) and vehemently opposed the translation of the Bible into any vernacular. William Tyndale, the first translator of the Bible into English from Hebrew and Greek, was tried for heresy and executed in the Netherlands in 1536, not long before the arrival of the Jesuits in Japan.2 Still, some translation was necessary for the sake of sermons and teaching during missionary work, and permission to do that was given to missionaries in distant lands, as long as their translations were not published as full Bibles. Due to these circumstances, and to the lack of sufficient evidence, it was believed that no serious Bible translating took place in Japan at that period at all. However, Japanese and European scholars have diligently uncovered evidence indicating that several attempts had indeed been made to translate at least some parts of the Christian Bible, mostly the NT. These attempts included:3 1. The ‘translation’ of Matthew by Anjirō in about 1548: Anjirō (or: Yajirō) was a Japanese merchant from Kagoshima, who secretly boarded a Portuguese ship sailing to Malacca in 1546. The following year he met and made a good impression on Xavier, who sent him to Goa, where he was baptized as Paul de Santa Fe, and was taught by Cosme de Torres SJ (1510?–1570) and others.4 Reportedly, he completed a translation of the Gospel of Matthew, San Mateos no ewanzeriyo, using Buddhist words for Christian ideas. There is a letter supposedly from Anjirō himself to Ignatius of Loyola in Rome dated November 20, 1549, saying: “They are amazed at the impression the things of God have made upon me, so that in such a short time I have been able to learn to read and write and grasp such lofty teaching and that I could learn the Gospel of Matthew by heart, which I wrote down in Japanese characters and divided into several parts, in order the 2 Earlier, John Wycliffe’s translation from Latin to English was also condemned; about him and on the Church’s regarding Bible translation as heresy, see Daniell 2003, especially 66–75. See also 4.2.2 below. 3 The following summary is based on: Takahashi 1965, 74–75; Ebisawa 1981, 23–68; Schneider 1982, 68–72; NSHS 21–34; Wada 2002, 1–2. 4 For more on Anjirō see Higashibaba 2001, 5–10. It should be pointed out that Xavier insisted that Christian material be translated into local languages, and that the priests should gain proficiency in them (although he himself never did), rather than expect all converts to learn Portuguese; see Ross 1994, 15–20, 28–9.

20

chapter two

better to remember it” (Schneider 1982, 69). No trace of this translation exists, and it is doubtful whether it was indeed an actual translation of the full Gospel.5 2. A translation of the four Gospels before 1552: A manuscript destroyed by fire in 1563 in Takushima, near Hirado, was supposed to have contained, among other texts written in Japanese, the translation of the four Gospels; Juan Fernandez SJ (1525–1568), who came to Japan with Xavier, seems to have read aloud from it on Good Friday and Christmas of 1552. However, it is hard to believe that the full four Gospels could have been translated in such a short time after the arrival of the missionaries in Japan; they may, therefore, have been partial translations, like the following three. Indeed, according to another version, this translation included only “the Gospels and sermons for the Sundays of the year” ( Jennes 1973, 78 n. 84). 3. Portions of the Gospels from around 1567: Luis Frois SJ (1532–1597), who arrived in Japan in 1563 and who later became an important historian of the Jesuit mission, translated portions of the Gospels suitable for Sunday services, to compensate for the translation lost in the fire; his manuscript was titled Domingo no fukuin (Sunday’s Gospel), and contained about one third of the Gospels’ text, constituting a pericope (Ebisawa 1981, 35–36). Both Fernandez in his lost manuscript, and later Frois, also translated the story of the Passion, known generally as Onpassion no koto; it was included in the ‘Barreto Manuscript’ (see below) as well as in the 1607 book printed in Nagasaki, Supiritsuaru Shugyō (Ebisawa 1981, 41–46). 4. Selected NT passages for use in prayer from around 1591: These translations are included in the ‘Barreto Manuscript’, which was discovered in the Vatican Library and described by Joseph Schütte SJ, in 1940. It contains translation of selected biblical (NT) passages, and “was evidently copied from other manuscripts by Fr. Barreto just one year after his arrival in Japan for the use of the European Fathers and Brothers in their mission work in Japan. [. . .] By putting all the pericopes from Matthew together one could reconstruct almost the half of that Gospel.”6 5. NT passages in the printed catechism of 1592: This was a print made in Amakusa of the Dochiriina Kirishitan in rōmaji (Roman letters), based

5 The relevant sentence in the original letter says: “Id nunc Iaponicis litteris retinendi causa describo”; Anjirō does not actually say that he translated the Gospel; see Laures 1957, 2. On the letter see also Kishino 1998, 1–22. 6 Schneider 1982, 71; see also Ebisawa 1981, 46–52, Suzuki 2006, 7–12. The “Fr. Barreto” mentioned here was Manuel Barreto SJ (c. 1563–1620), to be distinguished from Melchior Nuñez Barreto (1520–1571), of an earlier generation of Jesuit missionaries.



historical review of bible translations

21

on the Catechismus Romanus of F. Cabral and the Niju go cagio of B. Gago SJ (more below). A second, revised version was printed in Nagasaki in 1600, in both rōmaji and Japanese script editions.7 Different versions of NT passages such as the Beatitudes indicate that there was as yet no standard or authorized translation of the NT into Japanese (Takahashi 1965, 75). 6. A possible printing of the NT in or before 1613: There are two circumstantial pieces of evidence for the existence of such a translation, although it remains a ‘phantom book’, as no copy of it was ever found. One piece of evidence is by the English merchant John Saris, who, while visiting Kyoto, wrote on October 9, 1613 that the Portuguese Jesuits “have the Newe [sic] Testament printed in the Japan Language”. The other is from 1791, in a list of books described by Father João Laureyro SJ, which mentions a NT printed in Kyoto in 1613. However, both Laures and Schütte, two authorities on this matter, doubt that the whole NT could have been printed at that time, and it is doubtful whether it ever existed since it was never mentioned in Jesuit letters of the period.8 Judging from the evidence, it seems that the translation efforts were mainly practical, and that the Catholic missionaries translated mostly those biblical parts used for reading in prayers on holy days, and for use in sermons. Whenever reference is made to some full translation of one or more of the Gospels (1, 2 & 6 above), there is no real evidence to support their existence. As for the OT, the findings are even more fragmentary. Demonstrating this fact are the pieces of text, recovered from paper used to make a Japanese folding screen, which was found in Evora, Portugal, by Matsuda Kiichi in 1960. These texts were written before 1585, and may be notes taken down by Japanese novices of the Jesuit Visitor Alejandro Valignano’s sermons. They include fragments of both the OT (Isaiah 1:11, 16) and the NT. Ebisawa considered them the oldest extant Japanese translations.9 However, from about 1590 onwards there are also books, extant either in printed copies or in manuscript, prepared by the missionaries and their assistants for various purposes: preaching, praying, teaching Latin to Japanese novices and Japanese to the missionaries, and for the use of the converts, many of which were printed at the Jesuit printing press 7 Ebisawa 1981, 52–56; for a facsimile of the rōmaji version see Hashimoto 1983, and of the Japanese script version Kojima & Kamei 1979. 8 Laures 1957, 98–99; Schneider 1982, 71–72; for a different opinion see Rhodes 1967. 9 Schneider 1965, 79 n. 2; Ebisawa 1981, 37–41; Kaiser 1996, 10; Wada 2002, 1.

22

chapter two

which operated in Japan between 1591 and 1612.10 The text of several of these books is now available in an edited form through the annual series of studies Kirishitan bungaku sōsho (キリシタン文学双書).11 The examination of these volumes yields very limited evidence of OT translations, and even when a biblical text is referred to, we do not often find a translation in its true meaning. For example, the Dochiriina Kirishitan, “the standard and the only cathechism allowed to be disseminated to all Kirishitan communities in Japan” (Higashibaba 2001, 56), is available in two printed versions (1592 & 1600); Chapter 7 in both versions is dedicated to the Ten Commandments (for which the Portuguese word mandamento is used) or the Decalogue.12 It is first explained that the Commandments are divided into two groups: the first three are obligations towards the Lord Deusu (see below), and the other seven teach behavior among men. The Commandments are then specified under numbers 1–10, but contrary to common assumption they do not constitute a full translation of the biblical text (neither of Ex. 20:2–17 nor of De. 5:6–21), but rather a digest. For example, the first Commandment originally contains four long verses (Ex. 20:2–5), which include the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the prohibition to make graven images; in the Dochiriina this is limited to one short sentence: goittai no Deusu o uyamai tattomi tatematsuru beshi (in modern transliteration).13 The text then goes on to explain further each of the Commandments (in the form of questions and answers between the novice and the teacher, as in the rest of the Dochiriina), but no further information from the biblical text is added. Similarly, no specifications are given in the third Commandment concerning the Sabbath (such as

10 Some books were printed earlier or later in Macao, Manila and Rome. See the early study of the Jesuit press by E. Satow (1888), and the later extensive one by J. Laures (1957); see also NKRD 415–418 for a table of books known to exist, and Higashibaba 2001, 50–54 for a concise list; see also Moran 1993, 145–160. 11  Between 1993 and 2010, 18 volumes were published in this series by Kyo Bun Kwan as numbers 30–47 of Kirishitan Kenkyū (キリシタン研究); most of these volumes include edited texts, but some are historical studies. Earlier, volumes 1 to 29 of Kirishitan Kenkyū (1942–1989, with some interruptions) were published as a magazine with miscellaneous articles. It should also be pointed out that several Kirishitan books had already been reprinted earlier in various editions, both edited or in facsimile; a valuable volume with various edited texts is Ebisawa et al. 1970. 12 See Ebisawa et al. 1993, 50–57 (1600 version), 129–135 (1592 version); the following example is quoted from p. 51. See also Higashibaba 2001, 70. 13 In modern Japanese script this would be: 「御一体のデウスを敬い貴み奉るべ し」. It can roughly be translated as: “You must offer respect and reverence to Deus of the single body”.



historical review of bible translations

23

Creation, or the prohibition of any work), and in the further explanations only matters relating to the Church are added (ibid., 51, 53). Another version of the Decalogue (here named Decalogo) appears in the manuscript Compendium Catholicae Veritatis, composed by the Jesuit vice-provincial Pedro Gomez, and completed around 1593.14 This text is a summary of Catholic doctrine, following the arrangement of the Roman Catechism, probably for the use of the Japanese novices at the Jesuit seminaries. Here a little more of the biblical text is followed, but once again in the form of a digest, not translation. For example, in the first Commandment, this time the prohibition of graven images is mentioned (text in Obara 1999, 72), but as a principle, not in the language of the biblical text. However, this manuscript did include some actual translations; to his edited version Obara appended an index of biblical verses, including 34 verses from the OT and the Apocrypha and 58 from the NT. And indeed, in these cases a full or partial translation of a biblical verse (made from the Latin) can be found in the manuscript. For example, Psalm 4:6 is translated fully (ibid., 57), while Prov. 27:23 is only partially translated (ibid., 148). Similar cases of isolated verses, translated fully or partially, may be found in a few other books and manuscripts from that period, and an effort to collect and analyze them all might prove worthwhile. However, several facts are clear from the outset: firstly, the translation of specific verses was undertaken as the need arose, while in all likelihood no attempt was made to translate fully any OT book, and secondly, these isolated translations were buried in obscure manuscripts and books, with which later generations of translators were largely unfamiliar. Following the deportation of the missionaries beginning in 1612, notice boards were erected all over Japan prohibiting Christianity, and suspected believers were imprisoned, tortured, exiled or put to death. Still, during the following two and half centuries, thousands of Japanese, mostly in remote and isolated communities in Kyushu and on smaller nearby islands, secretly kept their Catholic faith. They were later known as the Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians).15 The faithful no longer had written sources to depend on, and gradually developed an oral tradition that included prayers, ceremonies and articles of faith. An important example of this tradition is the text known as Tenchi hajimari no koto (Beginning of 14 The manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library in 1938; see Laures 1957, 97–98. The text is in Obara 1999; the Decalogue part is on pp. 71–90. 15 The scholarship on the history and faith of the Kakure Kirishitan is wide and varied; see, for example, Turnbull 1998, including an extensive bibliography.

24

chapter two

Heaven and Earth, which is in fact the title of the first of its 15 short chapters, and not of the whole text). Apparently it was not committed to writing until the early 19th century, and is extant in several inter-dependent manuscripts. It is an amalgam of theology and folktales of Christian, Buddhist and native Japanese origin. The only remnants of the OT in this text are from the first few chapters of Genesis, often retold inaccurately; NT traditions are more numerous, but they have also undergone substantial changes through retelling.16 The Kakure Kirishitan had no actual translations of the Bible or its parts. The Tokugawa Bakufu’s sakoku (closed country) policy minimized physical and intellectual contact with the outside world. The only Europeans allowed in the country, under strict restrictions, were Dutch merchants. Still, there exists evidence of various kinds of a degree of awareness of the Bible by Japanese scholars during the sakoku period, based on knowledge obtained from various sources, including Chinese and Dutch books (Ebisawa 1981, 69–97). During the Edo Period the Bakufu, especially since the early 18th century, encouraged the development of Rangaku or ‘Dutch Studies’, mainly in the fields of medicine, science and technology, while severely proscribing anything that smacked of Christianity. Still, occasional references to religion and the Bible filtered through the foreign books studied by Japanese scholars and found their way into their own writings. To an earlier phase belongs the work Seiyō kibun (西洋記聞, Records of things heard from the West), by the distinguished scholar and bureaucrat Arai Hakuseki (新井白石, 1657–1725), who penned it around 1715 based on his conversations with Giovanni Battista Sidotti (1668– 1714), an imprisoned Jesuit priest, and in which he gave a description of Catholicism, including some biblical stories (ibid., 69–72). This work, however, was apparently not available publically until 1882. To a later phase belong references to the Bible in some works by Yamamura Shōei (山村昌永, 1770–1807), Hirata Atsutane (平田篤胤, 1776–1843), Koseki Sanei (小関三英, 1787–1839) and others (ibid., 76–92). One of the latest examples can be found in a Dutch-Japanese unpublished manuscript by Mitsukuri Genba (箕作阮甫, 1799–1863), which was apparently written already after the reopening of Japan, and which includes translations from the first chapters of Genesis based on both Dutch and Chinese versions (ibid., 92–95; Hishimoto 1978). However, all this information was confined

16 See Whelan 1996 for an English translation, commentary and an extensive bibliography; see also Turnbull 1996. On other oral and written Kakure texts, see Whelan 1996a.



historical review of bible translations

25

to the limited circle of authorized scholars, and contained no substantial biblical translations. 2.1.1 On the Problem of Translating Religious Terms and the Word for God The problems facing the Catholic translators during the Kirishitan period were in many ways similar to those facing their later counterparts. The problems involved the translation of Christian terms generally, not only of biblical passages. Much study has been done in this field, and we know how different solutions were adopted. The missionaries first used Buddhist terms suggested by their Japanese informants, but then realized to their horror that the Japanese believed them to be merely representing a new Buddhist sect.17 They then adopted the method of transliterating Latin or Portuguese terms, in spite of the fact that in this form they were not clearly intelligible without elaborate explanations. Still, this remained their preferred method in most cases.18 The terms were written in kana or rōmaji, thus: deusu patere deusu hiiryo deusu supiritsu santo ekerejia anima paraiso inheruno

Deus Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Ecclesia anima paradisus infernus

The words Kirishitan (Christão in Portuguese), bateren (padre, father), and iruman (irmão, brother), were also written in Chinese characters. The problem of finding a suitable translation for ‘God’ was, and remained, a central issue. The missionaries decided to adhere to the transliterated form deusu, in spite of the pun made on it by the Buddhist priests, who changed it to dai-usu (big lie). The term tenshu (天主, ‘the lord of heaven’), which was relatively neutral, was also used sometimes,

17 The fear of mixing up Christian and Buddhist ideas through the unwitting use of terms was still prevalent among evangelical Christians centuries later; for example, the following warning to translators: “Look, too, at the deep-flowing current of Buddhist thought which permeates the Japanese language at all levels. The simplest of expressions, though they may be equivalents according to the dictionary, must be viewed with suspicion for fear they might project a concept quite different from that intended by the Biblical writer—as they often do” (McVety 1965, 69). 18 Jennes 1973, 11–13, 25–27, 81–82; see also Suzuki 2006, 1–17; a list of nearly 200 transliterated terms is in Cieslik and Ōta 1999, 398–403.

26

chapter two

but much less frequently (Suzuki 2001, 133–135). Buddhist terms were avoided, and the term kami (神), used to denote the innumerable deities and spirits of the indigenous traditions, seemed very unsuitable for the monotheistic God. Had they been able to return to Japan 250 years later, the bateren would have been greatly surprised to discover that this is the very term most commonly accepted by Christians in the modern period. In China the debate over the ‘Term Question’ lasted for centuries. While the Catholics ended their debate in 1740 with a papal decree to endorse tianzhu (天主, The Lord of Heaven [ Japanese: tenshu, see above]) for God, the Protestants, wishing to go a different way, never settled their dispute, expressed through the publication of learned articles and pamphlets in which each side promoted its own ultimate solution to the problem. The line of demarcation was more or less between the British missionaries on the one hand, and the Americans on the other, and both published their different translations of the Bible around the middle of the 19th century after failing to agree on a joint term (see 2.2 below). Even today the Chinese Bible is printed in two versions with different names for God: the originally British one, using shangdi (上帝 meaning ‘the di on high’) [ Japanese: jōtei; the second kanji is also read mikado], and the originally American one, using shen (神 meaning gods and spirits) [ Japanese: kami, shin, jin].19 The Protestant missionaries who were busy translating the Bible into Japanese in the early Meiji Period, led by J.C. Hepburn, S.R. Brown and their associates, were mostly American;20 they adopted the ‘American’ version of the Chinese Bible, and from the very beginning used kami for God. Brown stated in a letter in 1868: “There is no term question in Japan. God is kami, in Chinese Shin” (Ebisawa 1982, 82). Hepburn even blamed the introduction of the various Chinese translations to Japan for creating an unnecessary dispute there, adding: “The Japanese had but one word for God, Kami, which they expressed by the Chinese character 神 . . .” (Hepburn, 1883, 420). In fact, the missionaries in Japan simply bypassed the problem, by ignoring the true meaning of kami in Japanese language and culture. As Suzuki Norihisa wrote, it is rather surprising, considering the

19  See Lee 2004, 24. Lee indicates, based on UBS statistics, that the ‘American’ version is much more popular (p. 39 n. 5). See also Eber 1999, 135–161, and Suzuki 2001, 138–142, for details on the debate. For a lively first-hand description by a participant, Walter M. Lowrie, see Broomhall 1934, 64–67. 20 This is especially true of the earlier period, when the NT was translated and ground rules were determined. On the other hand, the translators of the OT were not exclusively American, although Hepburn remained the leader.



historical review of bible translations

27

fierce debate around this issue in China, that no such debate occurred in Japan. Suzuki follows Maejima Kyōji in concluding that the American missionaries working in Japan adopted the term preferred by their compatriots in China, in spite of the fact that the Chinese shen, although written with the same kanji character, is rather different in meaning from the Japanese kami. The selection of kami, in Shinto and Buddhist usage for many generations, for denoting the Christian God, often caused spiritual and practical difficulties for the Japanese Christians during the Meiji Period. However, usage gradually changed the meaning of the term. Suzuki concludes that “by translating the Christian God as Kami, on the one hand the Christian concept became Japanized, kami-fied, and on the other the Japanese kami became Christianized, and now it has become a generic term” (Suzuki 2002, 155). The Catholic Church, upon its return to Japan in the 19th century, first revived the old term tenshu as the translation for Deus; as we have seen above, this was also the term authorized by the Vatican for use in Chinese. However, in 1959 even the Catholic Church gave in and adopted kami as its official translation (Suzuki 2001, 135). The use of this term in Japan can now be considered ecumenical both in the Christian sense and the interreligious sense. All in all, most of the efforts of the Kirishitan period translators were lost, or buried in remote libraries and archives. The 19th century Christian translators in Japan were mostly unaware of their predecessors’ efforts, and had to tackle some of the same problems anew. Some of their work was already done for them though, since—as we have seen and are yet to see again—they used the Chinese Protestant translations of the Bible as a model; these translations had been completed not long before and were thus ready for their use. But as with the use of kami, the solutions they adopted from the Chinese translations were not necessarily the best ones to be found. 2.2 The Bible in China The Chinese translations of the Bible were mentioned in the above section in connection with the problem of translating the name of God. Before carrying on to the Japanese translations of the 19th century, a few more details about their Chinese predecessors seem to be in place.21 21  The main sources on the Bible in China used in writing this subchapter were: Medhurst 1837, Memorials 1867, Broomhall 1934, Spelman 1969, Yazaki 1972, Zetzsche 1999,

28

chapter two

In China, Catholic attempts in translating the Bible went somewhat further than in Japan, but these translations were never fully published (Standaert 1999, 31–33). Protestant missionaries, however, beginning early in the 19th century, produced a plethora of published translations, printed in many editions with the support of the European and American Bible societies. The first Protestant missionary to arrive in China was the British Robert Morrison (1782–1834), who landed in Canton in 1807, bringing with him a copy of a manuscript discovered in the British Museum, and containing an 18th century Catholic translation of large parts of the NT by Jean Basset.22 Working under difficult conditions in the inhospitable country that China then was, Morrison completed the translation of the NT, based partially on the Catholic manuscript, by 1813. Then, collaborating with another Englishman, William Milne (1785–1822), he translated the OT, publishing it first in individual books; Genesis and the Psalms were published first, in 1815. The full translation was printed in Malacca in 1823 under the title Shentian Shengshu (神天聖書).23 Morrison also compiled a large Chinese and English dictionary, a Chinese grammar, and many other works in both English and Chinese.24 Simultaneously with Morrison, another Englishman, Joshua Marshman (1768–1837), was working on a Chinese translation of his own. He was based in Serampore, a Danish colony near Calcutta in India, where the translation of the Bible into several Asiatic languages was taking place. With the help of one Joannes Lassar, an Armenian born in Macao, the translation of the NT was completed by 1814, and of the whole Protestant Bible by 1822. Of these two earliest translations, Morrison’s was more popular and considered more accurate. Marshman’s translation, though, was favored by Baptists, since, being a Baptist himself, he used a Chinese word meaning ‘immersion’ to translate ‘baptism’, while Morrison used a more neutral word (the same problem will arise later in Japan as well). Both translations used shen for ‘God’. Eber et al. 1999, Suzuki 2001 & 2006, Lee 2004, Chen 2005, Yi 2008. There are many more studies of the Chinese Bible in Western languages than of the Japanese one, but still, a clear historical inventory of the various Chinese translations is hard to come by and it had to be compiled from various sources. 22 See description and photo in Suzuki 2006, 20–25; see also ibid., 31–32. 23 According to Medhurst (1837, 557) the translation of the OT was completed earlier, in 1820. 24 A list of his publications is in Memorials 1867, 4–9; on Morrison see also Miyakoda 1974.



historical review of bible translations

29

The next Chinese Bible to be published was a revision of Morrison’s translation. It was a group effort, and the participants included the Englishman Walter Henry Medhurst (1796–1857), the German Karl Friedrich August Gützlaff (1803–1851), the American Elijah Coleman Bridgman (1801–1861), and Morrison’s son, John Robert Morrison (1814–1843). They published the revised NT in Batavia (now Jakarta) in 1835, and the OT in 1838. Marshman’s translation of the NT was also revised, first by Josiah Goddard (1853), and later by E.C. Lord (1883), for the use of the Baptist churches. Following the Nanking Treaty of 1842, which led to the opening of five ports on mainland China, and also the earlier British occupation of Hong Kong, the Protestant missionaries were quick to grasp the new opportunities for evangelization. Since the earlier translations were not considered good enough, a new translation was a necessary step.25 A group of British and American missionaries met in Hong Kong in August 1843 to plan a new translation, that would be a joint effort of all the Protestant missionaries in China, translated by different groups in each port and revised by appointed ‘delegates’ (hence the popular name for this translation, the ‘Delegates’ Version’).26 The delegates were a group of between four and six missionaries, working in Shanghai. But, as was already mentioned above (2.1.1), the disagreement over the translation of ‘God’ could not be solved, leading to the breaking up of the joint effort. The leading force behind the Delegates’ Version, and the one who insisted on the use of shangdi instead of shen, was W.H. Medhurst.27 The NT was printed in Shanghai in 1852, and the OT also there in 1854, both published by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The retired delegate E.C. Bridgman joined forces with Michael Simpson Culbertson (1819–1862) and several others in completing the ‘American’

25 Morrison himself was well aware of the inadequacy of his translation; in a letter to London on the occasion of completing the translation of the NT ( January 11, 1814) he says: “Allow me to notice, that I give this to the world, not as a perfect translation. That some sentences are obscure, and that some might be better rendered, I suppose to be matter of course in every translation made by a foreigner”; quoted in Medhurst 1837, 261–262. 26 The minutes of their meetings were published in the Chinese Repository, vol. 12, no. 10 (October 1843), 551–553. 27 Other permanent or temporary delegates were John Stronach (1810–1888), William C. Milne (son of the above mentioned William Milne), William Jones Boone (d. 1891), and Walter Macon Lowrie (1819–1847), who was killed by Chinese pirates while the work was still underway. E.C. Bridgman retired over the term controversy. The influence of Gützlaff, who supported Medhurst in the controversy, was also felt. The noted Scottish Sinologist James Legge was involved in the later stages of the work.

30

chapter two

version (often referred to as the ‘Bridgman-Culbertson version’). The NT was printed in Ningpo in 1859, and the OT in Shanghai in 1863 (or 1862, according to some sources), both published by the American Bible Society. The two translations did not differ over the translation of ‘God’ alone. The British translation emphasized the correct Chinese style and was praised for its beauty, while the American translation was considered more accurate (Broomhall 1934, 69–70). This was also the opinion of J.C. Hepburn, the leader of Bible translators in Meiji Japan, who said in his 1883 lecture about translating the Bible that the Bridgman-Culbertson translation was ad literam, faithfully conveying the Word of God, while the Delegates’ Version was ad sensum, a method he condemned.28 All the above translations were into Classical Chinese (Wenyan, Wenli). When the missionaries began their work, no other option was even considered.29 But gradually the need for a more colloquial translation was felt. Thus, beginning in the 1870’s, translations into Mandarin (Guanhua), as well as into other Chinese dialects, began to appear consistently, and continue to appear to this day.30 However, the translations that had the greatest impact on the work of the translators into Japanese were the earlier, literary ones (see further discussion below, 3.1, A-1 and 7.3).31 2.3 The 19th Century and Early Meiji Even before Japan was reopened to the outside world, following the persuasive visits by Commodore Perry’s ‘black ships’ in 1853 and 1854, Western missionaries in East Asia had been trying their hand at translating biblical

28 Hepburn 1883, 412. In the discussion following his lecture, Walter Dening praised the Delegates’ Version highly, while D.C. Greene praised it more mildly, ibid., 416–417; see Appendix. 29 Broomhall 1934, 78. He writes: “We now know that the Greek New Testament was written in common dialect, but we still feel that anything less than dignified English is unworthy of our sacred Scriptures. We cannot pray to God, ‘Your Kingdom come, Your will be done’, without a shudder. And this is to feel something of a Chinese scholar’s prejudice against familiar speech for high literature. To him it was to debase what should be dignified”. 30 For more about those translations see Eber 1999; Eber et al. 1999. The Peking Committee’s NT in Mandarin was completed in 1872, and Samuel I.J. Schereschewsky’s OT in 1874, and this version was also known to the Bible translators in Meiji Japan; see Hepburn 1883, 412, who condemned it (apparently mostly the NT part) as being a kind of paraphrase rather than a faithful translation. 31  The Delegates’ Version also exerted strong influence on the early translations of the Bible into Korean; see Yi 2008, 29–32.



historical review of bible translations

31

books into Japanese. Soon after the country was opened, missionaries started flocking to Japan, and doubled their translation efforts. Several Japanese made their own contributions, either independently or in collaboration with the missionaries. Their efforts had to be subdued, though, since Christianity was still officially banned. Once the ban was partially lifted in 1873, the translation efforts gained momentum, and 14 years later the full Protestant Bible was published in Japanese translation. The earliest attempts, most of which involved translations of the NT, will be reviewed here very briefly. The first translation must have been the one by the German missionary and adventurer Karl Friedrich August Gützlaff, who worked in different East Asian countries, especially in China, and was involved, as mentioned above, in several translation enterprises, including a Chinese NT of his own, published 1840.32 In Macao Gützlaff met three stranded Japanese sailors and learned some of their language; he also used the Japanese-English vocabulary published by W.H. Medhurst in Batavia in 1830.33 He translated John’s Gospel and Letters, and printed them in Singapore in 1837. Nowadays this translation is considered a curiosity, due to the incompetence of the translator in the language, and to the ignorance of his native-speaker assistants in theological matters. Gützlaff continued to translate parts of the Bible, including the OT, but these translations were not published.34 Next came the American Samuel Wells Williams (1812–1884), a noted missionary and sinologist, who translated John and Matthew, as well as Genesis, in Macao, around the same time as Gützlaff.35 According to S.R. Brown (see below), this translation was brought to Japan in 1859, but was lost in a fire in 1867; the original manuscript was also lost in a fire at the printer’s in Macao. All that is left of Williams’ work is a hand-written copy 32 His translation played an interesting part in the early stages of the Taiping Rebellion of the 1850’s; see Broomhall 1934, 71–77. For a list of his numerous publications in several languages see Memorials 1867, 56–66; see also Miyakoda 1978. 33 Medhurst compiled his vocabulary based on Japanese written sources, and his knowledge of Chinese; see Miyakoda 1978, 35–38. See Bibliography for details of reprint. About the influence of this vocabulary on early Japanese Bible translations, see Nakata, History, part 7; Sawa 1938, 1–3. 34 Ebisawa 1981, 105–118; Toyoda 1956, 84–85; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 207; NSHS 36–57; NKRD 375. For a portion of Gützlaff ’s translation of John, see SKNK 11–14. Further discussion in Suzuki 2006, 55–73. 35 Williams and Gützlaff were among a group of missionaries who tried to enter Japan aboard the American merchant ship Morrison in July 1837, using the pretext of repatriating shipwrecked Japanese sailors, but the ship came under fire from the Japanese shore and had to withdraw to Macao; see Cary 1909, 14–16, Miyakoda 1974, 273–83, Ebisawa 1981, 85–89.

32

chapter two

of Matthew made by a stranded sailor, Harada Shōzō, in 1850 and discovered in a library in Fukuoka.36 The third figure in this line of pioneer translators was Bernard Jean Bettelheim (1811–1870), a Hungarian Jew who studied medicine in Italy, married an Englishwoman and joined the Church of England. In 1846 he was sent to Okinawa with his family, as a physician and missionary, by the British Loo-Choo Naval Mission. He spent eight years in Okinawa, and although far from Japan proper, he was still under the constant scrutiny of the authorities. In 1854 he obtained a passage to Hong Kong on one of Commodore Perry’s ships, and there he printed his translation of Luke in 1855, followed by John, Acts and Romans. He later realized that the Okinawan dialect he used in his translations was not understood by most Japanese, and after relocating to Chicago revised them with the help of a Japanese friend. His revised translation of Luke was printed in Hong Kong in 1858, and, after his death, Luke, John and Acts were printed in Vienna in 1873–74 under the supervision of the Oriental scholar August Pfizmaier, financed by the British and Foreign Bible Society and Bettelheim’s widow, and were distributed in Japan for a certain time.37 Now the scene finally shifts to Japan, and to the period known in Japanese history as Bakumatsu, the final years of the Tokugawa Bakufu. In July 1858 Japan and the USA signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which was negotiated by the first American consul general in Japan, Townsend Harris (1804–1878), and which went several steps further than the Kanagawa Treaty signed by Perry in 1854: it allowed the opening of five Japanese ports for trade and the residency of American citizens, who were given the freedom to practice their religion, thus unintentionally, from the Japanese authorities’ point of view, opening the way for the missionaries to enter Japan, ostensibly to serve the religious needs of the foreign residents. Similar treaties with other western powers followed, and the American Protestant missionaries, to their dismay, were soon joined by predominantly French Catholic ones.38 For the first decade the number of Protestant missionaries was small, and their activities restricted, but they 36 Ebisawa 1981, 119–124; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 207–208; NSHS 58–69; NKRD 156. For a portion of Williams’ translation of Matthew, see SKNK 15–18. 37 Ebisawa 1981, 124–138; Sawa 1938, 17–45; Toyoda 1956, 86–87; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 208; NSHS 69–84; NKRD 1262. For portions of Bettelheim’s early translation of Luke and Matthew, see SKNK 19–30; for a portion of the Vienna edition of John, see ibid. 47–51. On Bettelheim in Okinawa see also Ion 2009, 9–11 and references mentioned. 38 To avoid competition between its various missions, the Catholic Church had given exclusive rights in Japan and Korea to the Société des Missions-Etrangères de Paris.



historical review of bible translations

33

dedicated much of their time to learning the Japanese language and to making tentative steps towards translation of the Bible.39 One of the early arrivals was Jonathan Goble (1827–1896), who volunteered as a sailor on the Perry expedition, and who resolved to return to Japan as a missionary. In 1860 he and his wife Eliza were sent to Yokohama by a small Baptist mission. In 1864 he started translating the Gospels and Acts with the aid of Japanese assistants, and in 1871 had Matthew printed from woodblocks in hiragana with some kanji. Christianity was still banned, and the printers in Yokohama refused to touch the book. Goble finally found a printer in Tokyo who was ignorant of the book’s identity. The authorities, however, were quick to identify it and had the woodblocks and the printed copies burned. This translation of one of the Gospels, the first to be published in modern Japan, is known to survive in only nine copies, out of the estimated 300 that were printed.40 Other translations were going on simultaneously. Two missionaries involved in these efforts arrived in Kanagawa (and later relocated to Yokohama) a year before Goble, in 1859. One was the American Samuel Robins Brown (1810–1880), who had earlier spent several years as a missionary in China, where in August 1843 he participated in the missionaries’ meeting that initiated the Delegates’ Version translation of the Bible.41 Brown served in Macao and Hong Kong from 1839 to 1847, and returned to the USA due to his wife Elizabeth’s illness (Griffis 1902). After working some years as an educator in New York State he was sent to Japan by the (Dutch) Reformed Church Mission. The manuscripts of his early translations, except for those of Matthew and Mark, were lost when his house burned down in 1867 (in the same fire that destroyed S.W. Williams’ manuscripts mentioned above).42 The other arrival in 1859 was the illustrious American lay missionary and physician James Curtis Hepburn (1815–1911), whose name is associated not only with Bible translations—although he was the leading force

39 For a detailed study of the early American missionary activities in Japan see Ion 2009. 40 Ebisawa 1981, 163–168; Parker 2001, 169–183; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 208– 209; NSHS 85–97; NKRD 536–537. For a portion of Goble’s translation of Matthew, see SKNK 37–40. For further research on Goble see Kawashima 1988, and for a detailed study of his translation, Kawashima 1989; in English see Parker 2001. 41  See Chinese Repository, V. 12 (1843) 551. 42 Ebisawa 1981, 170 etc.; Verbeck 1883, 120*–122*; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 209; NSHS 102–103; NKRD 1230–1. For a portion of Brown’s translation of Matthew, see SKNK 31–33. For more on Brown see Griffis 1902; Akiyama 1982, 3–15, and bibliography there, 383.

34

chapter two

in this field in Meiji Japan—but also with Japanese language studies in general.43 Hepburn is renowned, among other contributions, for his convenient system of Romanization of Japanese script, which is still in use today. Earlier Hepburn served some years as a missionary in China and Singapore, where in 1841 he came upon Gützlaff ’s early NT translation, which aroused his interest in Japan (Toyoda 1956, 85). As already mentioned earlier, Hepburn considered the translation of the Bible the most urgent task, and in one of his earliest letters from Japan (April 17, 1861) he said that both he and Brown had started translating, and intended to cooperate (Hepburn 1955, 44). The two met for the first time in Singapore, where Hepburn and his wife Clara served as missionaries from 1841 to 1843, and where the Browns came for a rest.44 The Hepburns later served in Amoy (Xiamen), but in 1845 had to return to the USA, also because of failing health. Hepburn had a successful medical practice in New York City before he and his wife were sent to Japan by the mission of the Presbyterian Church. In Japan he continued to practice medicine and train students beside his other missionary and linguistic activities, while his wife Clara established a school for English (Ion 2009, 59 & passim). About two and a half years after his earlier letter (October 18, 1863), Hepburn wrote that he was continuing the work but was still not satisfied with his knowledge of Japanese.45 He also started translating some of the Gospels based on the Chinese translation and with the aid of a Japanese teacher (Ebisawa 1981, 145–150). However, in the following few years Hepburn dedicated most of his efforts to compiling a comprehensive Japanese-English dictionary, which he considered a necessary tool for translation and for all other missionary work. In compiling his dictionary Hepburn was aided by Kishida Ginkō (岸田吟香, 1833–1905) (NKRD 356).46 He published the first edition in Shanghai in 1867, and several corrected and enlarged editions in the subsequent years. Two other missionaries who arrived in Japan in 1859 should be mentioned at this stage. Both arrived in Nagasaki, as it was thought that this 43 Incidentally, Hepburn brought with him a copy of the Bible in English as a gift from the ABS to the Emperor of Japan, but was only allowed to deliver it 13 years later, in October 1872, not long before the ban on Christianity was lifted; see Ozawa 1973, 107–121. 44 Griffis 1913, 52; Hepburn 1955, 185. Partial bibliography on Hepburn see in Akiyama 1982, 383–4. 45 Hepburn 1955, 72. Still, even at this time he was busy preparing Japanese versions of Chinese Christian tracts; see Ebisawa 1981, 150–155. 46 Kishida learned English from Hamada Hikozō, known also as Joseph Heco, and participated in his pioneering newspaper publishing; see below 3.3, C-1.



historical review of bible translations

35

port, with its long international tradition, might offer better opportunities for mission work. One was the American Episcopalian Church missionary Channing Moore Williams (1829–1910), who was to play a major role in the establishment of Protestant Christianity in Japan, and a certain pioneering role in Bible translation as well (see Chapter 3.3, C-4 below). He was soon joined in Nagasaki by Guido Herman Fridolin Verbeck (originally Verbeek) (1830–1898), a native of the Netherlands who went to the USA at the age of 22 to work as an engineer.47 Following a grave illness he vowed to dedicate his life to missionary work, and for that purpose enrolled in the Auburn Theological Seminary from 1855. He met S.R. Brown, and like him was sent to Japan by the (Dutch) Reform Church, on account of his outstanding linguistic skills. During his ten years in Nagasaki, Verbeck taught English and made tentative steps in converting some of his students and in translating the Bible. In a letter to his mission board dated February 21, 1870, he wrote about translating the Bible (quoted in Griffis 1900, 189): What I have, or rather got done in this is that I have the whole of the New and a few books of the Old Testament translated by a good native scholar out of the Chinese. This, being a translation of a translation by one in spiritual darkness, is naturally a very imperfect work, yet of some value, as I found in lending it out to inquirers who could not read either English or Chinese.

In his letter Verbeck urges the board to send a talented person, well versed in Hebrew and Greek to Japan, specifically for the task of Bible translation, as he himself was too busy with other tasks. The above-mentioned, as well as other tentative, indirect translations, did not survive (Ebisawa 1981, 155–159). From 1864 to 1878 Verbeck was in fact an employee of the Japanese government, first of the Bakufu, for which he established schools for English

47 See Verbeck 1883, 25–28 and passim; Griffis 1900; Ogata 1961; Earns 1997; NKRD 1246–1247; KEJ V. 8, 189–190. Incidentally, although much has been written about Verbeck and particularly Hepburn in Japanese (in the case of the latter even children’s books), relatively little has been written about them in English. W.E. Griffis published books about Verbeck (1900), S.R. Brown (1902), and Hepburn (1913), but these are works of hagiography, not critical studies, although they contain some valuable material. Even Verbeck’s letters were published (partially) in Japanese translation rather than in the original English; in the case of Hepburn, a larger selection of his letters to his mission board was published in Japanese than in English. His private letters to his brother Slator, in which he reports also about Bible translation, were published only in Japanese (Takaya 1976). Some more bibliography on Verbeck see in Akiyama 1982, 384; see also Ion 2009, passim.

36

chapter two

in Nagasaki, and later of the Meiji government, to which he advised in matters of education, legislation and diplomacy, after relocating to Tokyo in 1869 on the invitation of some of his former pupils, who became important figures in the new government. During the following decade Verbeck must have been one of the most influential foreigners in Japan through his advice and his translations of European law codes and constitutions. He also had an important role in initiating the Iwakura Mission to the USA and Europe in 1871–73, through his “Brief Sketch”, presented to his former pupil and senior Meiji politician Ōkuma Shigenobu (大隈重信, 1838–1922) already in June 1869; his hope was that first-hand impressions of the lands of Christendom by leading Japanese politicians would lead to the lifting of the ban on Christianity, as he always remained committed first and foremost to his missionary ambitions.48 And indeed, during the mission’s sojourn in Europe, the Japanese government decided to remove the anti-Christian notice boards that had been displayed all over Japan for two and half centuries.49 For some reason Verbeck lost his Dutch citizenship and did not gain an American one, but he received a Japanese passport for himself and his family in gratitude for his important services to the Japanese government. After leaving the government service in 1878 he dedicated his time fully to missionary work and to Bible translation. In 1883 he wrote the first detailed history of the Protestant mission in Japan, published in the Proceedings of the missionaries conference of that year.50 * * * Eventually, Hepburn and Brown started cooperating on the translation of the NT in 1867, the same year as the fire that burned down the latter’s house and most of his manuscripts, although there were further delays: Brown left for the USA and returned only two years later, and he then taught for a year in Niigata before returning to Yokohama in September 1870; Hepburn went to Shanghai in November 1871 for six months to 48 See the text of his proposal in Altman 1966, 58–62; and see Nish 1998, 55; 67; 79–83; 119; 151–152; 163; 181–182; 208–209. Verbeck’s influence was well recognized by both Japanese and foreigners of that period; see Biographical Sketches, 10–12; and see Jansen 2000, 355–61, 463–8. 49 Breen (1998) argues that the decision was taken from internal Japanese motives, and that the embassy members did not change their attitude towards Christianity, but nevertheless, it is clear that some of the embassy members were involved in the decision or approved of it. See also Ion 2009, 121–125, 143–149, 262–263. 50 See Missionaries 1883, 23–186*; reprinted with minor corrections in Missionaries 1901, 740–878.



historical review of bible translations

37

supervise the printing of the second edition of his dictionary. However, Hepburn had also cooperated with the veteran missionaries James H. Ballagh (1842–1920) and David Thompson (1835–1915) in revising his translation of Matthew.51 They were assisted by Okuno Masatsuna (奥野昌綱, 1823–1910), a former samurai and a Christian convert, whom Hepburn referred to as “my old teacher” although he was younger than himself.52 Hepburn and Brown finally published their translation of Mark and John, in separate volumes, in 1872, and of Matthew in 1873.53 Meanwhile more missionaries were arriving in Japan and trying their hand at Bible translation and eventually decided to join efforts. Between September 20–26, 1872 the first general conference of the representatives of the Protestant mission societies in Japan was convened at Hepburn’s house in Yokohama to discuss various issues of policy and organization. Concerning Bible translation it was decided that each society would supply one member to the committee for translating the NT, under the responsibility of the American Bible Society.54 However, the members of that committee resigned one after another, and a new committee started meeting on March 25, 1874. They first started working on Hepburn’s translation of Luke, which was revised by the other members and published in 1875 as the first fruit of the committee’s work. The membership in this committee was not totally stable either; apart from Hepburn and S.R. Brown, it also included Robert Samuel Maclay (1824–1907), and the considerably younger Daniel Crosby Greene (1843–1913), all of whom were Americans. Others participated in later stages of the work, but Hepburn, Brown and Greene formed the permanent core of the committee. The Japanese assistants included the above-mentioned Okuno Masatsune, as 51  Ion 2009, 82, states inaccurately that the Mathew translation was published in 1868; in fact, although the translation was ready that year it was only made available to missionaries in manuscript, as its publication was still considered too risky; see Parker 2001, 179; Ebisawa 1981, 178. 52 Hepburn 1955, 147; perhaps he meant ‘veteran’ rather than old in age. For more on Okuno and on his role as Hepburn’s teacher see Akiyama 1982, 117–126, and bibliography therein, 389. 53 Greene 1927, 133–159; Ebisawa 1981, 169–186; Wada 2002, 3–4; Schneider 2003, 209; NSHS 100–110; NKRD 1266–7; 253. For portions of Hepburn and Brown’s translation of Mark and John, see SKNK 41–51. 54 Hepburn described the stages of the committee’s work in his speech given on April 19, 1880 at the Shinsakae Bashi Church, Tokyo, on the occasion of the publishing of the full translation of the NT. Future writers cited here seem to have relied on his report. The speech was printed in the Japan Gazette of April 24, 1880, and the main parts of it were reprinted in Verbeck 1883, 114*–117*, and in Sawa 1938, 104–110. Some records of the committee’s work written by D.C. Greene were found and published; see Records 1985. See also Suzuki 2006, 75–116.

38

chapter two

well as Takahashi Gorō (高橋五郎, 1856–1935), and in particular Matsu­ yama Takayoshi (松山高吉, 1847–1935), for whom Hepburn had the following praise (Sawa 1938, 108): He was with the Committee from the first, and throughout its whole work. He was our chief dependence, assistant, and arbiter in all cases of difficulty. Whatever virtue there is in our Japanese text, is mainly, if not altogether owing to his scholarly ability, the perfect knowledge he has of his own language, his conscientious care, and his identifying himself with the work. And he adds: It may safely be said that there is no foreigner in this country who has such a knowledge of the language as to qualify him alone to bring out an idiomatic and good translation, without the aid of a native scholar. And the literary merit of the translation will depend principally upon the ability and scholarship of the native assistant.

A young Japanese student witnessed the work of the committee. This was Ibuka Kajinosuke (井深梶之助, 1854–1940), who later participated in the translation of the OT.55 According to him, the committee met five days a week from 9:00 in the morning till noon at Brown’s house in Yokohama, managing to complete the translation of only a very few verses in each session.56 The committee members would sit around a table, with copies of the NT in Greek open in front of Brown and Greene, English commentary in front of Hepburn, and Chinese Bibles in front of the Japanese assistants. Takahashi worked with Brown, Okuno with Hepburn, and Matsuyama with Greene. According to Hepburn, the committee concluded its task on November 3, 1879, about five and a half years after they started their cooperative work, and twenty years after his own arrival in Japan. Separate books were published as they were completed, 12 volumes in all between 1875 and 1880. The full translation of the NT was published in April 1880.57 55 About Ibuka see Akiyama 1982, 166–190, 293–296, and the bibliography therein 390– 301; see also Ion 2009, 251–255. 56 Cited in English translation in Hills 1952, 77; the source is not indicated; also in Toyoda 1956, 89, where the source is given as Fukuin Shimpō no. 1088 (May 4, 1916). The original Japanese text is quoted in Ebisawa 1981, 217–218. Ebisawa points to differences in the days and hours allotted to the work between Ibuka’s description and Hepburn’s own version in a letter from 1874, saying that perhaps Ibuka is speaking about a different period of the work. Since his description was written apparently long after the described events, it may also be inaccurate on this and other points. 57 Ebisawa 1981, 209–252; Wada 2002, 4–5; Schneider 2003, 209–210; NSHS 156–188; NKRD 466; 1313. For portions of different NT books in the committee’s translation, see SKNK 79–99.



historical review of bible translations

39

In fact, this was not the first full Japanese NT to be published. Several months earlier, in August 1879, a full translation in hiragana was published by an American missionary and a one-time member of the committee, Nathan Brown (1807–1886) (not to be confused with his fellow American, Samuel R. Brown), assisted by Kawakatsu Tetsuya (川勝鉄弥). Nathan Brown, who was a Baptist, resigned from the committee in 1876 because of a disagreement over the use of the Japanese translation for ‘baptism’. He insisted on a word that would mean full immersion, 浸礼 (shinrei), over the majority decision of the others to use the term 洗礼 (senrei), that would mean baptism by sprinkling.58 Simultaneously, translations of the OT were also underway. David Thompson (mentioned above), an American missionary who arrived in Japan in 1863, was busy translating Genesis.59 A committee for translating the OT was first formed in October 1876, but efforts continued individually until the committee was reorganized in 1882 under the leadership of Hepburn, leading to the publication of the full OT by the end of 1887 (for details see below—Chapter 3.1, A-1). While the Protestant mission was gaining force in Japan, the Catholic Church was also active, and even resumed contact with the Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians) in Kyushu, who secretly kept their own version of the faith throughout the centuries of persecution. However, just like in the Kirishitan period, the Catholic missionaries did not make haste to translate the Bible, giving preference to catechisms and other books of guidance. F. Pierre Mounicou (1825–1871), who arrived in Yokohama in 1860, composed a catechism which was printed in Yokohama in 1865, and entitled “Catechism of the Principles of the Sacred Doctrine” (聖教要 理問答 Seikyō yōri mondō). It was written in the literary style, made use of Chinese terminology, and avoided the old terms used by the Kakure Kirishitan. However, in 1868 Bernard T. Petitjean (1829–1884) published a different version in Nagasaki, entitled “Elementary Catechism of the Sacred Doctrine” (聖教初学要理 Seikyō shogaku yōri), using the terminology familiar to the Kirishitan.60 58 As we have seen above, a similar disagreement caused the continuous publication of a separate Baptist Bible in Chinese. See Ebisawa 1981, 286–305; Wada 2002, 4–5; Schneider 2003, 210; Suzuki 2006, 83 ff.; NSHS 136–150; NKRD 1230. For portions of Nathan Brown’s translation of the four Gospels, see SKNK 55–70. For more on Nathan Brown see Kawashima 2008. 59 Schneider 2003, 209; NSHS 188–189; NKRD 853. On Thompson see also Akiyama 1982, 52–6. 60 Wada 2002, 5–6; Jennes 1973, 222; NKRD 1226, 1384. See also Ballhatchet 2003, 40.

40

chapter two

The first Catholic translation of the four Gospels was published in two volumes, in 1895 and 1897. The translation was done by Takahashi Gorō, who was also involved earlier in the Protestant version. He worked with Michael A. Steichen (1857–1929, a native of Luxemburg) and Noël Péri (1865–1922, a Frenchman), both from the Société des Missions-Etrangères de Paris. Their translation was based on the Vulgate.61 Only towards the very end of the Meiji Period did the Catholic Church in Japan have its own full translation of the NT. It was the work of F. Emile Raguet MEP (1854–1929, a native of Belgium), prepared with the help of several Japanese assistants, and was published in 1910. This translation was in a high literary style, and was used until the 1950’s, when it was replaced by Barbaro’s translation.62 The Russian Orthodox Church also arrived in Japan, in the formidable person of Ioann Demirovich Kasatkin (1836–1912), later known as Archbishop Nikolai.63 He arrived in Hakodate in 1861, and moved to Tokyo by 1872, where he built a lofty cathedral, established the bishopric of Japan in 1880, and there spent the rest of his life. He devoted many years to the study of the Japanese language and culture, and was involved in several translation projects (including, for a short while, as a member of the Protestant committee that translated the NT), culminating in the publication of the full NT in 1901, which he translated with the aid of Japanese assistants.64 His first initiative in biblical translation was a digest of the OT, translated by Ono Seichū (see C-6). Later he published catechisms and prayer books which included biblical translations. A full translation of the Psalms was published in 1885 (B-1). It should also be mentioned that several fragmentary or partial translations of the OT, mostly by native Japanese translators, appeared in the latter years of the Bakumatsu period and early years of Meiji, and are described below in some detail (under 3.3). These include the earliest publication of some verses from Genesis (1866) by a shipwrecked Japanese sailor who was educated and baptized in the USA before returning 61  Ebisawa 1981, 353–359; Wada 2002, 5–6; Schneider 2003, 217; NSHS 257–260; NKRD 726, 827, 1267–8. For a portion of this translation of the Gospels, see SKNK 142–152. 62 Ebisawa 1981, 359–363; Wada 2002, 5–6; Schneider 2003, 218; NSHS 273–276; NKRD 1486. For a portion of Raguet’s translation of the four Gospels, see SKNK 183–193. 63 NKRD 1019–20. Many books have been written in Japan about Nikolai and his accomplishments; see, for example, Ushimaru 1969 & 1978, Takahashi 2000. In English see Cary 1909, V. 1, 375–423, Ballhatchet 2003, 52–57. 64 Ebisawa 1981, 364–375; SKNK 153–162, 287–288. Partial translations were published earlier; Matthew was published in 1892.



historical review of bible translations

41

to Japan (C-1); the retelling of OT stories by a non-Christian student of English (C-2); a translation of portions of both OT and NT by a Japanese who was only to become Christian years later (C-3); and biblical digests by a Japanese Russian Orthodox Christian (C-6), and a Japanese Catholic (C-7). There were also fragmentary publications by missionaries, such as the Decalogue (C-4), a discourse against idols (C-5), and a proposal by an English scholar to translate the Psalms in the form and language of the most archaic Japanese poetry (C-8). 2.3.1 On the Japanese Written Language in a Time of Change Bible translators during the Bakumatsu and Meiji Periods faced a serious problem deciding what kind of language to use in their translations. The Japanese language—just like the Japanese society of the time—was in a state of flux. This is particularly true regarding the written language, which during long centuries of aristocratic use was fossilized into archaic patterns. It was clear to some that modernizing Japan would inevitably involve modernizing the written language, but it was also clear that the attempts to do so would meet entrenched resistance.65 Japan borrowed its script from China around the fifth or sixth centuries,66 in what may be considered a historical accident, since the Chinese script, excellent for Chinese, which is an isolating language, is totally incompatible with Japanese, which is an agglutinative one. We may speculate on what course history would have taken, if Japan had adopted one of the North Indian phonetic scripts rather than the Chinese characters. But that is virtual history; in actual history the Japanese language had to adapt the Chinese script for its use, in a long and painful process which has left it with the most complex writing system still in use today anywhere in the world. In this system, the Chinese characters, known as kanji (漢字), are simultaneously used in two ways: to represent both Chinese loan words (on reading, 音読み), and original Japanese words (kun reading, 訓読み), or often only parts of these words, such as the stem of verbs and adjectives. Other Japanese words (conjunctions, particles etc.), as well as the inflected parts of verbs and adjectives, are written in a syllabary developed by the Japanese as a derivative of the Chinese characters. Two such

65 This section includes some very basic facts about the Japanese language, which might seem redundant, but it also includes some observations important for the latter parts of this work. 66 For a detailed study of early writing in Japan see Lurie 2011.

42

chapter two

syllabaries are in use, hiragana (ひらがな) and katakana (カタカナ). To some extent, modern Japanese also makes use of the Latin alphabet, known as rōmaji (ローマ字) or Roman letters. Together with the script, Japanese also absorbed many Chinese words, as well as concepts of literature and writing. And although Japan always had its own indigenous literary style, Chinese literature enjoyed such prestige that it relegated Japanese literature to an inferior position during long periods of Japanese history. At the time of the reopening of Japan to the West during the second half of the 19th century, Japan had several distinct literary styles, none of which reflected the spoken language.67 The most prestigious style was kanbun (漢文, Chinese writing). This had two main varieties. One was jun-kanbun (純漢文), in which Chinese syntax was used, and can be considered almost purely Chinese, with some Japanese variations. The other was hentai kanbun (変体漢文), which was closer to Japanese in its syntax and its use of honorific verbs, but it was still more Chinese than Japanese. This last variety became the official style used in government documents and other serious writing. In order to facilitate its reading for people not well-versed in Chinese, a system called kundoku kanbun (訓読漢文) was developed, in which kana syllabary and special marks converting the text into Japanese were added on both sides of the vertically written line. This cumbersome writing system required much effort to learn, and the general effect of all kanbun use was to limit the number of fully literate people to a small elite. Outside as well as inside the elite another offshoot of kanbun was used, called sōrōbun (候文), an epistolary style used also in public notices, and mastered by some commoners, although it too was quite far removed from the colloquial language. While kanbun and sōrōbun were stepchildren of Chinese, the third literary style, wabun (和文), was a legitimate child of Japan. It was developed to a very refined degree during the Heian Period, and was written mostly in the kana syllabary, making use also of some kanji, mainly in the kun­ yomi or Japanese reading. When Murasaki Shikibu wrote The Tale of Genji (源氏物語) around the year 1000, this was the natural contemporary style, albeit used mostly by women writers not fluent in kanbun. Although not used in official documents, it enjoyed the prestige of a highly esteemed literary language; nevertheless there were also periods of neglect when it was totally eclipsed by kanbun. However, precisely as a result of its high 67 Twine 1978, 334–337; Habein 1984, 67–103; Twine 1991, 33–73; Coulmas 1991, 128–134.



historical review of bible translations

43

prestige, it evolved into a fossilized language to which nothing could be added, and gradually became further and further removed from the spoken language, which kept developing during the centuries following the zenith of the Heian Period. A later form of wabun was known as gikobun (擬古文), and was created in the 18th century by scholars wishing to purify the language by removing Chinese influence. However, these scholars too disdained the contemporary spoken language, and adhered to the Heian vocabulary. These different literary styles also gave birth to another, which was a mixture of Japanese and Chinese styles known as wakankonkōbun (和漢 混交文) or kanamajiribun (仮名交じり文). This style was used in popular literature, and in some cases included spoken language phrases, but it also included a considerable amount of difficult kanbun and flowery wabun. The ratio of the different styles depended on the author, with some writers, for example Jippensha Ikku (十返舎一九, 1765–1831) using a great amount of colloquial expressions, but such writers and their readers were not counted among the ranks of the respectable literati. While the written language was divided between so many distinct styles, the spoken language was not unified either. Each geographical area of Japan had its own distinct dialect, some of which were mutually unintelligible. In fact, kanbun served as kind of lingua franca along the different domains, but only for the elite members who were able to read it. The situation in Japan at the time, then, can be described in terms of diglossia, a socio-linguistic situation identified by C.A. Ferguson in his ground-breaking 1959 article as follows (Ferguson 1971, 16): Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation.

The situation in Japan was in one respect even more complex than in Ferguson’s definition, since there were at least two distinct written languages, kanbun and wabun, neither of which was used for ordinary conversation. In yet another respect the situation was different from Ferguson’s definition, since the written language was not even used for formal spoken purposes, but was used exclusively as a literary form. However, we can still speak of a diglossia-situation due to the strict separation of the spoken

44

chapter two

and written languages. There was a Japanese term for this situation, genbun nito (言文二途), “two languages for speaking and writing” (Coulmas 1991, 127). The attempts to rectify this situation were therefore covered by the title genbun itchi (言文一致), “unified spoken and written language”. The efforts for unifying the spoken and written languages developed over several decades, and although ran into many obstacles, ended in triumph. A detailed description of this process cannot be given here.68 What came to be known as the “Genbun Itchi Movement” encompassed scholars, officials and writers, who in a gradual process created a literary style which resembled the spoken language to a great extent, although was not identical with it. The beginning of the movement can be traced back to 1866, and it was gaining force by the end of the century. The Ministry of Education seized the initiative early in the 20th century, although other government departments continued to resist the change even into the period of World War II, but their resistance was broken with the publication of the draft of Japan’s new constitution in the ‘colloquial’ style (口語 kōgo) in 1946. By that time kanbun and sōrōbun had largely disappeared from formal education, and Japanese wishing to read old documents had to take special classes to acquire this skill. Texts in classical wabun also became unintelligible, and The Tale of Genji had to be translated into modern written Japanese for the sake of non-expert readers, a task which was undertaken several times by different distinguished writers. The writing system itself underwent several modifications, with the standardization of kana, coupled with the simplifying of some Chinese characters and by restricting their number in daily use. Romanization of the Japanese script and the use of hiragana as the only script were considered on several occasions, but such ideas never gained enough support. Regional dialects still exist, but a somewhat refined version of the Tokyo dialect became the standard “National Language” (国語, kokugo) through its use in the centralized education system and mass media. Today Japan is a country with one standard written and spoken language, with some regional dialects, and is no longer a society where diglossia in its strict sense can be found. In the historical process leading up to this situation, Bible translations also had their place. The following text, written by the missionary Jerome Dean Davis (1838–1910), serves as a good illustration

68 For a concise description see Twine 1978, and for a more elaborate one Twine 1991. For some further observations see also Tomasi 1999.



historical review of bible translations

45

of the written language situation at the time, and the difficulties faced by the translators: In the summer of 1873, the writer sat under the maples by the waterfall in Arima, the only missionary in the place, and wrote in Romaji [sic] in his broken Japanese the first draft of a little tract. Two months later, when his teacher had copied it into Japanese, he asked him to revise it, and it came back in such high Chinese that none of the common people could read it. He then asked a scholar of the pure Japanese language to put it into such language that the masses could read it, and after another month it came back about fifty degrees higher yet. The writer then took his original draft and sat down with his teacher and fought it over word by word and sentence by sentence, demanding that the words which could be understood by the greatest number of the common people should be used; and after two months more it was ready for the block-cutter; but his teacher begged the writer not to let any one know who helped in the preparation of it, as he would be ashamed to have it known that he prepared so colloquial a book.69

All the translators in the 19th century, as will be demonstrated by the many examples in the following chapters, adopted the classical style or bungo (文語) (closer to wabun but with some influence by kanbun), with the exception of Goble’s translation of Matthew, which was closer to the ‘colloquial’ style (Kawashima 1989; Parker 2001, 180–1). Even during much of the 20th century the classical style was preferred, and the ‘colloquial’ one was accepted only after long and painful debates. Several translators’ debates regarding the type of language to be used will be introduced and discussed below; see in particular Chapter 3.1 under A-1 and A-2; Chapter 3.3 under C-8; and the Appendix. 2.4 From Late Meiji until World War II As has just been seen, the Japanese language was changing rapidly, and the need to revise the classical-language Bible translation completed in 1887 became evident early in the 20th century. Various people published translations of one section or another of the NT in colloquial style, but the need for organized committee work was felt again. After a false start, a revision

69 Quoted in Cary 1909, V.2, 86–87. Davis arrived in Japan in 1871, about two years before the above piece was written, and after fighting in the American Civil War. He later became a leading professor of Theology at Doshisha and wrote a biography of Niijima Jō; see NKRD 895. For another view of the state of the Japanese written language at the time by a learned foreigner see Greene 1927, 147–155.

46

chapter two

committee was organized in May 1906, but it was several years before it actually started working. This committee was comprised of 4 Japanese and 4 foreign missionaries. The literary style of the original translation was maintained, but the aim was to make it easier to understand, and bring it closer to the colloquial language.70 The translation was published in October 1917 by the British and American Bible Societies; it is known as the “Taishō Revised Translation”, and it remained the standard Protestant NT until 1954, when the ‘colloquial’ translation was published by JBS.71 Incidentally, the work of the above-mentioned committee seems to more or less mark the end of the involvement of foreign Protestant missionaries in Bible translations in Japan. From that time on translation work was to be fully in the hands of native Japanese. Also, since 1938 the Japan Bible Society, in place of the foreign societies, is responsible for publishing the Bible in Japan. The situation in the Catholic Church, though, was different, and foreign priests, especially members of the Franciscan and Dominican orders, continued to play an important role in Bible translation until the end of the 20th century, and even into the new millennium. Following the revision of the NT, the OT translation obviously needed to be revised also, but this task was not accomplished.72 An association was formed in 1926 to study terminology and methods of translation, with the intention of revising the OT classical-language translation, but its members did not do any actual translating. However, the chairman of this association, Tsuru Senji (都留仙次), was appointed in 1941 by JBS to head its committee of six scholars for revising the OT translation. The committee worked on the revision during and after the war, and published its versions of the Psalms and Job, but the full translation never having been published was abandoned in favor of a new ‘colloquial’ one, published in 1955 (see more details below, Chapter 3, A-2; B-9).73

70 There were already some partial translations in the colloquial style much earlier. For example, Ibuka Kajinosuke published in 1881 his translation of Mark in zokugo (俗語) or colloquial style; see Ebisawa 1981, 322–324; SKNK 100–102, 279–280. 71  Ebisawa 1981, 376–393; Toyoda 1956, 93–4; Wada 2002, 5; Schneider 2003, 211; NSHS 205–217. For a portion of the revised translation of several NT books, see SKNK 197–216. See also Suzuki 2006, 117–147. 72 Already in 1900, when considering the need to revise the Meiji Translation, P.K. Fyson predicted that the NT would be revised first, while the revision of the OT “might very likely be deferred to a much later date”; Fyson 1901, 503; see a longer quotation in Appendix, part b. 73 Toyoda 1956, 97–98; Schneider 2003, 213.



historical review of bible translations

47

Although regarded as authoritative in some respects, the Meiji Translation and its revised NT were not considered the ‘final word’ in Bible translation, especially because of the need for making the Bible more accessible through the use of modern written language, and the failure of official attempts to revise the OT translation. Several individual Japanese translators contributed their work in the form of a complete or a partial translation of certain Biblical books. Their work is described in Chapter 3 under B-3, B-4; C-9, C-10 and C-12. The Catholic Church, which had had its own Japanese NT since 1910, did not yet have its own translation of the OT. There was no translation of the Apocrypha (or the “deuterocanonical books”), which form an integral part of the Vulgate either. The Church started publishing individual translations of these books in the 1930’s, but abandoned the project after the Anglican Episcopal Church published in 1934 its own translation of the Old Testament Apocrypha (Kyūyaku Seisho Zokuhen) (Schneider 2003, 218). In 1937 the Conference of the Catholic Bishops in Japan decided to organize a translation of the OT, and 33 translators were recruited, but after two years this initiative was abandoned and the work was entrusted to the hands of one man, Shibutani Osamu (渋谷治), who managed to complete only a small part of the work (Schneider 2003, 219). During the same decade several other Catholic translators published, mainly in magazines, partial translations of the OT, in either literary or colloquial styles, but a complete Catholic translation of the OT did not appear until the 1950’s. On the partial Catholic translations, including Shibutani’s, see more details below, Chapter 3, B-5, C-11. Much was accomplished in the first 80 years or so of Bible translation in Japan, although not all ambitions were realized. The number of translations was also relatively small. There was the Meiji translation of both OT and NT, with the latter, but not the former, revised. There was the Catholic NT of 1910 but no Catholic OT. And there were a few other full or partial versions of the NT,74 and some translations of individual OT books. All this was going to change drastically from the 1950’s on.

74 The main pre-war individual full translation of the NT was published in 1928 by Nagai Naoji (永井直治); see NSHS 281–284; SKNK 228–230, 297–298.

48

chapter two 2.5 The Post-World War II period

Following the war it seemed as if a dam had been broken, and a steady stream of Bible translations have flooded Japan ever since. As before, translations of the NT were more numerous, but the OT was not neglected either. The post-war translations of the OT included three Catholic ones (one of them in two considerably different editions), several Protestant ones by different denominations or individuals, and a joint CatholicProtestant translation, published by JBS as its new standard translation. Even this major effort was followed by more translations, and others yet are still anticipated. Translations of specific biblical books also continued to appear occasionally. All these translations are described in Chapter 3 below, and here will be mentioned only briefly for the sake of the general picture. The first important post-war translation was the JBS ‘colloquial’ translation of 1954 (NT), and 1955 (OT) (A-2), which succeeded the Meiji Translation (A-1). This in turn was succeeded by the ‘New Interconfessional Translation’ of 1987 (A-11), a joint work of Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars, which still remains the standard translation in Japan, although certainly not the exclusive one. Other major Protestant translations include the individual translation by Sekine Masao, which took almost 30 years to complete (A-4); the ‘New Revised Translation’ sponsored by the Lockman Foundation, which is somewhere between a revision of A-2 and a new translation (A-7); and the latest one issued by Iwanami Shoten (A-12), which was translated by Protestant Christians, but is not a ‘religious’ translation. Apart from the above-mentioned translations, which are considered main-stream, there are also some others, considered by the majority of Japanese Christians to be either outside the main-stream, or paraphrased translations. To the first kind belongs the “New World Translation” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (A-9), which follows the English translation of this denomination. It is basically faithful, but the text is edited in several places in accordance with denominational beliefs. The paraphrased type includes the translation from English of The Living Bible—Paraphrased (A-8), which has every verse of the Bible but often in simplified form and following conservative theological considerations. The same can be said about the Modern Japanese Bible by Oyama Reiji (A-10), although here the paraphrasing does not go as far as in the former version. The Catholic translations are: the “Sapporo Translation” of the 1950’s (A-3); the translation of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, which was



historical review of bible translations

49

published gradually over a period of 44 years (A-5); and the two versions of an individual translation by Federico Barbaro, one with the participation of Alyosius Del Col (A-6), and then Barbaro’s own revision of this translation (A-6a). This embarrassment of richness does not end here, since several other partial or individual projects must also be considered. These include some partial translations published during the war (C-12) or soon after (B-6, B-7), and others which kept appearing afterwards on an organized or partisan basis (B-12, B-13, B-14, B-16, C-13). Translations or revisions of the Psalms were prepared by different churches, from the early Anglican one (B-2) to later Catholic ones (B-11, B-15). And several versions of the “Short Bible” were also published, based either on English examples (B-10), on the Vulgate (B-8), or on earlier Japanese translations (D-1, D-2). All these, as well as many fragmentary translations, are described in the following chapter.

Chapter Three

The translations of the Hebrew Bible Apart from the full and some partial translations of the Hebrew Bible into Japanese published in book form, there are many partial or fragmentary ones that can be found in various magazines or included in studies, and it may not be possible to locate and list each and every one of them. However, following extensive research, an effort has been made to list as many translations as possible. In the current chapter all of the full Japanese translations of the OT, most of the substantial partial translations, and many fragmentary translations of special interest will be identified and described. The various Japanese translations of the Hebrew Bible are divided here into four categories: A. Full translations of the Hebrew Bible. B. Partial translations, published in book form. C. Fragmentary or partial translations, mostly in magazines or booklets. D. Some other editions of the Hebrew Bible, using previous translations. Within each part, the translations are arranged more or less in order of publication. This order is not totally accurate, since several of the translations were published in serial form, and their publication sometimes spread over decades. For each translation, the following details are listed: 1. The serial number given for this work. 2. The Japanese title. 3. The English or Latin title, as given in the book, or as commonly referred to. 4. The year (or years) of publication. 5. The name of the publisher, and place of publishing (if different from Tokyo). 6. The translators: either committee (names of some members given), or individual (name given). 7. The Christian denomination initiating the translation, or to which the translators belong.



the translations of the hebrew bible

51

8. The main source for the translation: either the original Hebrew, or a translation into another language or languages, or both. These details are followed by a description of the background of the translators and their work, as well as some initial observations about the nature of the translation. Some verses from all the translations in section A, and most of those in sections B and C, are quoted later on, in Chapters 4–6. 3.1 Full Translations As of 2012, the full translations of the OT number 12 in all (or 13, if the two Barbaro versions are counted separately; see A-6, A-6a below). They begin with the Meiji Translation of 1887, and conclude, for the time being, with the Iwanami Translation completed in 2004; this makes an average of about one translation per decade, but in fact all but the first one appeared in a period of less than 50 years, beginning in 1955. Several translations were published gradually over a considerable amount of time; 44 years seem to be the record (see A-5 below). In the following, special attention is given to the first translation, due to its unique position and influence (see 7.4 below for projected full translations, expected to appear in the coming years). A-1 『旧約聖書』   —文語訳 / 明治元訳 Old Testament—Classical Language Translation / Meiji Translation 1882–1887 National Bible Society of Scotland etc., Yokohama Committee translation: James Curtis Hepburn and others Denomination: Protestant Main sources: MT, KJV and RV, Chinese translations While the work on the NT translation by the missionaries’ committee in Yokohama was still in progress, work had also begun on the translation of the OT.1 A group of missionaries from different churches met in Tsukiji, Tokyo, on October 30, 1876, and formed a new committee for the 1 Hepburn described the work on the translation in his speech given in Tokyo, February 3, 1888, on the occasion of the publishing of the full translation of the OT. The speech was reprinted in Sawa 1938, 120–127. Another major source is Verbeck 1883, 94*–98*. As in the case of the NT, future writers cited here seem to have relied on both these sources.

52

chapter three

translation of the OT. The Bible Societies of Great Britain and Scotland agreed to sponsor the work.2 The active members were David Thompson (1835–1915, American), Hugh Waddell (1840–1901, Scottish), John Piper (1840–1932, English), and George Cocharn (1834–1901, Irish, sent by a Canadian mission). The first fruit of this effort, which Schneider also calls “the first formal translation of a part of the Old Testament published in Japanese” (probably as distinguished from ‘informal’ earlier efforts), consisted of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, translated by Thompson and revised by members of the committee, which were published in 1877. Piper translated and published Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi in 1879. The work of this committee, however, did not proceed smoothly, and a special meeting of the representatives of the various missions and the three Bible societies, convened in Tokyo on May 10–13, 1878, decided to appoint a new permanent committee. A document of 13 paragraphs was issued, dictating the policy of the translation work (Verbeck 1883, 95*–97*). It included the following: [. . .] the general style of translation of the Old Testament should so far be assimilated to that of the New Testament, that when the whole Bible is completed it shall present a uniformity in this respect corresponding to that of the Authorized English Version.

Following the decision of the May convention, the first committee decided on June 24 to dissolve and hand over its accumulated work to the new one. The new committee had 12 members (including most members of the former one), with Hepburn as its chairman and Chocran as secretary. The committee met on October 23, 1878, and adopted an ambitious plan with the aim of completing the translation in the shortest period of time. Portions of the OT were assigned to missionaries living in all parts of Japan, from Hakodate to Nagasaki, who were to form local translation committees and send the fruit of their work to a revising committee in Tokyo. The plan was obviously based on the precedent of the Delegates’ Version in China (above 2.2), but it did not meet with similar success in Japan. From Hakodate, Walter Dening (1846–1913, English) sent in his translations of the books of Chronicles and Jeremiah, but they were sent back to him for revision and were never seen again.3 From Niigata, Philip Kemball

2 Schneider 2003, 210–11. On the work of this committee and the following ones see also Ebisawa 1981, 258–261, 272–285; Suzuki 2006, 101 ff.; NSHS 188–193. 3 The reason could have been that Dening’s and Hepburn’s methods of translation differed greatly; Dening was a Church of England missionary (NKRD 900), and contrary to



the translations of the hebrew bible

53

Fyson (1846–1928, English) sent in a translation of Joshua, and a few other translations were supplied by people closer to base: David Thompson completed his Genesis, Robert Young Davidson (1846–1909, Scottish) translated Kings, and Hepburn tackled Proverbs. “All these books were carefully revised, corrected, and afterwards published” (Hepburn, in Sawa 1938, 122). After nearly four years of little progress, the futility of the original plan was realized.4 In January 1882 it was decided on a new strategy: a different, much smaller permanent committee of translators was appointed, including as its members J.C. Hepburn, G.F. Verbeck, and P.K. Fyson; D.C. Greene was also appointed, but declined to participate, because in 1882 he relocated to the Doshisha in Kyoto, too far from the other three. The same three were also appointed as a revising committee, which meant that one of the three would translate, and the other two would revise his work. The work progressed slowly but consistently. Hepburn wrote in one of his letters (April 16, 1885) about the rate of their progress (Hepburn 1955, 213): In the historical books of the Old Testament we do from twenty to thirty verses a day, working from 9 A.M. to 3.30 P.M., but in prophetical and poetical books, ten to fifteen verses is a fair day’s work.

In April 1883 it was decided that the Permanent Committee would accept contributions to the translation of the OT from native Japanese Christians. A translating committee was appointed in 1884; its members were Matsuyama Takayoshi (who participated already in the translation of the NT, as mentioned above), Uemura Masahisa (植村正久, 1858–1925), who later became one of the most important leaders of Japanese Christianity,5 and Ibuka Kajinosuke (who was mentioned above as an observer of the NT translation). Hepburn explained why they had not been successful: the American Hepburn he preferred the methods of the ‘British’ version of the Chinese Bible; see Appendix (a). 4 Another factor which made the work of the translators more difficult was the disagreements among the various Bible Societies and foreign missions regarding finance, and even national pride, as attested to in Verbeck’s letters of the time; see in particular his letters of May 3 and June 9, 1881 in VL, 451–456, and the Japanese translation in Takaya 1978, 259–265, and still three years later in a letter of June 7, 1884 (VL, 376–379; Takaya 1978, 314–317) in which he writes: “While the questions at issue between the three B. Societies remain unsettled, my position is indeed not an enviable one. I stand at present, as it were, between I do not know how many cross fires, the effect of which, I think, not many besides myself could have stood long without being utterly discomfited.” 5 See Sawa 1938 (this is the fourth in a series of five volumes about Uemura and his times edited by Sawa, with three supplement volumes added later); see also Akiyama 1982, 243–275.

54

chapter three [. . .] owing to a want of support from the native churches, and other important duties pressing upon some of the members, and especially the want of acquaintance with the original text, the committee were not able to accomplish what they hoped to do, and were finally dissolved of their own accord [. . .].6

However, as in the case of the translation of the NT (above 2.2), Hepburn readily acknowledged the contribution of the Japanese assistants. Speaking somewhat apologetically about the fact that the translators were also the revisers, he points to an advantage gained by this necessity: This also has proved to be a great advantage, in that it has been the means of securing greater uniformity of style, and oneness in the various books. The style of the Old Testament has been made to conform to that of the New, so that there is complete uniformity in this respect; as much, I may say, as if both translations had been the work of one person. This has been effected mainly through the kind Providence which furnished the Committee with the same two native assistants, Mr. Matsuyama and Mr. Takahashi Goro [sic], who were such invaluable helpers to the Yokohama Committee in translating the New Testament. These brethren, both Christian men, and accomplished scholars in their own language, sat with the Yokohama Committee throughout the six years and more during which they were engaged upon the New Testament, and where they received the training which made them such efficient workers in the work upon the Old Testament, and enabled the Committee to attain uniformity and agreement in the style and character of the whole book, quite equal to that of the Revised English Version.7

Hepburn will be quoted further on matters of language and the method of translation, as these will often be referred to later on: May I not also add that we have every reason to believe the pure native and simple style and language of this sacred Book, so easily understood by the most unlearned, so chaste and free from Chinese and foreign terms, and read by the millions of this people, will have a powerful influence in preserving the native tongue in its purity, much like what has been for the English language by the pure Anglo-Saxon of the English Bible. I may state further in regard to this translation that the Committee has endeavored to adhere faithfully and as literally as possible to the Hebrew original, desiring not 6 Sawa 1938, 123–124. See also Verbeck 1883, 177*, Fujiwara 1974, 255–274; Ebisawa 1981, 274–276. Suzuki 2006, 102–106 quotes further material in this matter, including a letter which was published by a group of Japanese Christians and led to the forming of the unsuccessful committee. 7 Sawa 1938, 125. Hepburn refers to the revision of the KJV, conducted in England, with some American contribution, from 1870 to 1885. About this version (RV) see Daniell 2003, 683–700; and see more below.



the translations of the hebrew bible

55

only to give its true meaning, but also to retain the beautiful and instructive figurative language in which God has conveyed his mind to the children of man. In all obscure and difficult passages they have sought light from every available source; from such ancient and modern versions as were at hand; from the best critical and grammatical works, and especially comparing their work to the revised version of the English Scriptures, as embodying the renderings of the most scholarly men of the time. They have had no peculiar difficulty in their work, except it be finding satisfactory equivalents for some of the animals, birds, insects, trees, flowers, and precious stones mentioned in the Bible; but they trust that in these respects also they have attained to the true meaning as nearly as most of the modern versions.8

The translation of the OT was completed in 1887. Between 1882 and 1887 the committee issued 28 volumes of individual books, including volumes issued earlier that were now republished.9 Each volume was published by either one, two or three of the major Bible societies then active in Japan: the National Bible Society of Scotland, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society. The following is the list of the separate volumes, with the names of the translators and the year of publication. The next line gives the original title, which followed the Chinese example with a few slight variations, and also the contemporary Japanese title of each biblical book, when different from the Meiji title (the differences are mainly where the Meiji Translation used kanji to transcribe Hebrew names, while modern translations use katakana): 1. Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi (Piper), 1882 約拿・哈基・馬拉基合本 = ヨナ書・ハガイ書・マラキ書 2. Joshua (Fyson), 1882 約書亜記 = ヨシュア記 3. Genesis (Thompson & Fyson), 1883 (reprinted 1884, 86, 87) 創世記 4. Proverbs (Hepburn), 1883 (reprinted or revised 1884, 85, 86, 87) 箴言 5. Samuel I (Fyson), 1883 (reprinted 1884) 撒母耳前書 = サムエル記上 8 Sawa 1938, 125–126. Hepburn does not specify the Chinese translation, which was also consulted by the translators (see below). His claim that the translators “had no peculiar difficulty in their work” is truly amazing. 9 Ebisawa 1981, 279–282, including names of translators; JBS 1975, 56–59; NSHS 193–196; Suzuki 2006, 107–109. These volumes can be examined at the JBS Library in Tokyo. They are also listed in the Library’s printed catalogue up to 1990, for which see JBS 1994a; this catalogue lists all full or partial Bibles in the library, but it is not an exhaustive catalogue of all Japanese translations, because several partial translations, and even some full ones (or editions thereof ), are not kept in the library.

56

chapter three

 6. Samuel II (Fyson), 1883 (reprinted 1884, 88) 撒母耳後書 = サムエル記下  7. Kings I (Fyson), 1883 (reprinted 1886) 列王紀略上  8. Jeremiah (Hepburn), 1884 耶利米亜記 = エレミヤ書  9. Judges, Ruth (Fyson), 1884 (reprinted 1886) 士師記・路得記 = ・ルツ記 10. Kings II (Fyson & Hepburn), 1884 列王紀略下 11. Ezekiel (Hepburn), 1884 以西結書 = エゼキエル書 12. Exodus (Hepburn), 1884 出埃及記 = 出エジプト記 13. Ecclesiastes (Hepburn), 1884 (reprinted 1886) 伝道之書 = 伝道の書 / コヘレトの言葉 14. Leviticus (Hepburn), 1884 (reprinted 1887) 利未記 = レビ記 15. Numbers (Hepburn), 1884 (reprinted 1885) 民數紀略 16. Deuteronomy (Hepburn), 1885 申命記 17. Daniel (Hepburn), 1885 (reprinted 1886) 但以理書 = ダニエル書 18. Hosea, Joel, Zephaniah (Hepburn), 1886 何西亜・約耳・西番雅書 = ホセア書・ヨエル書・ゼパニヤ書 19. Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk (Hepburn), 1886 亜麼士・阿巴底亜・米迦・拿翁・哈巴谷書 = アモス書・オバデヤ書・ミカ書・ナホム書・ハバクク書 20. Zechariah (Hepburn), 1886 撒加利亜書 = ゼカリヤ書 21. Job (Hepburn), 1886 (reprinted 1887) 約百記 = ヨブ記 22. Song of Songs (Verbeck, Hepburn & Matsuyama), 1886 雅歌 23. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Fyson & Hepburn), 1887 以士喇書・尼希米亜記・以士帖記 = エズラ記・ネヘミヤ記・エス テル記 24. Chronicles (Fyson), 1887 歴代志略 [in two parts, I Chr. & II Chr.] 25. Isaiah (Uemura & Fyson), 1887 以賽亜書 = イザヤ書 26. Psalms (Verbeck, Matsuyama & Uemura), 1887 (reprinted 1888) 詩篇 27. Song of Songs, Lamentations (Verbeck, Hepburn & Ibuka), 1887 雅歌・耶利米亜哀歌 = ・哀歌 28. Proverbs, Song of Songs (revised by Hepburn), 1887 箴言・雅歌



the translations of the hebrew bible

57

Incidentally, the title of no. 1 includes the words “a collection of books”; in other cases this was not added. Numbers 7, 10, 15 and 24 (the Books of Numbers, I&II Kings, I&II Chronicles), include in their titles the kanji 略 (ryaku), which in modern Japanese, especially when included in a title of a book, usually means “shortened” or “digest” (see, for example, C-6 below). Probably for this reason, the character was omitted in later printings and translations of the OT (while the rest of the title was preserved), in order not to create a wrong impression; however, in the 1892 rōmaji printing of the Bible (see below), the titles of those five books still include the reading ryaku, for example, “Minsū Kiryaku” (Numbers). But what was the meaning of the character when it was used in the Chinese translation and copied into the Meiji Translation? The titles of the biblical books in Chinese have undergone several changes, but the Delegates’ Version already has this character in the titles of Numbers and of I&II Chronicles, and the Bridgman-Culbertson version has it also in the title of I&II Kings. However, in all these translations, including the Japanese one, the text is not abbreviated and the translation is full. So how can the use of this character be explained? What those specific biblical books have in common is the telling and retelling of historical events (especially Kings and Chronicles), as well as long lists of names (especially Numbers and Chronicles). Further, all of them have the character 紀 (ki, meaning ‘narrative’, ‘history’, ‘annals’ etc.) in their Chinese/Japanese titles. It seems that in the Chinese tradition (as well as the Japanese one) historical or geographical books including the above ki character or alternatively 史 (shi, ‘history’), 記 (ki, ‘narrative’, ‘annals’ etc.) and so on, would have the ryaku character (Chinese: lüe) in their titles even when quite comprehensive.10 According to various Chinese dictionaries it seems also that the character can mean not only ‘digest’ or ‘small’, but also ‘outline’. It is likely that the missionaries in China followed this convention in the titles chosen for the biblical books, in order to conform with literary tradition, and these titles were copied to the Japanese Bible, until the ryaku character was omitted in both Chinese and Japanese versions to prevent misunderstandings. The partial translations mentioned above are in small booklet form in soft cover, and include no further information except for the text. The 10 For example, a famous work contemporary with the missionaries’ activity was 徐繼畬 (Xu Jiyu),『瀛環志略』(Yinghuan zhilüe, A Short Account of the Maritime Circuit, 1848), a geographical work in 10 volumes. Other examples: 殷化行 (Yin Huaxing),『西征紀畧』(Xi zheng ji lüe); 印光任 (Yin Guangren),『澳門記略』(Aomen ji lüe), etc. In Japanese:『大宋 僧史略』;『十八史略』etc. It may have been used also as a sign of modesty, avoiding the pretence of being all-inclusive.

58

chapter three

front cover is divided into three vertical parts; the middle part usually has Kyūyaku Seisho (i.e. OT) printed at the top, with the name of the specific book printed under it in larger type. On the right hand side appears the year of printing according to the Western calendar, followed by the name of the specific Bible Society which issued the booklet (American, Scottish or British). On the left hand side is given the Meiji year, followed by the place of printing, Yokohama. Following the completion of the translation, several editions of the full OT were published in 1887 and 1888, using the same page lay-out as the individual books published earlier. The National Bible Society of Scotland published a four-volume edition of the OT, a five-volume edition that included the NT as the fifth volume, and a two-volume edition with the NT incorporated into the second volume. The American Bible Society published three-volume, two-volume and one-volume editions of the OT in 1888. And the British and Foreign Bible Society, together with the Scottish one, published a one-volume edition, which was reprinted several times. Many editions of the combined OT and NT, as well as separate ones, were to follow.11 As was common with the Protestant tradition, the first editions were published without any interpretations or additions of any kind, not even an introduction, only the biblical text itself.12 However, practice changed gradually. A one-volume References edition of both OT and NT was published by the American Bible Society in 1889, with cross-references printed in the top part of the page. In 1916 the Annotated Bible, edited by George Peck Pierson (1861–1937), was published by the Christian Literature Society of Japan.13 A more elaborate edition of nearly 2,400 pages in one volume was published in 1927; it has interpretations at the bottom of the page, with further explanations at the back of the book, followed by maps and illustrations.

11  This data is based mostly on the editions examined at the JBS library in Tokyo, and see also the catalogue JBS 1994a; NSHS 199–204 lists somewhat different editions. For some later editions, see NSHS 217. Portions of the committee’s translation of several OT books appear also in SKNK 103–123. 12 The charter of first the British and then the American Societies stipulated that Bibles must be produced “without note or comment”; Fenn 1963, 389; Spelman 1969, 41. 13 In Japanese: 日本基督教興文協会 (Nihon kirisutokyō kōbunkyōkai). It was a major Christian publishing house in early 20th century, with the participation of 22 missions, but in 1926 it was united with the veteran Christian publisher Kyo Bun Kwan; see NKRD, 1041.



the translations of the hebrew bible

59

A rōmaji printing of the full Bible was published in 1892, mainly for the use of foreign missionaries.14 Some books of the Bible continued to be printed separately for many years to come, mainly Genesis (1901, 1922, 1925, 1931, 1950), Exodus (1926, 1936, 1950), Psalms (1889, 1894, 1900, 1904, 1913, 1940), and Proverbs (1913, 1930, 1933, 1951).15 * * * According to Hepburn, as cited above, the translators followed the original Hebrew text, but also used other sources. The translators’ command of Hebrew is not clear. In one of his letters ( January 8, 1879) Hepburn tells of his joining the committee for translating the OT (while the work on the NT was still underway), “but I think it is doubtful whether I attempt it, my knowledge of Hebrew being so inadequate” (Hepburn 1955, 166). Six years later he wrote in another letter (April 25, 1885) that to the Greek and Latin he studied at Princeton “I have added since graduation, a sufficient knowledge of the Hebrew to aid me in my work of translation” (ibid., 216). These two somewhat contradicting statements probably mean that Hepburn did acquire a fair knowledge of biblical Hebrew, but was hardly an expert in it. As for his partners, Fyson was a graduate of Christ College in Cambridge, and was considered a good biblical scholar (NKRD 1185). Verbeck was a talented linguist, regarded by the Japanese to be one of the very few missionaries who had gained full command of their language.16 He must have learned Hebrew during his theological studies in the USA, and probably had a better knowledge of it than Hepburn. In a letter to his mission headquarters of July 27, 1881 (VL 457–458), Verbeck wrote as follows: As regard my Hebrew, I dare not say too much of it, but think I can get along. Still I could not assume an authority before such men as Delitzsch, Murphy, Lange, &c. whom I always have before me while working on the Psalms, as I also have the German, Dutch and French versions, all of which are to me as mother tongues. I have to depend a good deal now on Dictionaries, Grammars, Concordances & Commentaries, and this makes slow—though 14 Kyūshin yaku zensho. The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments in Japanese, Transliterated according to the authorised version and published by the Bible Societies’ Committee for Japan (Yokohama, 1892). 15 NSHS 197–199 specifies some of these editions; many are listed in JBS 1994a. 16 See M.N. Wyckoff ’s comments in Biographical Sketches, 13–14. According to him, when a certain Japanese wrote that there were only three missionaries who could speak Japanese well, everybody agreed that Verbeck was one, but could not name the other two. Martin Nevis Wyckoff (1850–1911) was an American missionary who was sent by the same mission as Verbeck, and who taught for many years at Meiji Gakuin; see NKRD 1534, Akiyama 1982, 45–51.

60

chapter three I think safe—work. Still I shall become more and more independent, if that is a virtue, as I go on with the work. I am much obliged to you for your kind offer with reference to necessary literary helps. I enclose a list of books that I am most in need of.17

As for the other sources for their work, Hepburn mentions the English Revised Version, but this is a little puzzling, because the NT version of the RV was published only in May 1881, and the OT in May 1885, after the greater parts of the Japanese OT had already been published.18 Earlier they must have relied on the KJV and other English translations based on it. Although Hepburn does not say so specifically here, they also relied on the Chinese translation to guide them in their work.19 The importance of the Chinese translation for this first full Japanese one should be emphasized. As already mentioned before, both Hepburn and S.R. Brown, as well as C.M. Williams and R.S. Maclay, first worked as missionaries in China and could read Chinese, and so could their Japanese assistants. It was natural for them to turn to the Chinese translation for problems already solved there, or even for the sake of uniformity. In his

17 The list is missing, but in a letter of August 21, 1882 Verbeck asks J.M. Ferris in the USA for the “German Revised O. Testament”, and also for the price of the Hebrew and other books he sent him for which he wishes to pay “Since I use these books rather freely, marking them [. . .]” (VL, 346–347; Japanese translation in Takaya 1978, 287). He was still asking for the German revised Psalms (published 1876) two years later in a letter of June 7, 1884 (VL, 378; Takaya 1978, 317). Some of the books required by Verbeck are mentioned and were required also by C.M. Williams in a letter of January 23, 1882 (Williams 2000, 313, Letter 190). 18 Partridge 1973, 164–165; Daniell 2003, 697–698. Partial explanation can be found in Verbeck’s above-mentioned letter of July 27, 1881; Verbeck wrote that although the Japanese version of the NT is “a very good one”, it will have to be revised sooner than expected because the translators did not have the Revised Version before them. He asked that the American and English committee make a “special exception to their rules” for the sake of the Japanese OT (presumably asking for an as yet not finalized draft to be sent to Japan); VL, 457, and Japanese translation in Takaya 1978, 266. However, three years later, in his letter of June 7, 1884, he was still asking for a copy of the revised OT “as soon as it is published”; VL, 378; Takaya 1978, 317. This is another indication of the reliance of the translators on the English version, rather than solely on the original texts, or at least of their wish to consult it and conform with it. 19 See Ebisawa 1981, 98, who emphasizes that the Chinese translation was not only consulted but also followed, especially in the titles of the biblical books and Christian terminology. See also Kaiser 1996, 25–26. Upon the completion of the translation, the veteran participant Takahashi Gorō argued in an article that the Japanese NT was based on the Chinese, while the OT was based on the English versions and the work of German scholars such as Keil and Delitzsch; Matsuyama answered him, insisting that the NT translation was based on the Greek, and the OT on the Hebrew; these opposing views are quite intriguing; see Suzuki 2006, 110.



the translations of the hebrew bible

61

early letter to the American Bible Society already cited above (1.1), Hepburn also wrote: We have the work of translating the Scriptures into Japanese greatly facilitated for us in having such a good Chinese version which our Japanese teachers read and comprehend without much difficulty.20

Shortly after that, in a letter of April 17, 1861, addressed to the head of his mission in the USA, Walter Lowrie, Hepburn wrote along the same lines: This is a great help, indeed the foundation of the Japanese Bible. The Japanese Bible will be written in Chinese characters arranged to suit the idiom of the language with case and verb endings interposed.21

Speaking twenty-seven years later, after the completion of the task, Hepburn, as we have seen above, and will see again below, tried to downplay the effect of the Chinese Bible on the translation, emphasizing its “pure native and simple style and language [. . .], so easily understood by the most unlearned, so chaste and free from Chinese and foreign terms”. Which is more reliable: the early expectation or the retrospective claim? The question is far too complicated for a simple answer, but we may assume a process by which the missionaries, happy with the ‘gift’ given to them in the form of the Chinese Bible, and ready to use it extensively for the Japanese one, gradually, as they gained more confidence in the Japanese language, and realizing that a highly Sinified text would be useless for the proselytizing of the masses, wished to minimize the effect of the Chinese on their final product, but were only partially successful in that respect. In a lecture on translation given at the conference of Protestant missionaries in April 1883, Hepburn put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Japanese assistants (Hepburn 1883, 414): I am quite aware there are not a few places where the construction might be improved, but I venture to say that those are places where our Japanese assistants depended too much on the Chinese versions and departed from their own vernacular. And I am convinced we shall not have a finished translation of the Scripture until our native assistants in this work are able to cut loose from their slavish adherence to the Chinese versions, and can, from a thorough knowledge of the original tongues, render the Scriptures into their own beautiful vernacular.

20 The letter of February 14, 1861, in Hepburn 1955, 42. 21  Hepburn 1955, 44. Later he mentions (ibid. 56) that his Japanese teacher translated several biblical books from Chinese into Japanese. See also ibid. 76.

62

chapter three

Indeed, during the Meiji Period kanbun still enjoyed the highest prestige, and the Japanese assistants were sensitive to the literati’s criticism concerning the earlier versions of the NT, which employed mainly hiragana, and were thus considered suitable for “women and children” (Saito 1967, 61). It would seem that their solution was often to aim at the middle way: using prestigious kanji as much as possible, but printing wago, words of Japanese origin that would be more familiar to uneducated listeners, in furigana next to them.22 Still, Hepburn insisted on the quality and clarity of the translation, as he wrote in his letter of December 28, 1887, upon the completion of the work (Hepburn 1955, 225): I believe it to be a most excellent and faithful translation, as good, perhaps as is to be found in any language. I know it is highly esteemed as a literary work by native scholars who love their own native tongue without too great admixture of the Chinese. It is easily read and understood by the common people.

However, an almost contemporary and quite contradictory observation may be cited in that respect (Ritter 1898, 226): Highly educated Christian Japanese residing here [in Germany] have indeed pronounced it as their opinion that the desired aim was by no means fully reached; that altogether too many Chinese terms and characters have been retained, which make it difficult of understanding for the women and the less educated among the men [. . .].

Which of the various Chinese translations of the Bible particularly influenced the Japanese translation? According to one of those involved in the translation, D.C. Greene, Chinese Bibles available were mostly copies of the Bridgman-Culbertson version, published by the American Bible Society (see 2.2 above).23 In his study of the language of the translation, Morioka also mentions the ‘American’ version as being the most

22 It is a fact that between the first separate volumes of the NT and the later full republishing, many kanji characters were added. Morioka (1974, 4) argues that this was the work of the Japanese assistants who shrewdly had the upper hand over the missionaries in creating a text more acceptable to the literati. However, Suzuki (2006, 98) argues that this was the result of the change from woodblock to letterpress printing and from several volumes to one, and the need to reduce space. 23 This comment appears in one of Greene’s footnotes to the English translation (from German) of Ritter’s History of the Protestant Missions in Japan; see Ritter 1898, p. 84. Greene himself also appreciated the Delegates’ Version; see Hepburn 1883, 417.



the translations of the hebrew bible

63

influential in Japan.24 At least as early as 1883 a Japanese kanbun edition of this translation had been printed and reprinted, and partial printings appeared even earlier, for example, the Psalms in 1880. However, it is a fact that the ‘British’ Delegates’ Version was also available in Japan, and must have had its influence too, as will be seen later. The fact that the Meiji translators readily followed the Bridgman-Culbertson version in the matter of the term for ‘God’ (cf. above 2.1.1), does not mean that they avoided the Delegates’ Version, which adopted a different term (see further discussion below 4.1).25 To revert to an earlier point, namely the language register and style adopted by the translators, Hepburn, on the occasion of the publication of the full NT said the following (and as quoted above, he himself and his colleagues later followed the same guidelines in the translation of the OT) (reprinted in Sawa 1938, 107–108): In this country, where, from the earliest times, the Chinese language and literature have had such a powerful influence upon the cultivation and the language of the people, it was, at the very first, a matter of considerable anxiety in what literary style our work should be brought out, to make it most acceptable and useful. The conclusion it was desirable to arrive at, was not difficult to be determined: avoiding, on the one hand, the quasi Chinese style, intelligible to the highly educated only, and, on the other hand, a vulgar colloquial, which though easily understood (in the locality where it is indigenous), might make the Scriptures contemptible, we should choose that style which, while respected even by the so-called literati, was easy and intelligible to all classes. We thus adhered to the vernacular or pure Japanese, a style which may be called classical and in which many of the best books intended for the common reader are written. And our enlarged experience has given us no reason to regret our first determination, but rather to be more and more satisfied with it, and to believe that in this, as well as in many other matters, we have been under the guidance of a kind and allruling Providence.

24 Morioka 1991, 205–206, n. 13. He mentions specifically the printing by 上海美華書店 (Shanghai Meihua Shudian, or the Meihua Bookstore of Shanghai), but it was probably not the only available printing. The title of the book is 旧約全書 (Xinyi Quanshu, “all the books of the OT”). Saito 1967, 62, also emphasized the influence of the ‘American’ version, but as will be seen, this influence was not exclusive. 25 As already mentioned above, Hepburn commented on the merits of the ‘American’ version and the demerits of other versions; Hepburn 1883, 412. For some detailed studies of the influence of the various Chinese translations on the Japanese ones see: Toki & Kawashima 1988; Toki 1993; Kawashima 1993, as well as the chapter by Toki & Kawashima 2001. They maintain that all Chinese translations available at the time exerted some influence on the Japanese translation; however, see the critical discussion under 7.3 below.

64

chapter three

As seen above, not everyone agreed with Hepburn’s assertion regarding the purity and clarity of the style. The translators might have done their best to adhere to the wabun style, but the effect of the kanbun style, through its traditional use in Japan and its percolation through the Chinese translation, left many remnants in the translation, probably more than the translators had intended. More should be said on this matter. In his above-mentioned lecture on translation given at the conference of Protestant missionaries in April 1883, Hepburn explained his views and principles in translating the Bible; an interesting debate ensued, somewhat reminiscent of one that took place three years earlier in different circumstances (see 3.3, C-8 below). Hepburn argued that since “the words and language of the Holy Scriptures are the words of God”, the translation should be literal, and he rejected the notion of striving to transfer the sense clearly without adhering to literal expressions (Hepburn 1883, 411). He criticized several Chinese translations in this regard, adding (ibid., 412–413): However much such a method of translation may be considered necessary in China, owing to the peculiar difficulties of that language, I am happy to say that, in the Japanese, we have a language whose grammatical forms, structure and flexibility are vastly superior to the Chinese, and which render it much more easy for the translator to adhere closely to the literal method, and at the same time to make his work intelligible and acceptable to people. [. . .] the peculiarities of the Japanese language which the translator has most frequent occasion to regret, are the absence of the article, the distinction of gender and number in nouns, and the absence of the relative pronoun; while on the other hand, in the peculiarities of the adjective and the verb, and its adjectival construction, he finds many compensations.

Hepburn then goes on to discuss the question of style, in which he emphasizes the necessity to use the “vernacular or native language of the people”, rejecting the “quasi-Chinese style advocated by some”. He argues that although Chinese is used in writing, it did not affect the style or grammar of the Japanese. He concluded with nine principles of translation; for these principles, and for more on the discussion that followed Hepburn’s lecture, see Appendix. * * * The translation—known later as the ‘Classical Language Translation’ (文語訳), or the ‘Meiji Translation’ (明治元訳)—had a strong impact and left a lasting impression on generations of readers. It was widely used, not only by Protestants, and it had considerable influence on Japanese



the translations of the hebrew bible

65

intellectuals and writers of all kinds.26 The translation of the Psalms, Song of Songs and Isaiah won particular praise, and had a certain influence on Japanese poetry.27 Unlike the NT translation, the OT part was not revised, and remained the only full translation of the OT for almost 80 years, gradually becoming difficult for Japanese people of later generations to understand. A foreign observer wrote in the 1950’s: The Old Testament, first published in 1887 and still in circulation, was based upon the Chinese version and is in severe literary style. The Chinese characters used are in many cases unfamiliar, and to modern Japanese the whole book seems archaic. The translation of the Psalms is its finest achievement, superior on the whole to any other Japanese translation.28

Sekine Masao, a leading Japanese biblical scholar, who dedicated many years to translating the OT anew, expressed his opinion on the old translation as follows (Sekine 1982, 83): Its superb literary style exerted an incalculably wide influence on both Japanese literature and Japanese thought. [. . .] The Meiji period Bible was praised as a masterpiece in the translation world and had an influence on many writers. In my opinion, however, the translators, in an effort to make the translation as Japanese as possible, blunted to a certain extent the communication of the real message of the Bible for its readers. But that was a problem experienced by the translators of the English King James Version as well as by many others and was not peculiar to the Meiji translation. In regard to the problem of making a good translation, it seems to me that an effort must be made in the future to achieve some correlation between the break-up (kire) of the Japanese brief poetic form (tanka, haiku) and the somewhat similar rhythm of Hebrew Poetry.

Linguist Morioka Kenji pointed out a difference in the translation of the NT and the OT, in favor of the latter (Morioka 1991, 206–207; my translation): The translation of the Old and New Testaments, in its combination of faithfulness of translation with beautiful Japanese language, is considered a peak in Meiji translated literature, but if the two are compared, the OT deserves higher appraisal. The translation of the NT, completed in 1880, opened a magnificent road in a barren land and was a great, epoch-making achievement, although its Japanese did not escape certain crudeness, compared

26 Wada 2002, 4–5; Rikkyo 1999, 69–98; on writers of literature see Williams 1996. 27 According to poet and translator Ueda Bin (上田敏, 1874–1916), quoted in Fujiwara 1974, 264; see also Suzuki 2006, 112–113. On the poetic value of the Song of Songs translation see Kanō 1994. 28 W.A. McIlwaine, cited in Yanagita 1958, A4. Of course, he was not correct in saying that the translation was “based” on the Chinese version.

66

chapter three with which the language of the OT translation, completed in 1887, is highly refined, and its influence on the Meiji literature was greater.

Although having been replaced by several later translations, the Meiji Translation still maintains much of its appeal,29 especially to those who knew it as their first Bible. As a Japanese Christian woman once told me: “when you read the other translations it does not feel like reading the Bible. Something has been lost”. A-2 『旧約聖書（口語訳）』   Old Testament—Colloquial Translation 1955 JBS (日本聖書協会) Committee translation: Tsuru Senji (都留仙次) and others Denomination: Protestant Main sources: MT, different translations In 1950 JBS appointed two committees for the new translation of the Bible, one for the OT and one for the NT.30 It was decided that rather than revise the old translation in the classical style, it would be more advisable to offer a wholly new translation in the ‘colloquial’ style of the Japanese language (perhaps more accurately: ‘contemporary written style’), thus making the translation accessible to many more Japanese. Tsuru Senji (1884–1964), who headed earlier translation efforts, again headed the OT committee. Its other members were Tezuka Giichirō (手塚儀一郎, 1886– 1967), and Endō Toshio (遠藤敏雄, 1898–1971), with 4 other scholars as consultants, as well as Baba Kaichi (馬場嘉市, 1892–1985) as secretary, and Sekine Bunnosuke (関根文之助, b. 1912) in charge of Japanese style.31 The NT, translated by another committee of three scholars, was published in 1954.32 The OT was completed in 1955; Genesis was published earlier as 29 The translation remained in print, and according to JBS data, about 2000 copies were sold each year during the 1990’s; the figures were much higher in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, when sales were in the tens of thousands. See JBS 2001, 19. 30 Wada 2002, 5–6. See also NSHS 228–230; Takahashi 1959, 103–106, with focus on the NT. Phillips 1981, 210, commented on the fact that the translators did not include scholars who were Catholic, Mukyōkai, or conservative evangelical; each of these groups produced its own independent translation. 31  Years later the latter wrote about various linguistic aspects of the translation, including the use of kanji and kana, style, honorifics and more; see Sekine B. 1982, 1–74. 32 For a critical review see Rhodes 1960.



the translations of the hebrew bible

67

a preliminary separate fascicle in 1952, and 10,000 copies each of Genesis and Exodus in 1953.33 The complete new ‘colloquial’ style (口語訳) translation was published in March 1955.34 The Colloquial Translation followed its predecessor, the Meiji Translation, in two major respects. The biblical books were printed in the order common to the Protestant Bible, with the Pentateuch and the historical books first, the rest of the Writings second, and the Prophets last. Also following the earlier translation, and unlike most other Japanese translations, the text had no added titles, explanations, interpretations or cross-references, and was also without a preface or appendices, as in the tradition of the Bible Societies. However, in 1961 a reference version was printed. In this volume, each page is divided into two halves, with the text running consecutively first in the top half and then the bottom, with cross references given under each half. At the end of the book there are 14 color maps and a gazetteer. This translation was also printed in many other editions, from pocket-size to grand-size. This was the first time the Bible had been translated entirely by Japanese translators. Its publication was sponsored jointly by the Japan, the British and Foreign, and the American Bible Societies, each sharing one third of the expenses.35 An official celebration was held to commemorate the publication of this Bible at the Ginza Church on 15 April, 1955, and included a congratulatory address by Prince Mikasa, and messages from the Japanese Prime Minister and the Minister of Education. The decision to publish a ‘colloquial’ translation of the Bible was inevitable, but the translators had to grapple with many problems. Defining the nature of ‘colloquial style’ and finding the right tone for the translation was a major problem. Takahashi Masashi, who was a member of the NT translation committee, had this to say (Takahashi 1959, 104):

33 The 1952 Genesis was printed without furigana; the 1953 fascicles were printed and bound in a better quality, furigana were added, and certain corrections can be found in the text of Genesis compared with the earlier version. See also NSHS 239–241. 34 There were separate editions for the OT only, and in one volume with the NT; see NSHS 241–242. Genesis was also printed separately later (1955, 1966), as well as Proverbs (1956, 1957, 1967) and several other books. 35 Schneider 2003, 213–214. Eugene A. Nida, the doyen of Bible translation in the postWW II era, tells in his memoires how he was sent as a troubleshooter to Japan when it turned out that 40% of the budget was spent but only 13% of the work was completed. According to him, the translators resisted his arguments for making the translation more meaningful and less obscure, because then what would the pastors say in their sermons? However, there are some obvious inaccuracies in his recollections that make his claim somewhat unreliable; see Nida 2003, 31–33.

68

chapter three Another grave problem we faced is the question whether we really have a standard colloquial Japanese. Any language is not a static entity but a dynamic flow of human thought, and the present colloquial Japanese is no exception. It is subject to constant change and fluctuation. To make the matter worse, sometimes the colloquial language sounds vulgar and repulsive to those who have been accustomed to hear and read the Bible in the classical literary Japanese. So we took pains not to offend the sensitivity of the reading public, regarding the choice of suitable expressions. Thus, in many instances, we mingled literary expressions advisedly, when we translated divine commands, apostolic exhortations, or poetic passages. [. . .] So, the present translation is in reality a mixture of both literary and colloquial style.

JBS issued two booklets following the publishing of each of the two volumes of its Bible, in which the translators’ work was explained ( JBS 1954 & 1955). In the preface to the booklet following the OT translation, Imaizumi Masaki (今泉真幸, 1871–1966), the then chairman of JBS, declared that “JBS’s initial plan was to issue a revised translation, but in fact it became a new translation rather than a revision. This one is a completely new translation” ( JBS 1955, 2; my translation). However, a close inspection of the translation shows that this statement is hardly accurate, since the translation followed its predecessor on many small and large points.36 The booklet further explains that in spite of the great importance and cultural influence of the Meiji Translation it became necessary to produce a new translation, since the post-war reforms of the Japanese language made the old one difficult to understand. Another reason given for this need was the great progress in biblical studies made since the publication of the former translation. Some other issues stated in the booklet are summarized briefly as follows (sentences between quotation marks are in my own translation): The translators were reluctant to assume responsibility for completing a translation of the whole Bible within three years as required of them, a feat never achieved before elsewhere in the world, and there was extra pressure from the churches to conclude their work as soon as possible. Feeling greatly responsible, they did their best, but needed an extra six months to complete the translation of the OT. They strived to produce a careful and accurate translation, but due to the imposed haste, some 36 Sekine Bunnosuke, who was in charge of Japanese style, referred to their work in his later book (1982, 10) as 改訳 kaiyaku, which could mean either “revised translation” or “retranslation”.



the translations of the hebrew bible

69

words and expressions were not unified throughout the translation, and for that they apologized. The translators considered the reader to be the most important aspect of their work, and tried to make the translation as readable as possible for young people and the general public. Taking into account the reading ability of a middle-school student, they used simple writing forms and expressions, and added furigana. They also did their best to avoid any vulgarity. Unable to ignore the elegance and beautiful aspects of the Classical Language Translation, they tried to preserve as much of them as they could, but fell short of their target [this is contrary to Imaizumi’s statement of “a completely new translation”]. The committee members decided to base their translation on the MT according to the third edition of Biblia Hebraica, while availing themselves of the recent biblical scholarship, ancient translations—including Greek, Syriac and Latin—and modern translations in various European languages, and thus strived for the true meaning of the text and interpretation of difficult expressions “while praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit” (p. 10). They acknowledged the assistance of the American Bible Society, both financially and by supplying them with the text of the RSV—which was of great assistance to them in their work—even before its formal publication. The format of passages and lines, including the distinction between prose and poetry, followed the RSV. Still, quite a few difficult words and expressions remain, and since the translators did not add interpretations, readers must interpret the text on their own [this, as mentioned before, was also following the Protestant tradition, the Bible Societies’ charter, and A-1]. As for style, since there are several kinds of Japanese ‘colloquial language’ (including regional dialects), it was decided to use the language of school books (教科書) as a standard. However, the tone cannot be the same all through, since the Bible itself has different tones and styles. In descriptive prose, sentences end with dearu, while in dialogue they end with either dearu, dearimasu or desu, according to the speaker and interlocutor. Women were made to speak kindly (優しく), and utterances made in anger were expressed accordingly. Regarding poetry in the Bible, “it is necessary to convey the distinctive features (特徴) of Hebrew poetry, not only its form (形), but since there are doubts concerning its prosody (詩形), and disagreements in interpretation among biblical scholars that cannot be easily solved, the committee members, feeling their inadequacy, conveyed no more than the simple form. So although still poetry, we regret that it is not different than free prose-poetry (自由な散文詩)” (12).

70

chapter three

Writing conventions and orthography, including the use of kana and kanji, followed the rules specified by the Japanese Ministry of Education (文部省), although it was sometimes necessary to use kanji characters not included in the basic tōyōkanji list. The translators were careful in their choice of words, but once again apologized that the lack of sufficient time made their work less than perfect. The translators specified the singular and plural pronouns used in the translation (13). They also indicated that in the Hebrew text pronouns are often expressed as a part of a noun or verb, and to translate them all would be too cumbersome, and therefore their number was reduced in the Japanese text [this is an interesting point that will be picked up later in Chapter 5]. Concerning honorifics [a crucial point in Japanese translation, as will become evident in the following chapter], there has been much debate, but “it was thought that in scripture and in what concerns God the use of honorifics is self evident” (14). For nouns the prefix mi was used, as in the earlier translation, but for verbs the former tamau was replaced with -rareru and -sareru, and in places where this could be easily confused with the passive form, o . . .ni naru was used. Admittedly, some readers may still be confused occasionally between honorifics and the passive, but after reading for a while they should get used to it, so this was not considered a problem [see 4.2.4 below]. As for personal names of people and places, since some of them were already part of Japanese culture, it was decided not to correct them; thus David remained dabide (ダビデ) rather than davi-do (ダヴィード), and Samaria remained samariya (サマリヤ) rather than shomurōn (ショム ローン); still, after careful considerations some names were respelled. The rest of the booklet (15–24) is devoted to specifying the differences between the new and former translations. These include some small changes to book titles (more radical changes were considered but rejected in the name of established tradition), the replacement of the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton ehoba with shu [see 4.2.2 below], changes in some personal names, and various emendations to the MT based on the Septuagint and other sources. * * * This translation, like all others, was received with both praise and criticism, with perhaps more of the latter than the former. For some people it was difficult to adjust to a style so different from the one with which they had been familiar for many decades. An article published in Nishi



the translations of the hebrew bible

71

Nihon Shinbun on January 18, 1956 complained that (in my translation): “compared with the conciseness, power and beauty of the old classical language translation, this one sounds halting [. . .] like drinking flat soda water.” The writer also said that the Psalms did not sound like poetry, and expressed his fear that after reading this translation for some years, the Japanese would lose all sense of their own language. The above newspaper article was quoted in a long critical article published by Nakazawa Kōki in 1960.37 Nakazawa criticized many aspects of the translation while relating to points made by JBS in their two booklets. He complained that although the style of the Meiji Translation might have been too concise and had to be expanded, the style of the new translation was far too low, and that the Ministry of Education guidelines had been adopted too readily; the poetic parts did not sound at all like poetry (89). He also argued that a committee translation creates an average result, losing all the animation of personal work. JBS expressed its pride that the work had been done by Japanese alone, however, pointed out Nakazawa, financial aid came from abroad and the RSV was consulted. He also maintained that the translation was done too hastily, arguing that the work was restricted to three years for financial reasons (90). He pointed out that the MT text was emended according to the Septuagint and other sources, but no indication was given of these emendations, which was unfair to the readers, and might confuse believers (91–93). Nakazawa then went on to criticize the style of the translation at length, giving many examples from passages that may have been translated clearly but not adequately (93–106). Later he listed many inconsistencies in translation of important Hebrew terms in both A-1 and A-2 (106–118). Nakazawa quoted the translator’s intention to preserve the “beautiful aspects” of the earlier translation, commenting: “no one would deny the solemnity and conciseness of the Chinese writing style (漢文体) of the Classical Language Translation [. . .]; the Colloquial Language Translation made every effort to imitate its tone, but generally failed” (my translation). On the other hand, some of the obscurities and inconsistencies of the earlier translation were carried over into this new one (106). A later critic, Fujiwara Fujio, described the style of the translation as “dry”. According to him, when compared with the Meiji Translation, this

37 Nakazawa 1960, 87–118; reprinted in Nakazawa 1968, 79–114, 290–301.

72

chapter three

one was coarse, had neither beauty nor power, and it lacked spirit.38 The very choice of ‘colloquial’ style, rather than emending the classical style and bringing it up to date was criticized by some; Saito Takeshi (1967, 64–66) argued that the ‘colloquial’ style did not make the Bible easier to understand, and that the loss of the classical style was not compensated by any advantage. But the inability of younger readers to manage the classical style was also becoming evident, with much regret. Another issue on which the translation was criticized was the use of the potential form (dearō etc.) to indicate the future. Since Japanese has no future tense, the present tense is used also for the future, and it is common among speakers of Japanese to add to it the potential form, which expresses a degree of uncertainty. Critics of the translation said that the extensive use of this form, apparently for stylistic reasons, would cause readers to view as only probable matters which the Bible expresses as certain.39 Evangelical missionaries also complained of the “conspicuous affinity” of the translation with the RSV, and of its having a “liberal bias”.40 Sakon Yoshishige answered some of this criticism by arguing that the allegation that the translation was dependent on the RSV was exaggerated. He said that although not totally satisfied with it, he believed that it was much easier to read and understand than the Meiji Translation.41 And indeed, one thing was clear: the old obstacle of classical language was cleared, and the Bible became accessible in a written language familiar to all Japanese, a fact that mixed both gain and pain. Here once again is the contemporary observation of a foreigner: The six translators [including the translators of the NT] have performed a remarkable feat in producing this version in only three years, and in the medium of colloquial Japanese, which scholars were almost afraid to use because its canons are not established and lest it cheapen their work. Its sale is phenomenal. The Old Testament has been opened at last, and is being read as never before.42

38 See Fujiwara 1974, 294–306 on the OT; most of his book is dedicated to the style of the NT translations. 39 See McIlwaine 1954 for a detailed discussion; Sekine B. 1982, 25–31 for a participant’s view. 40 Yanagita op cit. See also Fujiwara 1974, 166–190. For more criticism and comment on the translation see Asano 1964, Asō 1964. 41  Sakon 1967, 3; however, his article also included a detailed review of various mistranslations in A-2 (3–6); he then dedicated many pages to the problem of transliteration of personal names, and a few pages to the problems of weights and measures and of textual emendation. 42 W.A. McIlwaine, cited in Yanagita 1958, A1.



the translations of the hebrew bible

73

And a Japanese observer (Yanagita 1958, A1–A2) says on this translation that: [. . .] it will not be unjust to say that it is not accepted with praise by all though it has indeed facilitated the reading of the Bible and served to popularize it to a considerable extent.

Criticism notwithstanding, this translation became the almost standard Protestant version of the Bible for the next 30 years or so, in spite of the appearance of other competitors. It was replaced only by the joint Protestant-Catholic translation of 1987, although some churches still prefer it over the newer one for theological reasons, and it is still in print. Other churches, especially the more evangelical ones, substituted it earlier with the New Revised Translation (A-7), which in fact owed much to the Colloquial Translation and followed it in many respects. A-3 『旧約聖書―ブルガタ全訳』   Biblia Sacra—Veteris Testamenti / Catholic “moderate classical style” Translation / The Sapporo Translation 1954–1959 光明社、札幌 (Kōmyōsha, Sapporo) Individual translation: Eusebius Breitung OFM, with Kawanami Shigeo (川南重雄) Denomination: Catholic Main source: Vulgate Following the end of World War II, the Catholic establishment decided to embark upon its own translation of the OT, after having abandoned earlier initiatives (see B-6 & C-11 below). The Franciscans in Sapporo, who had their own publishing house, the Kōmyōsha, were asked to take over the work. The translation was done by Fr. Eusebius Breitung OFM, with Kawanami Shigeo as his assistant. According to Schneider, Breitung was commissioned by the Catholic hierarchy to translation the OT in a “moderate classical style”, to complement Raguet’s NT translation of 1910, although Breitung himself would have preferred to use the ‘colloquial’ style.43 Translation work started in 1947; printing, in 4 volumes, began in 1954, and was completed in 1959. It was decided that the basic text should be that 43 Schneider 2003, 219. See also NSHS 318–320. On Raguet’s translation of the NT, see above 2.2.

74

chapter three

of the Latin Vulgate (Schneider 1965, 83), which includes the Apocrypha. The result was 4 thick volumes in small format, containing as follows: I. Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth. The volume also contains two short general introductions, and a list of all the books of the Bible, according to the order in the Vulgate, in Latin and Japanese. 1018 pp. (1954). II. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job. Included was a foreword and letters from the Catholic hierarchy recommending the translation. 1128 pp. (1955). III. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach. The second part of the book contains a second translation of the Psalms from the new (1945) Latin Psalter published under Pius XII (which was translated from the original Hebrew). With a short introduction by the publisher. 679+217 pp. (1957). IV. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jeremiah’s Letter, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, 12 Minor Prophets, Maccabees I, II. With an introduction by the publisher. 1106 pp. (1959). Each volume has one illustration after the title page. In the text, each page is divided into two unequal parts (which change from page to page), with the text at the top and explanations at the bottom. A short introduction is given to each biblical book, and a relatively long explanatory title is given to each episode. At the time, the translation was greeted with praise. Yanagita Tomonobu wrote in 1958, before the publication of the fourth volume (Yanagita 1958, K2): The style is facile and dynamic, and the whole book echoes the majesty of the Vulgate. [. . .] Post-war Japan, of necessity, called for new versions of the Bible in both Protestant and Catholic circles. Both have appeared. The contrast is distinct in many respects. The Protestant is based on the modern critical text while the Catholic uses the Latin Vulgate. The Protestant version is the result of the work of a committee while a foreign missionary and a Japanese assistant are responsible for the Catholic version. The former was completed in a comparative short space of time while the latter is still in process though twelve years elapsed since its beginning in 1947. The three volumes published thus far, however, are admirable. Their literary style is written in the most modern manner, its disadvantages minimized, its merits fully exploited with a resulting serene, magnificent tone and a rich vocabulary. Although the Protestant version is more readable, popular, and, perhaps, more scholarly, it cannot compare in literary value with these volumes.

In spite of all the praise it received, it was not considered the ultimate Catholic translation of the OT, perhaps because of the increasing tendency



the translations of the hebrew bible

75

to adopt the ‘colloquial’ style. Two other Catholic translations were being prepared almost simultaneously (A-5 & A-6), and then came the joint Protestant-Catholic one (A-11). It is safe to say that today this translation is rarely read by Japanese Christians, and even that most are unaware of its existence. A-4 『旧約聖書―関根正雄訳』   Old Testament—The Sekine Translation 1956 (first paperback volume); 1993–95 (full version in 4 volumes); 1997 (one volume) 岩波書店 (Iwanami Shoten—paperback volumes); 教文館 (Kyo Bun Kwan) Individual translation: Sekine Masao (関根正雄) Denomination: Mukyōkai Main source: MT This one-man effort took some 30 years to complete. The translator, Sekine Masao (1912–2000), a leading Japanese scholar of the OT,44 started publishing his translation in 1956, and completed its publication in 1995. Some separate volumes were published in the pocket-book series of Iwanami Shoten,45 and the full translation was published by Kyō Bun Kwan, first in 4 volumes (1993–95),46 and then in one single volume (1999).47 This translation is printed according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible (unlike the Protestant or Catholic order in most other translations), but following the order in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is based on the Leningrad Codex, in which the order is somewhat different from that in the common printed Hebrew Bible.48 Headings are added before each episode or chapter, and are also listed in the table of contents. Occasional notes regarding the text are given at the end of chapters. Although

44 On Sekine’s pivotal place in Japanese OT studies see Phillips 1981, 216–217. 45 Published in this series were separate volumes of: Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 Minor Prophets, Psalms and Job. Other individual books were published occasionally by other publishers; see Schneider 1992, 86–87. 46 The four volumes contain: I. the Pentateuch (1993), here called ‘Law’, II. Former Prophets (1994) or ‘History’, III. Latter Prophets (1994) or ‘Prophets’, IV. Writings (1995). 47 See NSHS 320–322; Schneider 2003, 214. 48 In ‘Writings’ the order of the first books is: Psalm, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther; compared with the now common Hebrew order: Psalm, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.

76

chapter three

this translation is based on vast scholarly erudition, it was aimed at the general public, avoiding the painstakingly detailed notes found in some other scholarly translations. In his preface to the first of the four volumes, which is also printed as the preface to the one volume accumulative edition, Sekine explains the structure of the Jewish Bible, which he followed in his translation. He tells his readers that since the Jews have no New Testament, they have no Old Testament either, but rather a book called Tanakh, and he details the differences between its structure and that of the Christian Bible, which also incorporates the Apocrypha. He explains briefly the common theory of the sources used in the compilation of the Pentateuch, but does not say if this had in any way an effect on his translation. Sekine says that his main aim as an individual translator was to convey the tone of the original text, and rather than strive for uniformity, he put emphasis on each individual book or literary strata. Still, he endeavored to maintain the uniformity of personal names and terms. He also tried to convey the correct sound of Hebrew names, except in those cases which had already become household names in Japan (presumably in distorted form). Sekine belonged to the Mukyōkai or ‘non-church’ tradition, which produced a distinguished line of Bible scholars, beginning with its founder, Uchimura Kanzō (内村鑑三, 1861–1930). Another distinguished Mukyōkai scholar, Tsukamoto Toraji (塚本虎二, 1885–1973), translated the NT more or less simultaneously.49 Sekine was president of the Nihon Kyūyaku Gakkai (The Old Testament Learned Society of Japan) from 1971 to 1980. According to Schneider, he influenced the use of the transliteration Yahave for the Tetragrammaton by using it in his translation.50 An early critic of Sekine’s first volumes of translation (Genesis, Samuel) remarked that the translator followed the principles of Higher Criticism, and emended the text accordingly, preferring in many cases the Septuagint version to the Hebrew Masoretic one. His style was praised in preference to the JBS colloquial translation.51 Sekine himself had this to say about the difficulty of translating the Bible (Sekine 1982, 83–84):

49 NSHS 314–316; see also 3.5 below. 50 Schneider 1992, 86–87; see also 4.2 below. For reviews of some of Sekine’s separate volumes see Takahashi 1966 (on Isaiah), Kida 1968 (on 12 Minor Prophets, first part), Shinmi 1969, 13–16 (on Exodus). 51  Yanagita 1958, A5–A6. Similar observations were made and praise given by Nakazawa 1968, 121–126.



the translations of the hebrew bible

77

Making the translation as readable as possible without losing the real thrust of the message of the Bible is an ever-present problem for translators. In order that Christianity might reach the hearts of the Japanese, it is absolutely necessary that the precise biblical message be given a Japanese dress, so to speak. However, neither determining the precise meaning nor deciding on norms to be used in biblical interpretation is an easy matter.

A-5 『聖書―原文校訂による口語訳』   Bible—Colloquial translation according to the revised original texts 1958–2002 (separate volumes); 2011 (accumulative version) 中央出版社 (Catholic Press Center); later published by サンパウロ宣 教推進部 (Sanpauro Senkyō Suishinbu) Committee translation: フランシスコ会聖書研究所訳注—Studium Biblicum Franciscanum; General Editor—Bernardin Schneider Denomination: Catholic Main source: MT, with ancient translations consulted This translation took even longer to complete than Sekine’s individual enterprise, although several translators were involved in it. However, after embarking on the plan for its execution in the late 1950’s, it was put aside for several years, so that the translators could participate in the joint Protestant-Catholic effort (A-11). Nevertheless, the project was not abandoned, and once the other task was completed, it was resumed and brought to its conclusion. This Catholic translation was initiated while another Catholic-Franciscan translation of the OT (A-3) was still in the process of being published. But this translation was to be different from the Sapporo Translation on three main points: it was to be a translation of the whole Catholic Bible, not just the OT; it was to be in ‘colloquial’ style; and it was supposed to be based on the study of the original texts, and not only the Vulgate.52 The Franciscan Order has a solid tradition of Bible scholarship and translation, including translations into East Asian languages. The Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, which was organized in Peking in 1945 and moved to Hong Kong in 1948, completed the critical colloquial Chinese version of the Bible in 13 volumes in 1959 (Schneider 1965, 84 n. 3). It was 52 For more details concerning the theological and historical background of this translation, see Wada 2006, 33–36. For a review of some of its parts, in comparison with A-11, see ibid. 36–46, Kida 2006. For comments on the first volumes in the series see Nakazawa 1968, 118–126.

78

chapter three

therefore natural that the Order should oversee a similar project in Japan. The project was headed by Bernardin Schneider OFM, one of the leading forces in Bible translations in Japan in the second half of the 20th century, having served also as co-chairman of the Protestant-Catholic translation committee. Schneider was born in Louisville, Kentucky in 1919, and has lived in Japan since 1950. According to him, the initiative for a colloquial translation of the entire Catholic Bible, based on the original languages, was taken up in 1951 by Archbishop Maximilian de Furstenberg, who was then Internuncio to Japan (Schneider 1965, 84–86). After necessary preparations, the plan was approved in 1955, and the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum was inaugurated at St. Anthony Seminary, Tokyo, in May 1956. The team of translators included three foreign brothers trained in Rome, and three Japanese laymen; the members of the team changed several times, but Schneider, as the director of the Studium, prevailed to the end. Work began on the OT, the Pentateuch and the deuterocanonical books simultaneously. The first volume to be published was Genesis, in 1958. However, after 1964 priority was given to the translation of the NT, and work on the OT was suspended; so even in the case of such a scholarly translation, which intended publishing the books of the Christian Bible in order from first to last, priority was eventually given to the NT. Each volume in the original series contains one or more biblical books. The translated text is printed on one page, with explanations on the opposite page; many headings have been added. The volumes also contain introductions to the individual biblical books, as well as appendices of critical textual notes, maps, tables, and illustrations.53 The NT was published initially in 11 volumes, and then in one single volume with shortened notes in 1979. The OT and Apocrypha were published in 26 volumes; the last volume was printed in 2002, 44 years after the first one. A one-volume edition of the full Catholic Bible, with shortened notes on the left hand side of each double page, was published in August 2011, 55 years after the inauguration of the project. This volume has 3,264 pages, and it includes some maps and illustrations as in the original publication; the introductions to the individual books were also maintained. However, the text of the translation itself was edited, and is not identical with the one in the separate volumes. One conspicuous change, of which no indication is given in the introduction to the new edition, is that while in

53 Schneider 2003, 220, also gives many translators’ names. See also Schneider 1992, 87; NSHS 322–323.



the translations of the hebrew bible

79

the original series the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was transliterated, in the accumulative version it is replaced by shu (Lord). Presumably, the reason for this change was to make the translation suitable for church use, while the original edition was more scholarly in nature. A-6 『口語訳旧約新約聖書』   Sacra Biblia Japonice, Versio: Barbaro-Del Col / Barbaro I 1958–1964 ドン・ボスコ社   (Don Bosco Sha) Individual translation: Federico Barbaro SDB, with Ogata Sue (尾方寿恵); parts by Aloysius Del Col SDB Denomination: Catholic Main sources: Vulagte, MT, Modern translations Federico Barbaro SDB (1913–1996) was the best known individual Catholic translator of the Bible into Japanese during the second half of the 20th century. He was also a main force in promoting the use of the ‘colloquial’ style in Catholic translations (Schneider 1965, 83). Barbaro was born in Venice and studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He came to Japan in 1935 as a Catholic missionary, and started his Bible translations in 1947. He published his translation of the four Gospels in 1950, and the complete NT in 1953. In the following years he published several revised editions of his translation (1957, 1964). Barbaro also started translating the OT, and it has been published in separate fascicules since 1958. A full translation of the Catholic Bible was published in 1964, the first complete one in the ‘colloquial’ style. In this edition, the historical books of the OT, from Genesis to Nehemiah (except for Ruth), were translated by Alyosius Del Col SDB. Barbaro’s assistant in his translation was Ogata Sue. They worked from modern-language critical versions with reference to the original language.54 This volume has a general introduction, as well as short introductions for each book of the Bible. The books are arranged according to the order 54 Schneider 2003, 219–220; see also NSHS 310–312; 328–329. According to Rhodes 1967, 67, the translation of the OT was “apparently based upon the Vulgate, with only occasional reliance upon the Hebrew text and other early revisions”. See also the review of the Barbaro’s OT translation in Sekiya 1965, and on this point pp. 194–195; according to Sekiya, Barbaro told him that unlike his Latin and Greek, his Hebrew was not up to expert level, so he used modern Italian and French versions and translated freely in order to speed up the work.

80

chapter three

of the Catholic Bible, with the Apocrypha intertwined. Unlike many other translations, especially Catholic ones, headings for chapters or episodes are written in smaller print before the notes that follow each episode, and not above them. Interpretations and explanations are added at the end of each chapter. Two hitherto unused titles of OT books appeared in this edition. Deuteronomy was titled 第二法の書 (Dai-ni hō no sho—‘the book of the second law’), instead of the usual 申命記 (Shinmeiki—‘the account of heavensent commands’), and Judges was titled 判事 (Hanji no sho—‘the book of judges [those who render judgment]’) instead of 士師記 (Shishiki—‘the account of the warrior leaders’) (see also Schneider 1992, 85–86). Barbaro was never satisfied, and kept revising his translation. He also switched publisher, from Don Bosco Sha to Kōdansha, where he published his third edition of the NT in 1975, and the full Bible in 1980 (see A-6a below). A-6a 『聖書―旧約新約』   Revisio et nova versio Veteris et Novi Testamenti / Barbaro II 1980 講談社 (Kōdansha) Individual translation: Federico Barbaro SDB, with Ogata Sue (尾方寿恵) and Ara Masato (荒正人) Denomination: Catholic Main sources: Different translations, MT Barbaro writes in the preface to this edition (p. 3) that the former edition had become dated, and that he worked to reedit it from 1972 to 1975 with the help of Ogata Sue, who collaborated with him for many years, and also Ara Masato. During this process of reediting, the parts translated by Del Col were also revised, to unify their style with the rest of the text. Since a considerable part of the OT was reedited or retranslated by Barbaro over and above the work of Del Col, this edition should be considered separately from the first one (A-6). This edition includes a short preface by the translator, a longer introduction about the history of Israel and the biblical books, as well as short introductions at the beginning of each book of the Bible. Explanations are added at the end of each chapter. Color tables and maps appear at the beginning of the book, and black-and-white illustrations and maps



the translations of the hebrew bible

81

are added throughout the book (taken from La Bibbia a cura di la Civilità Cattolica Editrice Àncora). It also has an index of names and subjects. As in the first version of Barbaro’s translation, two books of the OT were also given new titles in this version. Exodus is titled 脱出の書 (Dasshutsu no sho—‘the book of the escape’) rather than the usual 出エギプト記 (Shutsu Ejiputo-ki—‘the account of the exit from Egypt’), while Numbers is titled 荒野の書 (Areno no sho—‘the book of the desert’) instead of 民数記 (Minsū-ki—‘the account of the numbers of the people’) (see also Schneider 1992, 85–86). In comparing the translation of the OT in the two different editions, the revision was often found to be very thorough, including sentence structure, the use of honorifics, and other aspects of the translation (see examples in following chapters). A-7 『聖書―新改訳』   Bible—New Revised Translation / New Japanese Bible 1968–1970; 1987; 2003 いのちのことば社、日本聖書刊行会 (Inochi no Kotoba Sha, Nihon Seisho Kankōkai) Committee Translation: Committee headed by Nao Kōsaku (名尾耕作) Denomination: Protestant Main sources: MT This translation was initiated in 1961 and sponsored by the Lockman Foundation, the publishers of the New American Standard Bible.55 The idea was to publish a completely new translation, based on the original languages. The organization that undertook the translation (Shinkaiyaku Seisho Kankōkai) represented a number of evangelical groups who thought the colloquial JBS translation (A-2) “too free” in some respects (Schneider 2003, 215; see more below). The NT was published in 1965 by the newly-formed Nihon Seisho Kankōkai (with Inochi no Kotoba Sha as the agency). The Psalms were issued in 1968, and the entire OT, with a

55 The New American Standard Bible (completed 1971) was a revision of the American Standard Version (1901), and an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1951). The approach of this translation is more conservative and more literal, with an emphasis on word-for-word translation as opposed to the method of dynamic equivalence.

82

chapter three

slightly revised NT, was published in 1970.56 A few years later the publisher issued a small booklet describing the characteristics of the translation (see Shinkai 1974). According to Schneider, the organization included twenty-five translators, six commissioners (including a representative of the Lockman Foundation), twenty-eight collaborators, and seven editors.57 The head translator of the NT was Matsuo Takeshi (松尾武, 1908–1967), and of the OT Nao Kōsaku (名尾耕作, d. 1996). Schneider also indicates that this translation soon became widely used, even among Roman Catholics. In the 1970 edition references to other biblical passages are given at the bottom of each page. In the 1981 printing the references are on the inner margin of the page, and critical textual notes and alternate translations are given at the bottom. This edition also has an index, and color maps. Other special features of this Bible include the beginning of each verse on a separate line, new paragraphs are indented, and the word 主 (shu, ‘Lord’) is printed in bold face wherever it stands for the Tetragrammaton.58 A second revised edition was issued in 1987, and a third in 2003. In a booklet issued on the occasion of the publishing of the third edition, a short historical review repeats the criticism leveled against the Colloquial Translation (A-2), which was one of the reasons for the publication of this ‘revised’ one (Shinkai 2004, 9–10). The use of the potential form for the future, and the affinity with the RSV are brought up once again (cf. A-2 above). That this translation was a version of the New American Standard Bible, sponsored at the same time by the Lockman Foundation, is denied, emphatically stating that the Japanese translation of the OT appeared a year before the American one (ibid. 13). It is stated that the basic principle of the translation was fidelity to the source text, but that this concept has many meanings, as exemplified in the short survey that follows. The main principles of this translation include expressing the reality of the Bible as it was, the use of literal translation even at the expense of fine Japanese style, the use of simple honorifics and polite language, reviving basic pure Japanese words (wago), and more (ibid. 13–16). Still, a close comparison of this translation with A-2 reveals that the former can be considered a

56 Its title caused some confusion, as some readers believed that it was a revised version of the 1955 JBS Bible; see Wada 2002, 8. 57 Schneider 2003, 215. For a very detailed report on the translation work see Sakon 1973. As he did regarding A-2, Fujiwara Fujio criticized the style of this translation as ‘dry’; Fujiwara 1974, in particular 306–328. 58 See also Schneider 1992, 88–89; NSHS 329–332.



the translations of the hebrew bible

83

‘revision’ of the latter; also, it does not refrain completely from using the potential form (see 5.3.17 below). A-8 『リビング　バイブル—Paraphrased』   The Living Bible—Paraphrased 1978; 1993 いのちのことば社 (Inochi no Kotoba Sha) Committee translation Denomination: Protestant Main sources: The Living Bible—based on the American Standard Version; MT consulted This is a Japanese version of an English one: The Living Bible by the Baptist layman Kenneth Taylor (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971). Taylor paraphrased the English translation, in order to make the Bible more accessible to children.59 The original English version, which was very popular in the United States during the 1970’s, was dubbed ‘paraphrased’, and this designation appears as a sub-title of the Japanese edition as well. The translation of the NT was published in 1975, and the whole Bible in 1978.60 In this book, the names of the translators are not given, and there is only a very short introduction and afterword, about half a page each, explaining the translation policy and how to use the book. At the end there is a list of readings from the Bible recommended for different times and life situations. The book includes both the OT and NT, without the Apocrypha, and was arranged according to the Protestant Bible order. The OT books are divided under 4 headings: ‘The Five Books of Moses’, ‘Israel’s History’, ‘Israel’s Writing’ and ‘Israel’s Prophets’. Many biblical books are given new titles, not used in other translations; this is an innovation in the Japanese translation, which is not found in the English original. This translation almost consistently avoids using furigana, unlike most other translations, and even more sparingly than Sekine’s translation (A-4). In a short afterword to the 1993 ‘Revised Edition’ (新版) of this Bible, it is stated that this book became very popular with readers, who were

59 An interview with him is cited at http://www.bible-researcher.com/lbp.html (read June 2006). 60 See NSHS 338–341; Schneider 1992, 90; Schneider 2003, 216.

84

chapter three

able to approach the Bible in their everyday language. The committee that was appointed to update the translation focused on the Gospels, but also corrected other places where necessary. In 2000 and the following years various editions were issued of the whole Christian Bible, and of the NT and OT separately. That this should in fact be considered a full translation of the Bible is questionable. All books, chapters and verses are there, but most verses are heavily paraphrased, to make them as simple and clear as possible, often losing much of the original content in the process. The conservative Christian spirit of the translators is also very evident. A-9 『聖書―新世界訳』   New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—Japanese 1982, 1985 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York / Pennsylvania Committee translation Denomination: Jehovah’s Witnesses Main source: English New World Bible (1971/1984), consulting original languages This is the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the title page and short introduction, it was translated from the English edition of the New World Bible, while consulting the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The NT was published in 1973, and the whole Bible in 1982.61 The introduction states that the translation was made according to the 1971 English edition, but that the corrected 1981 English edition was also consulted. Unusually for a Japanese book, this one opens from the left rather than the right, because the text is printed horizontally, perhaps in order to follow the English edition. A somewhat different edition was printed in 1985. Both the 1982 and the 1985 editions include the OT and NT, arranged in the Protestant Bible order, with an index, color maps and other features, and both editions are over 2,000 pages long. The text is printed in two columns, but cross references given in a narrow column in the middle of the 61 According to Schneider, the publisher of this Bible was “Watchtower and Trust Society of New York”, which is somewhat different to what is found in the two full Bibles I examined (see above); Schneider 1992, 89–90; see also Schneider 2003, 216. The book was translated and printed in Japan.



the translations of the hebrew bible

85

page only appear in the 1985 edition. No headings have been added, but the main issues are summarized in one line at the top of each page. God’s name ’elohim is translated kami and is underlined, as are all other names used for the God of Israel, except for the Tetragrammaton, which is transliterated ehoba and is not underlined. According to the introduction to the 1982 edition (p. 6), ehoba is used not only in the 6,964 occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in the OT,62 but also 237 times in the NT (apparently instead of ‘Lord’), so that God’s Holy Name appears throughout the Bible. It is also stated that in both the English and the Japanese editions an effort has been made to convey the correct meaning of the original text. To that purpose, it was sometimes necessary to add some words of explanation, and these were printed between square brackets. Double square brackets are used when it is certain that some words were inserted into the original text at a later stage. Verses which appeared in older translations but no longer appear in authoritative modern ones, are indicated by a dash after the verse number.63 Where possible, an effort has been made to substitute one original word with one word in translation. A line under a noun was used where in the English edition a capital letter was used.64 The translation seems to be basically faithful to the original text, however, the text was emended in various places to suite the theological considerations of this denomination. The insertion of the name ehoba into the NT has already been mentioned. Changes have been made in the OT too; for example, in Genesis 1:2, where English translations usually speak of ‘God’s spirit’, and Japanese ones about kami no rei, this Bible uses ‘God’s active force’ in English and 神の活動する力 (kami no katsudō suru chikara) in Japanese. The reason being to avoid the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject. A-10 『聖書―現代訳』   Modern Japanese Bible / Oyama Reiji 1983; 1988 現代訳聖書刊行会 (Gendaiyaku Seisho Kankōkai)

62 According to Even-Shoshan’s Hebrew Concordance of the Bible, the Tetragrammaton appears 6,639 times in the Hebrew Bible, so the other 300 cases must have been added. 63 No further information is given, but this may refer mostly to the NT, for example, Mark 15:28, where other Japanese translations (A-7, A-10) also omit the verse. 64 As far as I could see, and as mentioned above, this refers to God’s names and sobriquets.

86

chapter three

Individual translation: Oyama Reiji (尾山令仁) Denomination: Protestant, the Biblical Church (Seisho Kirisuto Kyōkai) Main sources: MT, English translations The Reverend Dr. Oyama Reiji (b. 1927) founded the Biblical Church (Seisho Kirisuto Kyōkai) in 1953. The church is centered in the Tokyo area, and in 1991 had 42 churches and evangelistic points, with a membership of about 1,000 (Kumazawa and Swain 1991, 300). Oyama also trained pastors at Tokyo Shingakkō, the denomination seminary, and published many books. Oyama started publishing Bible translations in 1960 with the Letter of Philemon, and in 1978 published the whole NT.65 He published a translation of Genesis with interpretation in 1975, and the entire Bible in 1983, and again in 1988. The 1983 edition includes only the text of the translation. The 1988 edition includes 4 pages of introduction, followed by 32 pages of explanations for “people who are going to read the Bible from now on”. The book includes both the OT and NT, arranged in the usual Protestant Bible order. In his introduction Oyama writes that most people do not read the Bible, because they think it is too difficult. A million copies of the Bible (complete or partial) are sold in Japan each year, but 90% remain unread. According to him, the main problem is the translation. The former Japanese translations strived for faithfulness to the original text, ignoring cultural differences. However, the Bible was clearly understood at the time it was written, therefore it could be made clear again if differences in culture and time are taken into consideration. The meaning as understood by the original audience, should be made clear in the translated text, and according to him, so doing did not make the translation a paraphrase. Oyama wrote from the believer’s point of view, saying that God’s salvation was revealed through the Bible, and this would be clear to the reader (1988 edition, 427–430). His approach was one of dynamic equivalence, as opposed to one of formal equivalence. On examination, his translation often proves to be paraphrastic, although not going as far as the “Paraphrased” one (A-8). Although Oyama stated in his above-mentioned introduction that a good translation is sufficient for understanding the Bible, in 1989 he issued an edition of his NT translation with explanations at the bottom of the 65 See NSHS 323–326; Schneider 1992, 88–89.



the translations of the hebrew bible

87

page. Simultaneously he issued a small booklet (Oyama 1989), in which he offered a concise review of the history and problems of Bible translation and explained the reasons for making his own translation, repeating in more detail his above-mentioned arguments. Here Oyama again insisted that while the paraphrased Living Bible (A-8) is in fact “an explained translation”, his own was simply “translation”. Also, the Japanese translators of the former based their work on the English version of that Bible, while he translated from the original languages (ibid. 74). A-11 『旧約聖書―新共同訳』   The Bible—New Interconfessional Translation 1987 日本聖書協会 ( Japan Bible Society) Committee translation: Editorial co-chairpersons Bernardin Schneider OFM and Takahashi Masashi (高橋虔) Denomination: Protestant & Catholic Main sources: MT, common English and German translations This is the first joint Protestant-Catholic translation in Japan,66 or according to its official title, the “New Interconfessional Translation (with Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha)”. Like other translations, it was published gradually in parts until its final completion in 1987. Since then it has become the more-or-less standard version of the Bible in Japan, although not universally regarded as the authoritative one. The making of this translation was urged by the ecumenical spirit that followed Vatican II, i.e. the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, held between 1962 and 1965, giving an impetus to joint Bible translations. But the process leading to the realization of this joint effort was long and complex. The initial meeting between Catholic and Protestant representatives in Japan took place in August 1966, and eventually led to the foundation of the Society for the Study of Japanese Bible Translating in July 1969, and to the publication of its magazine.67 Two committees were 66 Phillips 1981, 210, commented on the fact that the translators still did not include scholars of Mukyōkai or conservative evangelical background (cf. A-2 above). 67 Here and below, according to Schneider 2003, 220–223; for background see also Suzuki 2006, 168–173; NSHS 243–251. The magazine mentioned is『聖書翻訳研究』(SHK) published by JBS; it appeared biannually during the 1970’s and early 1980’s and later only occasionally (issue no. 30, the last one so far, appeared in 2006). The earlier issues included guidelines for the translation; see, for example, Koizumi 1970; Hotta 1976; Schneider 1978.

88

chapter three

also formed in July 1969. One was to study the question of reconciling interconfessional differences in biblical terminology, and especially in the transcription of proper names. This committee had 10 members, 5 Protestants and 5 Catholics, and it met 71 times until 1983.68 The second was an ad hoc group to study the possibility of actually making a joint translation. With 12 members, 6 Protestants and 6 Catholics, it met 4 times in one year, and reported that a joint translation was not only possible but necessary, especially from the point of view of evangelization. It recommended appointing a joint executive committee of 10 members (5 Protestants and 5 Catholics) to initiate and implement the project, following the Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible (London and Rome: UBS and Vatican, 1968). The newly-appointed Executive Committee met for the first time on August 27, 1970. Kishi Chitose (岸千年) (d. 1989), who was the head of one of the Lutheran denominations in Japan and the chairman of the board of directors of JBS from 1971 until his death, and Sōma Nobuo (相馬信夫) (d. 1997), the Catholic Bishop of Nagoya, were elected co-chairpersons. Sōma was succeeded by Hirata Saburō (平田三郎) in May 1977, who at the time was the Catholic Bishop of Fukuoka. Another church leader member of the committee was Gotō Makoto (後藤真) (d. 1989), the Anglican Bishop of Tokyo, later succeeded in 1982 by Bishop Yamada Jō (山田襄) (d. 1993). Schneider described the composition of the translation committee as follows (Schneider 2003, 222): A total of forty-four translators were involved in this undertaking and divided into three sections: New Testament, Hebrew Old Testament, Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha, later designated Kyūyaku Zokuhen [Old Testament supplement]. Each section comprised Protestant and Catholic translators, including one woman scholar in each, one of whom also served as one of the editors. The original number of eighteen editors (4-10-4 for the three sections) was later reduced to working groups totaling eight (2-4-2). The two editorial co-chairpersons for all three sections, who alone of all the editors were not also translators, were Takahashi Masashi (d. 1992) and myself. Takahashi, of Kyoto [retired from Doshisha University], had been one of the translators of the 1954–55 Japan Bible Society version and until his death the

The last few issues contained some lists of corrections as well as suggestions for different translation of some words. 68 The committee published its recommended transcription of names in the OT in 1980 in the form of a soft cover book; see Hirata & Kishi, 1980.



the translations of the hebrew bible

89

chairperson of the Society for the Study of Bible Translating. (The present chairperson is Kida Ken’ichi, one of the translators and editors.)69

The entire NT was published in 1978, following a pilot edition of Luke in 1975, with changes in the transliteration of names. The style of the translation was more idiomatic and based more on the principle of dynamic equivalence, than most current versions. It was intended especially for the ninety-nine percent of the population who are not Christian. But these factors, particularly the strange new transcription of wellknown biblical names, proved unacceptable. Therefore the whole was revised, including the already prepared manuscripts of the Old Testament books. After pilot editions of a selection (50) of the Psalms in 1983, and Ruth and Job [in fact, also Jonah] in 1984, the whole Bible was published in September 1987 as the New [Shin] Interconfessional Translation. In it the form of the name of Jesus is Iesu. The traditional forms of other well-known biblical names were also restored (ibid.).

This Bible is published in two basic formats: with and without the Zokuhen books. In the edition where these books are included they are placed between the OT and the NT, and are divided into two groups: the Catholic deuterocanonicals, and the three apocryphal books, namely 1 and 2 Esdras (in the former Vulgate appendix, 3 and 4 Esdras, renamed in the new translation respectively ‘Greek Ezra’ and ‘Latin Ezra’) and the Prayer of Menasseh. All editions have a short introduction about the translation. Unlike the previous JBS Bibles, short titles have been added before chapters or episodes, but there are no interpretations or alternative translations in this Bible either. The appendixes include: 10 maps, general introductions to the Bible and its parts (OT, Apocrypha, NT), explanations of theological and other terms and names, a list of changes in verse numbers compared with the 1955 JBS Bible, a list of OT verses cited in the NT, and a list of measures and weights used in the Bible. The translation of the Psalms was issued also separately, for responsive reading during church services.70 Bernardin Schneider, one of the leading forces in the making of this translation, remarked about 15 years after the undertaking was completed (ibid., 222–3):

69 The process of translating, editing and reediting of this version was very complicated, as attested by the complex flowchart appearing in Kida et al. 1987, 9. It seems that the translators themselves had little say in the later editing stages. 70 Titled Kōdoku shihen:『交読詩篇』日本基督教団出版局 (1990).

90

chapter three The New Interconfessional Translation has been well received. It has been adopted by the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church in Japan for official use in the liturgy, and is used now in growing number of Protestant denominations. Responsibility for the text, as regards corrections, revisions, possible annotation and the like, is now in the hands of an ongoing joint committee of eight members (4 and 4) that now meets two or more times a year.

As he was quoted above, Schneider supervised the translation with the idea in mind that it was mainly for the use of the non-Christians in Japan.71 However, input by Christians and the needs of the churches caused a change of course in the translation methods and goals. Kida Ken’ichi, a leading member of the translation committee (mentioned above by Schneider), explained that the original strategy was to adopt E. Nida’s theory of “dynamic equivalence” in order to bring the Bible closer to the general public. However when the NT was published in 1978 it became clear that the translation departed from the literal meaning of the text and included a great amount of interpretation, and therefore met with strong criticism and resistance. So in spite of the intention to target the general public, it was first necessary to listen to the Catholic and Protestant churches that would use this Bible, and so the translation changed its course. Kida also says that the translation of the OT was not progressing smoothly, and that eventually it was executed according to the reaction to the translation of the NT. Following the pilot publication of the Psalms, and the realization that it would be used in churches, “dynamic equivalence” was abandoned. Thus it seems that Kida expressed more directly than Schneider the fact that this translation was intended first and foremost for the use of the majority of Christians in Japan.72 The Christian weekly Kirisuto Shinbun (キリスト新聞) dedicated one of its large-size pages to the publication of the translation (September 5, 1987). The page contains a long article describing the history of the translation which is characterized as “easy to read, easy to hold”; shorter articles 71 See also Schneider 1982, 75: “This translation is being made primarily for the nonChristian”. And see also Wada 2006 and Kida 2006 concerning the connections between this translation and the Franciscan one (A-5). 72 See his foreword to the translators’ discussion in Kida et al. 1987, 4–5, as well as the opinions expressed by the other translators in the discussion that followed. And see also Kida 2001, 459–460, where he expresses the same opinion also in hindsight, and puts the emphasis on the need to listen to the individual believers’ and the churches’ needs in Bible translation (rather than considering the general public). The change of course during the translation of the OT was also indicated to me by Nomoto Shinya (野本信也), who was one of the translators.



the translations of the hebrew bible

91

by Kishi Chitose and one of the translators; a detailed chronological table of the work, beginning with the 1962 Vatican II Council; a full list of the names of all the participants in the various committees (73 Japanese and 3 foreigners); and advertisements by JBS. This was followed by a series of articles by Fujiwara Fujio on the style of the translation in the same paper (Fujiwara 1988), and by extensive discussions in scholarly magazines, including a dialogue between famed critic and philosopher Yoshimoto Takaaki (吉本隆明) and writer Ogawa Kunio (小川国夫).73 One often hears criticism leveled against this translation, and especially concerning its style; it seems that many Japanese Christians are dissatisfied with it and believe it should be revised or replaced (see 7.4). A-12 『旧約聖書―旧約聖書翻訳委員会訳』   Old Testament—Iwanami Shoten Translation 1997–2004 岩波書店 (Iwanami Shoten) Different individual translators Denomination: (Protestant)74 Main sources: MT The Iwanami Shoten project seems to be the first large-scale Bible translation enterprise in Japan not driven by a Christian organization.75 It was initiated by a publisher not identified as Christian, but as one famous for its publications in all aspects of Japanese and universal culture. The participating translators were all biblical scholars with academic careers. Still, the publisher first embarked on translating and publishing the NT, in five separate volumes, beginning in 1995. The OT was published in 15 separate volumes, 1997–2004, the work of 10 individual translators (nine men and one woman). These volumes are: 73 See Yoshimoto & Ogawa 1988 (see also 7.5 below). A concise digest of early responses to the publishing of this translation in magazines and newspapers can be found in Kida 1991, 6–9. Major articles include: Arai et al. 1990 (focusing on the NT); Namiki et al. 1991 (focusing on the OT); Tsukimoto 1989, 1990 & 2000 (OT). For an open discussion between four of the translators, see Kida et al. 1987. 74 As far as I could check, the translators are all Protestant Christians; however, as explained below, the initiative for the translation was by a secular publisher. 75 Although Schneider (2003, 216–217) refers to it as a “Protestant” translation, perhaps in response to the claim of the translators of the NT in this edition, who say in their introduction (p. vii) that the New Interconfessional Translation (A-11), for which he was largely responsible, was in fact too greatly influenced by Catholic theology.

92

chapter three

 1.  『創世記』(Genesis) (1997)—Tsukimoto Akio (月本昭男)  2.  『出エジプト記、レビ記』(Exodus, Leviticus) (2000)—Kohata Fujiko (木幡藤子), Yamaga Tetsuo (山我哲雄)  3.  『民数記、申命記』(Numbers, Deuteronomy) (2001)—Yamaga Tetsuo (山我哲雄), Suzuki Yoshihide (鈴木佳秀)  4.  『ヨシュア記、士師記』( Joshua, Judges) (1998)—Suzuki Yoshihide (鈴木佳秀)  5.  『サムエル記　上・下』(Samuel) (1998)—Ikeda Yutaka (池田裕)  6.  『列王記　上・下』(Kings) (1999)—Ikeda Yutaka (池田裕)  7.  『イザヤ書』(Isaiah) (1997)—Sekine Seizō (関根清三)  8.  『エレミヤ書』( Jeremiah) (2002)—Sekine Seizō (関根清三)  9.  『エゼキエル書』(Ezekiel) (1999)—Tsukimoto Akio (月本昭男) 10.  『十二小預言書』(Twelve Minor Prophets) (1999)—Suzuki Yoshihide (鈴木佳秀) 11.  『詩篇』(Psalms) (1998)—Matsuda Isaku (松田伊作) 12.  『ヨブ記、箴言』( Job, Proverbs) (2004)—Namiki Kōichi (並木浩一), Katsumura Hiroya (勝村弘也) 13.  『ルツ記、雅歌、コーヘレト書、哀歌、エステル記』(Ruth, The Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther) (1998)—Tsukimoto Akio (月本昭男), Katsumura Hiroya (勝村弘也) 14.  『ダニエル書、エズラ記、ネヘミヤ記』(Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah) (1997)— Muraoka Takamitsu (村岡崇光) 15.  『歴代誌 上・下』(Chronicles) (2001)—Ikeda Yutaka (池田裕)

In these volumes short explanations are given at the bottom of the page, and a long article as well as further explanations are provided at the end of each book. Short titles are added before chapters or episodes. Maps and illustrations are included. An accumulative edition of the main text was published in four volumes (2004–2005).76 In this edition explanations are printed on the left hand page. A short introduction to each biblical book is found at the end of each volume, along with a detailed table of contents, further explanations of Japanese words used and original Hebrew words, and some maps and tables. The biblical books are arranged in the order of the Hebrew Bible,77 and the four volumes, accordingly, are:

76 The earlier translation of the NT was also accumulated and printed in one volume. Accompanying volumes were issued for both NT and OT; see Iwanami 2005, containing articles on various aspects of the OT, not focusing on the translation itself; the last chapter combines various examples on translating certain biblical scenes. 77 In ‘Writings’ the order of books follows that in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the same as in Sekine’s translation; the titles for the four parts are also similar; see A-4 above.



the translations of the hebrew bible

93

I. The Pentateuch—titled in Japanese 律法 rippō (law) (2004). II. Former Prophets—titled 歴史書 rekishisho (historical books) (2005). III. Latter Prophets—titled 預言書 yogensho (prophetical books) (2005). IV. Writings—titled 諸書 shosho (various books) (2005). The participating translators, following the initiative of the publisher, formed a committee to divide the work among themselves, and decided that each translator would be responsible for his or her own share, although the committee would appoint two members to review each individual effort and make suggestions for improvement. The translators had the common reader in mind, not the specialist. They used the MT as a base, but also consulted the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, Josephus, and other early translations. Earlier Japanese translations were also referred to, and sometimes earlier versions were included in the notes. As far as possible they tried to convey the nuances of the original, with emphasis on meaning, but without ignoring the rhythm of the language.78 3.2 Partial Translations in Book Form The partial translations of the OT into Japanese fall into several categories: early attempts by either Japanese or foreigners to translate certain parts of the Bible, or give a digest of it (these cases are specified under 3.3 below); later attempts by scholars who translated some of the OT books that appealed to them particularly; biblical books that were translated for a certain purpose, mainly the Psalms; different editions of the ‘Short Bible’; and initiatives to translate the whole OT that were abandoned before completion. The main efforts in these categories are specified below.79 B-1 『聖詠経－   日本正教会翻訳』 The Holy Psalms—The Japan Orthodox Church Translation 1885/ 1901 Reprint ? (Place and name of publisher not specified) 78 Interview with Ikeda Yutaka, June 2006. 79 Not specified here are the early translations of several biblical books that were incorporated eventually into the Meiji Translation, and are described under A-1. In other cases too, when partial or pilot editions were published prior to the publication of a full translation, these partial publications are not specified here but in the section on full translations.

94

chapter three

Translator: Archbishop Nikolai, with Japanese assistants Denomination: Russian Orthodox Main source: Russian (?) As was mentioned above (2.2), Archbishop Nikolai of the Russian Orthodox Church initiated several translations for the use of his church members, including catechisms, prayer books and the NT. A translation of Psalm 51 had already been printed in “The Small Prayer Book” 『 ( 小祈禱書』) in 1877 (Nakata, History, Part 38, 8–9). Another prayer book containing numerous translations from the Psalms was『時課経』( Jikakei) printed in 1884 (NKRD 604). The full translation of the Psalms was published in 1885, and was reprinted in 1901.80 In the 1901 printing there is no indication of the place of publishing. The only data given on the title page is that this printing, in the 34th year of Meiji (1901), is a reprint or republication (saikan). It is printed in European fashion, and without the colophon common in Japanese books. Various musical instruments, with many types of harps, trumpets and even a bagpipe appear as illustrations surrounding the book’s title, and an illustration of a church appears at the top of the page. There is one more illustration in the book, opposite the first psalm, a European engraving of King David penning the Psalms in a modern-looking book. The book itself is printed in large characters, using only katakana for the okurigana and furigana. The book has no preface, but only two explanatory notes, one of which says that the Psalms are used most extensively in the prayers of the Orthodox Church, and that from ancient times the book was divided into 20 parts called Kathisma.81 Each Kathisma is further divided into three parts in order to facilitate reading,82 and the Gloria is recited after each of these parts. The second note cites the text of the Gloria in Japanese; it is about four lines long, and parts of it are to be recited three times. Then comes a 80 Nakata, History, Part 38, 9–10, which is apparently the source for Ebisawa 1981, 371. Both give the title as『聖咏経』, but in the 1901 reprint which I examined, the middle character is given in the variant 詠 (this is also the variant used in NKRD 738). This title is markedly different from the common Japanese (originally, Chinese) title of the Psalms, and is pronounced Seieikei, compared with the more common『詩篇』Shihen. 81  This division of the Psalter originates in the Greek Orthodox rite, and is followed in the Russian one. The word Kathisma is derived from the Greek verb meaning “to sit down” with a noun suffix. The above note indicates that a possible translation would be 座誦経 (the furigana is given as ザショウキョウ), which might be translated “reciting the Scriptures [originally—Buddhist ones] while sitting”. 82 Each part is a combination of two or three psalms, depending on their length.



the translations of the hebrew bible

95

table of contents which gives the page numbers for the 20 Kathismata, for the extra Psalm (151), which appears in the Septuagint and the Orthodox Bible, and for an appendix. This appendix contains the prayer that should be recited, in addition to the Psalms, over the body of a dead person who is over seven years of age, after it has been purified. The identity of the translators is not given, but it is known from various sources that Nikolai himself either translated the material published by his church or supervised the work of several translators (see also below, C-6). During the period of the translation of the Psalms, his main collaborator was Nakai Tsugumaro-Paul (中井菟麻呂－パウェル, 1855–1943), who was recruited by Nikolai as a translator in 1881. The two worked together consecutively on the NT, prayer books and other translations.83 The language from which the translation was made is not clear, although it could be Russian. The transliteration of names, at least, points in that direction (ダワィド、サムイル、エフレム、モイセ イ、イズライリ (Dawido, Samuiru, Efuremu, Moisei, Izurairi); in the Meiji Translation (A-1) theses are spelled: ダビデ、サムエル、エフ ライム、モーセ、イスラエル (Dabide, Samueru, Efuraimu, Mōse, Isuraeru). It is possible, but not very likely, that the Russian pronunciation familiar to the translators was maintained but the text was in a different language (for further evidence see Chapter 5 below). The translation uses shu for YHWH, and kami for ’elohim. The style is literary, but not as flowing as that of the Meiji Translation, the publication of which it in fact preceded by two years. It is unique among Japanese translations prepared for church use in that it uses no honorifics. B-2 『詩篇―全』   The Psalms—Full 1899 日本聖公会出版社 (Nihon Seikōkai Shuppansha) Committee translation: Nakagawa Tōshirō (中川藤四郎), Terazawa Hisakichi (寺沢久吉), Makioka Tetsuya (牧岡鐡彌) Denomination: Anglican-Episcopal Main source: ?, the Meiji Translation

83 NKRD 973; Takahashi 2000, 141–142 (with a photograph of the two working together).

96

chapter three

This is a revised translation of the original Meiji one (A-1), prepared by three members of the Japan Anglican-Episcopal Church, for the use in prayer by the Church members. It was printed again in 1900 and 1904.84 The 1904 printing has no foreword or afterword, nor has it any other text apart from the translation of the Psalms. The names of Nakagawa, Terazawa and Makioka appear on the colophon at the back of the book. The text is printed continuously, without breaks or additions, apart from indications in the margin, which divide the whole book into portions for reading in one month (30 days), morning and evening. The Hebrew titles of the Psalms are omitted.85 As in the Meiji Translation, one line is printed next to a person’s name, two next to a place name. However, a unique feature of this version is the short lines, either one or two, inserted between some characters towards the end of each line, perhaps in order to create a certain rhythm in the reading. Another special feature of this translation is that wherever the Tetragrammaton occurs, an old, hand-written form of the character shu (Lord) is used, but where the translators have added this word for the clarity of reading, the normal printed form is used. Unlike the Meiji Translation, this translation did not use the ehoba transliteration, except in cases where it comes together with ’elohim (Ps. 106:47, 48, for example). B-3 左近義弼の諸翻訳 Different translations by Sakon Yoshisuke 1909–1911 Individual translation: Sakon Yoshisuke (左近義弼) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT, different translations Sakon Yoshisuke (1865–1944), a biblical scholar and a translator, was the first Japanese individual to publish biblical translations made directly from Hebrew and Greek (NKRD 570; Sakon Y. 1964, 83–88). Influenced by the writing of Fukuzawa Yukichi, he entered Keio University in 1882, and then went to the USA in 1887. According to his own testimony, he read the Bible for the first time in English in 1890 while in New York, the

84 NSHS 263–264; Ebisawa 1981, 380. 85 In the Meiji Translation the Hebrew titles were translated and printed in smaller characters below the Psalm number. This method follows earlier English translations.



the translations of the hebrew bible

97

same year he became a Christian. He enrolled at the Union Theological Seminary in order to study Hebrew and Greek, with the aim of translating the Bible from the original languages. He read the Japanese Bible for the first time in 1896, and was convinced of the need to improve on it, by making a simple and readable translation.86 After returning to Japan in 1906, he taught biblical languages and OT studies for 30 years at the Aoyama Gakuin University School of Theology; he was the first person in Japan to hold a permanent position in OT studies.87 Sakon intended to translate the whole Bible in 20 years, but failed, having published the translation of the four Gospels and Acts from the NT, and only two books from the OT; some other translations remained unpublished.88 a.『詩篇』 Psalms 1909; 1911; 1923 聖書改訳社 (Seisho Kaiyakusha) This is an elegantly printed and bound volume of over 400 pages.89 Following a long introduction, the 150 psalms are printed in an order rearranged by the translator, regrouped according to their contents. Some psalms are even divided into two parts, each appearing in a different section of the book. An index at the end of the book lists the 150 psalms in their common order, allowing the reader to locate each psalm in the book. A table of contents on pp. 1–15, after the introduction and before the translations, shows the plan of the book, which is divided into 10 “books” (編, hen), some of which are further divided into chapters (章, shō). For 86 While in America he started translating from the NT, and published his translation of Romans in Uchimura Kanzō’s magazine Seisho no kenkyū in 1906. 87 Sakon Y. 1964, 83; this article is by Yoshisuke’s son Yoshishige, who ‘inherited’ his father’s position at Aoyama Gakuin on the latter’s retirement in 1937. 88 According to his son (ibid. 87), he completed the translation of 19% of the OT and 73% of the NT. His main translations are mentioned briefly by Schneider 2003, 212; see also Toyoda 1956, 92–93; NSHS 268–272. Examples of Sakon’s translation of the Psalms also appear in SKNK 180-182; for examples of his translation of the NT see ibid. 176–179, 217–220. 89 Sakon’s publications were made possible through the contributions of his friends, not all of whom were Christians; his son Yoshishige (ibid. 83–86) says that in the late Meiji and Taishō periods, there were already some good OT scholars in Japan but they were still isolated and poor. According to him, the common saying was: 旧約では食えな い (“you can’t make a living [literally: eat] on the OT”). Sakon quotes Ochiai Kichinosuke (落合吉之助), who published two books of OT commentary in 1914–17, but had to stop for lack of income.

98

chapter three

example, the first “book” is titled “Praise” (讃美, sanbi), and is divided into chapters (1) “The majesty of God revealed in the natural world”, (2) “God’s love for man”, and (3) “Praise of the natural world” (my translation). In the text itself, titles are given to each psalm, and occasional explanations are added at the bottom of the page. The style of the translation is simple and clear, but the translator omitted the titles given to the various Psalms in the original, and added words and phrases to make the style more expressive. The typography is exceptionally convenient in a way untypical of most Japanese books: a small amount of text leaves wide margins on each page, and a relatively wide space is left between lines, and even between words or short expressions in each line. A special system is used in this translation for writing God’s names. Wherever the Tetragrammaton (‫ )יהוה‬appears in the Hebrew text, it is transcribed thus: ヤーヱ (Ya-we). The name ’el (‫ )אל‬is transcribed エル, but ’elohim (‫ )אלהים‬is translated into kami (神). On the whole, Sakon’s translation is idiosyncratic, but it is probably the earliest translation by a Japanese of a part of the OT based on the MT, although on examination it is found to have also used the Meiji Translation as a base, so this work should be considered a revision of an earlier text rather than a new translation. In his short preface to the third printing, dated May 7, 1923, Sakon tells about his long and difficult years in the USA, and apologizes for not fulfilling his ambition to retranslate the whole Bible. Here, indeed, he calls his work 改譯 (kaiyaku), retranslation.90 b.『創世記』 Genesis 1911; republished 1924 聖書改訳社 (Seisho Kaiyakusha) The copy of the 1911 edition I have seen is not as elegantly printed as the previous one, but the system of leaving spaces between each word or expression in a line is preserved (paperback, about 400 pages). The same system of writing the names of God is used, and titles and explanations

90 Sakon reports that 1,000 copies of the first edition were printed but only a few were sold and most were lost; the second printing had 500 copies most of which were sold, and now the third printing has been issued in 500 copies as well.



the translations of the hebrew bible

99

are added. Here too the text is reedited, according to source criticism, with an index at the end of the book for finding different passages. The 1924 printing is in hard-cover. As in the later edition of the Psalms, Sakon adds a short preface, dated October 8, 1924, in which he apologizes once more for his limited achievement. B-4 湯浅半月の諸翻訳 Different translations by Yuasa Hangetsu 1911–1939 Individual translator: Yuasa Hangetsu (湯浅半月) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT, former translations Yuasa Hangetsu (1858–1943) was an individual translator of many of the poetical books of the OT.91 He was also one of the pioneer poets of the ‘New Style Poetry’ (新体詩 shintaishi) of the Meiji Period, and probably the first Japanese scholar of Hebrew (preceding Sakon in studies and teaching, although most of his translations came later). From 1877 he studied for 8 years at the Doshisha, and graduated from its School of Theology in 1886. His long epic poem「十二の石塚」( Jūni no ishizuka, “Twelve Stone Mounds”)92 was accepted as his graduation paper. The poem has 688 lines, each containing 5–7 syllable units. It opens with the story of the Israelites entering the land of Canaan as told in the Book of Joshua, and focuses on the story of the biblical judge Ehud Ben Gera ( Jud. 3:15–30). With the biblical story as a background, the poet tells a story of Japanese samurai spirit, typical of the tradition in which he was raised. The poem was also considered the first Christian literary work in Japan. In 1885 Yuasa sailed to the USA to study OT and Semitic languages at Oberlin College and Yale University, and obtained a PhD with a dissertation on Proverbs. His thesis, which was later published in Japanese as『箴言 講義』Shingen kōgi—“Lectures on Proverbs” (1907, signed Yuasa Kichirō) 91  Hangetsu was his pen-name; his real name was Kichirō (吉郎). See NKRD, 1452; Sakon Y. 1964, 75–80; Doshisha 2003, 194–195. See also NSHS 279–280 (not always accurate in data on books). This translator was not mentioned at all by B. Schneider in his reviews of complete and partial Bible translations (1965, 1992, 2003). Portions of Yuasa’s translation of the Song of Songs and of Job appear in SKNK 221–227. 92 This poem appeared in many editions, individually and in collections. Some of the more accessible editions are in: Christian Poems 1977, 15–32; New Style Poems 2001, 47–93, including commentary.

100

chapter three

and included his own translation of the book, is considered the first original critical work of the OT in Japan (Sakon Y. 1964, 79–80). After returning to Japan in 1891, he taught at Doshisha’s School of Theology and elsewhere, and served as a Protestant minister in Kyoto. He went back to America in 1902 to specialize in Library Studies in Chicago, and on his return in 1904, was appointed director of Kyoto Prefecture Library. He published widely in several fields, and was well-known as an art connoisseur. His OT translations appeared in various editions and some remained in manuscript. He finally republished most of his work in a series of individual, small size, paperback volumes, during the late 1930’s: a. 『ヨブ記』The Book of Job, 1936, アルパ社書店 (Alfa-sha Shoten) b. 『箴言』Proverbs, 1936, アルパ社書店 c. 『詩篇』Psalms, 1937, アルパ社書店 d. 『傳道之書、雅歌』Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, 1937, アルパ社書店 e. 『イザヤ書』The Book of Isaiah, 1939, 教文館 (Kyōbunkan) f. 『第二イザヤ』Second Isaiah, 1939, 教文館 These volumes each contain an introduction, followed by the text (sometimes with titles added), and some interpretations or explanations. Following the title page of each volume, there is a page containing one verse in Hebrew script, apparently in the translator’s hand, followed by its translation in calligraphy, and the translator’s stamp. The translations are in the classical style, and often follow a special form of versification designed by Yuasa himself (see examples in the Chapters 5&6). B-5 カトリック文語翻訳 Catholic Classical Translation (Partial: Genesis, Psalms 1–50) 1941–1954 Individual translation: Shibutani Osamu (渋谷治) Denomination: Catholic Main source: MT, Vulgate, Septuagint As mentioned above (2.3), the Catholic Church in Japan did not have its own version of the OT until the 1950’s. In 1937 there was an attempt to initiate a Catholic committee translation of the OT, but after two years the project was abandoned in favor of the work of one man, Shibutani Osamu (1892–1972) (known also as Fr. Joseph O. Shibutani), who worked



the translations of the hebrew bible

101

with Chiba Ichiju, his assistant and secretary. The translation was based on the third edition of Biblia Hebraica (Schneider 2003, 219). Shibutani, who was baptized at age 20, studied commerce in Osaka and Tokyo (NKRD, 623). He worked for the Mitsui Company in Hankow, China, but quit when he felt the calling for a religious life, and went to study in Rome in 1922. He was ordained in 1928 in Innsbruck, and on returning to Japan served in the Okayama Church. In 1930 he was put in charge of the Institute for the Study of Catholic Thought and Science (カトリック思想・科学研究所) in Okayama (NKRD 307), through which he published several books, as well as the magazine Seisho Shisō (see C-11d below). However, in 1939 it was decided to move Shibutani to Tokyo so he could focus on the translation of the OT, and therefore the magazine was suspended and the institute closed. Schneider describes Shibutani’s work as follows (Schneider 1965, 82): The Book of Genesis, done in a highly classical style, was published first in June, 1941, but then immediately withdrawn because of the many errata owing to the inexperienced war-time apprentice printers, to be republished six months later on December 13, 1941. A second edition appeared after the war in 1952. Genesis completed, the translation of Exodus was begun but then laid aside at urgent requests received, in favor of the Psalms. The first fifty Psalms were completed during the hectic conditions of the air raids in Tokyo, necessitating two changes of residence. The first proofs were in hand in May 1945, but it was only five years later, in September 1950 that they finally appeared in print.

At the end of the war Shibutani was sent to Nagasaki as a pastor, and his work on the translation discontinued, although he published several studies of the Bible. a.『創世記』 Genesis 1941; 1952 カトリック聖書刊行協会 (Katorikku Seisho Kankō Kyōkai) (1941) 中央出版社 (Chūō Shuppansha) (1952) The 1941 printing of Genesis is quite an impressive little volume. The title appears on the outside front cover in Hebrew (‫)בראשית‬. Following 8 pages of introduction, the translation itself is printed on 246 pages of thin paper. The translator divided the book into two parts: 1. “History of Creation” (sōseishi) 1:1–11:9; and 2. “History of the Patriarchs” (zokuchōshi)

102

chapter three

11:10–50:26, with further subdivisions into episodes. Some explanations are printed in the inside margins. This is followed by 109 pages of appendices, including further interpretations of each chapter, elaborate genealogical tables, and an index of the names of people, places and nations. Finally there are 3 maps, printed in color. The 1952 edition has the same page layout and number of pages.93 In the introduction there is no direct reference to the method of translation, but according to the explanatory notes on the first page, the Hebrew text was used as a base, and was checked against the Vulgate and Septuagint versions, with some words which are missing in the Hebrew text added from the other two versions. b.『聖詩篇（上巻） 』 Psalms 1–50 1950; 1954 中央出版社 (Chūō Shuppansha) As for the translation of the first 50 Psalms, apart from the 1950 edition mentioned by Schneider, there was also a 1954 reprint. In this edition, short explanations are given at the bottom of the page, and longer ones at the back of the book. Each Psalm is given a title. As in the translation of Genesis, there is also a long introduction. B-6 寺田博の諸翻訳 Different translations by Terada Hiroshi 1946–1951 Individual translation: Terada Hiroshi (寺田博) Denomination: Protestant Main source: (?) Terada Hiroshi was a Protestant minister who served in Nagano, according to the colophon of his Genesis translation. He was born in Osaka Prefecture in 1903, and graduated from Nihon Shingakko (日本神学校). Soon after WWII, he published two volumes of OT translations.

93 NSHS, 293, mentions only one printing of Genesis. A portion of the translation of Genesis appears also in SKNK 244–249.



the translations of the hebrew bible

103

a.『隠れたる現実と隠れたる現実人　－　恩寵学道アモス書』 Hidden reality and hidden reality man—Amos and the road to grace 1946 新教出版社 (Shinkyō Shuppansha) In his introduction to this small-sized paperback book, Terada explains the nature of the Book of Amos and its relevance to contemporary Japan. The biblical text is divided into small portions, each including only a few verses, followed by interpretations of a Christian nature, originally given as church sermons during the war years. Each translated portion is followed by the words “individual translation” in parentheses. Explanatory titles are given to each biblical chapter. The book ends with a chapter titled “Amos’ position in the history of world religion”. b.『創世記―私訳と講解(1)危急と約束とのなかに立てるノア  第一章―第11章』 Genesis: An Individual Translation and Discourse (1) Noah in the Emergency and Promise—Chapters 1–11 1951 新教出版社 (Shinkyō Shuppansha) This is a translation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in the same fashion as the earlier book, although this one is in hard cover. The translator says in the preface that Genesis is not merely an introduction to the Bible, but the basis for the whole book. The material in this book was given as sermons before the war, and was completed before the earlier one (see also NSHS 343–344). B-7 『ソロモン－萬人の聖書』   Solomon—All people’s Bible 1947 生治社 (Seijisha) Individual translation: Ogaeri Yoshio (魚返善雄) Denomination: Non-Christian Main source: MT, English & Chinese translations This is the rare case of an individual translation of portions of the OT by a person declaring himself to be a non-Christian. This slim paperback

104

chapter three

book, printed on poor-quality post-war paper, contains the translation of Ecclesiastes, which the translator calls お説教 (osekkyō, “sermons”), and of Proverbs, which he calls ことわざ (kotowaza, which also means “proverbs”, but is less lofty a word than the common Japanese title of the book, borrowed from the Chinese). The title page has a hand-drawn illustration of a bull and some sheep. This book has not been mentioned before in any of the literature on the Japanese Bible. According to the colophon, Ogaeri was a certified teacher of English and Chinese, and a lecturer at Tokyo University. In his afterword Ogaeri says that his translation of the two biblical books was made in the contemporary Japanese language. He states that he would have liked to consult more texts and interpretations than he was able to, but due to the hardships of the war he had to make do with the books he had at home, and he hoped to improve his translation in the future. He then says that although not an expert, he used the original Hebrew text (printed in Berlin, 1931). He also used the Meiji (A-1) and Yuasa’s (B-4b) translations, as well as several Chinese, English and French translations, all of which he describes in some detail, commenting on their merits and demerits. He also mentions some scholarly studies of the OT. Ogaeri says that although the two books are attributed to Solomon, it did not really matter whether he had written them or not; he compares the authorship question to the debate on whether Confucius had actually written some of the songs in the Book of Songs (詩経). According to him, it is valuable to read the Bible just like other great ancient works of East and West. He ends his afterword by saying that he was not a Christian, and had no intention of preaching Christianity; his only aim was to allow the Japanese people to be able to read one of the world’s ancient classics easily. It is interesting to note once again to what degree the Bible, and even the OT, was identified with Christianity in Japan, so that anyone presenting a book that had to do with it was expected to be a Christian. To a considerable degree, this is still the case today. However, just before his above disclaimer, Ogaeri writes about the importance of the Bible in the survival of the Jewish people, and how even after they were defeated by other peoples and driven off the land on which the blood of their ancestors had been shed, they were able to find a new direction and a new life. Ogaeri must have been thinking about the future of the Japanese after they had just been defeated in the war, wishing to give them new hope, and perhaps a new morality, which is biblical but not necessarily Christian. This should also be considered against the



the translations of the hebrew bible

105

background of a certain Christian revival that occurred during the first post-war years; Christian literature flourished, and Ogaeri must have felt the need to distinguish his book from it. In the table of contents Ogaeri gives a title to each chapter of the two biblical books he translated, but these titles are not repeated in the text itself. In the book, the numbers of chapters are given, but not of verses. The translation is in a clear and simple ‘colloquial’ style, much more original and direct than that of the ‘Colloquial Translation’ (A-2) published by JBS eight years later. B-8 『旧約聖書抄』   Selections from the Old Testament 1947; 1953 Published by: 中央出版社 (Chūō Shuppansha) Individual translation: Hagiwara Akira (萩原晃) Denomination: Catholic Main source: Vulgate This is a short version of the OT and the Apocrypha according to the Catholic tradition. The translator, Hagiwara Akira, was a Jesuit priest who was born in Yamagata and served in Hiroshima. The translation was prepared before WWII and published soon after it (NSHS 302–303; this translation was not mentioned by Schneider). This book has about 750 pages in small format, and is printed on poor quality post-war paper. A short introduction is given to each biblical book, and titles are added before chapters. In his two-page introduction the translator explains that the books of the OT were written originally in Hebrew, Chaldaic and Greek over a period of more than a thousand years, and are divided into three parts: historical books (21), ethical books (7), and prophetic books (17). He then proceeds to specify the books, and gives some background to the historical ones, and tells of the relevance of the prophetic ones to Christianity. He sums up by saying that the OT is a long and difficult to read book in its entirety by the common person, and therefore he had prepared this abbreviated version and translated it “as faithful to the original as possible”. Hagiwara does not indicate from which language he translated his selection, although he must have relied on the Vulgate, judging from the deuterocanonical books included, and the Latinized form of names, such as モイゼ (Moize) or イザイアス

106

chapter three

(Izaiasu). Still, considering some of the translated passages, it is probable that he also used Hebrew and Greek Bibles, as well as contemporary scholarship. The translator thanked Father Kopp [?] SJ for his assistance, and signed his introduction on April 6, 1947, at the Noborichō Catholic Church in Hiroshima. In 1953 Hagiwara published a second edition of his translation, which is somewhat longer (830 pages), and is printed on thin paper of much better quality than the first edition. The introduction to the first edition has been slightly revised, with “Aramaic” replacing “Chaldaic”. The short introduction to the second edition, which is not signed, states that the reason for this new edition is the greater interest in the OT which is evident in both Europe and Japan. Based on readers’ responses, additional biblical chapters were translated. Indeed, comparing the detailed tables of contents in both editions reveals numerous changes. Also, while the material in the first edition was divided into 30 numbered parts, in the new edition the division of the MT into three major parts is loosely followed; the parts are “Historical Books” (Pentateuch, Former Prophets, apocryphal books), “Prophetic Books” (Later Prophets, Daniel, Baruch), and “Moral (kyōkun) Books” (Writings). The book was entirely reset for this edition. B-9 旧約聖書（文語訳）改訳（部分） －『詩篇―改訳第一巻』『詩 篇―改訳』『ヨブ記―改訳』 Revised Classical-Style Old Testament (Partial: Psalms, Job) 1948; 1951; 1950 日本聖書協会 ( JBS) Committee translation: headed by Tsuru Senji (都留仙次) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT The need to revise the Meiji Translation became evident in the early 20th century, and in 1917 the revised translation of the NT was published. In 1926 an association was formed to study terminology and methods of translation with the intention of revising the OT, but it did not issue any translations or revisions (Schneider 2003, 213). The association chairman was Tsuru Senji, who also headed the subsequent revision committee (described in this section), and years later the committee for the ‘colloquial’ version of the OT published in 1955 (A-2). A committee for revising the OT translation was formed by JBS in 1941, again headed by Tsuru Senji. In order to decide whether to revise the



the translations of the hebrew bible

107

older translation in ‘classical’ or ‘colloquial’ style, 2,000 questionnaires were sent to church members to ask their opinion; although 60% of the respondents were in favor of the ‘colloquial’ style, the committee opted for a classical revision ( JBS 1955, 1). According to Schneider (ibid.; see also NSHS 224–228): A general organizational meeting was held at Kanto College in Yokohama in July of that year. Actual work began February 7, 1942, with twenty members, five of whom formed the central committee. Work went on through and after the World War II. Many specialists in various fields served as advisors, among whom after the war special mention is made of Rabbi Mantle (“Manteru” in rōmaji) of the Occupation forces. In 1948 a trial edition of Psalms 1–42 [actually 1–41] was printed and circulated for comment and later the Book of Job (1950). But by 1950 when the whole manuscript was almost complete the need for a revised classical version of the Old Testament seemed superseded by the need of a standard colloquial version of both the Old and New Testaments. So the complete classical version of the Old Testament was officially received in manuscript form but never published. Instead it became the basis of an entirely new version in colloquial style. [. . .].

In spite of the difficulties of the war, about 80% of the revised version was completed, but it was shelved, and only two OT books were ever made public. The 1948 edition of Psalms 1–41 is printed as a soft-cover booklet on poor quality post-war paper. There is a one-page foreword, in which the members of the committee apologize for having completed only half of the task of revising the OT due to the hardships of war. They also say that due to the post-war language reform they felt the need to ask the public’s opinion about the renewal of the language used in the translation of the Bible, and that a future ‘colloquial’ translation would also be carefully considered. The foreword is followed by one page of explanations of the translation, drawing attention to the use of the original Hebrew text, the replacement of ehoba with shu (Lord), and a few linguistic principles. The 1951 edition of the Psalms is also in booklet form, but of a somewhat better quality. It has the full 150 Psalms, but without any introduction. The 1950 translation of Job was also published as a poorquality booklet, without an introduction or any explanations. According to the colophon, 10,000 copies of this booklet were printed. B-10 『ショート・バイブル   旧約篇』 The Short Bible 1954

108

chapter three

巖松堂書店 (Iwamatsdō Shoten) Translation: Katayama Tetsu (片山哲) with others Denomination: Protestant Main source: English This is a translation of the English-language book The Short Bible: An American Translation, Edited by Edgar J. Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith, and published by the University of Chicago in The Modern Library series in 1933. The NT volume was published the previous year, and a combined volume was published in 1955 (in the original English book the OT, NT and some of the Apocrypha are all in the same volume). This version has an internal order all of its own. In the preface to the original book, the editor Goodspeed writes that in order for the book— which was intended to serve as an introduction rather than a substitute for the Bible—to be most useful, “it should present the various books in the chronological order of their composition, so that earlier religious ideas come first and more developed ones later” (Goodspeed & Smith 1933, v). The book starts with Amos and 5 other minor prophets, goes on to Deuteronomy, then to Habakkuk and the three major prophets, then to Samuel, Kings and other smaller books, before reaching the rest of the Pentateuch. Psalms appear towards the end, followed by Esther and Ecclesiastes, all in shortened form. Tobita Shigeo, who was involved in this translation, wrote about it as follows (Tobita, 1971, 57): . . . as far as I know, the first attempt to abolish honorifics from the descriptive parts of the Bible was made by the translators of Goodspeed’s Short Bible in 1954. The translation work was planned and supervised by Mr. Tetsu Katayama, ex-Prime Minister of Japan, and I was one of the chief translators. Frankly speaking, the New Testament part was an utter failure, mainly because of the extremely careless printing and proofreading, but I think the Old Testament part proved to be a creditable achievement. The merit must be ascribed to the hearty cooperation of Dr. Kōki Nakazawa, whose advice that we should discard all the honorific words in the descriptive and narrative parts was, among other things, most gratefully accepted by our translation team.

Katayama Tetsu (1887–1978) was raised as a Christian by his mother. On graduating from Tokyo University he became a social activist, a lawyer and a socialist Diet member. After the war he was appointed as Japan’s first socialist prime minister ( June 1947–February 1948). He remained an



the translations of the hebrew bible

109

active politician until 1963.94 According to Tobita Shigeo, the translation was planned and supervised by Katayama, but several translators actually took part in it.95 In his preface to the book Katayama says that “Christianity is truly the religion of revolutionary humanity, and it has the power to build a free, peaceful and socialist society” (my translation). B-11 『詩篇―日常の祈祷書として』   Psalms: A book of daily prayer (Shihen: Nichijō no kitōsho toshite) 1956 エンデルレ書店 (Enderle Shoten) Individual translation: Julius Abri SVD, with Hiratsuka Takeshi (平塚武) Denomination: Catholic Main source: MT, various translations Fr. Julius Abri SVD, of the Divine Word Seminary in Nagoya, published the first complete Catholic version of the Psalms in a simplified classical style in February 1956. He translated from the Hebrew and was assisted by Hiratsuka Takeshi.96 The book is in small pocketsize format, and contains nearly 300 pages. In his forward Abri explains that the Psalms is originally a book of prayers, that were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and is still essential for offering daily prayers to God (tenshu, the term then used by the Catholic Church). He mentions the translation commissioned by the then Pope for that purpose.97 Apart from this recent Latin translation which was based on the MT, he mentions Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica and several German, French and English Catholic translations as the basis for his edition, but no Japanese translations. Abri points out that since the book is meant to be used for prayer, he avoided commentary, and directs the reader interested in further knowledge to the Psalms edition by Shibutani (B-5), and other reference books. He acknowledges the help of some priests with the research, and of Hiratsuka Takeshi with the Japanese translation.

94 NSHS 316–318; NKRD 297; KEJ V. 4 167. 95 Tobita 1971, 57; see also Toyoda 1956, 99. 96 Yanagita 1958, K1; Schneider 1965, 83; Schneider 2003, 219. 97 Liber Psalmorum Pontifici Instituti Biblici, Rome, 1945. See also A-3 above.

110

chapter three

The forward is followed by about 40 pages of general explanations on the nature of the Psalms, the names of God and other subjects. Then come the psalms themselves, divided into five books as in the MT, but numbered as in the Vulgate. The original Hebrew titles are omitted, and a descriptive title is given to each psalm. Each verse begins on a new line. In spite of the liturgical purpose of the book, furigana, which would facilitate reading, is supplied only in very few cases. Finally there are 20 pages of explanations on how to use the Psalms as a daily prayer book. B-12 松田明三郎の諸翻訳 Different translations by Matsuda Akemirō 1954–1967 Individual translation: Matsuda Akemirō (松田明三郎) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT, and ancient and modern translations Matsuda Akemirō (1894–1975) was a biblical scholar.98 After graduating from Kwansei Gakuin’s School of Theology in 1919, he worked as a Protestant minister. He then specialized in OT Studies at Emory and Northwestern Universities in the USA. After returning to Japan in 1927, he taught first at his alma mater, and then at Tokyo Union Theological Seminary (東京神学大学), and published several biblical studies. He also translated philosophy books and published poetry collections. a.『ヨブ記注解』 Job commentary (Yobuki chūkai) 1954 日本基督教団出版部   (Nihon Kirisutokyōdan Shuppanbu) The title of this book does not indicate that it contains an original translation, but in fact it does. It is a 500-page volume printed on low quality post-war paper, with a long introduction followed by the text with detailed commentary. An appendix contains a translation of “the Babylonian Job”. Matsuda’s translation is one of the earliest in the ‘colloquial’ style.

98 NKRD, 1326. His translation of Proverbs is mentioned briefly in Schneider 1992, 92; see also NSHS 333–334.



the translations of the hebrew bible

111

b.『箴言―私訳と注解』 Proverbs: personal translation and commentary (Shingen: shiyaku to chūkai) 1967 日本基督教団出版部   (Nihon Kirisutokyōdan Shuppanbu) Just like his earlier work, Matsuda’s translation of Proverbs is a highly scholarly one, and the book has an extremely long introduction. Following every few verses in translation there is an elaborate commentary, which in some cases also explains the meaning of the original Hebrew words. B-13 中沢洽樹の諸翻訳 Different translations by Nakazawa Kōki 1968–1990 Individual translation: Nakazawa Kōki (中沢洽樹) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT Several individual translations were published by the biblical scholar Nakazawa Kōki (1915–1997). Nakazawa studied History of Religion at Tokyo University, and OT Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He taught at Rikkyō University, and in 1960 published a long critical article on the ‘Colloquial Translation’ in its magazine, mentioned above (A-2), and included later in his book on Bible Studies in Japan (1968). His translations include:99 a.『世界の名著、12、聖書』 Great books of the world: 12. The Bible (Sekai no Meichō: 12. Seisho) Editor: Maeda Gorō (前田護郎) 1968; 1978; 2004—separate edition 中央公論社 (Chūō Kōronsha) This single volume in a series of Eastern and mostly Western famous books—religious, philosophical, political, scientific etc.—totaling several dozen volumes, includes a foreword on the Bible by the editor Maeda

99 The following three translations are mentioned briefly by Schneider 1992, 92–93; NSHS 342 mentions only Job.

112

chapter three

Gorō, OT translations by Nakazawa (Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah and Ecclesiastes, all shortened, pp. 55–294), and then NT translations by Maeda (for which a similar number of pages is allotted).100 In the new 1978 edition of the same series, this book came out as volume 13; the 8th printing came out in 1998. The translation was reissued in 2004 in a paperback edition, as number W39 in the same publisher’s series “Chuo Classics”, under the title 『旧約聖書』(OT),   and includes an introduction by Sekine Seizō (see A-12). This is an indication of the high regard in which Nakazawa’s unique style of translation is still held (see 6.1.2 below). b.『ヨブ記―新訳と略注』 Job: new translation and abbreviated notes (Yobuki: shinyaku to ryakuchū)101 1991 新教出版社 (Shinkyō Shuppansha) c.『イザヤ書―新訳と略注』 Isaiah: new translation and abbreviated notes (Izayasho: shinyaku to ryakuchū) 1990 新教出版社 (Shinkyō Shuppansha) B-14 『聖書の世界』   The World of the Bible 1970–1974 講談社 (Kōdansha) Different individual translators Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT The series Seisho no sekai (The World of the Bible) was published by Kōdansha in 1970. It includes translations of most of the books of the Bible, some fully and some partially translated. The translation was done 100 This translation was praised for its vividness in Tobita 1971, 57. For a more critical review see Sekine 1969. See also Shinmi 1969, 10–13. 101  Nakazaw published his translation earlier in his study『ヨブ記のモチーフ』The Motifs in Job—translation and interpretation (Yobuki no mochīfu), 山本書店 (Yamamoto Shoten), 1978.



the translations of the hebrew bible

113

by various competent scholars, with the aim of publishing “easy to understand” translations.102 The editorial supervision was by Sekine Masao. Volumes 1–4 of the series included translations of OT and Apocryphal books, and volumes 5–6 included translations of NT books. Four years later, a supplementary series of 4 volumes was published; in this series, vol. 1–2 included further translations from the OT and the Apocrypha, and vols. 3–4 further translations from the NT. Each volume contains a long introduction, the biblical text divided into large units with explanations, and many color and black and white illustrations. The following are the volumes dedicated to the OT in both series, original (here a–d), and supplementary (here e–f ): a.   『聖書の世界 第1巻・旧約 I』(1970)—Kida Ken’ichi (木田献一), Nishimura Toshiaki (西村俊昭). Including: Genesis (except for chap. 36); Exodus (chaps. 1–24, 33–34); Numbers (chaps. 10–33); Deuteronomy (chaps. 31–32, 34). b.   『聖書の世界 第2巻・旧約 II』(1970)—Namiki Kōichi (並木 浩一), Muraoka Takemitsu (村岡崇光), Onodera Yukiya (小野寺 幸也), Takahashi Masao (高橋正男), Nishimura Toshiaki (西村俊昭). Including: Joshua; Judges; I Samuel (except for chap. 19:18–24); II Samuel (except for chaps. 21–24); I Kings (chaps. 1–2). c.   『聖書の世界 第3巻・旧約 III』(1970)—Sekine Masao (関根正 雄), Muraoka Takamitsu (村岡崇光). Including: I Kings (chaps. 3–22); II Kings; Ezra; Nehemiah; also: 1 Maccabees (from the Apocrypha). d.   『聖書の世界 第4巻・旧約 IV』(1970)—Gotō Kōichirō (後藤 光一郎), Shinmi Hiroshi (新見宏). Including: Psalms (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19: 1–7, 27, 47, 65, 67, 85, 93, 95, 97, 98, 104, 121, 122, 124, 126, 128, 134, 135, 136, 137, 145, 148); Lamentations; Job (except for chaps. 32–37); Song of Songs; Ruth; Jonah; Esther; Daniel (Chaps. 1–7); also (from the Apocrypha): Judith, Tobit, I Esdras (chaps. 3–4), Sirach, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon. e.   『知恵と黙示 聖書の世界 別巻1・旧約 I』(1974)—Sekine Masao (関根正雄), Shinmi Hiroshi (新見宏). Including: Proverbs; Daniel (chaps. 8–12); also (from the Apocrypha): Wisdom of Solomon, IV Esdras (chaps. 3–14), and Enoch.

102 Schneider 1992, 93; his description of the contents of each volume is sometimes inaccurate. The translation is praised for its clarity and its use of plain language in Tobita 1971, 57–58. For a detailed review by several scholars see Tokita et al. 1971.

114

chapter three

f.   『預言書 聖書の世界 別巻2・旧約 II』(1974)—Namiki Kōichi (並木浩一), Sakon Kiyoshi (左近淑). Including: Amos; Isaiah (chaps. 40–66). B-15 『詩篇―ともに祈り、ともに歌うー現代語訳』   Psalms: prayed together, sung together—modern language translation 1972 あかし書房 (Akashi Shobō) Committee translation Denomination: Catholic Main source: MT, various translations This is another Catholic translation of the Psalms, in a more ‘colloquial’ style than earlier translations (see B-1, B-2, B-11). It was translated by the Catholic Church’s Committee for the Liturgy, Subcommittee for the Psalms, which was comprised of three members: Takahashi Shigeyuki OCSO (高橋重幸) (b. 1932), Teranishi Hideo (寺西英夫) (b. 1929), and Tsuchiya Yoshimasa SJ (土屋吉正) (b. 1926).103 According to the preface, this translation is based on the MT, while the Septuagint, Vulgate, and other ancient and modern translations were consulted. Page layout is spacious, with comments and alternative versions printed in the bottom third of the page. The translator’s preface explains the methods and sources, and additional information is supplied at the back of the book, including maps of the Holy Land. An interpretive title is given for each Psalm (for example, ‘Two ways’ is the title added to Psalm 1), but the original Hebrew titles are omitted. Uniquely to this translation, only kami is used for the different names of God, printed in bold when it represents YHWH.104 The word shu (Lord), which is used for that purpose in other Japanese translations, is reserved for places where the text is supposed to refer to Jesus Christ.105 It seems that here as well as in other ways the translation strives for the presumed meaning, rather than the literal one.

103 NSHS 336–7; Schneider 1992, 94. 104 Except in places where the text says “YHWH is his name”, where the transliteration ya-we is used. 105 The translators’ explanation for their choice is in the preface, 7–8.



the translations of the hebrew bible

115

B-16 佐々木二郎の諸翻訳 Different translations by Sasaki Jirō (佐々木二郎) 1972–1976 Individual translation Denomination: Protestant, Holiness Church Main source: (?) Sasaki Jirō (b. 1933) studied at Tokyo Union Theological Seminary (東京 神学大学) and served as a minister in the Holiness Church. He published translations of two books of the prophets:106 a.『イザヤフー』 Isaiah 1972 ホーリネス教会 (Hōrinesu Kyōkai) b.『エレミヤ記』 The Book of Jeremiah 1976 ホーリネス教会 (Hōrinesu Kyōkai) Although two different sources mention these books, I was not able to locate copies of them in any library or specialized bookstore in Japan. 3.3 Fragmentary Translations, Early Digests and Partial Translations in Magazines This section includes different kinds of translations, some very early and some quite late. Among the very early ones we find translation attempts by Japanese, some of them Christian and some not, as well as by foreigners, some of them missionaries and some not. These translations bear witness to, among other things, the great interest that the Japanese had early on in getting to know the Western Bible, in an attempt to understand Western culture. Due to the long anti-Christian tradition in Japan, and the animosity towards Western powers which was still prevalent in the Bakumatsu and early Meiji Periods, it is not surprising that not all of these

106 NSHS 335; Schneider 1992, 93.

116

chapter three

efforts were friendly. One book not listed below, but worth mentioning briefly, was a very early translation (1875) of a book by Henry Baul, Selfcontradiction of the Bible (1872), which was translated by Higashi Kan’ichi (干河岸貫一), with a self-declared anti-Christian agenda in mind (Ebisawa 1981, 207–208). Still, this book earns the distinction of being one of the earliest in modern Japan to contain biblical passages. Indeed, some books and pamphlets that are not strictly translations are included among the very early items listed below, because of their novelty; books of this kind published in later periods were not included.107 C-1 「開闢のあらまし」   “Digest of Creation” 1866 『海外新聞』(Kaigai   Shimbun) Individual translation: Hamada Hikozō (浜田彦蔵) Denomination: Catholic Main source: English; Chinese? This is a partial adaptation of the Book of Genesis by Hamada Hikozō, known also as Joseph Heco [read: Hiko] (ジョセフ彦), or America Hikozō (1837–1897).108 Hamada was a boy of 13 in 1850, when the ship he was sailing on from Tokyo to Harima was wrecked, and after 21 days of drifting at sea he and 16 others were rescued by an American ship and taken to San Francisco, where they stayed for a year. In 1852 they were sent to Macao so that they might return to Japan with Commodore Perry’s expedition, but Hamada and two others returned to California, while the rest of the group was still waiting to join Perry. Hamada ended up in Baltimore, where he went to a Catholic school and was baptized by the bishop in 1854 (Heco 1895, I:146–147). He spent several more years studying and 107 For example, books of OT stories, retold for women or children. One of the earliest such books was published in two parts in 1878 and 1882, before the complition of the Meiji Translation, and is written fully in hiragana; cf. Bibliography, Stories 1878, Stories 1882. 108 KEJ, V. 3, 89; NKRD 277, 683; NSHS 151–153; Ebisawa 1981, 159–162. Hamada’s memoires and diaries were edited and published by James Murdoch; see Heco 1895. His story was also told in the form of a fact-based novel, titled Amerika Hikozō, by Yoshimura Akira (1999); for the English translation see Yoshimura 2004. Yoshimura mentions Hamada’s newspaper, but not the part including Bible translation, and generally downplays his conversion and the religious aspect of his life; however, in his memoires Hamada himself mentions going to church on several occasions and expresses his gratefulness to “Almighty God” for his good fortune, for example I:170.



the translations of the hebrew bible

117

working in the USA, and was the first Japanese to obtain American citizenship. He returned to Japan in June 1859, worked briefly with the American consulate in Kanagawa, and later became a businessman in Yokohama. He offered assistance to both Catholic and Protestant missionaries who arrived in Japan. In 1864 Hamada started publishing the first modern newspaper in Japan, Kaigai Shimbun (海外新聞) (Overseas News) in Yokohama, with the assistance of Kishida Ginkō (see 2.3 above), but it was abandoned after only 26 issues when Hamada decided to move to Nagasaki on business.109 This was not a daily newspaper, but more like a bi-weekly or a monthly magazine. On its front cover was a wood-carving illustration of Tokyo Bay with foreign and native boats, Mount Fuji in the background and at its foot Yokohama, with the flags of the United States, Great Britain, and (probably) France flying at high mast. Each edition had a few pages, printed from woodblocks and written in cursive script,110 and included news picked up from foreign newspapers and magazines, with occasional advertisements. Beginning with issue no. 18, Hamada started publishing a “History of America” serially, as well as a digest of the Book of Genesis. He continued it in issue no. 19 and then in issues 22–26 (April–September 1866), under the changing titles “Digest of Creation” (first installment), “Digest of World Creation” (next three installments), and “Digest of Western Creation” (final three). This was done at considerable risk, since Christianity was still officially banned in Japan. For that reason Hamada avoids mentioning Christianity or the Bible by name. The first installment can be translated as follows: “There is a man who received the law from God (神), and wrote in a book how the world had begun originally. His name is Moses (モーズス). According to the history he told, first God created the heaven and the earth, but the earth was still without form, and there was not even one thing on it . . .” (see 6.1.1 below). The text carries on for a few more sentences describing the creation up to the day of rest (Genesis 1:1–2:3). The second installment is shorter than the first, and focuses on the story of the Flood and the nations that emerged after it. Here it is mentioned also that the source is a book called “Genesis” (ゼネセス). However, the writer includes in his digest

109 In his memoires Hamada mentions his paper only briefly; see Heco 1895, II:53. 110  The earliest version of the newspaper was hand-written by Hamada and his partners.

118

chapter three

geographical and political information not found in the Book of Genesis, and these data become the focus of the next installments. All in all, only a little of the Bible is actually given here, but the distinction of being the first publication in modern Japan citing from the Bible should probably go to Hamada-Heco’s digest. C-2 『西洋夜話』   Western Night Stories (Seiyō-yobanashi) 1871–73 Published by: 養愚堂 (Yōgudō) (?) Individual translation: Ishikawa Tsune (石川彝) Denomination: Not Christian Main sources: English This is a book retelling some of the OT stories. Its first volume was published in 1871, when Christianity was still banned. The book was published in 5 small traditional Japanese volumes, parts 1–3 of which concern the Bible, while parts 4–5 contain stories of Arabic and Persian traditions.111 The book is printed from woodblocks, and contains illustrations in Chinese style, such as of Adam and Eve or of Moses found on the Nile by Pharaoh’s daughter (both in the first volume). Ishikawa translated from an English book by Peter Parley (pseudonym of Samuel G. Goodrich, 1793– 1860), Universal History, which since 1876 was used widely as a textbook by the Japanese Ministry of Education. Ishikawa’s book too was apparently widely read.112 Not much is known about the translator, Ishikawa Tsune, not even the dates of his birth and death. It is known that he was a diligent student— and later a teacher—of English in Yokohama during the early Meiji Period, and that he was involved in different translation projects (NKRD 103). C-3 『西洋教草一名愛敬篇』   Western Doctrines, or the Book of Love and Respect (Seiyō-kyōgusa ichimei aikyōhen) 1873

111  Ebisawa 1981, 198–200; NKRD 773. 112 Ebisawa 1981, 203 n. 2; NKRD 772.



the translations of the hebrew bible

119

Published by: 大阪書肆 (Ōsaka Shoshi) Individual translation: Nagata Hōsei (永田方正) Denomination: Not Christian at the time Main sources: English, Chinese Nagata Hōsei (1844–1911) seems to have been the first Japanese to translate parts of both the OT and the NT.113 This is true at least for the modern period, assuming that some Japanese, beginning with the famous Anjirō, took part in some translation efforts during the Kirishitan period. Schneider argues that Nagata seems definitely to have been the first Japanese within Japan, and the first of any translator, to have published parts of the OT (Schneider 2003, 212). But this statement should again be qualified if we take into account the work of Hamada Hikozō (C-1 above). The book Seiyō-kyōgusa was printed from woodblocks in three thin traditional volumes, on unnumbered pages (each volume contains approximately 65 pages). The introduction is written in cursive script, the text in mixed kanji and katakana. The first volume, following the introduction and a long table of contents, includes the translation of Proverbs 1–23, some chapters fully translated and some partially. The second volume includes short excerpts from four of the five books of the Pentateuch, excluding Genesis, and from several NT books, and the third excerpts from the four Gospels.114 Nagata Hōsei was born in Edo to a samurai family, and later lived in Osaka. It is not known how he came to study English and the Bible, but he must have met with some missionaries. Nagata wrote this as a kind of study book on Western morality. At the time he was involved in publishing translated books in Osaka. He wrote it with the intention of making it readable even “to children and women”.115 He says that he worked from an English Bible, but also consulted the Chinese translation. At the time Nagata was not yet a Christian; he was baptized only in 1900, aged 57. He spent many years in Hokkaido, publishing studies of the Ainu language and teaching in different colleges. His last years were spent in destitution in Tokyo.

113 NKRD 990–991; NSHS 110–124; Fujiwara 1974, 51–54; Ebisawa 1981, 200–203. 114 NSHS 121–122. For a portion of Nagata’s translation of Matthew, see SKNK 52–53. 115 Cited in NSHA 119; Ebisawa 1981, 201.

120

chapter three

C-4 Different translations by C.M. Williams 1863–1879 Individual translation: C.M. Williams (with the help of others) Denomination: Protestant, the Episcopalian Church Main source: English The American Episcopalian Church missionary Channing Moore Williams (see above 2.3) arrived in Nagasaki in 1859, after working for four years in Shanghai.116 He later returned several times to the United States and China, but spent most of the following 40 years in Japan, first as his church’s Bishop to China and Japan (1866), and later its Bishop to Japan (1874).117 Williams was the main driving force behind the creation of the Nippon Seikōkai, or The Anglican-Episcopal Church in Japan, uniting missionaries from various Anglican-related churches and their Japanese converts (1887). Among his many enterprises were several partial biblical translations. He was invited to join the committee of missionaries who were translating the Bible, but refused; he often relied on their translations, but when the need arose to translate certain passages where no translation was yet available, he translated himself or with the aid of his church members.118 Still, as an exception to his rule, he became deeply involved in the translation of the Psalms for the Meiji Translation (see in detail 5.5 below). a.『十誡問答』 The Ten Commandments—Questions and Answers 1873 (?) [extant 1863 version] ? (Publisher unknown; Place: Yokohama?) This booklet of small proportions, with 40 double pages in the traditional Japanese style, is written in kanji and cursive hiragana and printed from woodblocks. Nothing is indicated on the title page or inside, apart from the above-mentioned title, and therefore the place and year of publication

116 NKRD 155; Tucker 1999. 117 In 1877 the Episcopalian Church appointed Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, originally an East-European Jew who translated the OT into colloquial Chinese, as its Bishop to China; see Eber 1999 and 2.2 above. 118 Ebisawa 1981, 139–145, 261–266; Yazaki 1965.



the translations of the hebrew bible

121

cannot be ascertained. According to Ebisawa, it had been printed by 1877.119 According to Nakata, it was published just before (or just after) 1873, the year when the ban on Christianity was lifted, but Ebisawa remarked that this was just his private opinion.120 However, the copy I saw at Doshisha University’s main library has an additional sticker on the front cover giving the year of publication as 1873 and the place as Yokohama, although it is unclear when this sticker was added and on what authority.121 In any case, there exists a considerably earlier, unpublished, version of this translation, dated to 1863.122 It was discovered in an unlikely place: the diary kept by Shinsui (針水), a Buddhist priest from the Kōshōji (光照寺) temple in Higo, Kyushu, who from November 1861 used to go to Nagasaki, to question Williams about Christianity, pretending to be contemplating conversion.123 This version and the printed text are quite different, but there are also clear similarities. It might possibly be the earliest record of a Protestant biblical translation carried out in Japan proper. The published booklet opens with some explanations of the Ten Commandments, followed by a translation of the biblical text (Exodus 20: 11–17) on the second and third double pages, and then more explanations. It would seem to be a kind of catechism.124 b.『朝晩禱分、附リタニー』 Morning and evening prayers, additional litany (?) Before 1878 ? (Publisher unknown; Place:?) This too is a booklet in Japanese stile, printed from woodblocks on Japanese paper, and containing 48 double pages (Yazaki 1960). The exact time and place of printing is not clear, but it was already in existence before

119 Ebisawa 1981, 142; see also Rikkyo 1999, 22, with a photo of the booklet. The text is partially reprinted in Nakata, History, part 17, 10. 120 Nakata, History, part 17, 9; Ebisawa 1981, 145 n. 6. 121  The text on the cover says: “1873 明治六年・横浜・漢字かな　文語・＾＾”. 122 First published in Tokushige 1935, 321–323; reprinted also in Ebisawa 1981, 140–142; Ōe 2000, 198–200. 123 He is mentioned as “the old priest” in Williams’ letters from 1862 and 1864; see Motoda 1914, 64–66. See also Ōe 2000, 201–205. 124 There is a copy of this pamphlet written by hand, with brush and ink, on Japanese paper at the library of Doshisha’s School of Theology. The title on the front page is『十誡問答―全』and next to it appears the name Yoshiga Yūnosuke (芳賀祐之助). On the back appears the date January 21 of the 20th year of Meiji (1887), and the place of writing, Nansō (南窓).

122

chapter three

May 1878, and was probably the work of Williams and several others of his church members.125 It is a translation of the first three prayers in The Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (and in some cases from its Anglican counterpart).126 These prayers include several OT passages, and the choice of verses follows the original BOCP. The morning prayer opens with 14 short quotes of one or two verses, 11 from OT prophets and the Psalms, and 3 from the NT, as follows: Habakkuk 2:20, Malachi 1:11, Ps. 19:14 (MT v. 15), Ezekiel 18:27, Ps. 51:3, Ps. 51:9 (MT v. 11), Ps. 51:17 (MT v. 19), Joel 2:13, Daniel 9:10, Jeremiah 10:24, Matthew 3:2, Luke 15:18–19, Ps. 143:2, 1 John 1:8–9. Later in the prayer are included Ps. 95:1–11 (full), Ps. 100:1–5 (full). In the evening prayer are included Ps. 98: 1–10 (full), Ps. 92:1–5, Ps. 67:1–7 (MT 2–8), and Ps. 103:1–4, 20–22. Verse numbers are not indicated in the book. When comparing some of these verses with the English-language BOCP on the one hand, and with the Hebrew original on the other, it becomes clear that the translations were made from the English text. c.『聖公会禱分』 The Book of Common Prayer of the Seikōkai (Anglican-Episcopal Church) 1879 Yokohama (?) This book, again in the Japanese style of printing and containing 114 double pages, includes the above, earlier-published prayers, as well as several other prayers from the BOCP, and was the work of a three-man committee from Williams’ church.127 Naturally, in the following years it went through many reediting and reprinting stages; the 1883 edition was considered the first full translation of the original. Williams remained the main force behind these efforts, and for his translations he apparently relied on the

125 Ebisawa 1981, 261–263. See also Verbeck 1883, 66, where under the information for The Episcopal Church in 1874 it is stated: “The Bishop had translated the responsive portions of the Service; also the hymn ‘Rock of Ages’.” Also, under 1882: “ . . .the translation of large portions of the Book of Common Prayer”, ibid., 133*. However, he was not working alone, but with a committee in which J. Piper and C.F. Warren participated, among others; ibid., 153*. 126 See, for example, The Book of Common Prayer [. . .] of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America [. . .], New York, 1868, 21–56. See alo Yazaki 1960, 53–55. 127 Yazaki 1962–64; see also Ebisawa 1981, 263–266, who believed that most of the translation was the work of Williams.



the translations of the hebrew bible

123

already existing Chinese translation of the prayer book (Yazaki 1962–64, part III). C-5 『偶像非神論』   A discourse on idols as false gods 1876 (?) Published by: Privately published Individual translation: Theobald A. Palm, with Oshikawa Masayoshi (押川方義) Denomination: Protestant Main sources: English, Chinese This is a slim pamphlet, containing only 14 pages of text after the title page. It is written in cursive script, and printed from woodblocks. There is no other information except for the title on the front and translated biblical passages inside; neither the translator’s name, nor the place or year of publication are indicated. According to Ebisawa, some copies have a seal impression on the back of the title page, with the inscription: “By the English Missionary Palm”.128 Theobald Adrian Palm (1848–1928) was a British physician and missionary (NKRD 1131). He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1873, and came to Japan in May 1874. He worked in several places around Japan, and was successful in both his medical and his missionary work. In 1884 he returned to Edinburgh and received his MD. It seems that during his stay in Japan, Palm was involved in some individual translations from the Bible. Ebisawa rejects the conclusion by Yoshino Sakuzō (吉野作造), that Palm published his translation, which he made with the help of Oshikawa Masayoshi (1850–1928), the year following his arrival in Japan (i.e. 1875), because it would have been too early for him to have accomplished such a feat, even with assistance.129 Also, as Palm and Oshikawa did not meet before January 1876, the pamphlet could not have been published any earlier than that year. Ebisawa also observed that some of the NT translations in this pamphlet were dependent on Hepburn’s translation of 1876, but made more readable in Palm’s version. He concludes that the translation 128 Ebisawa 1981, 253. The copy I saw in Doshisha did not have the seal impression; however, it can be seen in the offset version printed in Meiji 1967, 248. 129 Ebisawa 1981, 253–254. Yoshino’s comment is in Meiji 1967, 23. See also Nakata, History, part 18; according to him, the year of publication was 1875.

124

chapter three

was made in late 1876 or early 1877. He also observed that the Chinese version of the Bible was used in translating the OT passages. The translations in this pamphlet include nine shorter or longer biblical passages, four from the OT and five from the NT. As fits the title of the pamphlet, the first translation is of Exodus 20:3–4, the second of the Ten Commandments. In the case of this passage the source is not specified, and the title says “the admonition of the true God”; in the following passages the biblical source is specified. The next passage is Isaiah 44:9–20, which also speaks out against the making of idols. The third passage is Jeremiah 10:1–16, with similar contents. The fourth is from Psalms 115:1–9, which does not deviate from the subject in the title and likewise in the NT passages.130 C-6 『旧約聖史略』   Old Testament Holy History Digest 1876 正教会 (Orthodox Church) Individual translation: Ono Seichū-Peter (小野成籌・ペ－トル) Denomination: Russian Orthodox Main source: Russian (?) This is the earliest Japanese publication by the Russian Orthodox Church relevant to the Bible (Ebisawa 1981, 365). It was published in two slim volumes, according to traditional Japanese fashion, containing about 60 double pages each. The first volume covers the Pentateuch and Joshua, and the second picks up the story from Judges and follows it up to the time of Ezra, and also summarizes several other books, such as Daniel and Esther. It uses kami for God. The original language is not indicated, but Russian pronunciation is apparent in the transliteration of names: イズ ライリ、モイセイ、イエルサリム (Izurairi, Moisei, Ierusarimu) etc. It is more a digest than a translation, like some other books of the same period described in this section, however in this case a verse is occasionally translated. There is no introduction, and the information on the title page is rather limited. It includes the title, the name of the church, and two personal

130 More on this pamphlet see in Ebisawa 1953, 67–68; Ebisawa 1981, 253–257. NSHS 294, mentions only Palm’s translation of Luke Chapter 15; also in Ebisawa 1981, 324–326.



the translations of the hebrew bible

125

names: that of the translator, whose name is given as Ono Pētoru, and that of Father Nikolai (not yet Archbishop; cf. 2.3 above). The place and year of publication are not indicated.131 A table of contents precedes the text, giving the numbers and titles of chapters, and their page number. The 55th and last chapter, titled “the last age of God’s people”, includes a brief history of the occupation of the Land of Israel by Alexander and his successors, the Maccabean wars, Roman rule and Herod’s kingship. It says that the Jews did not listen to God’s prophets about the coming of the Messiah (written メッシヤ, messhiya), and ends with the translation of Isaiah 55:8–9. Ono Seichū, known also by his Christian name Pētoru (Peter), was one of the permanent translators in the service of the Russian Orthodox Church. His years of birth and death are not known (NKRD 265). He was born in Rikuzen (present Iwate), and around 1875 entered the theological college of the Russian Orthodox Church in Tokyo. He joined the translation bureau organized by Nikolai, which translated from Russian and English and is known to have translated several books up until the 1890’s. C-7 『旧新両約聖書傳』   The Tradition of Both Old and New Testaments 1879–80 Published by: 龍章堂 (Ryūshōdō) [?]、Osaka Individual translation: Kojima Junji (小嶋準治) Denomination: Catholic Main source: French (?) The dates of the birth and the death of Kojima Junji are not known (NKRD 521). What we do know about him is that he was a samurai from Kōchi, where in 1871 he was assigned as guardsman to a family of deported Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians) from Kyushu, and was converted by them to their faith. He later traveled to Osaka where he studied for four months with the French Catholic priest Jules-Alphonse Cousine, was then baptized and took up missionary activity. Kojima may in fact have been the first Japanese involved in missionary activity in the Meiji Period.

131 The year 1876, indicated in the records of JBL Library and other sources, must have been obtained from external evidence.

126

chapter three

Kojima’s book was published in two parts, each divided into 3 booklets. The first part, published in 1879, contained stories from the OT, retold in a popular way or partially translated. The second part, published 1880, contains stories from the NT.132 It could be considered as the first Catholic partial translation of the Bible into Japanese since the Kirishitan period. The book is printed in the traditional Japanese way, with the pages folded in the middle and sown on the inside. The three booklets comprising the OT part have about 40 pages each. The front piece has a picture of Moses holding the two tablets, with Chinese numbers (!) written on them (1–6 can be seen). There are two introductions in Chinese, followed by one in Japanese, indicating that this translation is in fact a digest. Then comes a detailed table of contents of the three booklets. The first one includes an abbreviation of Genesis; the second gives the history of Israel from Moses to Solomon, including the story of Ruth; the third continues with the story of the divided kingdom, followed by a summary of short OT and Apocrypha books such as Jonah, Tobit, Judith, and Esther, ending with the story of the Maccabees. For ‘God’ the translation uses tenshu, which was the Catholic form adopted for use in the Chinese language in 1740 (see 2.1.1 above). The source language is not clear, but it seems to be a European language, probably French; for example, the name of Joseph is transliterated ジヨゼフ ( Jozefu), while in the Meiji Translation it is spelled ヨセフ (Yosefu). It is clear that this book was written by a person well-versed in the Catholic Bible and the history of ancient Israel as narrated in it. C-8 「賛美之歌」   “Suggestions for a Japanese Rendering of the Psalms” 1880 Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Vol. 8, 285–312133 Individual translation: Basil Hall Chamberlain Denomination: Protestant (non-missionary) Main sources: English

132 NSHS 254–255; Fujiwara 1974, 56–60; Ebisawa 1981, 350–352. For a portion of Kojima’s retelling of the OT (Genesis) and the NT, see SKNK 71–75. 133 Another printing of this article can be found in Chamberlain 1997. This translation is mentioned briefly by Schneider 2003, 212, who for some reason gives the title of the magazine in Japanese.



the translations of the hebrew bible

127

Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–1935), who was to serve as professor of Japanese language at Tokyo University (a most unusual position for a foreign scholar), was a dominant figure in Japanese Studies during the Meiji Period and beyond.134 He published several groundbreaking books on Japanese language, and wrote about every conceivable subject related to Japanese culture. His most famous book, which went through many editions, was the encyclopedic Things Japanese. Unfortunately perhaps, his proposal to translate the Psalms, or even the whole Bible, into the oldest form of Classical Japanese, had no real impact—and probably could not have had any real impact—on the work of Bible translators into Japanese, either foreign or native, but his article is still fascinating to read. Chamberlain made his proposal as a lecture at a meeting of the Asiatic Society of Japan on April 13, 1880, and it was published in the Society’s Transactions of the same year. The text includes Chamberlain’s lecture, followed by a romanized translation of 12 Psalms in two versions: poetical and literal, with remarks and explanations. Between the printed pages of the article are inserted pages of woodblock printing of the Japanese text on thin Japanese paper; the top half of each page includes the poetic translation in elaborate cursive script, and the bottom half has the literal translation in plain kanji and katakana. At the end of the article appear the record of the discussion that followed Chamberlain’s presentation, as well as the printing of Psalm 100 in the translation proposed by a committee of missionaries. In fact, Chamberlain had already brought up his idea three years earlier, in his January 24, 1877 lecture on the “pillow-words” and “plays upon words” in classical Japanese poetry. At the time Chamberlain was merely 27 years old, having arrived in Japan more or less by accident and taken up the study of the language less than four years prior to this lecture.135 Chamberlain reassured his 1877 audience that he was not dealing with an obsolete matter, but rather one of “immediate practical utility” for “those whose profession it is to popularise in this country the sacred books of the West” (Chamberlain 1877, 88). And he concludes: A careful study of the ancient poetry of Japan, and therefore, of course, of the prosody which determines its outward form, must precede any successful attempt at a translation into Japanese of the most splendid of all poetical 134 See short portrayals in Bowring 1991 and Blacker 2000, and a more detailed study in Ota 1998. 135 At the time Chamberlain was teaching English at the Naval Academy; he would serve as the first Professor of Japanese and Philology at the Imperial (later, Tokyo) University from 1886 to 1890.

128

chapter three literatures,—the Hebrew Psalms. At least, I am assured by some of those natives best qualified to form an opinion on such a subject, that metrical version in the manner of the longer odes of the Manyōshu would alone be satisfactory to Japanese ears. Of the difficulties attending such a translation, and of the necessity which would often occur of sacrificing the letter to the spirit, there can be no doubt. At the same time, patient and persevering study should render the desired end not impossible of attainment.

It seems that those he addressed were not convinced, so it was Chamberlain’s intention to demonstrate that “patient and persevering study” could indeed attain the “desired end”. In his 1880 lecture Chamberlain indicated the need to discuss the method of translating the Bible into Japanese, because of the many difficulties that make it an almost impossible task. The first question should be: which language to use? According to him, there were three distinct Japanese languages at the time: “Classical Japanese, Sinico-Japanese and Colloquial Japanese”, each with its own subdivisions (p. 286). In the classical language division he distinguished between the “Archaic Dialect”, the language of the Kojiki, the Norito, and the Manyōshū, and “Classical Dialect Proper”, used in the literary output of the 10th–13th centuries (wabun). By “Sinico-Japanese” he meant the contemporary written Japanese used in documents, newspaper articles, letters and so on; in other words, kanbun and sōrōbun. As for Colloquial Japanese, Chamberlain says that it “is a hybrid dialect [. . .] and is in the present day changing more and more under the influence of English and of new ideas” (287). This is also a phenomenon of which we are well aware today. Which kind of Japanese should be adopted for Bible translation? It is worthwhile quoting Chamberlain at length here, because his thoughts on the matter probably reflect the deliberations—if not the solutions— typical of those attempting to translate the Bible at that crucial point in time: The Colloquial Dialect is at once excluded by its vulgarity and its want of any standard; and that this is not a personal prejudice, but a recognized truth, is shown by the fact that no writer, whether native layman or foreign missionary, has ever attempted to use it in any serious composition. SinicoJapanese must be excluded for another reason,—that of useless difficulty unaccompanied by any counterbalancing advantage. Remains the Classical Language in its two branches. The aim of the translations hitherto made from Genesis and from the New Testament has been to adopt the Classical Dialect Proper; and its claims, as the medium generally accepted by the Japanese reading public, are undoubtedly superior to those of the two dialects previously mentioned. At the same time we must not disguise to ourselves two facts: one, that it is impossible to make even an approximation to



the translations of the hebrew bible

129

literalness without perpetually violating every rule of grammar and of style; and the other, that this dialect, always difficult of comprehension to the less educated classes, becomes well-nigh unintelligible to them when these rules are thus violated; that is to say, when exactitude is approached. To be at once elegant, intelligible and exact is, therefore, out of the question. It is even out of the question to be at once exact and intelligible; and, for the present at least, the most practical plan would seem to be to print two renderings,— one a Classical paraphrase, which in the case of poetical books should, if possible, be in a versified form in order the better to suite the native taste, the other a strictly literal version, which would receive its explanation from the paraphrase and, conversely, determine the precise sense of the latter. In the literal version, as need scarcely be stated, no attempt whatever should be made to conform to the usual rules of Japanese composition (287–288).

For the “versified form” Chamberlain argued for the need to adopt an existing model in Japanese literature. He rejected the common tanka (short poem, which he called “mijika-uta”) as unsuitable, and therefore also the “Classical Dialect Proper” in which most of these poems were created. He then turned to the “Archaic Dialect”, in which the long poems (chōka, a term not used by him) in the Manyōshū and the Kojiki were written, and which he considered to be the proper model. His translations of the psalms are therefore rendered in the traditional form of the chōka, with alternating lines of 5 and 7 syllables, and using the vocabulary and grammar of pre-Heian Japanese. He admitted the inadequacy of his translations since they were made from the English and not from the Hebrew, but said that his work was only meant to suggest to others, more qualified in the field, the way to proceed. He translated Psalms 1, 19, 23, 100, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 127, 128 and 133. The discussion following Chamberlain’s presentation is also highly illuminating. No other member of the Society agreed with his method. The Rev. J.L. Amerman [ James Lansing Amerman, 1843–1928] was quite ahead of his time in suggesting that the colloquial dialect could be used “with the element of vulgarity eliminated. It then became suitable for serious composition”. He objected to Chamberlain’s method since it required a double rendering, while in translating the Scriptures “the sacred text should be expressed in one way and one way only”. He also observed that “The present tendency in Japan was towards the extended use of Sinico-Japanese, between which and the colloquial style a gradual approximation seemed to be taking place” (310).136 136 This comment, and the one by Dr. Faulds, are indirect testimonies to the influence of the Genbun Itchi Movement (see 2.3.1 above). On Amerman see Akiyama 1982, 29–33.

130

chapter three

Mr. Satow [Ernest Mason Satow, 1843–1929] expressed his appreciation for the translations in verse form, but had to agree with Amerman that “this style would not be found adequate for translating the whole of the Old Testament”. He said also that educated Japanese could make use of the Chinese translation of the Bible which already existed (310–311). Dr. Faulds [Henry Faulds, 1843–1930] said that “there were elements at work tending to raise the colloquial language out of its present degraded state, and that the Japanese were beginning to look at the high Chinese style as rather ridiculous” (311). Mr. Blanchet [Clement T. Blanchet, 1845–1928] “handed in a copy of a ‘Japanese version of the hundredth Psalm,’ translated by a committee of missionaries in Sinico-Japanese style” (311) (see 5.5 below). Chamberlain replied with witty and sarcastic remarks to the arguments raised against his suggestion (311–312). He even said: “If [. . .] the colloquial, when it shall have been rendered fit for literary purposes, is to be the medium, then in all probability no person now living will survive to see the result”. However, only a few years later he seemed to have changed his mind. In a speech given on March 10, 1887 he spoke in favor of adopting the colloquial language for writing in everyday use.137 But perhaps he still thought it was not the right style for Bible translation. Chamberlain’s idea could be classified as purist or even romantic. As a great lover of the classical Japanese language, he wished to see it revived in the translation of the Bible, the introduction of which to Japan, he believed, was of great importance, perhaps for a cultural more than for purely religious reasons. He was speaking as a man of literature and not as a missionary, who has to put a clear and unequivocal text in the hands of his potential convert. It was still too early, and also too late, for the endeavor dreamed of by the romantic Englishman.138 Years later, in his above-mentioned book on Japanese culture, Chamberlain mentioned briefly the full translation of the Bible completed by the missionaries, and added in a footnote:

137 See Twine 1978, 344–345; Twine 1991, 243–244. 138 See also Ebisawa 1981, 267–268, who writes that because of the need to popularize the Bible, it seemed necessary to pour new wine into new wineskins, and therefore the Bible translators went their own way disregarding Chamberlain’s suggestions; however, he believes the translators should have listened to him a little more attentively. See also Ebisawa 1947, 45–49.



the translations of the hebrew bible

131

Unfortunately the Japanese language, intricate and impersonal, is singularly ill-fitted to reproduce the rugged sublimity of Hebrew thought. Chinese lends itself somewhat better to the task.139

C-9 高田畊安の諸翻訳 Different fragmentary translations by Takada Kōan 1913–1933 Individual translation: Takada Kōan (高田畊安) Denomination: Protestant Main source: (?) Takada Kōan (1861–1945) was a physician and a Christian lay preacher. He was born in Kyoto Prefecture and studied at Doshisha School, where he became a Christian at age 16. He then went to medical schools in Kyoto and in Tokyo. In 1899 he founded the Nankoin Hospital for Tuberculosis in Chigasaki, Kanagawa Prefecture. He also built a church in the hospital, where he gave Sunday sermons every week to the patients and staff.140 Takada published many sermons, poems and other religious and medical literature, as well as short translations from several biblical books, including Psalms and Proverbs. These translations appeared in the following publications, among others (NSHS 295–296): a.『正言一斑』南湖院、1913–?. Seigen Ippan [One part of the true words] (Nankoin). This is a series of booklets published occasionally by Takada through his hospital. No. 11 (1936), for example, contains his translations of a few Psalms and some verses from Proverbs.141 b.『御父様』南湖院、1933. Otōsama [Honorable Father] (Nankoin).

139 Chamberlain 1905, 329. Hepburn, as was seen above (A-1), held the opposite opinion. 140 NKRD 824, 1007; Doshisha 2003, 108–109. 141  NSHS mentions only no. 1–8 (1913–1931), but there must have been at least 11 issues.

132

chapter three

This is a small-sized, paperback book, of about 600 pages. It is a collection of Takada’s sermons, occasional writings and some translations, which were published in the different issues of Seigen Ippan (above a). C-10 「私訳ヨブ記」   “An Individual Translation of Job” 1923 『旧約と新約』(Kyūyaku   to Shinyaku), no. 35, 121–124; no. 36, 154–156 Individual translation: Fujii Takeshi (藤井武) Denomination: Mukyōkai Main source: English (?) This is a translation of chapters 3–5 of the Book of Job, published by Fujii Takeshi in two issues of his independent magazine of biblical studies called “The Old and New Testaments”: chapters 3–4 in the May issue (35), and chapter 5 in the June issue (36) of 1923. Fujii added a short note in which he said: “This is an individual and an experimental translation. It probably requires many revisions. For the sake of convenience it starts from Chapter 3” (my translation). He then thanked several friends for their suggestions. The style of his translation is ‘colloquial’. Fujii Takeshi (1888–1930) was a gifted translator and scholar. He was a disciple of Uchimura Kanzō, and a follower of the latter’s Mukyōkai (nonchurch) teaching. He started his independent magazine in 1920, and also led a Mukyōkai group. Known for his ardent pacifism, he prophesized the destruction of Japan at the hands of the United States, as punishment from God for its militarism and other sins. His untimely death, just a few months after his master’s, cut short a promising career, but he left behind many writings, which were collected in 12 volumes.142 C-11 カトリックの部分翻訳（口語、文語） Different Partial Catholic Translations (Colloquial / Classical) 1933–1939 Published in the magazines:『カトリック』(Katorikku; Ephemerides Catholicae) 『聲』(Koe; Vox Catholica) 『聖書思想』(Seisho Shisō) 142 NKRD 1214; NSHS 296–297.



the translations of the hebrew bible

133

Different individual translators Denomination: Catholic Main sources: Vulgate, MT, various translations As mentioned before, the Catholic Church in Japan did not have its own full version of the OT until the 1950’s. During the 1930’s, though, several foreign and Japanese clergymen published partial translations in Catholic magazines, including the first Catholic translations in the ‘colloquial’ style.143 These ‘colloquial’ partial translations of the OT appear below under a–b, and those in the classical style under c–f. a.  「ルート記－ヘブライ語より譯出」—The Book of Ruth Translated by Fr. Max Knappstein SJ (マックス・クナップシュタ イン) and Inoue Ikuji (井上郁二) Published in Katorikku (1933) The magazine Katorikku was launched in December 1920 as a vehicle for the publication of studies by people outside the Church (NKRD 307), although obviously used by church people as well. Beginning with Vol. 19, no. 4 ( July 1939) it was re-titled『カトリック研究』(Katorikku kenkyū), and publishing continued until 1945. The translation of the Book of Ruth was published in two installments: Vol. 13, no. 10 (pp. 445–458): chapters 1–2; and no. 11 (503–509): chapters 3–4. The first installment included a six-page introduction about the book, its authorship and composition, and a list of scholarly sources. The translation is followed by three pages of commentary, and likewise in the second installment. As indicated in the title, the translation was done from Hebrew, but probably with an eye on the Vulgate; this is evident, for example, from the transcription of the name ノエミ (Noemi) as in the Vulgate, rather than No‘omi which is the correct Hebrew pronunciation, or Naomi, which is the most common transliteration, including in most Japanese translations (ナオミ). The translation is indeed in the ‘colloquial’ style, with hardly any trace of the classical language. The contemporary polite and humble forms are used, perhaps for the first time in OT translations; when Naomi speaks to her daughters-in-law or to the people of Bethlehem, desu and masu are used; when Ruth speaks to Naomi or to Boaz, degozaimasu is used; when Boaz speaks to Ruth or to his workers, 143 These translations are mentioned in Schneider 1965, 81–82; Schneider 2003, 218–219.

134

chapter three

he does so in the plain style—all in accordance with their relative social position as common in ‘correct’ Japanese speech.144 For YHWH the translation uses the kanji for kami (神) with the furigana ヤウェ (yawe), and a long explanation of the issue is given in the commentary (456–457). This was still the time when the Catholic Church used tenshu for ‘God’. b.  「口譯－イザヤ書－試譯」—The Book of Isaiah (partial) Translated by Totsuka Bunkei (戸塚文卿) Published in Katorikku (1936) and Koe (1937) This ‘colloquial’, “experimental” and partial translation was first printed in Katorikku magazine (1936) in two installments: Vol. 16, no. 8 (357–363): introduction & chapter 1; and no. 9 (432–439): chapters 2–4. A longer version was published in the magazine Koe, launched in Osaka in February 1891 as one of the representative periodicals of the Catholic Church in Japan (NKRD 512). It appeared in print until 2002. The first 12 chapters of Isaiah were printed in ten installments in 1937, beginning with the January issue (no. 732), skipping the April issue (no. 735), and ending in the November issue (no. 742). Each installment is but a few pages long, with the translated verses followed by some commentary. The translator, Totsuka Bunkei (known also as Fr. Vincent de Paul B. Totsuka) (1892–1939), was both a Catholic priest and a medical doctor (NKRD 950). Born in Kanagawa, he studied medicine at Tokyo University, and later at the Institute Pasteur in Paris, where he also studied theology at the Institute Catholique; he was ordained in 1924. Among his many medical and theological undertakings in Japan, he was also the editor of Katorikku magazine. In his short introduction Totsuka says (my translation): Some years ago, when I proposed a colloquial translation of the Bible, I was reprimanded by several scholars, however, still unredeemed from my stupid obstinacy, I venture to offer this experimental translation. Of course, various styles have their own advantages and disadvantages, and if only the defects of the colloquial style are pointed out that would be the end of it, but the colloquial style also has its merits.

Totsuka argued that for the non-specialist reader, the important thing was to have a translation in an easily understandable Japanese, together with the necessary commentary. He even argued that the ‘colloquial’ style 144 In A-2, the first full ‘colloquial’ translation of the OT (Protestant), these distinctions are mostly lost, as everyone in the Book of Ruth speaks using desu and masu.



the translations of the hebrew bible

135

was better suited for expressing fine nuances, as well as emotions. According to him, in translation it was better to use the natural language in which a believer speaks to God. He therefore published his translation of chapters from Isaiah as an example, asking for the readers’ comments for improving it. He used the French translation by クランポン (probably meaning the translation by Abbe Augustin Crampon, published in Paris 1905, with several later editions), since he was not familiar with the original language. The translation uses the plain style of common Japanese written language. The polite form is not used even when God speaks (1:3), unlike the aforementioned translation of Ruth, which uses desu and masu. YHWH is transliterated as ya-we (ヤーヴェ), and ‘God’ is translated as kami, although in his introduction Totsuka uses tenshu. The only honorifics used are mi and tamau when speaking about God. c.  「ヨナ－共譯」—The Book of Jonah—A joint translation Translated by Fr. Hugo Lasalle SJ (フーゴー・ラッサル) and Nagashima Kan’ichi (永島寛一) Published in Katorikku (1933–34) This “joint” translation was printed in two installments in the magazine Katorikku: Vol. 13, no. 12 (541–545): a short introduction & chapter 1; and Vol. 14, no. 1 (29–36), chapters 2–4. Each installment is followed by 3–4 pages of commentary. The introduction concerns the contents and authorship of the book, saying nothing about the translation; however, the commentary contains references to the MT, the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The style can be termed ‘moderately classic’, with some archaic verbal forms, but otherwise the style is modern. Honorifics are not used. YHWH is transliterated as yave (ヤヴェ), and ‘God’ is translated as kami, even in the introduction. Fr. Hugo Lasalle SJ (1898–1990), was also known later by the Japanese name Enomiya Makibi (愛宮真備) (NKRD 1092). Born in Germany, he came to Japan in 1929. In 1940 he became the vicar of Hiroshima, and in August 1945 was wounded by the atomic bomb dropped on the city. After the war he initiated the construction of the Memorial Cathedral for World Peace on the site of the Noborichō Church in Hiroshima, dedicated in 1954. He studied Zen Buddhism for many years, and published books on the subject, with the aim of encouraging Zen practice among Christian believers. This joint translation of the Book of Jonah is his only known work in the field of Bible translation.

136

chapter three

d.  「詩篇註解」 —Psalms 1–100 Translated by Fr. Ideguchi Miyoichi (井手口三代一) (and Shibutani Osamu) Published in Seisho Shisō (1933–39) The monthly magazine Seisho Shisō (Bible Thought) was edited, published and largely written by Shibutani Osamu. It was published, on high-quality paper and in fine printing, between October 1933 and August 1939 (71 issues in 6 volumes). A detailed table of contents was added to each accumulative volume. The magazine contained articles on both OT and NT, on the realia of the Holy Land and customs of the Jewish People, and more. In his preface to the last, double issue of the magazine (V. 6, no. 71, August 1939, pp. 240–241), Shibutani thanks his dedicated readers, but complains, somewhat bitterly, that in spite of many promises to contribute to the magazine, not one line was ever sent, except for the contribution by Fr. Ideguchi, who translated the Psalms. He also mentions the assistance in the editing by Mr. Fukai (深井渙二), but other than that, and in spite of his many obligations, he had to fight on his own to complete the 40 pages of the magazine every month for six years. Shibutani apologizes for his many shortcomings in interpreting the Bible, but says that he was able to carry on the fight, “like a kagemusha (影武者)”, by putting his full trust in the Lord to give him power. He says that his intention was to continue the magazine, but that in the meeting of Japan’s clergy held in April that year he was entrusted by the Church with a great task that would occupy him full-time, but which he did not specify. We know, however, that this task was to translate the OT (see B-5 above). The translation of the first 100 psalms is serialized through most issues of the magazine, beginning with the first issue. Among these 100 psalms, the first 50 are based on the MT, and were translated by Ideguchi Miyoichi (known also as Fr. Joachim M. Ideguchi). These 50 psalms appear in the first 5 volumes of the magazine, ending with issue no. 53. The translation of each psalm is followed by several pages of notes (註), commentary (解説), and sometimes also further insights (老察), all written by Shibutani. However, everything changes with the next 50 psalms, beginning with issue no. 54: the translation is from the Vulgate rather than from the MT, Ideguchi’s name disappears without explanation, and only minimal commentary is given above a horizontal line, in a format similar to B-5. Most likely, the translation of these latter 50 psalms was by Shibutani.



the translations of the hebrew bible

137

Ideguchi Miyoichi (1902–1943) was a Catholic priest, born in Nagasaki and educated in Tokyo (NKRD 119). In 1928 he graduated from the Séminaire Saint-Sulpice in Paris, and later held several clerical and educational positions in Japan. He was killed when the boat on which he was sailing to Hong Kong as a part-time military man, together with some nuns of the Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of St. Paul, was hit by a submarine. It was reported that he had given his place in a lifeboat to others, and disappeared at sea while praying loudly. e.  「創世記」 —Genesis 1–2 Translated by Fr. Max Knappstein SJ (マックス・クナップシュタ イン) and Chiba Ichiju (チバ・イチジュ?)145 Published in Katorikku (1934) This translation was printed in two installments in the magazine Katorikku: Vol. 14, no. 6 (241–251): introduction, chapters 1–2:4; and no. 8 (337–345): chapter 2:4–25; both with very detailed commentary. The introduction explains the meaning of ‘Pentateuch’ and ‘Torah’, as well as the Hebrew title of Genesis, Bereshit. There are further explanations about the structure of the book and its historical setting. The commentary includes explanations of Hebrew words. YHWH is transliterated as yave (ヤヴェ), and ‘God’ is translated as kami. The style is classical, nearer to A-1 than any other translation in this group. In fact, on close examination this turns out to be a slight revision of A-1 in a loftier style, rather than a new translation. f.  「創世記」 —Genesis Translated by the Franciscan monastery of Den-en-chōfu (田園調布 聖フラ ンシスコ修道院試譯) Published in Katorikku (1936–37) This translation, also dubbed “experimental”, was done at the Canadian Franciscan monastery in Tokyo, probably by Fr. Jean Joseph Deguire OFM, according to Schneider. It was printed in the magazine Katorikku in twelve installments as follows:

145 The name “Chiba Ichiju” is according to Schneider; in the magazine it is written with four obscure kanji characters; this is probably a pseudonym.

138

chapter three Vol. 16, no. 11 (496–508): chapters 1–7:4; no. 12 (548–558): 7:5–13:9; Vol. 17, no. 1 (2–14): 13:9–20:18; no. 2 (50–60): 21–25:18; no.3 (94–101): 25:19–27:45; no. 4 (140–150): 27:46–32:1; no. 5 (188–197): 32:2–36:43; no. 6 (234–241): 37:1– 40:23; no. 7 (287–293): 41–42:39; no. 8 (233–239): 43–45:28; no. 9 (276–286): 46–49:33; no. 10 (342–346): 50.

This translation includes only a short, technical introduction, explaining that the translation is based on the MT, but in some places follows the Vulgate. The French translation by Crampon (see b above) is mentioned as a main source, and other translations, including Japanese ones, were also consulted. There are only a few notes, mostly referring to points of difference between the MT and the Vulgate. The style is mildly classical, sometimes veering towards the ‘colloquial’. According to the Catholic norm of the time, and unlike most other translations in this group, the word for ‘God’ is tenshu, and for YHWH the translation has: tenshu ( ya-ve) [天主（ヤーヴェ） ]. C-12 「略註創世記」   “Genesis, with short notes” 1941 『新興基督教』(Shinkō   Kirisutokyō), no. 124–128 Individual translation: Wakiya Yoshito (脇屋義人) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT, different translations This is a translation of the first five chapters of Genesis, published in the magazine Shinkō Kirisutokyō as follows (NSHS 297–8): Chapter 1 no. 124 (1.1941) 49–53 Chapter 2 no. 125 (2.1941) 47–50 Chapter 3 no. 126 (3.1941) 52–56 Chapter 4 no. 127 (4.1941) 41–46 Chapter 5 no. 128 (5.1941) 45–48

The translator used the MT, and referred to different translations, including the one by Sakon (B-3). The style is ‘colloquial’, but the honorific form is used for God’s actions (お . . .なさる), whose name ’elohim is transliterated (エロヒーム). Every few verses are first quoted from the Meiji Translation (A-1), printed inside a ‘box’, then the new translation of the same verses is printed in smaller font, followed by explanations in a larger font. Verse numbers are not specified. In his short introduction



the translations of the hebrew bible

139

the translator says that he mainly endeavored to translate the meaning, ignoring such matters as the flow of the verse, adding “But since I believe that the spirit of a nation is expressed through its national tongue, it is probably impossible to know through translation alone” (no. 124, 49, my translation). Wakiya Yoshito (1895–1872), was an OT scholar, an educator, and an editor of Christian magazines, including the one in which he printed his translation. Between 1924 and 1929 he studied in the USA, specializing in the culture of ancient Israel and Semitic languages; he later taught in several academic institutions in Japan. He was involved in the revision of the OT translation on behalf of JBS in the 1930’s (NKRD 1539). C-13 『ヨブ記私訳（未完）』   An Individual Translation of Job—Partial c.2000 Privately printed Individual translation: Fujisaki Hideyoshi (藤崎英義) Denomination: Protestant Main source: MT This is an individual translation of the first ten chapters of Job, printed and issued privately. The translator, Fujisaki Hideyoshi (1914–1999), says in his long introduction that he worked on the translation during a long illness in 1961–62 (he had already started it in 1958) in order to ease his pain, but did not complete it. Apparently, the translation was issued posthumously by his family; the year is not indicated, but a copy reached the JBS library in September 2000. The above title appears in the colophon, which also includes the name and address of Fujisaki’s church members who apparently printed the translation. The title page has only『ヨブ記』and a dedication to those who nursed him during his illness. In the introduction, Fujisaki criticizes the ‘colloquial’ JBS translation (A-2) as inaccurate and unfaithful to the original. He argues in favor of translating once again in the classical style, which better suites the biblical text. His translation appears in large print in the middle of the page, while on the opposite page the texts of two earlier translations (A-1 and A-2) are given, and many explanations and interpretations are added.

140

chapter three

3.4 Some Further Editions of the Bible, Using Previous Translations This section includes some other editions of the Bible published in Japanese, all of which use previous translations. Although not original translations, they deserve a mention here for their usefulness or interest, and also to prevent any misunderstanding as to them including original versions. D-1 『短縮聖書   ショーター・バイブル 旧約聖書』 The Shorter Bible 1937 創元社 (Sōgensha) Edited by: Katō Naoshi (加藤直士) Denomination: Protestant This is an abbreviated version of the Bible. Each book of the OT is represented with the translation of several chapters, and each section is headed with a title. According to the editor, the book is based on the version of “Dr. Kent”, but he gives no further details of the original book.146 The short version of the NT came out a year earlier.147 Although not a word is said about it in the one-page introduction, the text used in this book is that of the Meiji Translation (A-1). Katō Naoshi (1873–1952) was a prolific writer, translator, journalist and educator (NKRD 305). He was baptized at age 16, and worked for several years as a lay missionary. In 1914 he went to study philosophy of religion at London University, and stayed in England until 1920, during which period he also became a correspondent for the Mainichi Shimbun. At a later stage of his life, from 1943, he taught English language and literature at Doshisha. D-2 『聖書―世界古典文学全集5』   The Bible—Collected Classical World Literature, Vol. 5 1965; 1974 146 Apparently based on The Shorter Bible which was translated into English and edited by Charles Foster Kent and four others, and published in two volumes (NT, OT) by Scribner: New York, 1918–1921. 147 This book is not mentioned by NSHS, although another version of the Short Bible is mentioned (see B-10).



the translations of the hebrew bible

141

Published by: 筑摩書房 (Chikuma Shobō) Edited by: Sekine Masao and Kinoshita Junji (木下順治) This volume includes a shortened version of the main parts of the Bible, edited by Sekine Masao (OT) and Kinoshita Junji (NT). The text of the OT is divided into four large sections: history, law, prophecy and writings. It is then further divided into chapters, sub-chapters and smaller sections, with headings added for each one. Although at the time Sekine was already busy producing his own translation of the OT (A-4), and the ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2) was also available, the text used here is the Meiji Translation (A-1). In his explanations added at the end of the book Sekine writes (p. 515) that he was given the task of cutting the classical language translation down to half its size for the sake of this edition. He consulted ‘Short Bible’ editions in different languages, but dissatisfied with what he found, endeavored to form his own method in creating the short version of the OT, which seems to use modern biblical scholarship. The book was printed again separately, without the title of the series, by the same publisher in 1974. D-3 『聖書―キリスト教教育宝典1』   The Bible—Treasures of Christian Education, Vol. 1 1968 Published by: 玉川大学出版部 (Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu) Edited by: Asano Junichi (浅野順一) and Takayanagi Isaburō (高柳 伊三郎) While Sekine’s short version (D-2) was based on the Meiji Translation (A-1), this version is based on the ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2). It was published by Tamagawa University as the first in their series of Treasures of Christian Education, which was a sub-series of Treasures of World Education. The book comprises a relatively short selection, limited to 15 OT books and five NT ones. The OT books are: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Ruth, Samuel, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea and Jonah. Each episode is preceded by a title and followed by explanations. Verse numbers are not given. D-4 『聖書集―近代日本キリスト教文学全集14』   A Bible Collection—Collected Modern Christian Japanese Literature, Vol. 14

142

chapter three

1982 Published by: 教文館 (Kyōbunkan) Edited by: Sasabuchi Tomoichi (笹淵友一) This is an anthology of excerpts taken from different Japanese Bible translations, covering the period from 1837 (Gützlaff) to 1941 (Shibutani). Most of the examples are from NT translations, though, and the OT examples include only Nagata’s paraphrase (C-3), the Meiji Translation (A-1), Sakon’s Psalms (B-3), Yuasa’s Song of Songs and Job (B-4), and Shibutani’s Genesis (B-5). D-5 『ヘブライ語聖書対訳シリーズ』   The Interlinear Hebrew and Japanese Bible 1990– Published by: ミルトス (Myrtos) This series, published by the Myrtos Institute of Hebrew Culture, is not a separate translation, but is widely used by Bible readers and scholars in Japan. The text is printed in 4 lines: the original Hebrew (using the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), the pronunciation of each word in katakana, its translation into Japanese, and its grammatical analysis. Further grammatical explanations are given at the bottom of the page, and the translation of the relevant verses is given in the margin, using the text of the New Interconfessional Translation (A-11). The series is being published gradually; it is projected to include 45 volumes, arranged in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible. D-6 『聖書   (Study Bible)』 Study Bible 1999 Published by: 永遠の福音 (Everlasting Gospel Publishing Association) This Bible is published by an organization based in South Korea, the Everlasting Gospel Publishing Association, and is distributed in Japan through Sunrise Ministry, in Okinawa. Since 1991 various editions of this Bible have been published in English, Korean and Spanish. Its commentary is based on the works of Ellen G. White (1827–1915), co-founder of the Seventh-day



the translations of the hebrew bible

143

Adventist Church in the United States. The book is printed in two columns, with cross references in the middle of the page, and interpretations at the bottom. There are also tables, maps, a few illustrations and an index. The printing, paper and binding of this book are all of high quality. The Japanese text used for this edition is that of the ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2), rather than the more recent Interconfessional Translation (A-11). 3.5 Concluding Remarks The individual books of the OT most often translated fully or partially, and published in book form or in magazines, include: Psalms (at least 7 full and 3 partial translations), Genesis (3 full, 2 nearly full and 3 partial), Job (3 full and 3 partial), Proverbs (4 full and one partial), and Isaiah (3 full and 2 partial). These can be divided into two groups: OT books most essential to Christian believers (Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah), and books of wisdom with the strongest ‘cultural’ appeal (Proverbs, Job). Of the full 12 translations of the OT (or 13, if the two Barbaro versions are counted separately), only two were published independently of the NT, and even these two had NT counterparts. One is the Catholic ‘Sapporo Translation’ (A-3), which was published in the 1950’s, after the failure of earlier endeavors, and using classical language, as a complementary translation to the NT translation by Raguet (1910). The other is the translation by Sekine (A-4), who focused most of his distinguished career on the OT, but in his case too there was a NT counterpart, in the translation of his fellow Mukyōkai believer Tsukamoto Toraji (cf. A-4 above), who published the four Gospels in 1963 in the same Iwanami series of paperbacks as that in which Sekine published his first translations of some individual OT books. Tsukamoto’s translation of Acts and Romans were published by a different publisher, and the rest of the NT posthumously.148 In all but these two cases the OT was translated together with the NT, and the NT was always published first (see 7.4 below for projected full translations). The number of NT versions translated independently of the OT is much larger; main post-war translations include the first full Protestant ‘colloquial’ translation initiated by the Christian social activist Kagawa Toyohiko

148 NSHS 314–316; Schneider 1992, 86.

144

chapter three

(賀川豊彦) and published by Kirisuto Shinbunsha in 1952;149 Tsukamoto’s translation mentioned above; a bilingual Greek-Japanese edition published in 13 volumes (1973–1990) with the translation by Iwakuma Naoshi (岩隈直); and three other individual NT translations published in the 1980’s.150 The crowning achievement is The Japanese Hexapla, published in 1994. This thick and heavy tome includes the Greek original and six Japanese translations on each double page: the Meiji Translation (1880), the Russian Orthodox one (1901), the Catholic translation by Raguet (1910), the Taisho Revised Translation (1917), the JBS colloquial translation (1954), and the New Interconfessional Translation (1987). A similar project for the OT does not seem plausible at this point.

149 The translators were Watase Shuichirō (渡瀬主一郎) and Mutō Tomio (武藤 富男); see NSHS 307–310. 150 By NT scholar Maeda Gorō (前田護郎) (1983), by English literature scholar Yagyū Naoyuki (柳生直行) (1985), and by professor of genetics Shinotō Yoshito (篠遠喜人) (1989).

PART Two

ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATED VERSES

chapter four

Translations compared: Deuteronomy 32:8–9 in Japanese This chapter offers an analysis of the translation of two OT verses as they appear in the 12 (or actually 13) full Japanese versions of the Hebrew Bible (cf. 3.1 above). The comparison will allow us to get acquainted with each translation, with its style, its sources, the translation strategy adopted by the translators, and more. The text to be compared is Deut. 32:8–9, and it was chosen because of the difficulty arising from an apparent intervention in the MT text by later editors, who must have wished to avoid a theological difficulty in the original text. The comparative examination of the Japanese translations exposes both their theological stance and their approach to text emendation. Regarding the latter point, the translations of Genesis 4:8 are offered as a test-case at the end of the chapter. Deut. 32:8–9, two verses which are part of the longer “Song of Moses” (32:1–43), belong to a relatively ancient stratum of biblical poetry, reflecting polytheistic traditions which were confronted in a later period by a more strictly monotheistic perspective. The text uses the adjective ʽelyon (most high), which is, in this case, used as a proper noun. Originally it was an epithet for the Canaanite high god El (Gen. 14:18), but here it is adopted for YHWH, the god of Israel.1 In modern scholarship it is common to emend the end of v. 8, based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls versions, restoring the reading benei ’el (children of El) or benei ’elohim (children of God) rather than benei Israel (children of Israel), which is considered the result of a later editor’s intervention.2 Indeed, the MT in this verse does not make good sense (why would the boundaries of all the 1 See JSB 2004, 441. See also TDOT, V. XI, 121–139. 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls version is in the fragment 4QDeut-j, published in DJD XIV, 90; the text there, which is very fragmented, containing only four words from chapter 32, reads in fact benei ’elohim. The Septuagint has huioi theoi “sons of God”, and in another version angeloi theoi “angels of God”. The notion that 70 angels are in charge of the world’s 70 nations (a number derived from the list in Gen. 10) is known in post-biblical Judaism (see Targum pseudo-Jonathan for this verse). The Midrash found the connection with the children of Israel through the 70 descendants of Jacob who went down to Egypt according to Gen. 46:27. The reconstruction benei ’el is more intriguing, but requires also to emend the Qumran text, which has benei ’elohim, a form which is also found elsewhere in the MT. The testimony of the Septuagint is not specific in this case. See also Tigay 1996, 303–305, 513–518; Tov 2012, 248–250.

148

chapter four

nations be fixed according to the number of the people of Israel?). If the restoration is correct, the original meaning of the verse was that YHWH, assuming the position of El, allotted each nation not only a territory but also its own god.3 Since this monolatrous4 perception was unacceptable from a strictly monotheistic point of view, the word ’el or ’elohim was replaced by Israel. The Masoretic Hebrew text reads: ‫ְּב ַהנְ ֵחל ֶע ְליֹון ּגֹויִ ם‬ ‫ְּב ַה ְפ ִרידֹו ְּבנֵ י ָא ָדם‬ ‫יַ ֵּצב גְ ֻבֹלת ַע ִּמים‬ :‫ְל ִמ ְס ַּפר ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ִּכי ֵח ֶלק יהוה ַעּמֹו‬ :‫יַ ֲעקֹב ֶח ֶבל נַ ֲח ָלתֹו‬

The King James Version is as follows, with the reading “children of Israel” still in place: When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), however, emends the verse and translates “children of God”: When the Most High gave the nations each their heritage, when he partitioned out the human race, he assigned the boundaries of nations according to the number of the children of God, but Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob was to be the measure of his inheritance.

The Jewish Publication Society’s translation (1985) adheres to the MT: When the Most High gave nations their homes And set the divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples In relation to Israel’s numbers. For the LORD’s portion is His people, Jacob His own allotment. 3 It could reflect an even more ancient version, in which the Canaanite god (El) Elyon himself allotted lands and gods to nations, YHWH being one of the numerous gods in his pantheon. On this issue see also Smith 1990, 6–8 with the literature in n. 33; Smith 2001, 143–144 with the literature in n. 59; ibid., 156–157. Heiser 2001 accepts the emendation as necessary but argues that benei ’elohim represents a divine council of created beings unequal to YHWH. 4 In Bible scholarship ‘monolatry’ refers to a situation in which a certain community worships only one god, but acknowledges that other communities have their own deities, which they recognize as equal, inferior or subordinate to their own god. See Machinist 2005, 26, 32–33; Smith 2001, 48–49.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese 149 4.1 Text Analysis: Comparing 13 Translations

In what follows, the various Japanese translations of these two verses are given in Japanese script, as well as in transliteration, which follows the furigana printed in each translation (or, when furigana is not supplied in the translation, using the common reading of the kanji). Each translation is then analyzed according to its linguistic, stylistic and theological aspects, and its approach to the translation. Further discussions appear later in this chapter under 4.2. 4.1.1 A-1 The Meiji Translation (1887) 8 至高者人の子を四方に散らして萬の民にその産業を分かちイスラエ ルの子孫の数に照らして諸の民の境界を定め給へり 9 ヱホバの分はその民にしてヤコブはその産業たり 8. itotakakimono hito no ko o yomo ni chirashite yorozu no tami ni sono mochimono o wakachi isuraeru no hitobito no kazu ni terashite moromoro no tami no sakai o sadame tamaeri 9. ehoba no bun wa sono tami ni shite yakobu wa sono mochimono tari

It is clear that the Meiji Translation strove to maintain the style and conventions of classic Japanese literature (wabun) at a time when the Japanese written language was undergoing rapid change. This adoption of the classical style is not surprising. At that time, and even in later periods, the almost universal norm was that a sacred text, or a text enjoying high prestige, should be translated into what is considered the most prestigious or classical style in the receptor language. Today this is no longer the case, and in recent decades translations have conformed far more to contemporary language and style.5 This will also become evident as we examine the later Japanese translations, from the 1950’s to the early years of the new millennium, only one of which (A-3) used the classical language. And in any case, as was discussed above (2.3.1), the only option for the translators

5 About norms in translation see Toury 1995, 53–69 (also in Venuty 2004, 205–218); see also Baker 2001, 163–165, and the literature there. About the notion of universals in translation and the difficulties it raises, see ibid., 288–291; Mauranen & Kujamäki, 2004. Norms are usually restricted to a certain time and place and are not universal, but the gradual lowering of register in translation, and specifically in translation of sacred texts, from the 19th to the 20th centuries, is a phenomenon recognized by readers in various languages, and it coincides with the spread of education and of mass media. See, for example, Daniell 2003, xv. See also what Broomhall still said in 1934, above p. 30, n. 29.

150

chapter four

at the time was to adopt one of the traditional literary styles, since the ‘colloquial’ style did not yet exist in writing. One example of the classical style is the omission of the particle after the first noun of v. 8, which is very typical of the grammar of Classical Japanese (Ikeda 1980, 5). In Modern Japanese, a particle (either wa or ga) is normally expected after the first noun of the sentence, which is usually either the subject or the topic of the sentence, or both (see below). Comparing this point with the other 12 translations of this verse, we find that only two others have omitted the particle here (A-3 and A-4). Of the ten others, four have used wa, while six opted for ga. This seems to indicate that in modern Japanese (unlike in earlier times, when the two particles were much more distinct) either of the two particles may be used if the required function is only delimiting the predicate from the introductory part of the sentence. In the classical literature of the Heian Period wa was an emotive particle, showing emphasis; it may have followed the subject of the sentence, but it did not denote the subject.6 On the other hand, ga was a case particle marking the subject (besides its other uses) (Ikeda 1980, 192). Some of the conventions of the classical style were maintained throughout the centuries as the Japanese language was evolving, but rapid changes occurred during the Meiji Period, gradually effecting the use of particles, among other things. Just before, during, and soon after the Meiji Period, several books on Japanese language appeared in European languages, written mostly by foreign diplomats or missionaries living in Japan. One of them, S.R. Brown, who was also involved in the Meiji Translation of the NT, said on this subject (Brown 1863, xxxiii): Wa, which is merely an isolative particle, serving to separate a word or clause, from the words that follow it, is not a sign of the nominative, though it frequently stands between the subject and its predicate.

And on the difference between wa and ga he says (ibid. xxxiii–xxxiv): The native ear at once percives [sic] the difference, and a foreigner can acquire the use of these particles, only by practice and much familiarity with the Japanese usage. The native teachers say that wa is a kind of cordon drawn around a word or words, as if to isolate it or them, as a distinct subject of thought [. . .]. 6 Ikeda 1980, 218. Also According to Morris 1966, 130, in classical Japanese wa is a selective, separative, or distinguishing particle, and it marks the emphasis in a word or a phrase.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

151

Several other contemporary and later writers on Japanese grammar seem to agree with Brown’s description.7 The 19th century writers mentioned that the wa particle may be associated with the subject of the sentence, although it is not a nominative case particle. Modern linguistics introduced the notion of “topic” (or “theme”), and the wa particle was identified as denoting the topic of the sentence, which sometimes coincides with the subject but often does not. Still, the understanding of the grammatical meaning of wa remains somewhat ambiguous, and even detailed studies of its historical and contemporary usage have failed to clarify the problem completely.8 * * * The omission of the case particle is a general characteristic of the Meiji Translation as a whole. On opening the book, this phenomenon can be found from the very first verse of Genesis onward. For a more detailed comparison the preceding chapter, Deut. 31, which has 30 verses, will be used. Just like in 32:8, whenever a verse opens with a name (either YHWH or Moses, in most cases), which would usually be considered the subject or the topic of the sentence, and is the doer of the action indicated by the verb coming later, the particle is consistently omitted (vv. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30). When two names written in katakana appear consecutively, usually at the beginning of a verse, a comma is used for separating them where a particle could have been expected (vv. 7, 25, 30); but when one of the names is written in kanji a comma is not used (there is no example in this chapter, but see Gen. 8:1 etc.). There are also cases in the middle of a long verse where a particle can be expected, but does not appear. For example, in the long v. 7, which is a speech by Moses to Joshua about bringing the people into the Promised Land, it says towards the end of the verse: nanji karera ni kore o esasuru koto o ubeshi; a particle would be expected between the two pronouns at the beginning of the sentence, but none is present.

7 See Aston 1872, 50–51; Chamberlain 1889, 83–88; MacCauley 1896, 164–166; Sansom 1928, 232–234. 8 See the different studies in Hinds 1987. See also Mikami 1960, one of the pioneering studies in this field, and some remarks in Sekine 1980, 146–147. Yanabu 2004 argues that the ‘subject’ in Japanese, indicated by wa, is a renovation of the Meiji Period, and the outcome of translation. He gives the Meiji Constitution as an example, which was based on the German one; see 1–13 (most of the book deals with the same issue). He is probably stretching his case, as earlier examples can be found; see, for instance, Hamada’s translation of Gen. 1:1 quoted in 6.1.1 below, which preceded the Meiji Constitution by several decades.

152

chapter four

The particle wa, however, does appear about 20 times in this chapter. Of these, it is used five times after iikeru or iitamaikeru to indicate that what follows is a speech (vv. 2, 10, 14, 16 25). As such it appears in cases where the declinations of the Hebrew root ’mr are used in the original (while for the root dbr the translation usually uses kotoba, vv. 1, 30), but not consistently. In v. 7 we find iu instead of the usual iikeru, and without the wa. In v. 23 it is also avoided, while God’s name ehoba, which is not in the original, is added for the sake of clarity. In other cases in this chapter, wa appears mostly after pronouns (ware, nanji, nanjira, karera), a few times after nouns (kumo no hashira, kono tami), and also after other particles (twice after sono hi ni, once after nochi ni). The particle ga appears much less frequently, about 5 times, and there are instances when it is replaced by no and vice-versa, as common in the classical language (and also, but less frequently, in the modern one). For example, in 31:13 mata karera no kodomo no kore o shirazaru, the second no serves in the common place of ga as a case particle. On the other hand, in 32:2 waga oshie wa ame no kudaru ga gotoshi, the ga is in place of the possessive no in modern Japanese (the same occurs once again later in the verse). Generally speaking, it seems that in this translation wa is not used in its function as a topic marker after proper nouns, but only after pronouns. However, ga may be used after proper nouns (31:7, ehoba ga), and even wa in rare cases ( yakobu wa in v. 9), but this is not done often. Neither wa nor ga appear even after a pronoun when it is at the beginning of a verse, but may appear later in the verse, perhaps for the sake of clarity. In chapter 32 wa appears much more frequently than in chapter 31, and we have to ask whether this is a sign of a poetic text in translation. In the first 30 verses of the chapter the particle appears 28 times, compared with 20 times in chapter 31. In other poetic parts of the Pentateuch, this is apparent too. In Gen. 49, every verse has wa, often more frequently than once or twice. Ex. 14 is another example, although here it is less consistent.9 * * *

9 On the use of wa in the Psalms, see 5.2.2, A-1 below. Although its use is inconsistent, it indeed seems to be used more often in poetical texts. The fact that there were different translators should also be considered, although Hepburn claimed that their contributions had been thoroughly edited to unify the style.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

153

Returning to our verse, we find another stylistic feature of classical literature in the use of the honorific auxiliary verb tamau at the end of v. 8. This is usually used to indicate that the action has been done by a superior (Ikeda 1980, 149). Here it is appended to the verb sadameru (‘to fix’, ‘appoint’), adding the honorific notion of ‘to grant, bestow’ to God’s action. The use of classical grammar is evident in the ending of the verses. The honorific auxiliary verb tamau is conjugated in the indefinite form (已然形 izenkei) or the imperative form (命令形 meireikei) as tamae, and to it is added the auxiliary verb ri (in the final form, 終止形 shūshikei), which adds the notion of a continuing effect of a completed action (the modern equivalent is –te iru) (Ikeda 1980, 100–101). Verse 9 ends with tari, which is the final form (shūshikei) of the classical copular auxiliary verb tari that follows substantives (in modern Japanese, usually de aru) (ibid. 98–99). Word choice must also have been influenced by classical language, although the question of what other alternatives could have been used by the translators should be asked. Reference will be made to three words from the translation of v. 8, two of which were not used by future translators. One of these two is yomo in the phrase yomo ni chirashite, which is the translation of the Hebrew behaprido (when he separated). The word yomo (written in classical Japanese either 四方 or 四面), means “the four corners of the earth” etc., and in modern Japanese is usually pronounced shihō. There may have been another reason for its appearance here (see below in this section). The second word which is not repeated in future translations is yorozu, in the phrase yorozu no tami, which is the translation of goyim (nations). This word originally means “ten thousand”, and has the added meanings of “myriad”, “everything (under the sun)”. It has a strong ancient flavor, and is not used today when counting (the Chinesederived word man is used instead). There is no equivalent for it in the original text, and it must have been used for beauty of style. It brings to mind well-known phrases such as yorozu no koto no ha (よろづのこと の葉) in the first sentence of the “Japanese Preface” to the Kokinshū (古今集). Perhaps it was also added by the translators to create a balance with moromoro no tami in the second half of the verse. The third word to be considered is indeed moromoro, in the phrase moromoro no tami, which is the translation of ‛amim (peoples). The word means “various”, “every-”, etc., and it has appeared in classical literature ever since the Manyōshū. Again, it has no clear equivalent in the

154

chapter four

original, but is used here to express the plural form of the noun, using a poetic-sounding word rather than a more simple solution. Hepburn in his Dictionary (HEP3 780) gives for “all things”: bam-motsu, arayuru mono, yorozu no mono; under “all” he has mattaku, mina, subete no, moro-moro no etc. It seems, then, that in both cases the poetic and more classical option was preferred over the more common one. (See further discussion of the question of goyim and ‛amim later on in this chapter, under 4.2.1). The Meiji Translation also makes the reading softer, more wabunsounding and closer to classical literature through the furigana supplied for the kanji. Even in kanji compounds that are supposed to be read according to the on reading, derived from the Chinese, the original Japanese kun reading is supplied in the furigana (itotakakimono for shikōsha, mochimono for sangyō etc.). Most of the above-mentioned linguistic features should be attributed to the work of the Japanese assistants, or ‘teachers’ as they were sometimes called by the missionaries. The usual method of work on the OT part of the Meiji Translation was for one of the missionaries to translate a certain biblical book, hand it over to one or two of his colleagues for revision, and then pass it on to the Japanese assistants for editing. As we have seen (cf. 3.1: A-1), Hepburn readily acknowledged the missionaries’ indebtedness to their assistants, and in particular Matsuyama Takayoshi and Takahashi Gorō, for creating the unified style of the translation. As indicated before, there was also conflict between the two groups regarding style and orthography, and the above-mentioned system (kanji compounds with kun rather than on reading) must reflect a sort of compromise. The missionaries, for their part, were obviously influenced by English translations of the Bible, and especially by the KJV, which had assumed an authoritative status in the English speaking world for at least two hundred years before the missionaries’ arrival in Japan. The influence of the KJV can be felt in various ways, one by the fact that although the text here is poetry, it is printed as prose (only in the RSV was poetry lineated). Another is the transliteration of the name yakobu, which is closer to the English transliteration Jacob than to the Hebrew ya‛aqob, which has an extra syllable. But there are also deviations from the conventions of the KJV; for example in the transliteration of yehoba where the KJV uses ‘LORD’ (see further discussion under 4.2.2 below). Furthermore, the translators did not follow the KJV where it translates “sons of Adam”, preferring



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

155

instead hito no ko, ‘son(s) of man’.10 These examples show that although they could not detach themselves completely from the KJV, the work of the translators was relatively independent. The translators, both missionaries and Japanese, were also influenced by the Chinese translation of the Bible (cf. 3.1, A-1 above). It is usually argued that the Meiji Translation was influenced by the ‘American’ translation of Bridgman-Culberstone, completed in 1863,11 but it seems that the Delegates’ Version, or the ‘British’ translation, completed in 1854, was also consulted, and in the following both are examined. In the Meiji Translation, v. 8 opens with the combination of three kanji characters, which in Japanese are pronounced, according to the furigana printed along them, itotakakimono. The same combination appears in the ‘British’ translation, and in a slightly different form in the ‘American’ one. It seems implausible that this combination, which is not common in Japanese,12 was created independently of the Chinese translations. The Meiji translators must have felt the need at this point to check the solution of their Mainland predecessors, and adopted their translation, but added kunyomi, which would be more familiar to Japanese readers and listeners with no Chinese education. In fact, at this point in their work the translators must have been familiar with the term ʿelyon, which occurs 31 times in OT as a divine epithet. Following are a few typical examples of the translation of this word, as

10 Loyal to the traditional style, the Meiji translators used the noun ko which can be either singular or plural. Later translators opted for clarity and used kora, ‘children’, a form not very common even in the modern style of written Japanese. As for the translation “sons of Adam” in the KJV, it could have been a theological choice, to emphasize the descent of all human beings from Adam, thus being the heirs to his Original Sin. The Vulgate also has “Adam”, and so do some translations that follow it (see A-3 below). Other translators regarded bnei ’adam as a generic noun compound for ‘human beings’, as is usually understood in Hebrew. 11 For example, Morioka 1991, 205–206, n. 13; cf. note 24 in 3.1 above. Yanabu 1986, 160, also names the Bridgman-Culberston translation as a main source of influence on the Meiji Translation; he probably follows Ebisawa 1981, 219, who refers to Greene’s remark mentioned above (p. 62, n. 23). Toki & Kawashima (1988) argued that both Chinese translations influenced it, as well as the ‘colloquial’ one in Mandarin (but see 7.3 below). 12 Even the combination of the first two characters alone does not appear in dictionaries such as Iwanami’s Kogo Jiten, Meikyo’s Kokugo Jiten or Kenkyusha’s Japanese-English Dictionary. The combination appears in Nelson’s Japanese-English Character Dictionary, because he often cites the Bible translations and Christian terminology; Nelson gives only the on reading, Shikōsha, which does not appear in the other dictionaries either. Neither of the two forms appear in the different editions of Hepburn’s dictionary (1867, 1886, 1894).

156

chapter four

it appears in the Japanese and the two Chinese translations mentioned above: Gen. 14:18 Nu. 24:16 De. 32:8 2S. 22:14 Is. 14:14 Ps. 9:313 Ps. 21:8 Lam. 3:35

A-1 至高き神 至高者 至高者 最高者 至上者 至上者 いとたかき者 至高者

Reading ‘American’ itotakakikami 至上之神 itotakakimono 至上者 itotakakimono 至上者 itotakakimono 至上者 itotakakimono 至高 itotakakimono 至上者 itotakakimono 至上者 itotakakimono 至上者

‘British’ 至高上帝 至上 至高者 至高者 至尊 至上之主 至上之耶和華 至上者

The first example is different, because here the original expression is ’el ʿelyon, which is a combination of noun and adjective, and the translations reflect this fact. In the other examples ʽelyon appears on its own, acting as a noun, in spite of its adjectival form. The Japanese translation, as reflected in the furigana (given here in transliteration), is always the same, although the orthography varies considerably, and appears in four variations. The ‘British’ translation also has several variations, while the ‘American’ one is much more consistent. It should be noted that the kanji combination used in the Meiji Translation in the above-cited verses from Numbers, Deuteronomy and Lamentations appears only in the ‘British’ translation (in Deuteronomy and II Samuel), and must have been taken from there. The combination used in Is. 14 and Ps. 9 is the one which appears consistently in the ‘American’ translation, but is also in the ‘British’ one. In their version of 2S 22:14, the Meiji translators seem to have created a combination of their own with the change of one character, while in Ps. 21:8 they have used mostly hiragana with one kanji character. There is one more similarity between the Japanese and Chinese translations in this verse, and again the similarity is with the ‘British’ version. It is the combination of the two kanji characters which in Japanese are pronounced yomo. Unlike the former example, this word has existed in Japanese for many centuries, but as we have seen above, there is no equivalent for it in the original text, so perhaps here too the earlier Chinese version was followed by the introduction of the word into the Japanese translation. Incidentally, since this matter is already under discussion, one more point may be added. As mentioned above (3.1), the Meiji Translation 13 For Psalms the verse numbers are given according to the MT, which are often different from those in the Japanese translation; 9:3 is 9:2 in Japanese, 21:8 is 21:7.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

157

followed the Chinese translation very closely in the titles of biblical books. It seems that here too the Delegates’ Version had the upper hand. At least in one case where the title of a certain book is different in the two Chinese translations, the Delegates’ Version title was adopted, and that is Deuteronomy: in the Delegates’ Version and the Meiji Translation it is 申命記, while in Bridgman-Culbertson it is 復傳律例書. Could the fact that the Chinese translations had already transliterated YHWH rather than opting for ‘Lord’ also have influenced the Meiji translators? This matter is discussed further, later on in this chapter (under 4.2.2). * * * Translation from one language to another often makes it necessary to change the order of words or even clauses, because of the differences in grammar and linguistic conventions. It is also possible to translate slavishly, word for word, and such translations exist, but they are usually barely readable, while the rearrangement of the translated words is accepted as necessary even by conservative translators of sacred texts.14 In our example, v. 8 can be divided into two halves, each again divided into two distinctive clauses (a and b, c and d). The changing of the internal order between clauses c and d seems very natural in the Japanese language, and almost all translations studied reversed the order here (except for A-9). In Translation Studies’ terminology, this is considered an ‘obligatory shift’.15 Since these two clauses can be regarded as one sentence, and since they contain only one verb, which in biblical grammar comes first, and in regular Japanese grammar comes last, such a changing of order is not surprising. The situation is different, though, in the first half of v. 8, where clauses a and b each form a separate sentence (each with a subject, predicate and object) with more or less parallel meaning. While some changes of position are still expected (such as the moving of the subject from the second to the first position, again an ‘obligatory shift’), there is no evident reason for scrambling the information conveyed in each clause (the settlement of the nations in a, the separation of human beings in b), which is what we

14 Although Jerome argued that “In Scripture even the order of the words is a mystery”; quoted in Barnstone 1993, 183, 192. 15 About shifts in translation see ELL 4696–7; Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997, 152–153; Baker 2001, 226–231. ‘Obligatory shifts’ are changes between source and translation which are inevitable, due to differences between languages; ‘non-obligatory (or optional) shifts’ may occur due to error or intention of the translator.

158

chapter four

see in this translation.16 There could be a logical claim for the change: one might argue that first God divided human beings (into peoples), and then he gave each people its land. But such change in order does not occur in the Vulgate or the KJV, which maintained the order in the MT. For the time being, the reason for this change remains unclear, and perhaps could be attributed to the ‘non-obligatory shifts’ that might occur inadvertently during the process of translation. As mentioned above, and following the examples of the KJV and the Chinese translation, poetic parts of the Bible were not printed as verse in the Meiji Translation, unlike the practice adopted in later Japanese translations. This fact is especially conspicuous in the case of Deut. 32, which is one of the few places where divided lines appear already in the MT. Still, the translators must have been aware of the poetic nature of this text, and the question is whether they tried to create poetry in the translation as well. Indeed, it must be remembered that in this case it was not secular poetry that was being translated, but a sacred text, and its message, rather than its stylistic features, was the main concern for the translators. However, it seems that the translators did wish to render the style of the original text to the best of their ability. In translating poetry, a translator can adopt one of three basic strategies: using the same poetic form as the original text (as, for example, when an Italian sonnet is translated into an English sonnet), translating into a form different from the original but common in the receptor language (for example, translating a Japanese tanka into an English rhymed couplet, as was often done in early translations of Japanese poetry), or translating freely, with minimal or no regard for poetic form. The main characteristic of Hebrew biblical poetry is the principle of parallelism.17 Each verse is divided into two (and sometimes three or four) clauses, that parallel each other semantically, and sometimes syntactically as well. In some cases the clauses are arranged in a contrastive, complementary or chiastic structure. Biblical poetry rarely used rhyme, but it often used alliterations and other repetitions of sounds, and the use of stress must have been important too. Metaphors and similes were

16 Translated into English the first clause would be ‘The Most High scattered human beings in all directions’, and the second ‘[He] divided to each people its inheritance’. The verb connected with ‘division’ remains in the second clause as in Hebrew, but the main meaning of each clause is opposite. 17 See Kugel 1981, 1–58; Alter 1985, 3–26. For a more elaborate introduction to biblical poetry and a fuller discussion of this matter see Chapter 5 below, in particular 5.1 & 5.4.1.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

159

also used. Biblical poetry also preserved ancient semantic and grammatical forms rarely found outside the poetic parts of the Bible. However, it should be born in mind that not much is known about how biblical Hebrew sounded; there are serious doubts concerning the actual pronunciation of some consonants and the vowels, and concerning the place of the accent. Nor can we restore the original meter, if there ever was one; the question is still in debate. All these aspects make the translation of biblical poetry rather arbitrary. The first strategy mentioned above was not applicable in this case, because the form used in biblical poetry did not exist in Japanese (nor did it exist in English, for that matter), although theoretically it could have been introduced. In translation, it would have been difficult to preserve the syntactic order or stress without resorting to a free translation of meaning, but the semantic parallelism can in theory be preserved, at least partially. The second strategy would have meant using the basic form of Japanese poetry, namely alternative units of five and seven syllables, which would have come very naturally to the Japanese assisting the missionaries in their work. In reading this translation the feeling is that there could have been some attempt in this direction, but not consistently. For example, the translation of v. 8 begins with a seven-syllable unit (which could have explained the dropping of the wa particle, but this was found to be consistent in the opening of verses). It is followed by a six-syllable unit, which could be regarded as an acceptable deviation from the form. Then comes another seven-syllable unit which ends the translation of the first Hebrew line. We then find another seven-syllable unit, but then the clear pattern is lost, although the verse ends with a distinctive seven-syllable unit. The translation of v. 9 falls into 7-7-4-8 syllable units. The translation of v. 10 deviates even further from the expected pattern. Did the missionaries or their assistants ever consider using the 7–5 pattern in their translation? So far I have found no evidence to that effect, and the only attempt to do so consistently was by the non-missionary Chamberlain (C-8). What we find here is probably a combination of the first and third strategies: some attempts to follow biblical parallelism, but giving precedence to clear Japanese style, which often means a translation free from the original form. Still, it seems that the translators tried to convey the feeling of poetry through different means. For example, the repetition of sound in chirashite/terashite at what would have been the end of the first and third lines; the parallelism of yorozu no tami and moromoro no tami at the beginning of the second and forth lines; and in v. 9, parallelism

160

chapter four

created through the repetition of the wa particle after a noun, followed by sono. These examples show that the translators were trying, at the very least, to convey the feeling of biblical poetry. 4.1.2 A-2 The Colloquial Translation (1955) 8 9

いと高き者は人の子らを分け、 諸国民にその嗣業を与えられたとき、 イスラエルの子らの数に照らして、 もろもろの民の境を定められた。 主の分はその民であって、 ヤコブはその定められた嗣業である。

8. 9.

itotakaki mono wa hito no kora o wake, shokokumin ni sono shigyō o ataerareta toki, isuraeru no kora no kazu ni terashite, moromoro no tami no sakai o sadamerareta. shu no bun wa sono tami deatte, yakobu wa sono sadamerareta shigyō dearu.

Although this JBS ‘colloquial’ translation is sometimes described as a new translation rather than a revision, it would seem that the classical Meiji Translation was always open in front of the translators while they were working, exerting significant influence on their final product. When carefully compared, the later translation, at least in this particular case of De. 32 (as well as in other cases examined later), seems like an edited version of the older one rather than an independent translation. Here is the transliteration of v. 8 in both translations (A-1 is on the left), with the identical expressions in italics:18 itotakakimono hito no ko o yomo ni chirashite yorozu no tami ni sono mochimono o wakachi isuraeru no hitobito no kazu ni terashite moromoro no tami no sakai o sadame tamaeri

itotakaki mono wa hito no kora o wake, shokokumin ni sono shigyō o ataerareta toki, isuraeru no kora no kazu ni terashite, moromoro no tami no sakai o sadamerareta

18 Comparing the two versions in transliteration makes the similarities even more conspicuous than they would have been if compared in Japanese script, due to the considerable changes in orthography.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

161

Two grammatical changes stand out in the first line. One is the insertion of the particle wa as a topic marker, and in this case also a subject marker (cf. discussion under A-1 above). It seems that the use of wa became much more common in writing during the decades that separated the two translations, and by now a noun standing at the beginning of the sentence without a particle following it would have seemed odd. The second change is the adding of the plural marker ra to ko in the expression hito no ko (human beings). In both cases of change, the later translators opted for clarity rather than faithfulness to the classical wabun style. In the second line the JBS translators dropped the poetical yorozu no tami in favor of the more matter-of-fact expression shokokumin, a combination of three kanji characters, and a much ‘harder’ expression in comparison with the softer, more Japanese sounding, combination of two words connected by means of the possessive particle no. This is also one example of many which shows that the ‘colloquial’ style in writing is still considerably removed from colloquial speech, and that the use of kanji combinations, an inheritance of the kanbun, is difficult to avoid. For the translation of ‘inheritance’, the JBS translators opted for shigyō (嗣業), slightly different from the kanji combination used by their predecessors (産業), which is usually pronounced sangyō in the on reading, but for which the Meiji Translation provides the kun reading mochimono. The verb wakeru (divide) was moved to the first line, and the verb ataeru (give, bestow) was added.19 The word toki (here meaning ‘when’) was also added, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew prefix be-, an element missing in the previous translation. In spite of these changes, the JBS translation seems to have followed the earlier one in another respect, and that is the shifting of some of the information in the first two lines (cf. the discussion under A-1 above).20 There appears to be no other reason for this change of order, which occurred in none of the later translations, so would seem to be a case of a later translator inadvertently following the error of an earlier one. In the third and fourth lines the two translations seem even more similar. In the third line the JBS repeats the plural noun kora of its first line.21

19  In A-1 this meaning was implicit in the auxiliary verb tamau. 20  Translated into English the first line would be ‘The Most High divided human beings’, and the second ‘When [He] gave each people its inheritance’. 21 Here again the Meiji Translation uses a kanji combination that is usually read according to the on reading—in this case shison or descendants—but supplies in furigana the kun reading hitobito or people.

162

chapter four

In the fourth line the most conspicuous change is the substitution of the honorific suffix -reru in the past tense conjugation (sadamerareta) for the classical ending sadame tamaeri in the previous translation. As for v. 9, it cannot serve as a good test-case because it is rather short and simple in content.22 The variations in it when compared with the Meiji Translation are all expected, in light of the translation of v. 8. The most conspicuous difference is a theological one: the avoidance in A-2 of transliterating the Tetragrammaton as ehoba, replacing it with shu, equivalent to the translation of ‘Lord’ common in many English translations (see more below 4.2.2). Still, in spite of all the similarities between these two main Protestant translations of the OT, the differences also stand out. The effort to modernize and simplify the language is evident. The grammar is more contemporary, and the classical style has been shed. Also unlike the previous translation, printing is in short lines, as in the MT, and as expected in poetry, but there was apparently no attempt to render the translation poetic. There was even a certain loss: while A-1’s expression moromoro no tami was retained, its parallel, yorozu no tami was cast aside, indicating a certain insensitivity on the part of the revisers. 4.1.3 A-3 The Sapporo Translation (1954) 8 至高き御者、國々の民を分かち給える時、アダムの裔等を別ち給え る時、６)イスラエルの裔等の數に循いて民の境界を定め給いぬ。７) 9 されど主の分はその民にして、ヤコブはその相傳の地８)なり。 8. itotakaki onmono, kuniguni no tami o wakachi tamaeru toki, adamu no kora o wakachi tamaeru toki, 6) isuraeru no kora no kazu ni shitagaite tami no sakai o sadame tamainu. 7) 9. saredo shu no bun wa sono tami ni shite, yakobu wa sono yuzuri no chi 8) nari.

This Catholic translation is said to be in a ‘moderate classical style’, but in some respects the classical style seems even heavier than in the Meiji Translation. While the Meiji Translation uses the honorific auxiliary verb tamau in v. 8 only once, at the end of the verse as inclusive for all of it, in the Sapporo Translation it appears three times in this one verse, 22 Comparing the rest of the chapter in the two translations yields similar results; in many cases the expressions of A-1 are retained with small adjustments in style and ortho­ graphy, while in some other cases the translation of A-2 is original.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

163

following each verb. At the end of the verse tamau is conjugated in the conjunctive form (連用形 renyōkei), and to it is added the classical auxiliary verb nu, used to express the completion of an action, in its final form (shūshikei) (Ikeda 1980, 90–91). V. 9 ends with nari, which is the final form (shūshikei) of the classical auxiliary verb nari that follows substantives (in modern Japanese, usually de aru) (ibid. 134–135). The meaning of nari is very similar to the meaning of tari used in this place by the Meiji Translation (A-1).23 The enhanced use of honorifics is evident in another place; while in A-1 ʽelyon was translated itotakakimono, here the honorific prefix on was added before mono. The orthography is often archaic, and the kanji are used in the older form, prior to the 1946 reform (國 rather than 国, 數 rather than 数). Often rare characters are used rather than the more common ones (such as 裔 in kora). On the other hand, the kana is used according to the reformed forms; for example, tamainu conforms with modern writing (with い rather than ひ). However, although it adheres to classical grammar, when compared with the Meiji Translation, the classical language in this one seems lacking in style. Poetical expressions which were found in A-1 are not found here, and the language is more concise and matter of fact. Perhaps in this respect it can indeed be considered as translated in a ‘moderate classical style’, because it has retained much of the classical grammar (such as in the use of the auxiliary verbs), but in other respects the effect of the modern Japanese style of writing can be felt. The translation follows the Vulgate very closely. The word toki, here meaning ‘when’, appears twice, and its equivalent also appears twice in the Vulgate.24 It corresponds to the Hebrew prefix be-, which indeed appears twice in the MT, whereas most other translations avoided repeating it. As seen above in A-2, one use of toki is sufficient from the point of view of the Japanese style. It also retained the expression ‘children of Adam’, which all other translations (except for A-9) translated with the meaning ‘human beings’ (see also above under A-1). The small numbers in the text refer to footnotes containing interpretations, printed under a dividing line at the bottom of the page. In note no. 6 it is explained that the situation described in the first half of 23 It is likely that by Meiji time nari was more common in use than tari. 24 The Vulgate text is: 8. quando dividebat Altissimus gentes quando separabat filios Adam constituit terminos populorum iuxta numerum filiorum Israhel. 9. pars autem Domini populus eius Iacob funiculus hereditatis eius.

164

chapter four

v. 8 refers to the time after the Flood, when the separation into different nations and lands took place. In no. 7 it is explained that the land which had already been chosen for Israel was being prepared for them. These are very conservative and harmonistic interpretations,25 which do not really solve the difficulties in this verse. Note no. 8 provides a more straightforward explanation, saying that the original word (in the Vulgate) funiculus, refers to the land being measured with a rope.26 4.1.4 A-4 The Sekine Translation (Begun 1956; Deuteronomy Published 1993) 8 9

至高き神、諸族に嗣業をつがせ 彼、人の子らを分け 神々の子らの数に従って(１) 諸民の境を設けたとき、 ヤハヴェの分は　その民となり ヤコブは　その嗣業の分け前とはなった。

8. itotakaki kami, shozoku ni shigyō o tsugase kare, hito no kora o wake kamigami no kora no kazu ni shitagatte (1) shotami no sakai o mōketa toki, 9. yahave no bun wa sono tami to nari yakobu wa sono shigyō no wakemae to wa natta.

Sekine’s translation is written in a very plain style, concise and clear. In this chapter he divides the lines according to the MT, and when two Hebrew lines are printed in one Japanese line, a double space is left. Unlike most other translations, furigana is rarely used, which may indicate that this translation was for study purposes, rather than for reciting in a religious context. However, unlike some other scholarly translations (A-5, A-12), and even some of the more ‘religious’ ones (A-3, A-6a) very few notes of explanations are supplied.27 In v. 8, note no. 1 says that the MT’s “according to the number of the children of Israel” was emended here according to the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is consistent 25 By ‘harmonistic’ I mean those kinds of interpretations which regard the whole Bible as a single, divinely inspired book, and strive to reconcile between any apparently conflicting details found in it. 26 The Hebrew word ḥebel means both ‘rope’ and ‘measure of land’. 27 It should be noted that the translations which usually supply a great amount of interpretations are the Catholic ones (A-3, A-5, A-6, A-6a), while Protestant translations tend to avoid these, and at the most supply cross-references (except for some editions of A-7). A-12 is a scholarly and not a ‘religious’ translation.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese 165

with Sekine’s strategy of emending the MT according to external textual evidence (more on this in 4.2.5 below). The ‘colloquial’ style is apparent, for example in the use, at the end of v. 9, of the very colloquial form natta (became), which is as far as can be from the classical style, or even the more ‘respectable’ colloquial style used in writing Japanese. Compare this use with the classical style ending tari (A-1) or nari (A-3), or with the formal de aru in the first ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2). It seems that Sekine’s aim was to allow readers to hear the Bible speak in their everyday language. Even more surprising is the use of the third-person pronoun kare for God, which Sekine adds for clarity at the beginning of the second line. To conservative readers this may sound almost blasphemous. The words kare (he) and kanojo (she) were essentially introduced during the Meiji Period for use in translating Western texts; earlier these pronouns were not often used in Japanese, or referred to inferiors.28 And although they have entered common use by Japanese speakers nowadays, these pronouns are still not considered polite or refined (as compared, for example, with ano kata, or even better, with avoiding a pronoun altogether, and referring to the persons in question by their title or social position, which is the traditional Japanese way). Sekine’s use of particles is also interesting. In v. 8 he avoids using the wa particle altogether, inserting instead a comma after the nouns at the beginning of the first and second lines. Avoiding the particle is reminiscent of the classical style, as discussed above, but the insertion of the commas again gives the feeling of a colloquial conversation, where a speaker may pause slightly rather than use a particle. In v. 9 on the other hand, he uses wa three times; the first two uses, after bun and after yakobu are common with most other translations of this verse (and provide good examples of topicalization). The third use, in the combination to wa natta is less clear, and was perhaps added for emphasis. Checking the rest of the chapter in Sekine’s translation his use of wa is found to be quite inconsistent; v. 10 begins with kare followed by a comma, while v. 13 begins with kare wa. Sekine must have used the particle according to whether it felt right in each verse, and not according to consistent grammatical principles.

28 Early Japanese grammar books written by foreigners reflect this fact in various ways. For example, Alcock 1861, 21: “He or She, Kare; sometimes Are. Applied to inferiors”; Aston 1873, 10: “The pronoun of the third person is are (plural arera). Are has no gender. It is often replaced by the more polite form ano hito, that man or that woman [. . .].” In A-1 kare was used for either sex (Gen. 4:1 etc.). See also Yanabu 1976, 170–185.

166

chapter four

Sekine’s strategy of emending the text according to external textual evidence was mentioned above, but it seems he also felt free to introduce changes of his own. For example, his translation of ʽelyon as itotakaki kami, a form which no other translation has adopted here except for A-11. As already discussed above, in Hebrew ʽelyon can be either an adjective or a proper noun; in Japanese itotakaki is an adjective and requires a noun to follow it (unless it occurs at the end of the sentence). The majority of the translations use the neutral mono or kata meaning ‘person’ (except for the paraphrasing ones, A-8 and A-10, which use kami). Sekine uses the same translation as in Gen. 14:18, where the combination ’el ʽelyon appears. However, in this he was not consistent either, since in many other places (Nu. 24:16, 2S. 22:14, Is. 14:14, Ps. 9:3 etc.) he used the combination itotakaki mono. Another element added by him, as already discussed above, is the pronoun kare, which no other translator saw the need to include. 4.1.5 A-5 Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Begun 1958; Deut. Published 1989) 8 9

いと高き方が、国々に相続分を割り当て、 人の子らを分けられたとき、 神*の子らの数に従い、 国々の境を定められた。(３) ヤーウェに割り当てられたのはその民、 ヤコブはヤーウェご自身に定められた相続分。

8. itotakaki kata ga, kuniguni ni sōzokubun o wariate, hito no kora o wakerareta toki, kami* no kora no kazu ni shitagai, kuniguni no sakai o sadamerareta. (3) 9. ya-we ni wariaterareta no wa sono tami, yakobu wa ya-we gojishin ni sadamerareta sōzokubun.

This scholarly Catholic translation which took 44 years to complete, was supervised from beginning to end by Bernardin Schneider OFM. He was also the editorial co-chairperson of the New Interconfessional Translation (A-11). The two translations, however, differ on many points, such as the use of shu for the Tetragrammaton in the latter translation (see 4.2.2 below), although in the accumulative version of A-5 published in 2011 shu was used in place of the transliteration ya-we in the original version. A-5 also has a long introduction and numerous explanations and interpretations for each biblical book, unlike the other translation. The asterisk after the word kami refers to a section at the end of the book, where all the cases in which the translation introduces emendations



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

167

to the MT are listed (there are 23 such cases in Deuteronomy). This translation also supplies explanations, printed on the left-hand page according to footnote numbers. Note (3) is a particularly long one, almost a page long, and explains the emendation of the MT with benei ’el instead of benei Israel, which is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient translations. However, the explanation given to these “children of God” is rather traditional and harmonistic, not the one usually given in scholarly research (as introduced at the beginning of this chapter). The interpretation says that these are “probably divine entities subordinated to YHWH”, which later were recognized as angels. The ancient mythological context is not mentioned. And although it says that the reading “children of Israel” was introduced in order to prevent a polytheistic impression, the interpretation goes to great length to explain the possible connection between the number of Israel’s offspring and the world’s nations as they appear in the Bible.29 This translation also goes a long way—literally—in order to create unequivocal meaning, at the expense of style, and certainly poetry. The translation of v. 9 is especially long and elaborate, substituting the original seven Hebrew words (two of which are names) with two rather long Japanese lines. An additional occurrence of YHWH, together with gojishin, which means ‘himself ’ with the honorific prefix go (more on the honorifics below under 4.2.4) can be found in the second line of the verse. This addition is again for the sake of clarity. The use of particles was examined in the earlier translations, paying special attention to the appearance or absence of a particle—usually wa—following the first noun in v. 8. In this translation the use of the particle ga following that first noun is found for the first time. As seen previously, while wa is a mark of topicalization, ga can serve as a more precise subject marker. It can indeed be argued that the use of ga is more proper than the use of wa in this case. If itotakaki mono (or kata in this translation) is designated as the topic of the sentence, more information about him can be expected later in the verse (as in the classic example 象は鼻が長い zō wa hana ga nagai literally, “as for the elephant, it has a long nose”).30 But if that noun is designated as subject, then a description of its action is expected, and this is indeed the case in this verse. 29 In the 2011 accumulative version, apart from the change from ya-we to shu, sōzokubun was changed to shigyō as in A-11, and the shortened explanation did not mention the angels. 30 The title of Mikami’s 1960 ground-breaking book.

168

chapter four

Of course, with this choice the translation follows the common rules of contemporary Japanese writing, turning its back on the classical style. In this respect too it is a very practical translation. 4.1.6 A-6 Barbaro I (1958–64) 8 9

いと高おんものは、民々に遺産を分け、 人の子らを分散なさったとき、 民々の境をきめられたのは、 神*の子らの数によられた。 なぜなら、み民は、主のうわまえ、 ヤコブは、主の遺産のわけまえだから。

8. itotakaki onmono wa, tamidami ni isan o wake, hito no kora o bunsan nasatta toki, tamidami no sakai o kimerareta no wa, kami* no kora no kazu ni yorareta. 9. nazenara, mitami wa, shu no uwamae, yakobu wa, shu no isan no wakemae da kara.

In this first version of Barbaro’s translation, Deuteronomy was one of the books actually translated by Aloysius Del Col. This translation is supposed to follow the Vulgate as well as the MT, but in this case at least, it seems closer to the latter than the former. It is also very dissimilar to the earlier Catholic translation of the Vulgate (A-3), not only in its use of the ‘colloquial’ rather than classical style, but also in sentence structure and choice of words. The use of honorifics in this translation is conspicuous. These include the prefix on and the verb nasaru, both relating to God in v. 8, and the prefix mi relating to the people in v. 9. This is the only translation to use this last honorific, which is rarely used in modern Japanese.31 While the prefix go can be heard in different circumstances, mi is restricted to special religious purposes. Here this prefix ascribes holiness to God’s people (more on honorifics below under 4.2.4). The asterisk alerts the reader to the notes given at the end of the chapter, according to the verse numbers, which are often quite long and elaborate. The note for v. 8 says (in my translation): “The ‘children of god’ refers to angels, that is to say, the guardian angels of each nation. The Latin Vulgate 31 Tobita 1971, 55, writes that several Bible translations (his examples are from NT) use mi in noun combinations, but that “most of them sound excessively honorific, hence obsolete, to common people, and they rarely use this prefix”.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese 169

translation has ‘children of Israel’.” Chronologically, this is the first Japanese translation to emend the text in this place, but it also appends to it a traditional interpretation (as A-5 also did later). 4.1.7 A-6a Barbaro II (1980) 8 9

いと高き者は、民に遺産を分け、 人の子らを分けておかれた。 そのとき主はイスラエル*のこらの数に基づいて、 もろもろの民の境を決められた。 主の分け前はこの民である。 主の遺産はヤコブである。

8. itotakaki mono wa, tami ni isan o wake, hito no kora o wakete okareta. sono toki shu wa isuraeru* no kora no kazu ni motozuite, moromoro no tami no sakai o kimerareta. 9. shu no wakemae wa kono tami dearu. shu no isan wa yakobu dearu.

Barbaro’s revised translation can be regarded in this case as a new translation rather than a revision. Not much was left from the earlier version (translated by Del Col). Many of the honorifics were omitted, much of the vocabulary was changed, and sentence structure was modified. Barbaro also reverts to the MT (or the Vulgate) in avoiding the emendation adopted by Del Col. The asterisk next to the word isuraeru indicates the presence of a note at the end of the chapter. In this case Barbaro explains in his note that this is a place difficult to interpret. He says that the land was settled by the Canaanite tribes, but God had prepared it in advance for the people of Israel. He then indicates that the Septuagint has here “children of God”, but that the MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Peshitta Aramaic translation all have “children of Israel”. This translation seems to strive to be as simple and clear as possible. Although some words may have been taken from earlier translations (itotakakimono, moromoro no tami—both in A-1 and A-2), on the whole the language is made simpler. Commas and full stops are used in profusion to facilitate clear reading, and the lines are divided as in poetry. For the sake of clarity, the translation repeats the word shu (Lord) in v. 9, as some other translations have also done. The style is ‘colloquial’, but moderately so, as exemplified by the use of de aru in the end of sentences.

170

chapter four

4.1.8 A-7 New Revised Translation (1970) 8 9

「いと高き方が、１)国々に、 相続地を持たせ、 人の子らを、２)振り当てられたとき、 イスラエルの子らの数にしたがって、 国々の３)民の境を決められた。 主の割り当て分は１)ご自分の民であるから、 ヤコブは主の２) 相続地である。

8. “itotakaki kata ga, 1) kuniguni ni, sōzokuchi o motase, hito no kora o, 2) furiaterareta toki, isuraeru no kora no kazu ni shitagatte, kuniguni no 3) tami no sakai o kimerareta. 9. shu no wariatebun wa 1) gojibun no tami dearukara, yakobu wa shu no 2) sōzokuchidearu.

This conservative Christian translation is in a ‘colloquial’ style which is clear but not necessarily concise, somewhat like A-5 above. It strove to make things simple, although it ran into difficulties, such as in v. 8. The translators avoided emending the MT, and since the relation between the number of the children of Israel and the land allotted to the different nations remains unclear, they had to add an explanation in a footnote (although the footnotes containing the explanations do not appear in all editions of this Bible, unlike the cross-references, which do). The quotation-marks opened at the beginning of v. 8, are closed at the end of v. 14. A footnote explains that vv. 8–14 are what the father and the elders, mentioned in v. 7, are supposed to tell their children. Another footnote interprets v. 8, saying that the meaning may be that the land was distributed to the different nations with consideration to Israel. It also explains that itotakaki (the translation of ʿelyon) is a poetical name for God. The footnotes do not mention the alternative reading for this verse. The small numbers in the text refer to cross-references, supplied on the inner margin of the page. In v. 8 no. 1, the cross-references given are Gen. 10 and Acts 17:26. For no. 2 it is Gen. 11:8. For no. 3 the references are Ps. 74:17, Ze. 9:2 and Acts 17:26 once again. In v. 9 no. 1 refers to Ex. 15:16, 1K 8:51, 53, and Ps. 74:2. No 2 is to 1S 10:1, Is. 63:17, and Jer. 10:16. These cross-references reflect the conservative, harmonistic theological view of this translation, according to which the whole Bible, including the NT, is conceived as a unified, divinely-inspired book, in which all parts relate to each other, regardless of the time or circumstances of their composition.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

171

4.1.9 A-8 The Living Bible—Paraphrased (1978) 8 世界を造られた時、 神様は天使を遣わし、 国々を監督させた。 9 だが、イスラエルは特別だ。 神様ご自身のものだからだ。 8. sekai o tsukurareta toki, kamisama wa tenshi o tsukawashi, kuniguni o kantokusaseta. 9. daga, isuraeru wa tokubetsu da. kamisama gojibun no mono dakara da.

This is a very free paraphrase, which, when translated back into English, would yield approximately: “When He created the world, God dispatched angels to supervise each country. However, Israel is special. It is God’s own”. This translation uses kamisama indiscriminately, regardless of which one of God’s names or epithets appears in the Hebrew text. The translators were aware of the textual difficulty in v. 8, but rather than choose between “children of Israel” or “children of God”, they went for the traditional interpretation which introduces the angels. The strategy of this version is to make any complicated matter simple and unequivocal, regardless of the real contents of the original text. In doing so it is true to its name, ‘Paraphrase’ rather than translation. 4.1.10 A-9 New World Translation (1982) 8 9

至高者が諸国民に相続分を与えたとき、(チ) アダムの子らを互いに引き離したとき、(ツ) もろもろの民の境界を定めて、(テ) イスラエルの子らの数を顧慮された。(ト) エホバの受け分はその民、(ナ) ヤコブはその受け継がれる割り当て分だからである。(ア)

8. shikōsha ga shokokumin ni sōzokubun o ataetatoki, adamu no kora o tagaini hikihanashita toki, moromoro no tami no kyōkai o sadamete, isuraeru no kora no kazu o koryosareta. 9. ehoba no ukebun wa sono tami, yakobu wa sono uketsugareru wariate bun dakara dearu.

172

chapter four

This translation seems to use the most regular, everyday Japanese style, as taught in schools and found in newspapers. It is the only one of all the translations, except for A-12, to use the ‘correct’ reading (the on yomi, as supplied in the furigana) for the translation of ʿelyon, namely shikōsha, while the other translations followed A-1 in adopting the ‘softer’ sounding itotakaki mono (or kata or kami). The word shikōsha is underlined, as are all other names used for God in the Bible and in this translation, including the common kami. Only ehoba, the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is not underlined. The translation strives to be as literal as possible, translating word for word; correct Japanese grammar is certainly not ignored, although some liberty may have been taken with it compared with the other translations. For example, unlike most other translations of v. 8, the original order of clauses in the second half of the verse is maintained. For the sake of correct Japanese sentence structure, the fourth clause (about the number of the children of Israel, or of God) appears before the original third clause (about the borders of nations) in all other translations, but here the original order is kept in the translation. It is not surprising that the text was not emended, and “children of Israel” was retained. The letters in parentheses at the end of each line refer the reader to the narrow column in the middle of the page, where biblical cross-references are given. For example, the cross-references for the first line is to Gen. 10:5 (where the separation of nations is mentioned), and to Ps. 115:16 (where it says that the heavens are YHWH’s, but the earth he gave to man). When examining these two verses, the translation seems faithful and accurate, if perhaps too literal. However, as we have seen earlier (3.1), in several other places the text of the Bible has been altered for theological reasons, without alerting the reader to the changes made. 4.1.11 A-10 Modern Japanese Bible / Oyama Reiji (1983) 8 9

神が昔、世界を造られた時、 それぞれの国に領土を与えられ、 イスラエルにも領土を与えられた。 しかし、主はイスラエルの民を、 特別にご自分の民とされた。

8. kami ga mukashi, sekai o tsukurareta toki, sorezore no kuni ni ryōdo o ataerare, isuraeru ni mo ryōdo o ataerareta. 9. shikashi, shu wa isuraeru no tami o, tokubetsu ni gojibun no tami to sareta.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

173

This translation resembles the one in the Living Bible (A-8), paraphrasing and digesting the text almost to the same degree. A translation into English would yield: “When God created the world, giving domains to every country, He gave a domain to Israel too. But the Lord made the people of Israel his own special people.” The translator avoids the choice between “children of Israel” and “children of God” simply by ignoring both options, not even introducing the angels as did A-8. The translator, Oyama Reiji, takes his stated strategy of dynamic equivalence to an extreme degree, giving priority to the supposed message, at the expense of the literal meaning of the original text. Compared with A-8, he is a little more mindful of nuances in one respect: he translates ʽelyon with kami, and YHWH with shu. But such considerations notwithstanding, this Bible may also be considered a paraphrase rather than a translation. 4.1.12 A-11 New Interconfessional Translation (1987) 8 9

いと高き神が国々に嗣業の土地を分け 人の子らを割りふられたとき 神の子らの数に従い 国々の境を設けられた。 主に割り当てられたのはその民 ヤコブが主に定められた嗣業。

8. itotakaki kami ga kunigunini shigyō no tochi o wake hito no kora o warifurareta toki kami no kora no kazu ni shitagai kuniguni no sakai o mōkerareta. 9. shu ni wari aterareta no wa sono tami yakobu ga shu ni sadamerareta shigyō.

This translation uses a ‘colloquial’ style which is quite similar to the one used in the former JBS translation (A-2), simple and clear. The style in this chapter seems even more concise, probably in an attempt to convey something of the feeling of the original poetry. For instance, although the sentence ending de aru is used elsewhere in the translation (for example, Deut. 31:30), and in A-2 was used also at the end of v. 9, here it was omitted. For ʽelyon we find here itotakaki kami, which no other translation has used in this verse, except for A-4. As shown above, for Sekine it was an exceptional usage, which he did not follow in other cases where ʽelyon appears on its own (rather than ’el ʿelyon). But in the New Interconfessional Translation, this somewhat surprising choice was preferred elsewhere quite consistently (Nu. 24:16, 2S 22:14, Ps. 9:3, Ps. 21:8,

174

chapter four

Lam. 3:35 etc.), apparently with one exception: in Is. 14:14 we find itotakaki mono.32 As was described above (3.1), this translation is the work of a large committee, comprised of many translators, revisers and supervisors, both Protestant and Catholic. It is therefore hard to tell if a certain problem in the translation is due to a translator’s oversight, a reviser’s arbitrary decision, or theological guidelines imposed from above. Perhaps the intention was to create an unequivocal meaning through the consistent use of kami, so no reader would ever doubt that the expression refers to God (whereas mono or kata may seem ambiguous), and the exception in Is. 14:14 may have slipped in by mistake. Like in A-5, A-7, and A-9, here too the particle ga is used after the first noun in v. 8 (see discussion under A-5 above). In this translation ga is used also in v. 9, apparently because the translators used a passive form in this verse (see further discussion under 4.2.4). Unlike A-2, the text is emended here to read “children of God”, but no indication of this fact is given. In keeping with the tradition of the Bible Societies (and contrary to the Catholic tradition) there are no footnotes or any other additions to the text, except for titles to chapters and episodes, added, perhaps, as a compromise. Still, several appendixes were included, but a list of text emendations is not one of them. The translators can be said to have assumed responsibility for giving their readers a text which is unequivocal, depriving them of the knowledge that at certain points they have made critical choices for their sake. To counter that, it may be argued that any translation requires choices almost in every word, and if the translators had alerted their reader to all the choices they made, the result would have been an unreadable translation. Still, when a choice such as preferring external textual evidence is made, it would seem that the reader should be notified;33 perhaps the best example in this respect is Sekine, who in his translation (A-4) used footnotes sparingly to indicate only the most important emendations or choices, without sliding into interpretation.

32 Both forms appear several times in the book of Daniel, but there the translation is from Aramaic. 33 Unless the MT is not considered the main source; however, in the introduction to the translation it is stated that the main source for the OT is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which follows the MT.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

175

4.1.13 A-12 Iwanami Shoten Translation (2001) 8 9

至高なる方二が、(異邦の)国民に嗣業*を受け継がせ、 人の子らにそれを割り振ったとき、 イスラエルの子らの三数に四従って、 諸々の民の境界を定めたのである。 まことにヤハウェの分け前は、その民、五 ヤコブがその嗣業*の割り当て。

8. shikō naru kata2 ga, (ihō no) kunitami ni shigyō* o uketsugase, hito no kora ni sore o warifutta toki, isuraeru no kora no3 kazu ni4 shitagatte, moromoro no tami no kyōkai o sadameta no dearu. 9. makoto ni yahawe no wake mae wa, sono tami,5 yakobu ga sono shigyō* no wariate.

This is a scholarly translation, but one directed at the general public, and not only experts. Since it was the first full translation not to be initiated by a religious organization, the translators were in principle free of all constraints. The translation uses several kinds of marks and numbers to indicate notes and explanations. The word in parentheses is an addition not appearing in the MT. In this case the addition is ihō no—“of the gentiles”. The idea behind adding it, must have been to reflect the distinction between Israel and the rest of the nations. The asterisk next to the word shigyō alerts the reader to the explanations at the end of the book, in this case explaining the Hebrew word naḥalah and its translation. The small numbers refer to short interpretations given on the opposite page. Number 2 relates to the name of the god ʿelyon, and the note refers the reader to explanations given elsewhere (Gen. 14:18–20, Ps. 47:2–3). Number 3 refers to the reading “children of Israel”, which this scholarly translation adheres to, unlike other modern translations. The explanation says only that those who emend the MT read here “sons of God”, according to the Septuagint. Notes numbers 4 and 5 also give alternative readings from the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the explanatory notes at the beginning of the translation (p. xi of v. 1 in the four volume edition), note no. 6 says that when there is a difficulty in the MT which requires emendation, explanations are given in the marginal notes. So it seems that according to this principle, the translator preferred to suggest an alternative reading in the notes rather than in the text itself. Another explanatory note, no. 3, says that when words were added to the MT, they were added between square brackets (an example is given in 4.2.5 below).

176

chapter four

This translation uses some words not encountered before, one of which is the translation of ʽelyon as shikō naru kata. Using the same two kanji as found in former translations since A-1, it gives the on yomi for them (as did A-9), and creates quite a long expression. This is one example of the style of this translation, at least in these verses, which is careful and faithful, but not flowing, and is hardly poetic. 4.2 Some Further Discussions Following the introduction of the various translations, a few issues common to all of them will be discussed in some detail: the translation of the words equivalent to ‘peoples’ and ‘nations’; the transliterating of YHWH; the translation of the Hebrew ki; and the use of honorifics and the passive, as well as the pronouns. Finally, the translations of Genesis 4:8 will be compared, as a test-case for the translators’ approach to emending the MT. 4.2.1 Peoples and Nations The two Hebrew words goy and ‛am appear in v. 8 in the plural form (goyim, ‛amim) not in direct parallelism, but rather at the end of the first and the third lines. These two terms are of close semantic proximity, and often appear as parallels in the Bible. They are usually translated into English as ‘nation’ and ‘people’ respectively (cf. KJV and JPS translations above), and sometimes without distinction (cf. ‘nations’ in both cases in the NJB translation above).34 Their exact meaning is hard to tell apart; indeed, even in English ‘people’ and ‘nation’ may seem interchangeable in many cases. Still, Speiser (1960) argued that the two terms are clearly distinguishable in the OT text. According to him (in my phrasing) ‛am is a more intimate term, denoting common racial ancestry, while goy is a more political term, referring to territorial affiliation. However, while this distinction may reflect a recognizable tendency, it is not true in all cases of usage (see TDOT, V. II, 427). In different occurrences goy may relate to either race, government or territory (ibid. 428–429). Likewise, ‛am is used in a variety of contexts, be they political, civil or religious (TDOT, V. XI, 174–177). In some cases the words are used synonymously,

34 According to Speiser 1960, 157, the common translation is the opposite: ‘am-people and goy-nation, but this is not the case in the two translations quoted above.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

177

and this also seems to be the case in our verse. To tell them apart, we may argue as follows: the first half of the verse speaks about the creation of families of men; the second half speaks about the setting of (political?) boundaries; therefore the translation should be the opposite to the one found in both the KJV and JPS, with ‘peoples’ coming first and ‘nations’ later. But this line of argument is not necessarily convincing, since the first half of the verse is already speaking about the settling of nations. Also, this is a poetical text rather than a legal one, and the distinctions may be somewhat blurred rather than clear-cut. It is therefore no wonder that NJB chose to translate the two different Hebrew words with the same English one, because they are hardly distinguishable in this verse. As is evident from the English examples, a translator would have two options in such a case, when two words seem to be synonymous: 1) Ignore the possible distinction that may exist in the source language, and use the same word in both cases when translating into the receptor language. The readers of such a translation would not be aware that originally these were two different words, but would hardly lose anything in terms of meaning. 2) Insist on using two different words in the translation; this can be done either by inquiring elsewhere, inside the text or outside it (in this case, the whole OT and etymological dictionaries of its language), after a possible distinction between the two terms, or simply by the translator’s own estimate of the possible difference in meaning. Another complication arises from the question whether the receptor language also has the same two terms which are synonymous but also distinguishable. In this case English seems to meet this requirement, but the question whether ‘people’ is identical to ‛am and ‘nation’ to goy can be seriously debated. Here is how several of the Japanese translations dealt with the translation of goyim and of ‛amim (ignoring differences in orthography); the translations for either goy or ‛am are in italics, while the rest concerns the different ways of indicating the plural: A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5

yorozu no tami shokokumin kuniguni no tami shozoku kuniguni

moromoro no tami moromoro no tami tami shotami kuniguni

178 A-6 A-6a A-7 A-9 A-11 A-12

chapter four tamidami tami kuniguni shokokumin kuniguni (ihō no) kunitami

tamidami moromoro no tami kuniguni no tami moromoro no tami kuniguni moromoro no tami

The words used to translate goy are:35 tami (the people, a nation, a people) kokumin (a nation, a people; the people, the nation) zoku (a family, kinsmen, kinsfolk) kuni (a country, a land; an empire, a kingdom; a state, a nation, a polity) kuni no tami [the people of a country] kunitami [a nation, a people36]

The words used to translate ‛am are: tami kuni kuni no tami

It seems that the Japanese translators found goy more difficult to nail down, coming up with six different options for this word. The translation of ‛am must have been easier, with only three options, all of which appear also on the list of translations for the former term.37 Of the 11 translations in the above table, five have opted for repeating the same term for the two Hebrew words (A-1, A-5, A-6, A-6a, A-11). Three others have different expressions, but with some elements repeated (A-3, A-7, A-12). Only three have completely different translations for the two words (A-2, A-4, A-9). In fact, we can reduce their number to two, since A-9 repeated here exactly the translation of A-2, which must have been consulted. As for A-2 and A-4, both have chosen tami for ‛am; for goy, A-2 has kokumin while A-4 has zoku—almost conflicting translations:

35 The first definitions in Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary for the first 4 words are given in parentheses. 36 According to several Japanese dictionaries, this word, which is not very common, is synonymous with kokumin. 37 See also Nakazawa 1960, 107–108, 116, who found a great degree of inconsistency in the translation of both terms in A-1 and A-2, including some words that did not appear in the above list.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

179

zoku gives the more ancient flavor of family or tribe, while kokumin has a modern flavor of national polity. A-2 can be said to go along with Speiser, while A-4 turns the tables on him. It is not easy to evaluate the choice of Japanese words in these translations, since, as mentioned before, the original terms themselves are not easily distinguishable. Generally speaking, the choice of tami for ‛am seems to be the right one, but is it also the best one in this case? A definitive answer is hard to come by. An argument can be made, however, in favor of using two different Japanese words for the two Hebrew ones in this verse. Even if their meaning is hard to tell apart and the choice of the best words to translate them with is not clear, using the same word twice amounts to losing the poetic value of the original, as well as some of the semantic value, even though not much is lost in terms of meaning. As for expressing the plural form, one of four options was adopted, indicating the difficulty the translators had grappling with this aspect, due to the absence of a common plural form in Japanese, arriving sometimes at some very mixed solutions: 1. Keeping the singular form (tami) and letting the plural be deduced from the context (A-3 and A-6a, but by each of them only in one of the two cases; in the other case a plural form was used). 2. The effective but inelegant doubling of the noun (kuniguni, tamidami) (A-3 in one case, A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-11 in both cases). 3. The adding of the prefix sho (various), which also creates a longer kanji compound (shokokumin, shozoku) (A-2 and A-9 in one case, A-4 in both cases). 4. Returning to the top of the list—the option adopted in the Meiji Translation (and in one of the two cases, in a few other translations), of connecting the noun by the particle no to a previous word that adds the plural meaning (although in hyperbole, perhaps), which is the closest to the classical Japanese style. And finally, looking at the above table we can once again appreciate the fact that the Meiji Translation is the only one to use some measure of poetry, and is certainly the most pleasing one in this case (although this might be a subjective feeling).

180

chapter four

4.2.2 On Transliterating the Name YHWH The origin, meaning and exact pronunciation of the name of the God of Israel, represented in the Hebrew Bible by the four letters ‫( יהוה‬YHWH), and known as the Tetragrammaton, are still in dispute.38 Many guesses have been made on the grounds of circumstantial evidence, but unequivocal solutions have not been found yet, including on how the name was pronounced at the time when it was still common to do so. It is believed that during the third century bce, Jews came to consider the name too holy to pronounce, substituting for it ’adonay (my lord). Later, when vocalization was introduced into Hebrew manuscripts, the vowel signs for reading ’adonay were added to the letters YHWH, to remind readers to read ’adonay (or ’elohim in some cases), and not pronounce the holy name by mistake. These vowel signs, slightly mispronounced, have led European Christians to the misreading of the name as Iehouah, which gradually changed into Jehovah (OED, V. 8, 1604). The name Jehovah appeared in the Middle Ages, and is attested to in manuscripts since the 13th century (Murphy 2003, 750). The Jewish translators of the Septuagint followed the reading ’adonay and used Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton. Christian translators followed suit, using Dominus in Latin. But in some biblical passages the substitution was insufficient, and there was a need to give a closer equivalent in the translation. Thus Jerome, in his translation that came to be known as the Vulgate, used ’adonay in Ex. 6:3.39 In the late 14th century, John Wycliffe (1320–1384), translating the Bible from Latin into English for the first time, did the same in this verse. Incidentally, Wycliffe’s acting against the Church’s orders in translating the Bible into a vernacular, cost him the exhumation and burning of his bones (1424). His fate was slightly better than that of William Tyndale (ca. 1494–1536), whose efforts in translating the Bible from the original languages into English cost him his life, making him the martyr, if not the patron saint, of translators.40 In his translation of the Pentateuch (1530), Tyndale went a step further and used Iehouah in Ex. 6:3,41 but he used ‘Lord’ in most other cases. The venerable translators 38 For a detailed discussion of many related issues see TDNT, V. 3, 1058–1085; see also TDOT, V.5, 500–521. 39 “qui apparui Abraham Isaac et Iacob in Deo omnipotente et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis.” 40 Traditionally the second epithet is given to St. Jerome. 41 “I appeared vnto Abraham Isaac and Iacob an allmightie God: but in my name Iehouah was I not knowne vnto them.”



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

181

of the KJV (1611), whose lives were no longer in danger because of their work, did the same, and by this time the form ‘JEHOVAH’ appeared in English. Apart from Ex. 6:3, JEHOVAH was used very few times in the KJV (Is. 12:2; 26:4), but through this Bible, which became the main source of authority for English speakers, it gained widespread use in the Englishspeaking world. Still, for the following few centuries the name was not used consistently in Bible translations, although it did become widely used in Christian hymns. The famous American lexicographer Noah Webster, in his revision of the KJV (1833), replaced ‘LORD’ with ‘Jehovah’ several times, in places where he felt that the consistent use of ‘LORD’ was not clear enough, such as in Is. 51:22 and Jer. 32:18, but he did not alter the use of ‘LORD’ in the majority of the cases. The first English translation to incorporate ‘Jehovah’ consistently seems to have been Robert Young’s Literal Translation (1863). This is a wordfor-word translation, hampered by Young’s idiosyncratic concept of the Hebrew verb (Bruce 1963, 132). Young was followed in this practice by others, such as J.N. Darby (1890). Among the major English versions of the Bible that followed the KJV, the English Revised Version or RV (1885) added ‘Jehovah’ in a few more places, compared with the above-mentioned Webster, but the translators recommended in their Appendix not adopting it any further than that. However, the American revisers, who published what is known as the American Standard Version or ASV (1901) did just that, mentioning in their preface that this was also done “in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries” (quoted in Denio 1927, 149). The American Revised Standard Version or RSV (1952), however, reverted to the use of ‘Lord’. Meanwhile, biblical scholars who were aware of the hybrid nature of the name Jehovah, started introducing alternative forms. During the second half of the 19th century the forms ‘Jahveh’, ‘Yahveh’ and ‘Yahwe’ were introduced, until ‘Yahweh’ became the standard form (OED, V. 20, 688). This form is a scholarly guess, based on several grammatical and epigraphical considerations, but cannot yet be ascertained (ABD, V. 6, 1011–1012). Traditional-minded people tried to cling to the familiar Jehovah and avoided the seemingly meaningless Yahweh (Denio 1927, 146–147), but this name gradually found its way into some English translations, such as the Catholic NJB. Most of the popular English translations, however, still prefer the use of ‘Lord’, rather than confuse their readers with obscure reconstructions of the ancient name. The inadequacy of ‘Lord’ as the translation of YHWH should be pointed out. Not only is it not a true translation, but it also stands for two

182

chapter four

different words, both the Tetragrammaton, as well as the cases in the OT where ’adonay appears by itself (a distinction is sometimes made by using ‘LORD’ for YHWH and ‘Lord’ for ’adonay).42 Still, mostly for reasons of theological conservatism it remains the preferred choice in translations into various languages. For example, in 2001 the boards of the Dutch Bible Society and the Catholic Bible Foundation in the Netherlands, together responsible for the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (New Bible Translation), issued a statement concerning their decision to use HEER (LORD) in their translation, a decision that drove several members of the translation committee to resign in protest (Brenner & van Henten 2002, 6–7). * * * Let us return now to the 19th century and to the missionaries busy translating the Bible in East Asian port towns. In the first Chinese translation (cf. 2.2 above), Morrison used 主 (Lord) for YHWH. However, both the Delegates’ Version (1854) and the Bridgman-Culbertson version (1863) used the transliteration 耶和華 (presumably pronounced ye-ho-hwa). As far as I can tell, in the 1850’s there was no English version of the Bible that could have served as a model in this matter, and the decision to use transliteration consistently must have been made by the missionaries themselves. The comment in the ASV praising missionary translators for this practice should once again be noted. But what exactly motivated this decision? The transliteration of YHWH seems to have been a small footnote in the much larger debate over the “term question” which was raging among the Protestant missionaries in China for the greater part of the 19th century (cf. 2.1.1). During the first years of the debate, before full pamphlets and books promoting the positions of the feuding sides were published, several articles were printed in the Chinese Repository, a monthly magazine which was printed in Canton from 1832 to 1851.43 The contributions to this magazine were mostly anonymous, but apparently everyone knew the identity of the writers according to the side they took in the controversy. The last article in v. 15, published in two parts, was written

42 On this and other difficulties concerning the translation of the Tetragrammaton, see Carroll 2002. 43 Beginning in v. 14 (1845) 101–103, 145–148; and v. 15 (1846) 161–165, 311–317, 464–466, 568–574, 577–601. The magazine continued to serve as a main stage for the debate up to its twentieth and last volume (1851), with articles published mainly by the leaders of the two camps, W.H. Medhurst and W.J. Boone.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

183

by “a Correspondent in Ningpo”, and supported the use of shen (he actually writes shin here rather than shen) for ‘God’.44 The article must have been written by Walter M. Lowrie, who was stationed at Ningpo and was known to support the use of shen; this is confirmed by the full index to the twenty volumes of the Chinese Repository, in which the identity of the writers of most articles is revealed.45 In the first part of his article the writer analyzes the different biblical names for God. He comes to the conclusion that ’elohim, just like Theos, is a generic term, and therefore must be translated into Chinese by a suitable equivalent.46 On the other hand, Jehovah is a proper name, and should not be translated, but rather transliterated. He says that in several Christian tracts this had already been done with the characters 爺和華 (the first of which is slightly different from the one actually used in the Chinese Bible, as given above). The writer states (p. 571): As this is a proper name it is manifestly right that it should be transferred into the Chinese language, as other proper names are [. . .]. When asked by the Chinese “What is the name of your God;” the reply should be, “it is Jehovah.”

Surprisingly, and somewhat contradictorily, the writer then goes on at length to explain that this Holy Name should not be brought into common use. He mentions how the Jews avoided pronouncing it, replacing it with ’adonay; how in the Septuagint it was translated into Kyrios and in later translations into ‘Lord’, and so on. Could it be that some missionaries at the time thought to solve the “term question” by using Jehovah exclusively? If so, the writer must have wished to prevent it. He mentions also that many missionaries in other lands (“as in the South Sea Islands”) used it almost exclusively, to which he seems to object. Still, he wishes to transliterate Jehovah wherever it occurs in the Bible, and does not even bring up the translation ‘Lord’ as an option for the Chinese version, never mentioning the word 主 used by Morrison. If the writer’s motivation can be deduced from his conflicting arguments, then this motivation must have been that the Chinese should not 44 “Remarks on the words and phrases best suited to express the names of God in Chinese”, v. 15 (1846) 568–574, 577–601. 45 This General Index was published in Canton probably in 1851; reprinted in Shanghai, 1940. 46 He dedicates the second part of his article to this problem, and while admitting its difficulty, he picks shin as the suitable generic term over shangdi, which he believes to be a proper name.

184

chapter four

be deprived of the knowledge of what to him was the Holy Name of the True God, which could not be known to them unless it was transliterated as it occurs in the Bible, and not translated. On the other hand, a long tradition compelled him to regard the name with awe, and to wish that its use be restricted to special occasions. Still, opting for consistent transliteration must have been a big step and a break with tradition; perhaps in far-away China it was easier to do than back home. It was to be another 50 years before the ASV went the same way. This is one opinion on the subject, and given the great controversy over this whole matter, there must have been other, perhaps contradicting, ideas on how to deal with the Tetragrammaton. However, the fact is that the use of the transliteration of YHWH was adopted in the various Chinese translations, which differed on other points, including the crucial one of the proper Chinese term for ‘God’. It seems then that Lowrie’s line of reasoning must have been accepted by most of the missionaries active in China at the time. * * * The Meiji translators followed their Mainland predecessors in this matter, as they did in other matters.47 However, they did not use kanji for the transliteration of YHWH or other names, a practice which was still quite common in Meiji Japan (for the transliteration of foreign countries’ names, for example). They copied the kanji transliteration in the book titles, but in the text itself they used katakana (thus, for example, 約拿 in the title, but ヨナ in the text of the Book of Jonah). In any case, the kanji combination used in Chinese, would have read “yawake” in Japanese. For YHWH they used ヱホバ. The first of these three katakana characters was rarely used (and has gone out of use since then). Usually it is read like “e” in “egg”, but historically it can also be pronounced “ye”, and is so transcribed in the “Table of the Japanese Kana” in Hepburn’s Japanese and English Dictionary (1867).48 The syllable ye is no longer used in Japanese, but apparently was still common in the 19th century in the dialect of the area which is now Tokyo (cf. the transliterations Yedo/ 47 Whether they followed it as a matter of fact, or reasoned it all over again with similar or different arguments, is not clear. So far I have been unable to find written evidence for any deliberations over this question. 48 In the “Katakana Syllabary” table in S.R. Brown’s Colloquial Japanese (1863) it appears with the equivalents “ye or e”. The same katakana character was also pronounced weh, and was used for that purpose in biblical transliteration (see below), but it was taken out of use in the post-WWII writing reforms.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

185

Edo).49 So potentially ヱホバ could have been pronounced either yehoba or ehoba. It seems to be derived from the traditional ‘Jehovah’ with its three syllables rather than from the later, scholarly form ‘Yahweh’. Since the sound ‘v’ does not exist in Japanese, and at the time there was no common way of representing it in katakana, ‘vah’ was substituted with ‘ba’. The translators following in the footsteps of the Meiji Translation adopted different strategies in this regard, as can be seen in the 12 other translations of Deut. 32:9 presented above. Seven of them reverted to the traditional way of substituting YHWH with ‘Lord’, in its Japanese translation (adopted from the Chinese), shu (主); these translations are both Protestant (A-2, A-10, as well as A-7, which uses bold face wherever shu stands for YHWH, to distinguish it from other uses), and Catholic (A-3, A-6, A-6a), and they also include the joint Catholic-Protestant translation (A-11).50 The translators of A-2, in the booklet that followed the publishing of their translation ( JBS 1955, 15–18), explained their decision to revert to the use of shu by their wish to prevent misunderstanding and confusion. They elaborated on the vocalization system employed by the MT, and explained that modern research had come up with several pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton. According to them, while the use of transliteration might be appropriate for scholarly works or individual translations, when considering the need for reading from the Bible during prayer, confusion must be avoided. However, in his critical essay on this translation, Nakazawa (1960, 105), wrote that the abundance of shu creates a strange feeling. He pointed out that while in the OT shu refers to YHWH, in the NT it refers to Christ, thus confusing the reader. Furthermore, although there are places in the OT where God is referred to specifically as ‘Lord’, in most other cases he is referred to by name, which in the Meiji Translation was spelled ehoba but should have been spelled yahave. Nakazawa believed that the use of shu in A-2 was influenced by modern translations of the Bible in other languages (RSV would have been the most influential), but argued forcefully that the name of God must be expressed clearly in translation. As for other options, the paraphrastic Living Bible (A-8) uses kamisama (神様) indiscriminately. The New World Translation of the Jehovah 49 Writing 25 years after Brown, W.G. Aston, in his A Grammar of the Japanese Spoken Language (1888), 4, says: “In the syllable ye the y is in most words silent, or nearly so, and is often omitted in romanized Japanese”. 50 On the choice of this use in this translation, against the theological background of this problem, see Walkenhorst 1980, 13.

186

chapter four

Witnesses (A-9) adheres, naturally, to ehoba (エホバ in the modern transliteration). The remaining three translations use slightly different transliterations of ‘Yahveh’, which reflect the difficulty of representing the sound ‘veh’ in Japanese script. Sekine (A-4) is credited for influencing the use of the following transliteration in other translations.51 He used the form ヤハヴェ (ya-ha-ve). Earlier versions were closer to ‘Yahawe’; for example, in his translation of Genesis, published in 1941 (B-5), the Catholic translator Shibutani used the form ヤハヱ (which should probably be pronounced ya-h(a)-we). Even earlier, in his translation of the Psalms of 1909 (B-3a), Sakon Yoshisuke used the form ヤーヱ (Ya-we). They were followed by the Franciscans (A-5), who used the form ヤーウェ (which, according to Schneider, is the transliteration of Yahwe).52 The third and last in this group of translations is the one published by Iwanami (A-12), which used the form ヤハウェ, preferring ‘Yahawe’ over Sekine’s ‘Yahave’. These three translations are all very scholarly, and this is probably the reason for preferring transliteration over ‘Lord’, even by the same person involved in two different translations: Schneider supported the use of shu in the translation made for the general public (A-11), but used Yahwe in the scholarly one (A-5). However, in the 2011 accumulative version of A-5, still supervised by Schneider, the transliteration was replaced by shu. It will be interesting to see whether any future translation which is more religious in nature reverts to the choice made by the Meiji translators, but avoided by the majority of their successors. 4.2.3 A Troublesome Little Word For such a small word, the Hebrew conjunction ki is very tricky. With over 4,000 occurrences in the OT, it is the most common particle, and also the word with the most varied range of nuances and meanings.53 Common meanings include ‘that’ and ‘because’, and insensitive commentators or translators might limit themselves to these meanings, ignoring other possibilities. As often happens with conjunctions, it may seem that they are

51 Schneider 1992, 87. Sekine wrote that his translation was not meant for scholars but for the general public, and for that reason he limited the quantity of scholarly notes, but still his translation is based on the widest use of modern research and alternative sources for the text. 52 Schneider 1992, 98–99, n. 12. On the debate concerning what form to use see also Nao 1970, 24–25. 53 Schoors 1981, 240. Even-Shushan’s Concordance lists twelve nuances of meaning, depending on the context.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

187

‘empty’ signs, devoid of real semantic value, and can simply be ignored in translation. When a word such as ki appears in the text, there are three basic translation strategies: ignoring it, translating it with the most common meaning, or striving to detect its specific meaning in each case and finding a suitable equivalent for it. In our case ki appears as the first word in v. 9; as Tigay pointed out, the meaning ‘because’ or ‘for’ (as in the KJV and JPS translations cited above) does not seem right here, since this verse does not explain the preceding one (Tigay 1996, 303). Indeed, it can be argued that this verse supplies further information: the specific case of Israel, following the general case of all other nations. Tigay argues that in some cases, including in our verse, the function of ki is emphatic, and it should be translated ‘yea’ or ‘indeed’. Its function here is to highlight YHWH’s great deed in choosing Israel as his portion. Several other cases of this use can be found in the OT.54 Of the 13 above-quoted Japanese versions of this verse, six chose the first strategy, namely ignoring the word completely. These include, surprisingly perhaps, several scholarly translations (A-4, A-5, A-6a), and the three ‘official’ versions (A-1, A-2, A-11). Of the other seven versions, four are based mainly on another translation and not on the original text, and therefore could not contain a direct translation of ki. Nevertheless, these translations will be considered first. A-3 uses saredo (but), as the translation of the Latin autem in the Vulgate. A-10 also gives the meaning ‘but’ through shikashi. A-8 gives both the meanings ‘but’ and ‘because’ (da ga . . . da kara da), while A-9 gives only ‘because’ (da kara). The meaning ‘but’ is also the option adopted by the NJB version quoted above. However, this choice of translation creates a strong contrast between vv. 8 & 9, which is not necessarily in the original. The text does not seem to say that Israel was given something through a system different from all other peoples; what it seems to say—if we adopt the emendation—is that while the other peoples were given lesser

54 Schoors 1981, 243–253, discusses at length and basically supports the emphatic meaning of ki. Classsen 1983 makes a more cautious observation of this issue, wishing to understand the exact meaning of ‘emphasis’, based also on Muraoka’s dissertation, Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew. Aejmelaeus 1986 analyzes the functions of ki according to the position of the ki clause in relation to its main clause; she tends to regard ki as a connective rather than an emphatic or assertive particle. In our case, either emphatic or connective function is acceptable (but not a causal one). Meyer 2001 reviews many earlier studies, and argues that ki often relates units larger than clauses. These and other studies demonstrate how difficult this little word can be from the points of view of grammar, exegesis and translation.

188

chapter four

deities, Israel was given YHWH as their God. By this, of course, they received special grace which should be emphasized, but there is no room here for a contradicting particle, which seems to be included in some translations for theological reasons. The remaining three versions, which are based on the original text, give different translations. A-6 has gone the furthest as a translation using the ‘because’ meaning. It opens the verse with nazenara and ends it with da kara, which is a linguistic construction for explaining a reason. In A-7 kara appears in the middle of the verse, dividing it into two halves, which if translated into English would yield: “Because the Lord’s allotted part is His own people, Jacob is the Lord’s inherited land”. The only translation to use a new option other than ‘but’ or ‘because’ is A-12, which opens v. 9 with makotoni—‘indeed’. This latest translation by Iwanami utilizes up-to-date biblical scholarship, and the translator of Deuteronomy, Suzuki Yoshihide, would have known the above-mention interpretation by Tigay, for example. The translators of A-11 could also have been aware of the extensive study of ki referred to above, but apparently did not use it, or were not convinced by its argument. In any case, the translation of this word in A-12 is a good example illustrating how translations are a function of time, among other things. To sum up, all three possible strategies were adopted in the translation of ki over a period of about 120 years. The first strategy is probably the least acceptable. If ki is considered an ‘empty’ sign then nothing was lost by not translating it, but this is rarely the case. If we accept the meaning of intended emphasis, than it should not be ignored in the translation. The second strategy, of using a common option such as ‘but’ or ‘because’, is more difficult to evaluate, since we may assume that in some cases at least the translators considered other options before choosing the one they did, and that their choice was not automatic; as we have seen, their choice was sometimes influenced by theological considerations. As for the case of A-12, we may assume with greater confidence that several options, including many existing translations, were considered, before the choice of a new translation was adopted.55

55 A short discussion of ki showing sensitivity to its various nuances was included by Morita Mitsuhiro in his critical review of the World of the Bible translation (B-14); see in Tokita et al. 1971, 53.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese 189

4.2.4 The Use of Honorifics and the Passive For a translator into Japanese, deciding on the use of honorifics is an important step in forming the translation strategy. In Japanese, the use of honorifics is a natural part of the language, and is almost unavoidable in some cases. However, when translating from a language that has hardly any honorifics, such as Hebrew,56 is it permissible, and is it necessary, to add the honorifics that would be expected in an original Japanese text? And if so, to what extent? For the majority of the Bible translators into Japanese the answer to the first question is a definite ‘yes’, while the answer to the second one varies according to personal preferences. Takahashi Masashi, who participated in the JBS translation of the NT (1954), wrote in this respect: For an ordinary Japanese it is both strange and unreasonable that the Emperor and a commoner, a superior and an inferior should speak the same language on the same social level. It seems stranger still when a person speaks to an animal as Eve did to a serpent in the garden of Eden, or Balaam did to the ass (Num. 22:29). The same thing may be said of the expressions which Jesus Himself used when addressing the fig tree or Satan.57

Takahashi does not discuss the principles of the problem further than that. To him, since it would sound “strange” not to use honorifics, the answer is clear. He goes on to give examples, mainly from the NT, regarding personal pronouns, dialogue etc. However, again we may ask: even if it sounds strange, perhaps faithfulness to the original text is more important? And even if honorifics are necessary, to what degree should they be used? The question of honorifics concerns many aspects of the text, but in what follows only two such aspects are examined. One concerns the narrative parts of the Bible, in which God and his actions are mentioned; a translator can choose to either use the common Japanese honorifics in such cases (verbs, prefixes), or avoid them. If used, the honorifics will alert the readers to God’s superior position; if the honorifics are not used, then the text is neutral, and the readers may or may not infer God’s superiority. The other aspect concerns the dialogue parts, where the use of

56 Possibly the only form of honorifics in the OT is the occasional third-person address directed at superiors, usually kings (for example, in I Sam. 26:18–19, II Sam. 6:20 etc.), but it is not directed at God, who is addressed in the second person. 57 Takahashi 1963, 174; see also Suzuki 1974, who quotes various opinions but does not commit himself.

190

chapter four

pronouns becomes crucial. It is hard to find any pronoun in Japanese that does not carry an added social meaning, but still, some are more neutral than others. One of the most common ways of using honorifics in Japanese is by adding the inflections -reru or -rareru as verb endings. In 1952 a government-authorized commission recommended the use of this form over the use of specific verbs that convey the honorific meaning (such as ossharu, oideninaru etc.) (Tobita 1971, 55–56). The JBS translation (A-2) and other later translations adopted this principle, although the specific verbs did not disappear from the language by any means. The problem is that these same inflections are also used to indicate possibility and the passive form of verbs, which may cause misunderstanding in some cases, of which the JBS translators were well aware (see 3.1, A-2).58 Nevertheless, this form became quite common in Bible translations. Among the 13 translations examined in this chapter, 11 used either verb inflections or prefixes, or both, as honorifics: A-1 Auxiliary verb tamau used once in v. 8. A-2 Use of –reru /–rareru. A-3 Auxiliary verb tamau used three times in v. 8; prefix on. A-5 Use of –reru /–rareru; prefix go. A-6 Use of –reru /–rareru; use of nasaru; prefixes on, mi. A-6a Use of –reru /–rareru. A-7 Use of –reru /–rareru; prefix go. A-8 Use of kamisama; prefix go. A-9 Use of –reru /–rareru. A-10 Use of –reru /–rareru; prefix go. A-11 Use of –reru /–rareru.

These translations can be placed along a continuum: from a great amount of honorifics used (A-3, A-6), through a medium amount (A-5, A-7, A-8, A-10), down to minimal use (A-1, A-2, A-6a, A-9, A-11). It should be emphasized, though, that ‘minimal’ use is only so in comparison, and in 58 Tobita 1971, 56, gives several examples of these difficulties. He recommends limiting the use of honorifics, and avoiding them altogether in the descriptive and narrative parts of the Bible. Sekine Bunnosuke, who was in charge of Japanese style of the JBS translation (A-2), wished to avoid honorifics in the descriptive parts, but was ruled down by the other translators; see Sekine B. 1982, 37–43, and Tobita, ibid. Nakazawa Kōki also warned that honorific and passive forms might be confused, and recommended minimizing the use of honorifics to speech directed at God or superiors; Nakazawa 1960, 101–102. On the honorifics/passive difficulty see also Hayashi 1974, 9.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

191

itself is quite considerable and consistent. There can be no doubt that in these latter translations too the language is used in order to put God in an unmistakable superior position. Excessive use of honorifics is not helpful in this respect, as Barbaro must have realized between the publication of his first and second versions. Eight translations used the verb ending –reru /–rareru as the main form of honorifics. As mentioned above, this is also the way of expressing the passive in Japanese, which might cause misunderstandings in some cases. The way to tell the difference is through the use of particles; when the particle ni is attached to the noun (rather than wa or ga), we can usually suspect that the form is passive. For example: A-5 v. 8 itotakaki kata ga [. . .] hito no kora o wakerareta toki, v. 9 ya-we ni wariaterareta no wa sono tami, yakobu wa ya-we gojishin ni sadamerareta sōzokubun.

(honorific) (passive) (passive)

A-11 v. 8 itotakaki kami ga [. . .] hito no kora o warifurareta toki v. 9 shu ni wari aterareta no wa sono tami yakobu ga shu ni sadamerareta shigyō.

(honorific) (passive) (passive)

Leaving the question of honorifics aside for a moment, how did the passive form, or indeed the verbs, appear all of a sudden in v. 9? In the original Hebrew there are no verbs in this verse (it is a nominal clause, or in fact, a couple of nominal clauses), although in translation it may not necessarily remain so; in the English translations it was apparently necessary to add the verb ‘to be’ (‘is’ or ‘was’, in the examples given at the beginning of this chapter). But in Japanese this was unnecessary, as shown by several perfectly reasonable translations of this verse (A-1, A-3, and A-6, for example). The reason for the use of the passive verbs in A-5 and A-11 seems to arise from the wish to create continuity with v. 8, following the emendation of the text. Since this verse now says that the lands were allotted by “the Most High” to the various nations according to the number of the “children of God”, v. 9 says that YHWH (A-5) or the Lord (A-11) “was given” that certain people. Theologically this sounds very daring, because it would mean that YHWH is different from “the Most High”, and that he was one of the “children of God”, taking us back to the very mythological origin of these verses (unless we understand that YHWH allotted himself that people, but then why use the passive?). It is hard to believe that the translators of these two versions, both supervised by Schneider, had such

192

chapter four

a daring intention in mind (and the explanations in A-5 show they did not), but nevertheless, this impression is created. Only two of the translations examined here do not use honorifics in this case: A-4 (Sekine), and A-12 (Iwanami). Both are scholarly translations which give priority to faithfulness to the original OT text (both are also the only ones to arrange the biblical books in the order found in the MT); Sekine’s is independent, although religious in nature,59 and Iwanami’s is not religiously affiliated. However, some aspects related to the honorific system cannot be avoided altogether, which brings us back to the question of the dialogue and the use of pronouns, especially of the first and second person, which in Japanese are very numerous, and which change according to the relative social positions of the speakers. The same government-authorized commission mentioned above, also suggested that out of the innumerable pronouns used in Japanese, the standard forms for the first person singular should be watashi and for the second person singular anata. This suggestion was also followed by the JBS translators (A-2), but as we shall see below, with some exceptions. Since there is no dialogue in our examined verses, let us look briefly at the second and third chapters of Genesis. Listed below are the ways different translations have handled the second person pronoun (plural suffixes are omitted). When no pronoun is given, it means that the translators avoided it through the use of auxiliary verbs (such as kudasaru) or other grammatical means that convey the required meaning (including the honorific aspect in some cases). 2:16 God to man 3:3 God to man and w.60 3:5 Snake to woman 3:12 Man to God 3:14 God to snake

A-4 kimi omae kimi anata omae

A-12 anata – anata anata omae

A-2 anata – anata – omae

A-11 – – – anata omae

A-9 anata anata anata – omae

A-1 nanji nanji nanji nanji nanji

A-5 omae omae anata – omae

Looking first at the translations that did not use honorific inflections in Deuteronomy, we see that they were not able to use neutral pronouns consistently. Sekine’s translation (A-4) is the most varied in the use of

59 In fact, Sekine did use the honorifics -sareru and -rareru when describing God’s actions in other places of his OT translation; perhaps he had a specific reason for not using them here. 60 Quoted indirectly by the woman while speaking to the snake.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

193

pronouns; anata is directed only at God, while for other relations either the friendlier kimi or the belittling omae, are used. A-12 either uses anata or avoids the pronoun, except in the case of God speaking to the snake, when it too reverts to omae. A similar method, with some variations, was also used in both JBS translations (A-2 and A-11), as well as A-9. The Meiji Translation (A-1) shows a very democratic use of the old pronoun nanji in all cases (as did also A-3, which is not included in the above table).61 Incidentally, the use of nanji is somewhat of a puzzle. In ancient times it was an honorific (already appearing in the 9th century Taketori monogatari); during the Nara Period it was used for equals or inferiors, and from the Middle Ages on only to inferiors, and was in very common use (NKD2, V. 10, 330). In the first edition of Hepburn’s dictionary (1867) nanji is defined as “You” without comment, anata as “That side, there; you (respectful)”, and omaye as “You” also without comment.62 In the third edition (1886) nanji now has the qualification “used colloquially to inferiors”, anata is without change, and omae (the transliteration has changed) also gets the qualification “for inferiors”.63 This makes the ubiquitous use of nanji in A-1 even stranger, but the fact is that it was also used in other translations of the same period such as B-1, C-3 or C-8, and later by A-3. The Franciscan translation (A-5) is more conservative in its use of omae from God to man, and not only to the snake, and in avoiding the use of any pronoun in speaking to God. All in all we find that even when the honorifics system is consciously avoided, some remnants of it still find their way into the text. 4.2.5 A Test Case: Gen. 4:8 As we have seen above, the MT of Deut. 32:8 is somewhat problematic, and emendation was proposed based on external textual evidence. Some of the Japanese translations adopted the emendation, and some avoided it. Some of the translations which emended the text also added a theological layer in the text or footnotes. In order to check their strategy towards emendation, and to what extent it was consistent, another verse will be considered briefly as a test-case.

61 This may also be considered the most faithful translation, since the distinctions do not occur in Hebrew (or in English, for that matter). 62 HEP1, 304, 10, 336; in the English “Index”, 132, for “You” are given anata, omaye, nanji, temaye. kisama etc. in this order. 63 HEP3, 437, 15, 480; the English part, 962, is without change.

194

chapter four

When we read Gen. 4:8 we may sense that something is missing. It is indicated that Cain spoke to Abel, but we are not told what he said; next they find themselves in the field and Cain kills Abel. It is quite safe to deduce that some words have been omitted here, perhaps due to a scribal error. And indeed, the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as the Septuagint and several other ancient translations, attest to a version in which Cain told his brother “Let us go to the field” or a similar phrase (see Tov 2012, 221). This testimony seems quite reliable, but not all later translations adopted it.64 The MT was followed in the KJV: :‫יֹותם ַּב ָּׂש ֶדה וַ יָ ָקם ַקיִ ן ֶאל ֶה ֶבל ָא ִחיו וַ ּיַ ַה ְרגֵ הּו‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיא ֶֹמר ַקיִ ן ֶאל ֶה ֶבל ָא ִחיו וַ יְ ִהי ִּב ְה‬ And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

The ASV (1901) followed the KJV, but the RSV (1952) adopted the emendation, while the NASU (1995) reverted again to the traditional text, to give just a few examples of major English translations. What did the translators into Japanese do? In the following the various translations are quoted (only the first part of the verse is given), and the emendation strategy is checked in comparison with Deut. 32:8. A-1 カイン其弟アベルに語りぬ彼等野にをりける時 kain sono otōto aberu ni monogatarinu karera no ni ori keru toki

Just as they did in the case of Deut. 32:8, the Meiji translators remained faithful to the MT (and to the KJV), as did their predecessors in the mid19th century Chinese versions. A-2 カインは弟アベルに言った、「さあ、野原へ行こう」。彼らが野にい たとき、 kain wa otōto aberu ni itta, “sa, nohara he ikō”. karera ga no ni ita toki,

64 And perhaps justly so, since the emendation seems a little trivial. Could it be that Cain said something more substantial, and that it was omitted from the MT for a different reason? Another possibility, adopted by many Jewish commentators, was to interpret that Cain in fact reported to his brother what YHWH had told him in the previous verse (on the basis of similar occurrences in Ex. 19:25 and Es. 1:18), and if so, no emendation is required; see Sarna 1989, 33.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

195

Contrary to their own predecessors, the JBS translators emended the text here, although they did not do so in Deut. 32:8. The difference must be a theological one: adding the words Cain was supposed to have said makes no great difference, while the change to “children of God” poses serious theological difficulties.65 Several later translations added the missing words between square brackets, but here there is no indication that the text was emended. In all of the above choices A-2 also followed the RSV, which in this case had the upper hand over A-1. A-3 しかるに、カインその弟アベルに云いけるは、「我等外に出でん。」 かくて彼等野に居たる時 shikaru ni, kain sono otōto aberu ni iikeru wa, “warera soto ni iden”. kakute karera no ni itaru toki

The Vulgate, which agreed with the MT in Deut. 32:8, here followed the Septuagint.66 The Sapporo Translation followed it closely in both cases. It turns out that it also followed another translation, the partial Catholic translation by Shibutani (B-5), who published his translation of Genesis in 1941. His translation here is as follows: しかるに、カインその弟アベルに言ひけるは、  [「われら野に行かん」] かくて、かれら、野にゐたる時、 shikaru ni, kain sono otōto aberu ni iikeru wa, [“warera no ni yukan”] kakute, karera, no ni itaru toki,]

There can be no doubt that the Sapporo Translation absorbs Shibutani’s almost verbatim, with only small orthographic modifications. The only major difference is in the translation of the missing words (which Shibutani put in square brackets). The reason for the difference is that the Sapporo used the Vulgate’s version “let us go out” (egrediamur foras), while Shibutani used the Septuagint’s version which means “let us go to the

65 It should be mentioned, though, that at the time of this translation the Dead Sea Scrolls version for Deut. 32:8 was not available yet, and that the Septuagint had two different versions (“sons of God” and “angels of God”), while in the case of Gen. 4:8 it was unequivocal. 66 It reads: dixitque Cain ad Abel fratrem suum egrediamur foras cumque essent in agro consurrexit Cain adversus Abel fratrem suum et interfecit eum.

196

chapter four

field”.67 The introduction to A-3 does not mention Shibutani’s translation, but perhaps it was considered a matter of course that a previous Catholic translation could be used for the making of a present one. A-4 カインはその兄弟アベルに言った、[「さあ、野原へ行こう(３)」。]そ して彼らが野にいた時、 kain wa sono otōto aberu ni itta, [“sa, nohara e ikō”]. soshite karera ga no ni ita toki,

As he did in the other case, Sekine emends the text, and adds a footnote which says that this is according to ancient translations. He also puts the added words in square brackets. A-5 カインは弟アベルに、「野原へ行こう」と言った。さてふたりが野原 にいる時、 kain wa otōto aberu ni, “nohara e ikō” to itta. sate futari ga nohara ni iru toki,

The Franciscan translation emends the text here, as it did in Deut. 32:8, but while in the former case an asterisk and a footnote alerted the reader, here there is no immediate indication of the emendation. However, at the back of the book there is a list of emendations, and there it is indicated that Cain’s words were added according to the Samaritan text.68 A-6 *カインは、弟アベルに、「野原にいこう！」といい、野原にいると き、 kain wa, otōto aberu ni, “nohara e ikō!” to ii, nohara ni iru toki,

67 Shibutani writes in a footnote that these words appear in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and other books, but not in the Hebrew text. 68 The volume of Genesis was the first to be published in this translation (1958); the method of using asterisks to alert the readers was added in later volumes. In the accumulative version the reference is to the Septuagint.



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese

197

Barbaro’s first translation, done here by Del Col, emended the text in both cases. The asterisk alerts the reader to the notes that follow the chapter, but in this case nothing is said about the emendation, and there is only an interpretive note about Abel’s being the first murder and the first death. Had the translator followed the Vulgate alone, then no such alert would be expected in this case, but the emendation in Deut. 32:8 indicates that other sources were also followed. A-6a ところが、カインは、*弟のアベルと言い争い、野原まできたとき、 tokoro ga, kain wa, otōto no aberu to iiarasoi, nohara made kita toki,

In his revision of the translation, Barbaro reverted to the MT in Deut. 32:8, and he did so here too. For translating the Hebrew verb vayo’mer (said) he used a verb no other translation had ever used in this case, iiarasoi, which means ‘to quarrel’. This could be regarded as a case of interpretive translation, since the Hebrew verb does not have this meaning. In his footnote Barbaro quotes from the Aramaic Targum (pseudo-Jonathan) the reason for the fight between Cain and Abel. This Aramaic translation quotes a long Midrash according to which Cain said that God was not just, and Abel contradicted him, which led to Cain’s slaying of Abel. A-7 しかし、カインは弟アベルに話しかけた。「野に行こうではないか。 」そして、ふたりが野にいたとき、 shikashi, kain wa otōto aberu ni hanashikaketa. “no ni ikō dewanaika.” soshite, futari ga no ni ita toki,

Just like A-2, this conservative Christian translation inserted the missing words here, but avoided the emendation in Deut. 32:8. Similarly, no indications of text emendation are given in this translation. The translators added shikashi (however) at the beginning of the verse, to show that Cain did not heed God’s warning in the previous verse. This translation is related to the New American Standard Bible, both translations having been sponsored by the Lockman Foundation. However, this English translation does not incorporate either of the two emendations, which proves the independence of the Japanese translation (cf. 3.1, A-7 above).

198

chapter four

A-8 ある日、カインは、「野原へ行かないか」と弟をさそいました。そし て、野原で aru hi, kain wa, “nohara e ikanaika” to otōto o sasoimashita. soshite, nohara de

As can be expected, this paraphrased translation adds the missing words here, but avoids the other emendation. It also uses the verb sasou for Cain’s speech which can mean ‘induce’. A-9 その後カインは自分の兄弟アベルに言った、[「さあ野に行こう」。] そして、ふたりが野にいた時に、 sono nochi kain wa jibun no kyōdai aberu ni itta, [“sa, no ni ikō”.] soshite, futari ga no ni ita toki ni,

The Jehovah Witnesses’ Bible too adopts the same pattern of emendation, although here the added words are inserted between square brackets. A-10 しかし、カインは弟アベルに、「野原へ行ってみよう」と誘い出し、 そこで、 shikashi, kain wa otōto aberu ni, “nohara e ittemiyō” to sasoidashi, soko de,

The pattern is the same in Oyama’s translation, including the use of the verb sasou as in A-8. A-11 カインが弟アベルに言葉をかけ、二人が野原に着いたとき kain gaa otōto aberu ni kotoba o kake, futari ga nohara ni tsuita toki

This translation is exceptional in that it adopted the more theologically difficult emendation in Deut. 32:8, but did not include the missing words here. For some reason it also used the verb tsuku for the Hebrew bihyotam, creating the meaning “as they arrived in the field”, as if the field had already been mentioned before (could it be that the emendation was firstly incorporated and later omitted?).



translations compared: deuteronomy 32:8–9 in japanese 199

A-12 カインは弟アベルに　[「さあ、畑に行こう」と四]言った。彼らが畑 にいた時、 kain wa otōto aberu ni [“sa, hatake ni yukō” to] itta. karera ga hatake ni ita toki,

The books in the Iwanami series were prepared by different translators: Deuteronomy by Suzuki Yoshihide (emendation avoided, but possibility mentioned in footnotes), and Genesis by Tsukimoto Akio (emendation included in square brackets and a footnote saying that this is according to the Septuagint and other sources). To sum up, here is a table comparing the 13 translations in both cases, with “+” indicating emendation. Gen. 4:8 was emended in 10 of the translations, while Deut. 32:8 was emended only in four. A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-6a A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12

Deut. 32:8 – – – + + + – – – – – + –

Gen. 4:8 – + + + + + – + + + + – +

This test-case shows that in most cases translators acted according to expectations. Traditional translators followed their original text (A-1, A-3). Conservative Christian (or sectarian) translators added the missing words in Gen. 4:8 according to the Septuagint or other sources, but avoided the theologically complicated emendation in Deut. 32:8 (A-2, A-6a, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10). Scholarly translations usually adopted both emendations, with the necessary qualifications in the footnotes (A-4, A-5, A-6). Some cases are a little more complicated. The case of A-11 is the most difficult to explain, and may be the result of the work of different translators or revisers. A-12 was certainly done by different translators. In both cases a common strategy was adopted, but in A-12 individual translators

200

chapter four

assumed final responsibility for their work, while in A-11 the revisers seem to have had the final say. Note also the considerable difference between Barbaro’s second version (A-6a) and his first one, prepared by Del Col, an indication of adopting a more conservative approach.69

69 Another case of emendation was indicated by Toki & Kawashima 1988, 98–101, in Gen. 44:4–5; in this case too A-1 followed KJV in avoiding the emendation, while A-2 followed RSV in adopting it. A-11 is somewhere in between, with a partial emendation (or added explanations). A-4 adopted the emendation, A-5 mentioned it only in a footnote, A-6 and A-7 ignored it. It should also be indicated that the emendation here (adding the words “why have you stolen the silver goblet” at the end of v. 4 or the beginning of v. 5) is not crucial to the understanding of the text, and is evident from the context. It can be argued that this addition, coming from the Septuagint, is redundant, even more so than in the case of Gen. 4:8.

chapter five

Translations compared: Psalm 23 in its numerous versions In Chapter 4 the problem of translating biblical poetry was mentioned briefly, and in this chapter we will look at it more closely, while presenting and comparing 27 translations of Psalms 23. There are several reasons for this particular choice of text. When speaking of biblical poetry it is impossible to ignore its richest depository, which is the Book of Psalms. Further, in the context of the present work, the Psalms offer the widest scope for a comparative study, since it has been translated into Japanese, partially or fully, more times than any other OT book, allowing us to look also into the work of several individuals and groups who worked outside the main effort of the full translations. The particular choice of Psalm 23 has several reasons. It is better to compare in detail a full psalm, rather than just occasional verses, so obviously one of the shorter psalms had to be chosen. Psalm 23 is the most ‘popular’ psalm, used by both Jews and Christians in their liturgy; “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”—these words constitute probably one of the most commonly recognized Biblical quotations in many languages, at least in places where Christian culture is deeply rooted. It would be interesting to see how the various translators tried to transplant these words into the Japanese language and culture. For in spite of its apparent simplicity, this psalm contains several linguistic and thematic difficulties which every translator must tackle and for which solutions must be found. Psalm 23 is also one of the few psalms translated by B.H. Chamberlain in his unique attempt to render biblical poetry in the form of ancient Japanese prosody, and his attempt deserves close examination. Therefore, although several other psalms were considered for presentation here, Psalm 23 seemed like the best choice.1

1 In his book on the style of Japanese Bible translations Fujiwara Fujio also singled out Psalm 23, but he quoted, partially or fully, only 12 translations, and made only very few general observations; see Fujiwara 1974, 267–268; 280–287; 321–323.

202

chapter five

Added to this chapter is a discussion of some of the earliest translations of Psalm 100, enabling a closer look to be taken into the process of the translators’ work through the examination of yet unpublished documents of Guido Verbeck and Bishop C.M. Williams. It will also offer a glimpse into the intriguing interaction between the foreign missionaries and their Japanese assistants in the process of translation. 5.1 A Few Notes on Biblical Poetry and Its Translation The means and forms of biblical poetry have been debated for centuries, but some critical problems still remain. Our greatest disadvantage in studying it is the long gap in time, and the changes languages undergo constantly. Nobody today can know for sure how biblical Hebrew was pronounced; there could have been vowels that were lost over time (a phenomenon which apparently occurred in Japanese as well). The vocalization now familiar in the MT was added centuries after the text itself was created. Therefore, all attempts to decide unequivocally in questions of rhythm, quantitative meter etc., are bound to remain controversial. However, certain aspects of this poetry, although not completely free from debate, can be described with some confidence.2 The most recognizable principle of biblical poetry is parallelism. Most often two, but sometimes three or four parts of a verse (‘versets’) are parallel in one or several aspects: “semantic, syntactic, prosodic, morphological, or sound elements, or of combination of such elements” (Harushovsky, 599). The parallelism may be either complete or partial, in the same order of words or in reverse. The system is not rigid, and therefore difficult to define, and in some verses there is no obvious parallelism at all. However, this is part of what Harushovsky calls the “free rhythm” of biblical poetry, and what leads Alter to talk about the “dynamic movement” from one verset to the next. The second principle of biblical poetry is rhythm, and the major rhythmic element is stress, “although the number of stresses in each verset is not necessarily fixed or permanent” (ibid.). There could be a repetition of stresses, such as 3:3, or a more free relationship, such as 3:4, but the numbers are often equal or similar, and sometimes the rhythm is the only aspect of parallelism in a verse. It is worthwhile quoting Harushovsky 2 The following summery is based mainly on: Alter 1985; Harushovski 2007; Berlin 2008.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 203

f­ urther in this context: “Each verset is usually a phrase, a basic syntactic and logical unit, consisting of 2, 3 or 4 stressed words. [. . .] The condensed, laconic nature of biblical Hebrew also contributes to the prominence of each word within the line [. . .] The versets are static, independent units, well balanced against each other. This is supported by the nature of biblical syntax which favors parataxis to the subordination of clauses and phrases.” The final point is of special importance for us, because the nature of Japanese syntax is the opposite, favoring subordination over parataxis. Another principle often encountered in biblical poetry is the repetition of sounds. This includes alliterations, puns, occasional rhyming, and more. Translating biblical poetry is as difficult as translating any form of poetry (“poetry is what gets lost in translation”, Robert Frost famously said). There are three basic strategies in translating poetry: .

1. Converting the form in the source language into a form familiar in the receptor language. Thus, for example, in the early twentieth century, Japanese tanka were sometimes translated into English as rhymed couplets. In our present case, this would mean translating the psalm into one of the forms of traditional Japanese poetry. The gain, in that case, would be to bring something alien closer to the hearts and minds of the readers; the loss would be creating an implausible distance from the source, and perhaps even causing misunderstanding concerning its nature (as in the great folly of tanka in the guise of those Victorian couplets). Considerable changes to content, and not only to form, can be expected. In our case, as we shall see, this was the road less taken by the translators. 2. The second strategy would be to translate the poem in a similar form. Thus, for example, an Italian sonnet could be translated into an English one. This would require a tradition of shared cultural heritage; preferably, the form should already exist in the receptor language, rather than being adopted for the sake of the specific translation. In our case this would be difficult. Firstly, Japanese poetry shares a common cultural tradition with Chinese, but not with Hebrew. Secondly, the form of biblical poetry itself is not easy to define, as we have seen above, and it has no modern parallels in use (unlike the case of the sonnet). However, a translator may still try to create a form in Japanese close to the original. As we shall see, although many Japanese translators tried to maintain some aspects of the original form (in particular the

204

chapter five

division into versets within the verse), most of them did not go very far down that road either. 3. The last strategy would be to ignore the form completely, or to a considerable extent. The focus in this option would be on the content, disregarding the form. Although the majority of Japanese translations cannot be said to have disregarded form completely (as indicated in 2. above), they cannot be said to have made great efforts to preserve it either (see further discussion under 5.4 below). 5.2 Psalm 23 and Its Translations; Introducing 27 Japanese Versions Psalm 23 is a thanksgiving psalm. While many of the other psalms express distress or longing, Psalm 23 expresses the psalmist’s security under YHWH’s protection, his satisfaction and his wish for, or his confidence in, the endurance of this state. While it is usually regarded, especially in the Christian reading of it, as expressing personal feelings, traditional Jewish interpretation also found in it a national meaning: first YHWH leads his people like a shepherd through the desert, then they are settled comfortably in the land of milk and honey around his temple. Those who consider the psalm to be post-exilic, find in it the wishful portrait of a new exodus and a rebuilt temple (see JSB, 1307–8). The psalm has 6 verses, containing 57 words, including the title. The number of words is important, because it illustrates the concise nature of Biblical Hebrew, a phenomenon that might often get lost in translation. For example, English translations of this psalm contain about 120 words or more (counting also indefinite articles etc.), double the original. However, a more accurate method of comparing length would be the counting of syllables, and here the ratio is about 125 in the MT to about 150 in the KJV. The Japanese translations, as we shall see, tend to be longer than 250 syllables. Following are the Hebrew MT and three English translations: :‫  ִמזְ מֹור ְל ָדוִ ד יהוה ר ִֹעי לֹא ֶא ְח ָסר‬1 :‫יצנִ י ַעל ֵמי ְמנֻ חֹות יְ נַ ֲה ֵלנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ ּבנְ אֹות ֶּד ֶׁשא יַ ְר ִּב‬2 ִ :‫ׁשֹובב יַ נְ ֵחנִ י ְב ַמ ְעּגְ ֵלי ֶצ ֶדק ְל ַמ ַען ְׁשמֹו‬ ֵ ְ‫ נַ ְפ ִׁשי י‬3 :‫ּומ ְׁש ַענְ ֶּתָך ֵה ָּמה יְ נַ ֲח ֻמנִ י‬ ִ ‫ ּגַ ם ִּכי ֵא ֵלְך ְּבגֵ יא ַצ ְל ָמוֶ ת לא ִא ָירא ָרע ִּכי ַא ָּתה ִע ָּמ ִדי ִׁש ְב ְטָך‬4 :‫ּכֹוסי ְרוָ יָ ה‬ ִ ‫אשי‬ ִׁ ֹ ‫ ּת ֲער ְֹך ְל ָפנַ י ֻׁש ְל ָחן נֶ גֶ ד צ ְֹר ָרי ִּדשַּׁ נְ ָּת ַב ֶּׁש ֶמן ר‬5 ַ :‫ אְך טֹוב וָ ֶח ֶסד יִ ְר ְּדפּונִ י ָּכל יְ ֵמי ַחיָּ י וְ ַׁש ְב ִּתי ְּב ֵבית יהוה ְלא ֶֹרך יָ ִמים‬6 ַ



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 205

The KJV translation: A Psalm of David. 1.  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. The NJB translation: 1.  Psalm Of David Yahweh is my shepherd, I lack nothing. 2. In grassy meadows he lets me lie. By tranquil streams he leads me 3. to restore my spirit. He guides me in paths of saving justice as befits his name. 4. Even were I to walk in a ravine as dark as death I should fear no danger, for you are at my side. Your staff and your crook are there to soothe me. 5. You prepare a table for me under the eyes of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup brims over. 6. Kindness and faithful love pursue me every day of my life. I make my home in the house of Yahweh for all time to come. The JPS translation: 1.  A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I lack nothing. 2. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me to water in places of repose; 3. He renews my life; He guides me in right paths as befits His name. 4. Though I walk through a valley of deepest darkness, I fear no harm, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff—they comfort me. 5. You spread a table for me in full view of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my drink is abundant. 6. Only goodness and steadfast love shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for many long years.

It is common to divide this psalm into two scenes: the shepherd and his flock (vs. 1–4), and the host and his guest (5–6), although some regard v. 4 as a separate scene, and therefore divide the psalm into three scenes (as we shall also see in some of the Japanese translations). The division into verses is not clear either. As can be seen, for example, in the above NJB translation, there is a possibility of regarding the beginning of v. 3 as the continuation of v. 2. Also, the structure of the psalm is irregular; some verses are very short (in particular v. 1, with four words after the title), and some much longer.

206

chapter five

This Psalm does not have many linguistic difficulties, but it does contain an amount of expressions and nouns that could be difficult to translate, especially those expressing specific cultural phenomena. The first four verses of the psalm are grounded in the pastoral culture of shepherds, which was familiar to those who translated the Bible into various European languages, but was something alien to the culture of Japan, where sheep and goats were not raised. Also, such items as the table, the oil and the cup in v. 5 may cause difficulties when trying to express them in the context of such a remote culture in place and time. These and other points will be discussed in the later part of this chapter (5.3), where specific words and combinations will be closely examined. First the various translations of this psalm will be introduced in full and each one’s main characteristics will be described. The translations will be introduced in chronological order, with a few exceptions (the Catholic translations have been grouped together). Each of the books or magazines from which the various following translations of Psalm 23 were taken was described in Chapter 3 above, so only some essential facts will be repeated in what follows. As in Chapter 4, each translation in Japanese script is followed by a transliteration in rōmaji, which in turn follows the furigana printed in each case, or the most common reading in cases where furigana was missing. 5.2.1 Psalm 23 as Japanese Poetry The most likely earliest translation in print of Psalm 23 in Japanese, published a few years before the ‘official’ translation by the missionaries’ committee, was the personal and idiosyncratic work of the famous Basil Hall Chamberlain. In fact, he offered two translations, one in “versified form”, which he considered the most favorable method, and another, “literal version”, which is supposed to convey the literal meaning that might otherwise have been obscure in the “versified” one. C-8 Chamberlain, “Suggestions for a Japanese Rendering of the Psalms” (1880) I. “Versified form” The Japanese text here is written in a very flowing cursive style, which is difficult to read for those untrained in it (including the majority of contemporary Japanese people). With the aid of the transliteration supplied by Chamberlain, an effort has been made to represent the original text as



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 207

closely as possible. However, in copying Chamberlain’s transliteration (on the right hand side below), his system of Romanization has not been followed, and the Hepburn Romanization system has been used instead (for example, a o moru wa instead of Chamberlain’s A wo moru ha). 第二十三 称へ歌 あをもるは 天所知召 きみなれば なにかかくべき うるはしく 慰まさむ 撫まさんと きよき川辺に まくさかひ まことの道に あともひて 濁れるこころ 真心に かへたまふらし しかばかり うるはしきみの 率のまに みのりを杖と かしこくも たがねてゆけば ぬば玉の くらきみくにに 伊往とも あにおぢめやも いや日けに あをせめ来る 讐びとを 和まさんと 野辺ぬちに 天津御手もて 御食給ひ 大御酒玉ひ みなのわた かぐろき髪に 奇油 そそぎ給へば たまぎはる いのちのかぎり 御恵し かうむりまつり とこしへに つかへまつらん きみが御在所に

tatae-uta a o moru wa ame shiroshimesu kimi nareba nani ka kaku beki uruwashiku nagusame masamu nademasan to kiyoki kawabe ni makusa kai makoto no michi ni atomoite nigoreru kokoro magokoro ni kae tamau rashi shika bakari uruwashi kimi no hiki no mani mi nori o tsue to kashikoku mo taganete yukeba nubatama no kuraki mi kuni ni i yuku to mo ani ojime ya mo iya hi keni a o seme kitaru adabito o nagomemasan to nube nuchi ni amatsu mi te mote mi ke tamai oo mi ki tamai mina no wata kaguroki kami ni kushi abura sosogi tamaeba tamagiharu inochi no kagiri mi megumi shi kaumuri matsuri tokoshie ni tsukae matsuran kimi ga mi araka ni

In this “versified” version of Psalm 23, Chamberlain’s translation is very free, adding much to the original text for the sake of poetic ­embellishment. His translation can be considered a personal version of the original, in which an effort is being made to create a text in which both language and contents would meet the expectations of Japanese readers trained in classical poetry. The poem is set in the 5–7 syllable rhythm of the chōka (long poem), except for the last line, which has 8 syllables. The grammar and vocabulary are distinctly archaic. The following discussion will be limited to a few examples. Chamberlain omits the original title of the psalm, and gives it a new one: tatae-uta, or “song of praise”. The first two lines, if translated back into English, would mean something like: “You who rule the heavens, since you protect me, I surely lack nothing”. For ‘I’ Chamberlain uses a

208

chapter five

(吾), and for ‘heaven’ (天) the reading ame (another variant is ama), both very archaic forms. For ‘rule’ he uses the verb shiroshimesu (知ろし召す), which includes an honorific meaning. For ‘you’ he uses kimi (君), which in ancient times referred to the emperor or other high nobility (as in the Chinese classics), although in modern times its use has changed into a more intimate pronoun, slightly condescending. For ‘protect’ he uses the verb moru (守る), which in modern Japanese became mamoru. The verb kaku (欠く), which later became kakuru and finally kakeru, ‘lack’, is the only word in these lines also used in some later translations of the psalm (see 5.3.3 (2) below). The particle ba in nareba (なれば), which in modern usage is an indication of a conditional clause (‘if ’), in the classical language, when coming after the izenkei (已然形) form of inflected words, was used in causal clauses (‘because’) (Ikeda 1980, 205). The auxiliary verb beki (べき), expressing confidence, natural outcome or expectation, is in the rentaikei (連体形) conjugation, although the shūshikei (終止形) (べし) could have been expected (ibid., 128). The above two lines convey the general meaning of v. 1, but recreate it in a manner familiar to Japanese sensibility, rather than maintaining its alien contents. The shepherd is an image that would convey a connotation of protection in cultures familiar with his role, but would not convey the same connotation to the Japanese readers of the time, who would be unfamiliar with the figure, or even with the word (see 5.3.2 below). Instead Chamberlain uses the verb ‘to protect’, conveying the meaning directly, rather than metaphorically. As for the alien name of YHWH, Chamberlain replaces it with an expression more familiar to the Japanese, but which is also much less distinct: ame shiroshimesu kimi may refer to various deities or powers. Thus the unfamiliar Hebrew psalm is turned into a more accessible Japanese poem, but it is clear why the missionaries translating the Bible declined to adopt such a method. Still, Chamberlain could not avoid mentioning the pastoral scene altogether, and in the fourth and fifth lines he has kiyoki kawabe ni (on a clear river bank) and makusa kai (feeding on grass), although the reader who is unaware of the original, and who has not been introduced to the parable of the shepherd and the sheep from the outset, may be puzzled at this point as to why the speaker is being fed grass (Chamberlain’s following ‘literal’ version might have cleared up some of this puzzle). Likewise, further on the reader might be surprised by the oil that is being poured on the speaker’s head, an unfamiliar custom in Japan (Chamberlain intensifies the impression here with his combination kushi abura, ‘mysterious’ or



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 209

‘miraculous’ oil, and, since this is expected in a Japanese poem, he adds the blackness of the hair, kaguroki kami). In this respect Chamberlain has not ‘Japanized’ the psalm completely, and some unfamiliar aspects remain in his poem. His language, however, is very much the language of classical Japanese poetry, including the use of makura kotoba, on which he elaborated in his 1877 lecture (see Chapter 3, C-8). Concisely explained, makura kotoba are five-syllable expressions that serve in an adjectival capacity, defining the following noun. However, they are fossilized expressions, whose original meaning is often obscure, and each of which may be connected only with a few certain nouns. These expressions were in much use during the earlier periods of classical Japanese poetry, but gradually fell out of use, and therefore carry a distinct archaic flavor. Chamberlain used many of these expressions in his translations of the psalms, including twice in this one: in the 11th line, nubatama, which is connected with ‘blackness’ or ‘darkness’, and in the 19th line, tamagiharu, connected with ‘life’. The result of Chamberlain’s effort is a mixture of classical Japanese poetic language and sensibilities with residues of foreign notions and details of reality, creating a poem which is simultaneously pleasing and strange.3 His was a one-time effort, since apparently no one has tried to follow him in this vein, at least not in print. Nevertheless, the fact that in Meiji Japan an Englishman was translating the Hebrew psalms into archaic-sounding Japanese poetry remains fascinating. II. “Literal version” In the original text, the following part is written in a combination of katakana and kanji, and is much easier to read than the above version. Still, it includes some peculiarities which were retained, as often as possible (although I used ガ instead of カ, バ instead of ハ, when necessary; in v. 5, I was not able to find the kanji actually used for dai in shokudai, and printed the one commonly used now). Once again, the transliteration below follows the Hepburn system. The punctuation marks, which were not included by Chamberlain in the Japanese text but only in his transliteration, are followed; verse numbers have been added. 3 Fujiwara Fujio is more critical of Chamberlain’s effort. According to him, the use of classical language for translation was unsuitable even for the early Meiji Period, let alone today. He finds the use of Japanese expressions awkward, and the poem lacking in beauty; Fujiwara 1974, 128; 280–281.

210

chapter five

同 [1] ヱホバハ吾牧者ナリ我ハ不足セジ [2] 彼レガ青草ニ於テ我ヲシテ臥 サシメ彼レガ静流ノ傍ニ我ヲ率井 [3] 彼ノ名ノ為ニ彼レガ吾魂ヲ改復 シ彼レガ我ヲ直キ道ニ率ウ [4] 然レバ我ハ死陰ノ谷ニ歩行トモ我ハ何レノ害ニテモ忙ントセズ如 何トナレバ汝 [上帝ヲ指す] ハ我ト共ニアリ汝ノ指揮杖ト汝ノ杖ト我 ヲ慰ム [5] 我ヲ苛酷スル人ノ眼前ニ汝ハ我ニ向テ食台ヲ設ケ汝ハ油ヲ 以テ吾頭ベヲ潤シ而乄吾盃ハ満ツ [6] 吾一生涯幸ト恵ト而己我ニ及ントシ而乄我ハ又永久ニヱホバノ家 ニ住ントス [1] Yehoba wa waga bokusha nari: ware wa fusoku seji. 2. kare ga ao kusa ni oite ware o shite fusashime; kare ga seiryū no katawara ni ware o hikii; 3. kare no na no tame ni kare ga waga tamashii o kaifuku shi; kare ga ware o naoki michi ni hikiu. 4. sareba, ware wa shiin no tani ni ayumu to mo, ware wa izure no gai nite mo ojin to sezu; ikan to nareba Nanji [ jōtei o sasu] wa ware to tomoni ari: Nanji no shikitsue to Nanji no tsue to ware o nagusamu. 5. ware o kakoku suru hito no ganzen ni Nanji wa ware ni mukaite shokudai o mōke; Nanji wa abura o mote waga kōbe o uruoshi; sōshite waga hai wa mitsu. 6. waga itsushōgai saiwai to megumi to nomi ware ni oyoban to shi; sōshite ware wa mata eikyū ni Yehoba no ie ni suman to su.

Unlike his ‘versified’ version, Chamberlain’s ‘literal’ one is very loyal to his (mainly English) source. It is also clear that he looked at the Chinese translation, from which he picked up the printing of Yehoba with a line next to it (rather than ‘Lord’ in the English translation), as well as some kanji combinations (牧者, 死陰). He is careful to include every pronoun appearing in the English version, and is also meticulous in his use of Japanese particles, inserting wa and ga consistently. At one point, in v. 4, he inserts an explanation in parentheses, informing his readers that Nanji (you) indicates jōtei (上帝, ‘God’, as used in the Delegates’ Version Chinese translation). His translation can be considered a faithful rendering of the English version, containing several words and expressions not used in later Japanese translations (see further analysis in 5.3 below). 5.2.2 The Meiji Translation and Other Early Translations The Meiji Translation, or bungo (classical language) translation (A-1) cast its shadow over most, if not all, the many translations that followed it. Some of those were in fact titled ‘revisions’ of that first major translation, such as the Anglican-Episcopal Church’s version (B-2). One of the few



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions

211

exceptions is the translation of the Russian Orthodox Church (B-1), which in fact was printed before A-1 was completed, but early twentieth-century individual translations (B-3, B-4), were clearly under its spell. A-1 The Meiji Translation (1887) 第二三篇 ダビデのうた 1 ヱホバはわが牧者なり われ乏しきことあらじ 2 ヱホバは我をみどりの野にふさせ いこひの水濱にともなひたまふ 3 ヱホバはわが靈魂をいかし名のゆゑをもて我をたゞしき路にみち びき給ふ 4 たとひわれ死のかげの谷をあゆむとも禍害をおそれじ なんぢ我 とともに在せばなり なんぢの笞なんぢの杖われを慰む 5 なんぢわが仇のまへに我がために筵をまうけ わが首にあぶらをそ ゝぎたまふ わが酒杯はあふるゝなり 6 わ が世にあらん限りはかならず恩惠と憐憫とわれにそひきたらん 我はとこしへに ヱホバの宮にすまん dabide no uta 1. ehoba wa waga bokusha nari ware tomoshiki koto araji 2. ehoba wa ware o midori no no ni fusase ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau 3. ehoba wa waga tamashii o ikashi mina no yue o mote ware wo tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau 4. tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari nanji no shimoto nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu 5. nanji waga ata no mae ni waga tame ni en o mōke waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau waga sakazuki wa afururu nari 6. waga yo ni aran kagiri wa kanarazu megumi to awaremi to ware ni soikitaran ware wa tokoshie ni ehoba no miya ni suman

As already demonstrated in Chapter 4, the Meiji Translation makes use of the syntax and vocabulary of classical Japanese (although not the archaic forms used by Chamberlain). However, there is a slight difference in the use of the particle wa between the translation of Psalms 23 and the verses examined in Deuteronomy and elsewhere. While the particle was not used following itotakakimono in Deut. 32:8, it appears here after ehoba in vv. 1, 2 & 3. Checking other places in the Pentateuch, it was found that wa is usually not used after ehoba (for example, Gen. 3:11; 21:1; Ex. 12:29 etc.). On the other hand, while in Deut. 31 wa often appeared after pronouns (although inconsistently), here it is not used after the first-person pronoun ware (second part of v. 1; second word in v. 4) or third-person pronoun nanji (first word of v. 5), although it does appear after ware in the last part of v. 6. These inconsistencies make it difficult to draw conclusions and make

212

chapter five

definite rules concerning the use of this particle by the translators. Still, it may confirm the observation that in the poetic parts of the Bible, wa was used more often than in the prose parts. Inconsistencies can also be found in the orthography of this psalm, and the use of kanji seems to be almost arbitrary. For example, while waga (my) is usually written in hiragana, once, in v. 5, it is written with a combination of kanji and kana; ware (I) is written four times in kanji and four times in kana for no apparent reason. Also, while a space is left between the clauses or versets in each verse, such a space is missing in v. 3. All this may simply reflect the fact that prior to the modern era (and especially prior to the post-WWII reform of writing), the writing of Japanese had not yet been standardized and was often quite idiosyncratic; obvious attempts to rectify this in the printing of the Bible were insufficient. It should also be remembered that the Western style of printing, especially the use of commas, spaces etc., had only recently been introduced at the time of this Bible’s printing. Another point should be made regarding the kanji in this translation; on some occasions a compound of two kanji characters is used, creating the image of a more Chinese-like, ‘respectable’ text, but the furigana ­supplies a ‘softer’ Japanese reading. For example, in v. 6, ‘goodness’ is spelled in kanji 恩惠, a combination normally read onkei in the onyomi, but the furigana reading is megumi, as in the kunyomi of the second character alone. Also in the same verse, the combination 憐憫, which should be read renbin (mercy), is given the reading awaremi, which is a possible kunyomi of either of the two characters. It seems that in this way the translators were trying to satisfy the expectations of both well-educated and little-educated readers and audiences of their time by supplying a text that was both rooted in the prestigious Chinese way of writing, yet accessible to readers—and, more probably, listeners—who were accustomed to a more purely Japanese language. It also reflects the ‘struggle’ between the missionaries and their Japanese assistants, alluded to by Hepburn (see Chapter 3, A-1).4 The translation of the Psalms was praised as the greatest achievement of the Meiji Translation (Ebisawa 1981, 271), and unlike most other biblical books in it, of which the translation is attributed to the work of a single

4 This could also explain the contradictions in Hepburn’s own references to the translation; when he spoke about a “pure native” language easily understood by everyone, he must have had the furigana reading in mind, and when complaining about his assistants’ dependence on the Chinese version, he was referring to the numerous kanji combinations in the text (see p. 61).



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 213

foreign missionary (with the editing of other missionaries and Japanese ‘assistants’), the translation of the Psalms is attributed to Guido Verbeck, Matsuyama Takayoshi and Uemura Masahisa; further, C.M. Williams, although not a member of the translation committee, is also given credit for it (ibid, 269–271; 276; 281). We shall return to this issue below (5.5). B-1 The Holy Psalms—The Japan Orthodox Church Translation (1885) 第二十三聖詠 ダワィドノ詠。 1 主ハ我ノ牧者ナリ、我萬事ニ乏シカラザラン。 2 彼ハ我ヲ茂キ草場ニ休ハセ、我ヲ静ナル水ニ導ク。 3 我ガ靈ヲ固メ、己ガ名ノ為ニ我ヲ義ノ路ニ赴カシム。 4 若シ我死ノ蔭ノ谷ヲ行クトモ、害ヲ懼レザラン、蓋爾ハ我ト偕ニ ス、爾ノ杖爾ノ 梃ハ是レ我ヲ安ンズ 5 爾ハ我ガ敵ノ目前ニ於テ我ガ為ニ筵ヲ設ケ、我ガ首ニ膏ヲ潤シ、我 ガ爵ハ滿チ溢ル。 6 願ハクハ斯ク爾ノ仁慈ト慈憐トハ我ガ生命アル日我ニ伴ハン、然セ バ我多クノ日 主ノ家ニ居ラン。 dawido no ei. 1. shu wa ware no bokusha nari, ware banji ni toboshikarazaran. 2. kare wa ware o shigeki kusaba ni ikowase, ware o shizuka naru mizu ni michibiku. 3. waga tamashii o katame, onore ga na no tame ni ware o gi no michi ni omomukashimu. 4. moshi ware shi no kage no tani o yuku to mo, gai o osorezaran, kedashi nanji wa ware to tomoni su, nanji no tsue nanji no tei wa kore ware o yasunzu. 5. nanji wa waga teki no mokuzen ni oite waga tame ni en o mōke, waga kōbe ni abura o uruoshi, waga shaku wa michiafuru. 6. negawaku wa kaku nanji no itsukushimi to awaremi to wa waga inochi aru hi ware ni tomonawan, shikaseba ware ooku no hi shu no ie ni oran.

This is the only full translation of an OT book by the Orthodox Church in Japan, and it was made for liturgical purposes. It was published, in fact, two years before the Meiji Translation (A-1), and its independence is striking in comparison with later translations. Still, certain similarities can be found between the two; at least 8 expressions are common to both translations (including a sequence of 11 words and particles in the middle of v. 5). This might be a coincidence, or might be attributed to the common use of the Chinese Bible.5 5 The original 1885 edition was not available, only the 1901 reprint, and therefore it was not possible to ascertain whether any changes had been made since the first edition.

214

chapter five

The source of the translation is most likely Russian. At the time, there were two different major translations in that language: the traditional one, written in Church Slavonic and based on the Septuagint, and a recent one, the Russian Synodal Bible, completed in 1876, in which the OT translation was based on the MT. It seems that the Japanese translation was based on the Synodal Bible, because it is closer to the MT than to the Septuagint. For example, in v. 1, shu wa ware no bokusha nari (“The Lord is my shepherd”), is closer to the Hebrew than to the Greek, which translates “The Lord tends me as a shepherd”; or in v. 5, waga shaku wa michiafuru (“my cup overflows”),6 which is not in accordance with the Greek, translated as “thy cup cheers me like the best wine”. Like A-1, the language in this translation is classical, but its syntax is somewhat more modernized. On the one hand, it uses some archaic forms rarely used in other translations. For example, in v. 1, toboshikarazaran includes the classical conjugation of the adjectival form toboshikara (cf. the more modern toboshiki in B-2 and toboshii in A-2 below; however, B-3 and B-4 have also used this form), combined with zara, which is the less common form of the negative auxiliary verb zu (in the mizenkei 未然形 conjugation), and ending with the volition auxiliary verb mu (which is often written and pronounced as the final ‘n’; and see also osorezaran in v. 4). Another archaic use is the causative auxiliary verb shimu in omomukashimu (v. 3; modern -seru), and the use of the particle ga in onore ga na, for which the modern use is the particle no. On the other hand, the use of most particles, and in particular wa, is much more consistent with modern use than in the Meiji Translation, which maintained a more archaic syntax. Unlike A-1, the use of kanji in this translation is very consistent. Interestingly, like in A-1 there is an occasional use (here only in v. 6) of kanji combinations that are given a kunyomi rather than onyomi reading in the furigana: 仁慈 is read itsukushimi rather than jinji, while 慈憐 is read awaremi rather than jiren (in fact, no such reading seems to exist). Perhaps the most surprising feature of this translation is the lack of honorifics. Although it was meant to be used in the liturgy, there is no attempt to use any of the common forms of honorifics which are considered ‘natural’ in the use of Japanese language in such a context. As seen in the previous chapter, honorifics were used by almost all the Japanese translations to various degrees; in the translation of Deut. 32:8–9, only two out of 13 translations used no honorifics, namely the scholarly 6 Regarding a certain difficulty in the Japanese script here, see 5.3.16 below.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 215

t­ ranslations based closely on the MT, A-4 and A-12, and even these two did not use pronouns neutrally in Gen. 2–3. As will be seen below, some minimal use of honorifics can be found in the translation of Ps. 23 by both A-4 and A-12. The Orthodox Church’s translation of the Psalms seems to be the only Japanese translation of the OT (and in particular, a translation executed in a clearly religious context) that avoids the use of honorifics. Whether this was done out of loyalty to the original (or mediating) text, or for other reasons, it is not possible to say without further evidence, but this translation seems to refute the often-heard claim that some use of honorifics is inevitable (see above 4.2.4) B-2 The Psalms—Anglican-Episcopal Church retranslation (1889) 第二十三篇 1 主は我の牧者なり　 われは乏しきことなからん 2 主ハわれを緑の野に臥さしめ 憩ひの水濱にともなひ給ふ 3 主ハわが靈魂をいかし 聖名のゆゑをもて義しき途にみちびき給ふ 4 假令われ死の蔭の谷を歩むとも禍害をおそれじ 汝われと共に在し、汝の笞なんぢの杖われをなぐさむ 5 汝わが仇の前に我為に筵をまうけ わが首に膏を注ぎたまふ、我さかづきハ溢るゝなり 6 われ世に在んかぎり恩惠と憐憫とハ必ずわれにそひ来らん 我ハ永遠に主の宮の中に住まはん 1. shu wa ware no bokusha nari ware wa tomoshiki koto nakaran 2. shu wa ware o midori no no ni fusashime ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau 3. shu wa waga tamashii o ikashi mina no yue o mote tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau 4. tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji nanji ware to tomoni imashi, nanji no shimoto nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu 5. nanji waga ata no mae ni waga tame ni en o mōke waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau, waga sakazuki wa afururu nari 6. ware yo ni aran kagiri megumi to awaremi to wa kanarazu ware ni soikitaran ware wa tokoshie ni shu no miya no uchi ni sumawan

This is a revised translation of the Psalms, based on the Meiji Translation, and prepared for liturgical use in the Anglican-Episcopal Church. Since the book contains no forward or explanation, it is hard to determine whether the revisers resorted to the Hebrew or English texts, or only

216

chapter five

revised the existing Japanese translation according to some ­pre-determined principles. On the whole, the revisions in this case are few and hardly substantial. The major change is the replacement of ehoba with shu (Lord); as we have seen, A-1 followed the Chinese translations in this matter, but the revision here reverted to the use as in the KJV. Other changes show inconsistency; in v. 1 waga was replaced by ware no, but in vv. 3 & 5 it was not; also in v. 1 the archaic araji was replaced by the slightly more modern nakaran, but in v. 3 the opposite occurs: fusashime in place of fusase; another change is imashi in place of imasebanari in v. 4; wa was added after ware in v. 1, but not in v. 6 (where ware, which indeed seems more fitting, replaced waga); also in v. 6, the order of words was slightly changed, and the form of the final verb was changed from suman to sumawan. Orthographically there is also considerable inconsistency. On the whole there is a more consistent use of kanji compared with A-1, but in some cases hiragana was used where A-1 had kanji (for example, ware in v. 2). B-3 Sakon Yoshisuke, Psalms (1909) 善き牧者ヤーヱ （第二十三篇） 1 ヤーヱは  わが牧者なり、我  乏しからず。 2 緑の牧場に  彼  我を 伏さしめ 生命の水に  彼  我を 導き、 3 彼  とこしへに  わが魂を  活かしむ。 彼  その名の為に  我を  正しき路に  伴う。 4 げに  我  凄き谷間を  歩む時も、 我  災禍を 恐れじ、 そは  汝  我と共に  在り、 汝の鞭・汝の杖！  それ  我を  慰むればなり。 5 汝  わが仇の前にて  わが為に  膳を  並べたり。 汝  わが頭に  油を塗り、 わが盃は  溢る。 6 げに  わが  在ふる間  恩惠と仁慈とは  我に  添ひ、 而して 我  日の続く限り  ヤーヱの家に  住まん。 1. ya-we wa waga bokusha nari, ware tomoshikarazu. 2. midori no maki ni kare ware o fusashime, inochi no mizu ni kare ware o michibiki, 3. kare tokoshie ni waga tamashii o ikashimu. kare sono na no tameni ware o tadashiki michi ni tomonau. 4. geni ware sugoki tanima o ayumu toki mo, ware wazawai o osoreji, sowa nanji ware to tomo ni ari, nanji no muchi nanji no tsue! sore ware o nagusamurebanari. 5. nanji waga ata no mae ni te waga tame ni zen o narabetari. nanji waga kashira ni abura o nuri, waga sakazuki wa afuru.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 217

6. geni waga nagarauru aida megumi to itsukushimi to wa ware ni soi, shikashite ware hi no tsuzuku kagiri ya-we no ie ni suman.

In his individual translation of the Psalms, Sakon Yoshisuke draws on the MT, but he does not ignore the Meiji Translation either. In fact, a close comparison of the two translations reveals that Sakon’s version can be considered a revision rather than a new translation. In some of the verses (1 & 5, for example), the differences are very small, and only in a few cases is there substantial revision. It can be assumed that Sakon checked the Meiji Translation against the Hebrew (and probably also English translations and commentaries), and revised it whenever he deemed necessary. Sakon did not depart much from the vocabulary of A-1. Whereas the former translation used tomonai in v. 2 and michibiki in v. 3, Sakon used michibiki in v. 2 and tomonau in v. 3. However, some of the differences between the translations are substantial. In v. 4, it is apparent that Sakon was aware of the literal meaning of the Hebrew when he translated sugoki tanima rather than shi no kage no tani (see 5.3.9 below). On the other hand, in v. 2 he seems to have gone in the opposite direction with a translation infused with theological meaning, inochi no mizu (see 5.3.5 below). Sakon simplified the style in several cases (ari in place of imasebanari in v. 4; afuru in place of afururu nari in v. 5), but he maintained the classicalstyle grammar ( fusashime in place of fusase as in B-2, a version he may also have consulted; osoreji without change). In his omission of honorifics Sakon also departed from A-1, although he found a way of expressing some of them through the unique typography of his irregularly-spaced text. Whenever a term refers to God, it is printed in bold in the case of a single kanji (kare, nanji), while the first syllable is printed in bold in the case of kana (ya-we, sono). Ignoring this idiosyncrasy, his text does not differ very much from that of A-1 and B-2, and even though he consulted the MT, this did not lead him to produce a fully original translation, as might have been expected from his unique typology and the structure of his book.7

7 In a very short note about this translation, Fujiwara Fujio describes it as ‘clumsy’, saying that the special typography does not make poetry; Fujiwara 1974, 282.

218

chapter five

B-4 Yuasa Hangetsu, Psalms (1937) 第二十三篇　　聖　　歌 一 1 ヤウェは我牧者我乏からず。 2 我を牧場の草に伏せたまふ、 我を岩井の水に導きたまふ。 3 我靈魂を永遠に活したまふ。 二 聖名の為に我を正し路に伴ひ給ふ。 4 實に我は物凄き谷間を行く時も、 汝我と共に在ば災害をおそれず。 汝の笞汝の杖筇彼等は我を慰む。 三 5 汝は我敵の前にてわが為に筵を設給ふ、 汝は我頭に膏を注ぎ給へり我盃は溢る。 6 實に我生涯幸福と仁慈とはわれに添ふ、 われ世に在んかぎりはヤウェの家に住まん。 I. 1. yawe wa waga bokusha ware toboshikarazu. 2. ware o makiba no kusa ni fusase tamau, ware o iwai no mizu ni michibiki tamau. 3. waga tamashii o towani ikashi tamau. II. mina no tameni ware o tadashiki michi ni tomonai tamau. 4. geni ware wa monosugoki tanima o yuku toki mo, mimashi ware totomoni imaseba wazawai o osorezu. mimashi no shimoto mimashi no tsue karera wa ware o nagusamu. III. 5. mimashi wa waga ada no mae ni te waga tameni en o mōke tamau, mimashi wa waga kashira ni abura o sosogi tamaeri waga sakazuki wa afuru. 6. geni waga shōgai saiwai to itsukushimi to wa ware ni sou, ware yo ni aran kagiri wa yawe no ie ni suman.

About thirty years after Sakon (B-3 above),8 Yuasa Hangetsu also offered an individual translation of the Psalms with his own idiosyncratic typology. His text of Psalm 23 is divided into three stanzas, each containing four lines of similar length. In his introduction (p. 21) Yuasa says that the Japanese rhythms of 5–7 or 7–5 syllables were created based on Chinese poetry, so he also created a rhythm based on the poetry of the Psalms.

8 It is probable that the translation was prepared many years earlier than this 1937 edition.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 219

Rather than counting kana characters [in fact, syllables], he counted both kana and kanji characters.9 In the explanations appended to Psalm 23 he indicates that the first stanza is in 7–5 rhythm (七五調), the second is in 7–7 rhythm, and the third in 5–7-5. It is clear that in order to achieve this aim of typographically even lines in each stanza, he alternates between using kana and kanji, for example, in the writing of tamau. The result is strange, to say the least, creating no recognizable rhythm in Japanese, and it is very hard to see how it could have been based on the poetic system of the Psalms; the gradual lengthening of the lines is the only feature that may be considered relevant to this psalm. Was Yuasa trying, perhaps, to imitate Western poetry of the time, that mostly had even lines and regular-sized stanzas? But lines’ length is not enough; they must have syllabic rhythm, which Yuasa’s translation totally lacks. Like Sakon, whose translation he evidently knew, and seems to have followed in many cases,10 Yuasa too based his work on the Meiji Translation, while simultaneously consulting the Hebrew. The choice of many words is the same as in A-1, although he introduced several new words not encountered before. Following the text of the psalm, Yuasa has about half a page of commentary and explanations, verse by verse, including biblical references. For v. 1 he explains that both Jacob and David were shepherds. For v. 2 he explains his strange use of iwai (岩井) or ‘well-rock’ by referring to Gen. 29:10–11 and Ex. 2:16–21, two stories in which water is drawn from a well for the sheep by Jacob and Moses, respectively. In v. 4 he says that shi no kage to tani is a wrong translation, but does not explain why. There are several other explanations and references. Yuasa uses honorifics extensively, in particular the verb tamau, which he uses much more often than do other translations. For the pronoun 汝 (‘you’, referring to YHWH in this psalm), for which earlier translations gave the reading nanji in furigana, he gives the rare and ancient reading mimashi, which literally means ‘honorable seat’, and used to refer to the emperor. He also enhances his translation theologically, for example

  9 In his own words: 「我国上代の歌人が、漢詩の五言絶句に依りて五七調を 作り、七言絶句に依りて七五調を作りしが如く、詩篇の詩形に依りて作つた のである。しかしながら和歌や俳句の如く仮名の音数律に依らず、漢字も仮 名も共に数へて、字数の均等に依りて句を作つたのである。 」 10 In v. 2, A-1 has the verb tomonau, while both B-3 and B-4 have michibiku; in v. 3 A-1 has michibiku while B-3 and B-4 have tomonau; it seems that here Yuasa followed Sakon, as he did in many other cases, consciously or not, as will be shown under 5.3 below.

220

chapter five

by adding towani in v. 3, creating the meaning: ‘he gives my soul everlasting life’.11 5.2.3 The Protestant Translations of the 1950’s As described in Chapter 3, although a manuscript of a revised classicalstyle version of the OT was completed a few years after the end of WWII, only the Psalms and Job were ever published. Instead, this revision (B-9), served as a basis for the first colloquial-style translation (A-2). Simultaneously, the Short Bible, translated from English in the colloquial style, was also published (B-10). B-9 Revised Classical-Style—JBS—Psalms (1951) 第二三篇 ダビデの歌 1 主はわが牧者なり、 われ乏しきことあらじ。 2 主は我をみどりの牧場に臥させ、 憩ひの水濱にともなひ給ふ。 3 主はわが魂を生きかへらしめ、 御名のために我を義しき道に導きたまふ。 4 たとひわれ死の蔭の谷を歩むとも禍ひを恐れじ、 なんぢ我と共にいませばなり。 汝の棒、汝の杖われを慰む。 5 なんぢ我が仇の前にてわがまへに筵を設け、 わが頭に油を注ぎ給ふ、 わが杯はあふるるなり。 6 わが生ける限りは必ず幸ひと惠みとわれにそひ来らん、 我はとこしへに主の家に住まん。 dabide no uta 1. shu wa waga bokusha nari, waga tomoshiki koto araji. 2. shu wa waga o midori no makiba ni fusase, ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau. 3. shu wa waga tamashii o ikikaerashime, mina no tameni ware o tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau. 4. tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji, nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari. nanji no bō, nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu. 5. nanji waga ata no mae ni te waga mae ni en o mōke, waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau, waga sakazuki wa afururu nari. 11  In his two short comments on this translation Fujiwara Fujio says that Yuasa had shown promise in his early original poem on a biblical theme, but showed weakness of poetical expression in his translations. He calls his method “clumsy” and “regrettable”; Fujiwara 1974, 131; 284.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 221

6. waga ikeru kagiri wa kanarazu saiwai to megumi to ware ni soikoran, ware wa tokoshie ni shu no ie ni suman.

In this revision of the Meiji Translation, published some 70 years after the original version, relatively small changes have been made. The orthographic changes stand out: many more kanji characters are used instead of hiragana (although not always consistently, such as in nanji), but the kanji compounds commented upon in the above analysis of A-1 were simplified (魂 instead of 靈魂, 惠み instead of 恩惠). Punctuation marks were also added. As for contents, the main change is the substitution of ehoba for shu (Lord), already seen in B-2. Apart from that, only eight words were changed, in most cases creating only a slightly different meaning. Some of these changes may indicate that the MT had been consulted, as stated in the introduction to the 1948 edition of Psalms 1–41 (see 3.2 above). For example, in v. 3 the replacement of tamashii o ikashi with tamashii o ikikaerashime; or in v. 5, the replacement of waga tame ni with waga mae ni. The classical style and grammar of the original version were maintained even when other changes were made (as in -shime above). On the whole, it seems that the revisers treated the Meiji Translation with great respect, correcting it only where it seemed necessary, and not trying to offer a radically different translation. However, as their revision progressed, it must have gradually dawned on them that there was going to be no real demand for their work as such, because a ‘colloquial’ language translation was in greater demand than a revised classical one. And although their work was put into use in the making of the ‘colloquial’ version (and some of the participants in both endeavors were in fact the same people, such as Tsuru Senji), it is regrettable that their revision was not made fully available to the public. A-2 JBS Colloquial Translation (1955) 第二三篇 ダビデの歌 1 主はわたしの牧者であって、 わたしには乏しいことがない。 2 主はわたしを緑の牧場に伏させ、 いこいのみぎわに伴われる。 3 主はわたしの魂をいきかえらせ、 み名のためにわたしを正しい道に導かれる。 4 たといわたしは死の蔭の谷を歩むとも わざわいを恐れません。 あなたがわたしと共におられるからです。 あなたのむちと、あなたのつえはわたしを慰めます。

222

chapter five

5 あなたはわたしの敵の前で、わたしのまえに宴を設け、 わたしのこうべに油をそそがれる。 わたしの杯はあふれます。 6 わたしの生きているかぎりは 必ず惠みといつくしみとが伴うでしょう。 わたしはとこしえに主の宮に住むでしょう。 dabide no uta 1. shu wa waga bokusha deatte, watashi ni wa toboshii koto ga nai. 2. shu wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase, ikoi no migiwa ni tomonawareru. 3. shu wa watashi no tamashii o ikikaerase, mina no tameni watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru. 4. tatoi watashi wa shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo, wazawai o osoremasen. anata ga watashi to tomoni orareru kara desu. anata no muchi to, anata no tsue wa watashi o nagusamemasu. 5. anata wa watashi no teki no mae de, watashi no mae ni en o mōke, watashi no kōbe ni abura o sosogareru. watashi no sakazuki wa afuremasu. 6. watashi no ikiteiru kagiri wa kanarazu megumi to itsukushimi to ga tomonau deshō. watashi wa tokoshie ni shu no miya ni sumu deshō.

As already pointed out in Chapter 4 above, it is quite clear that this, the first full ‘colloquial’ language translation of the OT, was not a new and independent translation, but rather was based on earlier ones. In analyzing verses from Deuteronomy and Genesis we can only compare this translation with the original classical language translation (A-1), because the full text of the revised classical language translation (B-9) has not been made public. However, in the case of the Psalms this revision is available to us, and we can see clearly the steps taken from A-1 to B-9 and from B-9 to A-2. For example: A-1 B-9 A-2

みどりの野 みどりの牧場 緑の牧場

midori no no midori no makiba midori no makiba

In this case A-2 adopted the revision of B-9. A-1 B-9 A-2

靈魂をいかし 魂を生きかへらしめ 魂をいきかえらせ

tamashii o ikashi tamashii o ikikaerashime tamashii o ikikaerase

Here too B-9’s revision was adopted, and only the auxiliary verb was modernized.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 223

However, there are a few places where B-9 and A-2 are not in accordance, thus proving that the latter was not totally dependent on the former, and that the original A-1 also had its effect. For example, in v. 6: A-1 B-9 A-2

宮 家 宮

miya ie miya

Here A-2 reverted to the more exalted choice of A-1, meaning ‘palace’ or ‘temple’, instead of B-9’s more simple (and more direct translation), meaning ‘house’. As another sign of maintaining a tradition started by an earlier translation, it should be noted that both B-9 and A-2 followed A-1 in keeping the literal mention of YHWH at the beginning of both vv. 2 & 3, which is not found in the original text (although they replaced ehoba with shu). While maintaining most choices of the earlier translation and revision, A-2 converted the style of the text to a more ‘colloquial’ one (in fact, as already indicated above, ‘contemporary written style’ would be a more accurate definition). All future translations would follow its example (except for a few Catholic translations, in particular A-3 and B-11, which were being prepared and printed simultaneously with A-2). In fact, A-2 demonstrates a certain reluctance to depart completely from the archaic forms of the classical-language translation. This can be seen, for example, in choices such as: using the hiragana-written word kōbe for “head” (首 in A-1, 頭 in B-9, both with the furigana reading kōbe) in v. 5; in the same verse, keeping the translation en o mōke (宴を設け; 筵をまうけ in A-1; 筵を設け in B-9); keeping the translation tokoshie in v. 6 (hiragana in all three versions). Most future translations chose a more modern usage in all these cases (except for the reading kōbe, which remained popular). Orthographically too, A-2 reverted to the more copious use of hiragana in A-1, compared with the preference for kanji in B-9 (but this must have been motivated—like the use of the ‘colloquial’ style—by the desire to render the translation easier to read for people with limited education). The changes in style and grammar are numerous, and all the aspects of the classical language—auxiliary verbs, verb declination, omission of particles etc.—were altered in favor of the contemporary, simple written style. For the first time, the use of desu (polite form of copula) and masu (polite verb-ending) was introduced. These can be found in vv. 4 & 5, which include a speech directed at God (but not in vv. 1–3, which do not). The introduction of modern pronouns, such as watashi and anata, also stands out (although the use of the third-person pronoun kare for

224

chapter five

God, which other translations, such as the following, contemporary B-10, included, is avoided through the use of shu). Another sensitive point is the use of deshō in v. 6 to indicate the future (discussed under 5.3.17 below).12 B-10 The Short Bible (1954) 良き羊飼い [ダビデの歌] 二三・1  主は私の羊飼い、私に足りぬものはない。 2 主は私を緑の野原に臥させ、 疲れをいやす水辺に導く。 3 主は私に新しき生命を与え、 御名のために、私を安全な道に導く。 4 たとえ真暗な谷を歩いても、 私は少しもわざわいを恐れない。あなたがそばにいてくださる から。 あなたの笞、あなたの杖—それによって私は慰められる。 5 あなたは私の敵の前で、私の前に祝宴をはってくださる。 あなたは私の頭に油を注ぎ、私の杯はあふれる。 6 仁慈と恵みだけは一生私をはなれることなく、 私は年老いるまで主の家に住むであろう。 dabide no uta 1. shu wa watashi no hitsujikai, watashi ni tarinu mono wa nai. 2. shu wa watashi o midori no nohara ni fusase, tsukare o iyasu mizube ni michibiku. 3. shu wa watashi ni atarashiki seimei o atae, mina no tame ni, watashi o anzenna michi ni michibiku. 4. tatoe makkurana tani o aruitemo, watashi wa sukoshi mo wazawai o osernai. anata ga soba ni itekudasaru kara. anata no shimoto, anata no tsue—sore niyotte watashi wa nagusamerareru. 5. anata wa watashi no teki no mae de, watashi no mae ni shukuen o hattekudasaru. anata wa watashi no atama ni abura o sosogi, watashi no sakazuki wa afureru. 6. nasake to megumi dake wa isshō watashi o hanareru koto naku, watashi wa toshioiru made shu no ie ni sumu dearō.

This translation—from English, and published a short while before A-2— was one of the first to use the ‘colloquial’ style, going even further than A-2 in the use of simple, every-day written language. This seems to be the very rare case of a Japanese translation in which almost no residue of the Meiji Translation can be found. In some cases (for example, in v. 5) 12 In his criticism of A-2, Nakazawa mentioned the translation of Psalm 23 as a clear but not a good translation, accurate but prosaic rather than poetic; Nakazawa 1960, 96.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 225

there is a resemblance to other translations, but it is difficult to establish a clear dependency. It seems that the translators of this version had not consulted earlier Japanese versions, although it must be assumed that they were familiar at least with some of them. Perhaps the fact that they were translating a ‘short Bible’, and from English, and not being connected with a specific church organization, led them to choose this independent mode of work. Honorifics in this translation, according to the principle stated by Tobita Shigeo (see 3.2, B-10 above), were not used in the ‘descriptive’ parts (mainly vv. 1–3, with the exception of the prefix mi in front of na, ‘His name’), but were used when a direct speech to God appears, in vv. 4–5, in particular -tekudasaru and -rareru honorific verbal forms. However, unlike A-2, polite desu and masu forms were not used. It should be pointed out also that very little furigana were added (only in three cases: mi(na), shimoto, wazawai). When compared with the original English source of this translation (Goodspeed & Smith, 1933, 258–9), it becomes clear that the Japanese translation is indeed totally dependent upon its English source, which dictated the selection of some words not found in any of the other Japanese translations of Psalm 23. For example, in v. 3, shu wa watashi ni atarashiki seimei o atae is a translation of ‘He gives me new life’; and watashi o anzenna michi ni michibiku is a translation of ‘He guides me in safe paths’. It should also be noted that at the beginning of the verse ‘He’ is translated as shu (Lord), thus enhancing the religious tone of the translation (the original English version has ‘Lord’ only as a direct translation of YHWH). 5.2.4 The Catholic Translations from the 1930’s to the 1980’s As was pointed out in Chapter 3, no full Catholic translation of the OT existed until the 1950’s, but several partial translations could be found. The earliest partial translations were published in different Catholic magazines during the 1930’s, including the translation of the first 100 psalms (C-11d). An organized Catholic effort headed by Shibutani Osamu to translate the OT in classical style before WWII was abandoned, and only Genesis (1941) and Psalms 1–50 (1950 & 1954) were ever published (B-5). More or less simultaneously, a selection from the OT was prepared by Hagiwara Akira and published in 1947, with a revised version coming out in 1953 (B-8). This was followed by the first full Catholic translation, in ‘moderate classical style’, which was published between 1954 and 1959 in Sapporo, and which included two translations of the Psalms (A-3). Simultaneously,

226

chapter five

a translation of the Psalms as a daily prayer book was published in 1956 by Julius Abri (B-11). Around the same time the Franciscan translation was also begun, and its publication in separate volumes took 44 years to complete; the Psalms volume was published in 1968 (A-5). Before and after that volume, the two versions of Barbaro’s translation were published, the first completed in 1964 (A-6), and the second in 1980 (A-6a). A second separate translation of the Psalms, by a committee of Japanese translators, came out in 1972 (B-15). In total, then, ten Catholic versions of Psalm 23 are presented below. It should be pointed out that since in the Vulgate this psalm is numbered 22, most Catholic translations either have it under that number, or indicate both 22 and 23. C-11d Partial translation of the Psalms in Seisho Shisō magazine (1933–39) This is the first Catholic translation of the Psalms in print (see above Chapter 3, C-11d for more details). The translation is by Fr. Ideguchi Miyoichi. 第廿二　[第廿三]篇　 善牧者 1 ダヴィドの詩 ヤウェはわが牧者にませば われにかくるものぞなき。 2 彼、緑の牧場にわれを臥させ 安息の水にわれを連れ行き、 3 わが魂を新鮮にし 御名のため、われを正路に導き給ふ 4 たとひ、われ闇深き谷を通るとも、 汝われと共に在せば禍も恐れず、 汝の笞と杖とはわれを慰むるなり。 5 汝わが仇の前にてわがため膳を備へ、 わが頭に膏を注ぎ給ひ わが盃は滿ち溢れる。 6 わが生命のあらん限り、 幸福と恩恵を われに添ひ 日數多くわれヤ ウェの家に住まん。 1. davido no shi yawe wa waga bokusha ni maseba ware ni kakuru mono zo naki. 2. kare, midori no makiba ni ware o fusase ansoku no mizu ni ware o tsureyuki, 3. waga tamashii o shinsen ni shi mina no tame, ware o seiro ni michibiki tamau. 4. tatoi, ware yamibukaki(?) tani o tooru to mo, nanji ware to tomoni imaseba wazawai mo osorezu, nanji no shimoto to tsue to wa ware o nagusamuru nari.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 227

5. nanji waga eda no mae ni te waga tame zen o sonae, waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamai waga sakazuki wa machi afururu. 6. waga seimei no aran kagiri, saiwai to onkei o ware ni soi nissū ooku ware yawe no ie ni suman.

There is much that is original in Ideguchi’s translation, although he must have been aware of A-1, which may have been the source of more than a few words (especially in vv. 1, 4 & 5). The translation is faithful to the MT, although a few small additions can be found, such as the conjunction maseba in the first part of v. 1, or the emphatic particle zo in the same verse. Ideguchi maintained the use of yawe in his translation, and adopted the meaning ‘dark valley’ in v. 4. It seems that he also strived to keep the spirit of the original text through a relatively concise translation; this is evident in expressions such as seiro ni michibiki in v. 3, where other translations had much longer expressions. However, the adding of honorifics, such as tamau, and the extensive use of pronouns caused the translation to swell to nearly 250 syllables, only slightly shorter than the average. Still, compared with other translations of his period and also with later ones, Ideguchi’s translation deserves special attention. Incidentally, the printing of this translation has very little furigana, so one or two readings are not certain. B-5 Catholic Classical Translation—Partial (1950/54) As indicated in Chapter 3, a Catholic effort headed by Shibutani Osamu to translate the OT was abandoned, and only Genesis (1941) and Psalms 1–50 (1950 & 1954) were ever published. 第二三　[第二二]篇　善き牧者 1 ダーヰドによりての樂歌 [わが頼りまつるべき牧者] ヤハヱはわが牧者にてまします、われは乏しくはおもはず。 2 ヤハヱはわれを緑の牧に臥させ われを憩の水の邊にともなひ 3 わが靈魂をいきほひづけ 御名にかけてわれをただしき路にみちびきたまふ 4 よしや、われ死のごとき闇路をあゆまむとも、災禍をおそれざらむ 汝われとともにましませばなり、汝の牧杖、汝の杖、それらぞ われをなぐさむる なる。 [われを護るヤハヱ] 5 汝はわが敵を目の前に置きながらわがまへに饗設をなしたまふ。

228

chapter five

わが杯に（酒）あふるるあひだに、汝はわが頭に油をそそぎた まへり。 6 かならずや幸福と御恩惠とはわが生くる日のかぎりわれにしたが ひきたりぬべし。 かくてわれは生くるかぎりヤハヱの御館に住むをえむ。 1. dawido ni yorite no uta. yahawe wa waga bokusha nitemashimasu, ware tomoshiku wa omowazu. 2. yahawe wa ware o midori no maki ni fusase ware o ikoi no mizu no he ni tomonai 3. waga tamashii o ikihoizuke mina ni kakete ware o tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau. 4. yoshiya, ware shi no gotoki yamichi o ayumamu to mo, wazawai o osorezaramu mimashi ware to tomoni mashimasebanari, mimashi no bokujō, mimashi no tsue, sorera zo ware o nagusamurunaru. 5. mimashi wa waga teki o me no mae ni oki nagara waga mae ni aruji mōke o nashi tamau. waga sakazuki ni (sake) afururu aida ni, mimashi wa waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamaeri. 6. kanarazu ya saiwai to mimegumi to wa waga ikuru hi no kagiri ware ni shitagai kinarinubeshi. kakute ware wa ikuru kagiri yahawe no miyakata ni sumu o emu.

Shibutani did not start his translation from scratch, but probably had the Meiji Translation (A-1) in front of him, and adopted many of its expressions, although he must have also been familiar with the MT, at least to a certain degree. It is apparent, especially from vv. 1&3, that he was following A-1 in his choice of words, and in some cases even copied its kanji compounds (靈魂 in v. 3, 恩惠 in v. 6). Surprisingly, he does not seem to have been influenced by the work of his colleague Ideguchi, whose translation he published in his magazine (C-11d above), neither in content nor in form. Unlike Ideguchi’s relatively concise translation, Shibutani’s is particularly expansive, running to over 320 syllables, using long and elaborate expressions and sometimes adding unnecessary information. Shibutani’s translation is one of three Catholic translations to transliterate YHWH (the others are C-11d, and A-5, the scholarly Franciscan translation). In this and other ways, he shows faithfulness to the Hebrew text. However, in an inexplicable deviation from the MT, the order of the last two clauses in v. 5 is reversed, with the cup mentioned before the oil, instead of after it. The language of the translation is classical, and the use of honorifics extensive. Like Yuasa shortly before him (B-4), Shibutani used the ancient



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 229

reading mimashi for the second-person pronoun 汝 (nanji in other translations beginning with A-1 and B-1). Shibutani adds titles to the different parts of the psalm, printed above a horizontal line at the top of the page (quoted above in square brackets). He also adds commentary beneath a horizontal line at the bottom of the page. For example, for abura o sosogi in v. 5, his explanation is: “In Palestine there was a custom when guests were invited, to wash the hair on the guest’s head with scented oil, and to serve him a cup filled with the best grape wine” (my translation). In v. 6 he explains that yahawe no miyakata does not mean ‘the temple of God’ (tenshu), but refers to the wish of being under God’s protection and kindness forever. Further explanations are appended at the end of the book, and in the case of this psalm consist of about half a page of comments concerning vv. 2, 4 and 6, including a long explanation on the shepherd’s staff in its original use as well as its current use in the Catholic Church. B-8 Selections from the Old Testament (1947/53) This partial translation of the OT by Hagiwara Akira was based on the Vulgate, but apparently the MT, the Septuagint and contemporary exegetical works were consulted. 善き牧者 第二二篇（二三） 1 ダヴィドの歌 主は、我が牧者にましませば、 我には乏しいことあらじ。 2 緑の野べに、我を臥させ、休みの水ぎわに我を憩わせ、 3 我が魂をはげまして、御名故に、正しき道に我を導給うなり。 4 我たとい、暗き谷間を歩むとも、御身は我と共なれば、我はおれず 禍を、御身の杖と牧杖我を慰めむ。 5 御身我が敵の前に、我がために食卓を備え、我が頭には油をぬり給 い、我が杯は溢るなり。 6 我が命のある限り、ただ幸と恵のみ、我に添きたらん。命のあらん その限り主のやか たに我は住まん。 1. davido no uta shu wa, waga bokusha ni mashimaseba, ware ni tomoshiki koto araji. 2. midori no nobe ni, ware o fusase, yasumi no migiwa ni ware o ikowase, 3. waga tamashii o hagemashite, mina tame ni, tadashiki michi ni ware o michibiki tamau nari. 4. ware tatoi, kuraki tanima o ayumu to mo, onmi wa ware to tomoni nareba, ware wa orezu wazawai o, onmi no tsue to bokujō wa, ware o nagusamemu. 5. onmi waga teki no mae ni, waga tame ni shokutaku o sonae, waga kōbe ni wa abura o nuri tamai, waga sakazuki wa afureru nari.

230

chapter five

6. waga inochi no aru kagiri, tada saiwai to megumi nomi, ware ni soikitaran. inochi no aran sono kagiri, shu no yakata ni ware wa suman.

Hagiwara translated in the familiar classical style of earlier translations, which he may have partially followed, although his translation also contains some original choices (particularly in the construction of v. 4). Although his project was based on the Vulgate, he was aware of the MT or modern interpretations. Like Ideguchi (C-11d), and unlike Shibutani (B-5), he translates ‘dark valley’ in v. 4 rather than ‘valley of death’. But like Shibutani he has in the same verse bokujō, which was later used in only one other translation, although he applies it to the second (‘staff ’) rather than to the first object (‘rod’); the title Hagiwara gave to the psalm is also identical to Shibutani’s. The proximity of the two in age and background is quite evident from their translations. His translation has a large amount of honorifics, but it is rather concise in comparison with many other translations (it is closer in length to C-11d than to B-5). This translation has no furigana, so the reading of some characters is uncertain. A-3 Catholic “moderate classical style” / Sapporo Translation (1957) This volume, which also includes the translation of five other OT books, has two translations of the Psalms: the first is based on the Vulgate, like the rest of the translation in this edition, while the second follows the version known either as Versio Piana, Psalterium Vaticanum or Novum Psalterium, published in 1945 under Pius XII, and following the MT. I. 第二十二篇　　（第二十三篇）わが牧者なる天主 1 ダヴィドの詩 主は我を導き給う、我に欠くるものあらじ。 2 彼は我を牧場に置き、回復の水の辺に我を連れ出し、 3 わが魂を回復せしめ、その御名のために我を正義の徑によりて導き 給えり。 4 実に、我はたとい死の蔭の只中を歩むとも、 禍を恐れじ、そは汝、 我と共に在せばなり。汝の鞭と汝の杖これこそ我の慰めなれ。 5 汝は我を悩ます者に向かいて わがために食卓を備え、 わが頭に 油を注ぎ給り。酔いをもたらすわが酒杯はいかに妙なるかな。 6 わが生くる日の限り、汝の御憐憫は我に添い来らん、これ、我が日 久しく主の家に住むを得んためなり。 1. davido no shi. shu wa ware o michibiki tamau, ware ni kakuru mono araji. 2. kare wa ware o makiba ni oki, kaifuku no mizu no hotori ni ware o tsureidashi,



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 231

3. waga tama o kaifukuseshime, sono mina no tameni ware o seiki no komichi ni yorite michibiki tamaeri. 4. geni, ware wa tatoi shi no kage no tadanaka o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji, so wa nanji, ware to tomoni imasebanari. nanji no muchi to nanji no tsue kore koso ware o nagusamenare. 5. nanji wa ware o nayamasu mono ni mukaite waga tameni shokutaku o sonae, waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamaeri. yoi o motarasu waga sakazuki wa ikani taenaru kana. 6. waga ikuru hi no kagiri, nanji no onawaremi wa ware ni soikitaran, kore, ware ga hi hisashiku shu no ie ni sumu o entamenari.

In examining the translations of Gen. 4:8 (4.2.5 above), it was found that the Sapporo Translation relied on Shibutani’s version. However, this does not seem to be the case in Psalm 23, where there is hardly any similarity between the two translations (except in the tendency to expand many expressions and add information). A-3 also seems quite distant from A-1, except, for some reason, in the first half of v. 4, which looks like a slightly modified translation: A-1: tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari A-3: geni, ware wa tatoi shi no kage no tadanaka o ayumu to mo wazawai o osoreji, so wa nanji, ware to tomoni imasebanari

This translation is based on the Vulgate, although the translators must have consulted the MT as well, as can be seen from their commentary in the bottom half of the page. In a note referring to v. 1, in which the Japanese translation corresponds with the Vulgate (‘The Lord leads me’), it is stated that in Hebrew it is ‘my shepherd’.13 Similarly to Shibutani’s explanation for v. 5, it says here that “the custom was to wash the head of the guest with oil at the banquet place.” Many of the explanations contain Christian commentaries and allusions; for example, regarding the ­shepherd, Jacob and David are mentioned as examples, but it then says that the most corresponding example is Jesus Christ. The style of this translation can indeed be described as ‘moderate classical’; some forms, such as araji or tamaeri follow classical grammar, but they are used sparingly, and most other classical forms are avoided.

13 Incidentally, “Hebrew” is called here ヘブレオ語 (hebureogo), rather than the more common ヘブライ語 (heburaigo), which is derived from German, or the less common ヘブル語 (heburugo), derived from English. Perhaps hebureogo is derived from the Latin form Hebraeo (see Vulgate, Gen. 14:13).

232

chapter five

The pronouns still conform with the classical style, unlike almost all other translations of the 1950’s. However, the use of hiragana and kanji conforms with the post-WWII reform. The use of honorifics resembles that of most of the earlier translations. II. 第二十二篇 （第二十三篇） わが牧者なる天主 1 ダヴィドの詩 主我を牧い給う、我に缼くるものぞなき。 2 彼緑の牧野に我を臥させ、わが憩うべき水の辺に我を連れ行き、 3 わが魂を回復せしめ、その御名の為に我を正しき径によりて導き給う。 4 我たとい暗き谷に歩む入るとも、禍を恐れじ、汝我と共に在せば なり。汝の鞭と汝の杖、これこそ我を慰むれ。 5 汝わが仇の見る所にて、わが為に食卓を備え、わが頭に油を注ぎ 給う、わが酒杯は充ち溢れたり。 6 わが生くる日の限り、御仁慈と御恩惠と我に添わん、かくて我が時 久しく主の家に住まん。 1. davido no shi. shu ware o kai tamau, ware ni kakuru mono zo naki. 2. kare midori no makino ni ware o fusase, waga ikou beki mizu no hotori ni ware o tsureyuki, 3. waga tamashii o kaifukuseshime, sono mina no tameni ware o tadashiki michi ni yorite michibiki tamou. 4. ware tatoi kuraki tani ni ayumiiru to mo, wazawai o osoreji, nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari. nanji no muchi to nanji no tsue, kore koso ware o nagusamure. 5. nanji waga ada no miru tokoro ni te, waga tameni shokutaku o sonae, waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamou, waga sakazuki wa michiafuretari. 6. waga ikuru hi no kagiri, onitsukushimi to omegumi to ware wo sowan, kakute ware toki hisashiku shu no ie ni suman.

The second translation to appear in the same volume has no commentary, and a note on the first page refers the reader to the commentary in the translation of the Vulgate Psalms in the same volume. This second translation is based on the former one, with several modifications. The style is made more modern, and most classical forms were shed (for example, tamau instead of tamaeri). But for some reason the use of the particle wa was reduced radically (from 7 times in the former translation, mostly following pronouns, to only once in the latter version), giving the feeling of a more archaic style. The translation is closer to the MT in some instances, as in kuraki tani in v. 4, but in v. 1 it seems to still follow the Vulgate with shu ware o kai tamau.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 233

B-11 Psalms: A book of daily prayer (1956) 第二十二篇　　牧者たる天主の配慮 1 主はわが飼いぬし、われに乏しきことあらじ、 2 かれ緑の牧場にわれをいこわせ、活ける水に安らわせ給う。 3 わが魂を活かしめ、み名によりて正しき道に導き給う。 4 かくてわれ、たとえくらき死の谷を歩むとも、災いを恐るることあ らじ、そはおん身 われと共にませばなり、おん身のむちとつえ は、よりたのみを与え給うなり。 5 おん身われをしいたぐる者の前にて、わが為に宴を設け給う、わ が頭に油を注ぎ給い、かくてわがの喜びのさかずきはあふるゝ なり。 6 おん身のおん恵みとおんいつくしみは、わが世にある限りわれにそ い来らん、われは 末長く、主のおん住みかに住むを得ん。 1. shu wa waga kainushi, ware ni tomoshiki koto araji, 2. kare midori no makiba ni ware o ikowase, ikeru mizu ni yasurawase tamau. 3. waga tamashii o ikashime, mina ni yorite tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau. 4. kakute ware, tatoe kuraki shi no tani o ayumu to mo, wazawai o osoruru koto araji, sowa onmi ware to tomoni imasebanari, onmi no muchi to tsue wa, yoritanomi o atae tamau nari. 5. onmi wa ware o shiitaguru mono no mae nite, waga tame ni en o mōke tamau, waga kashira ni abura o sosogi tamai, kakute waga yorokobi no sakazuki wa afururu nari. 6. onmi no on megumi to on itsukushimi wa, waga yo ni aru kagiri ware ni soi koran, ware wa suenagaku, shu no on sumi ka ni sumu o en.

This translation of the Psalter by Julius Abri is contemporary with A-3, and like it, uses what can be termed ‘moderate classical style’, although in his case to an even more ‘moderate’ degree. It seems as if the translator was not sure of his style, and while in some cases he uses classical forms (araji, ikashime), in others he uses contemporary ones (tamau). His style is often awkward.14 It is also clear that he relied at least partially on earlier translations; once again the influence of A-1 is strongly felt, especially in vv. 1, 3 & 5. In some cases he modernizes the grammar, for example in v. 1, where A-1 has ware tomoshiki koto araji, here we find ware ni tomoshiki koto araji, the added particle conforming with modern usage. And like several other Catholic translators, he tends to expand his phrases, creating a translation that is much longer than the original. 14 Fujiwara (1974, 287), in one of his few remarks on the various translations of this psalm, describes Abri’s translation as ‘awful’, saying his Japanese sounds like that of a foreigner (and so it does, even to the ears of another foreigner).

234

chapter five

Although Abri used the MT as the base for his translation, he omitted the original title of the psalm, perhaps because he intended it to be used as a prayer book; however, he supplies surprisingly little furigana that might have helped the readers (only twice in this psalm: makiba and kashira). As did many other translators, and in particular the Catholic ones, he adds his own title, which can be translated as: ‘the concern of God (tenshu) the shepherd’. A-6 Sacra Biblia Japonice, Versio: Barbaro-Del Col / Barbaro I (1958–1964) 2 3 (2 2) 1 ダヴィドの詩。 主は、私の牧者、 私には、乏しいものがない。 2 緑の牧場に、主は私を横たえ、 物静かな水際に、ひきいて行く。 3 主は、私の魂をつよめ、 正義の小道に立たせた、そのみ名のために。 4 闇の谷間を通っても、私は悪をおそれない。 あなたが私といっしょにおられるのだから。 あなたの棒と杖とは、私を慰める。 5 あなたは、私に食事をととのえて下さる、 私の敵の前で。 油を注いで、あなたは私の頭を匂わせ、 そして私の盃はあふれる。 6 ああ、いつくしみとおん情けとが、私と共にある、 生涯の日々に。 私の住居は、主の家、 日のつづく限り。 1. davido no shi shu wa, watashi no bokusha, watashi ni wa, toboshii mono ga nai. 2. midori no makiba ni, shu wa watashi o yokotae, monoshizukana migiwa ni, hikiiteyuku. 3. shu wa, watashi no tamashii o tsuyome, seigi no komichi ni tataseta, sono mina no tameni. 4. yami no tanima o tootte mo, watashi wa aku o osorenai. anata ga watashi to isshoni orareru no da kara. anata no bō to tsue to wa, watashi o nagusameru. 5. anata wa, watashi ni shokuji o totonoetekudasaru, watashi no teki no mae de. abura o sosoide, anata wa watashi no atama o niowase, soshite watashi no sakazuki wa afureru.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 235

6. aa, itsukushimi to onnasake to ga, watashi to tomoni aru, shōgai no hibi ni. watashi no sumai wa, shu no ie, hi no tsuzuku kagiri.

This translation is in the ‘colloquial’ style, namely contemporary written Japanese. The residues of earlier translations are felt, especially A-1 in vv. 1, 4 & 5, although undoubtedly it should be considered an original translation. The use of honorifics is relatively restricted, mainly mi (in bold) in front of na in v. 3, orareru in v. 4, kudasaru in v. 5, and on in v. 6; however, tamau is not used. YHWH is rendered as shu. The additional titles for the psalms in this translation are printed as the title of the explanatory notes that follow each psalm. In the case of this psalm the title is the common ‘Good Shepherd’ (よい牧者), and there are only two notes; the first explaining the division of the psalm into two parts: the shepherd (1–4), and the person preparing the Messiah’s feast (4–6), both pictures expressing God’s love for the righteous person; the second explaining the difference between bō and tsue (‘rod’ and ‘staff ’), the first used by a shepherd, the second for support in walking. A-6a Revisio et nova versio Veteris et Novi Testamenti / Barbaro II (1980) 第2 3篇 (2 2) 1 ダビドの詩。 主は私の牧者、 私には乏しいものがない。 2 緑の牧場に主は私を横たえ、 物静かなみぎわに引き連れて行く。 3 主は私の魂を強め、 そのみ名のために正義の小道に立たせられた。 4 やみの谷間を通っても私は悪をおそれない。 あなたが私とともにおられるのだから。 あなたの棒とつえは私を慰める。 5 あなたは敵の前で、 私に食事を調え、 油を注いで私の頭を匂わせ、 そして私の杯はあふれる。 6 ああ、慈しみと情けとが、 生涯の日々、私とともにある、 日のつづく限り、 私の住まいは主の家である。

236

chapter five

1. dabido no shi shu wa watashi no bokusha, watashi ni wa toboshii mono ga nai. 2. midori no makiba ni shu wa watashi o yokotae, monoshizukana migiwa ni hikitsureteiku. 3. shu wa watashi no tamashii o tsuyome, sono mina no tameni seigi no komichi ni tatasarareta. 4. yami no tanima o tootte mo watashi wa aku o osorenai. anata ga watashi to tomoni orareru no da kara. anata no bō to tsue wa, watashi o nagusameru. 5. anata wa teki no mae de watashi ni shokuji o totonoe, abura o sosoide watashi no atama o niowase, soshite watashi no sakazuki wa afureru. 6. aa, itsukushimi to nasake ga, shōgai no hibi, watashi to tomoni aru, hi no tsuzuku kagiri, watashi no sumai wa shu no ie de aru.

This is the revised version of the earlier translation (A-6). The aim of the revision seems to be to make the translation tighter: all commas in the middle of lines have been omitted, and some expressions shortened. Some non-essential pronouns and particles are also omitted (the second anata wa in v. 5). In other matters the revision shows inconsistency; several orthographic changes have been made, from kana to kanji (tsuyome in v. 3), but also vice versa ( yami in v. 4). As for honorifics, kudasaru in v. 5, and on in v. 6 are omitted, but mi (no longer in bold) in v. 3 and orareru in v. 4 have been retained, and in v. 3 tataseta was changed to tatasarareta. In v. 4 isshoni has been changed to tomoni, which is also used in v. 6. In vv. 3, 5 & 6 the order of clauses is changed; in the first two, the change brings the translation closer to the formal Japanese syntax and further from the original order of these clauses in the MT, while in the third case it is the other way around (see further discussion under 5.3). The additional title and notes that follow the psalm are without change. On the whole, it seems that some principles may have been set for the revision, but they were not always followed carefully. A-5 Studium Biblicum Franciscanum’s translation (1968) 2 3 (2 2) イスラエルの牧者 1 ダビデの詩。 ヤーウェは　わたしの牧者。 わたしには　乏しいことがない。



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 237

2 ヤーウェはわたしを緑のまきば　いこわせた。 わたしを　もの静かな水べに伴い、 3 魂を生き返らせ、 み名にふさわしく　正しい道に導かれた。 4 わたしは死のかげの谷を歩むときでさえ、 わざわいを恐れない。 あなたが　ともにおられるからだ。 あなたのつえ、あなたの牧杖こそ、わたしを安心させる。 5 あなたは敵の見ている前で　わたしのために食事をととのえ、 わたしの頭に香油をそそがれた。 わたしの杯は　あふれた。 6 ああ、惠みといつくしみは　生涯わたしに伴う。 わたしはヤーウェの家に　とわに住む。 1. dabide no shi ya-we wa watashi no bokusha. watashi ni wa toboshii koto ga nai. 2. ya-we wa watashi o midori no makiba ni ikowaseta. watashi o monoshizukana mizube ni tomonai, 3. tamashii o ikikaerase, mina ni fusawashiku tadashii michi ni michibikareta. 4. watashi wa shi no kage no tani o ayumu toki de sae, wazawai o osorenai. anata ga tomoni orareru kara da. anata no tsue, anata no bokujō koso, watashi o anshinsaseru. 5. anata wa teki no miteiru mae de watashi no tame ni shokuji o totonoe, watashi no atama(?) ni kōyu o sosogareta. watashi no sakazuki wa afureta. 6. aa, megumi to itsukushimi wa shōgai watashi ni tomonau. watashi wa ya-we no ie ni towani sumu.

This volume of the Franciscan translation was published in 1968, and the foreword says that it was started more than six years earlier, but that this is a short period compared with the more than six centuries over which the Hebrew psalms were compiled. It is stated that recent archaeological discoveries and the advance in comparative Semitic linguistics make it possible to decipher many previously difficult places in the text of the psalms. In their longer introduction to the book, the translators (who are not identified by name) explain in some detail their use of ‘colloquial’ language, their choice of honorifics and pronouns, and their transliteration of YHWH (22–24).15

15 In the 2011 accumulative version, several changes are to be found, mostly orthographic (some more kanji used instead of kana); substantial changes include: shu in place of ya-we; changing of verb tense from past to present in vv. 2-3; dropping of aa in v. 6.

238

chapter five

The title given to this psalm is ‘Israel’s shepherd’, and it is followed by a page-long commentary. The first and longest note explains the division of the psalm into two units, and gives several NT references, as well as a reference to Ex. 15:13, for the scene of YHWH leading Israel through the desert. Some specific points in the translation resemble earlier ones, including A-6 (monoshizukana in v. 2, aa in v. 6), with which it has another common feature: relatively concise expressions and little additions, in contrast to some of the earlier Catholic translations, such as B-5, A-3 and B-11 (although pronouns are added more frequently than in A-6, but not at all in v. 3 for some reason). A feature that seems unique to this translation is that several of the verbs are declined in past tense (vv. 2, 3 [this was corrected in the accumulative version], and twice in 5), although the MT has the perfect form only once in v. 5 (see 5.3.15 below). B-15 Psalms: prayed together, sung together (1972) 詩篇　二三 神は　わたしの牧者 1 神は　わたしの牧者、 わたしはは乏しいことがない。 2 神は　わたしを緑の牧場に伏させ、 いこいの水辺に伴われる。 3 神は　わたしを生き返らせ、 そのいつくしみによって正しい道に導かれる。 4 神よ、たとえ死のかげの谷を歩んでも、 わたしは災を恐れない。 あなたが　わたしとともにおられ、 あなたのむちとつえは　わたしを守る。 5 あなたは敵の見ている前で、 わたしのために会食を整え、 わたしのあたまに油を注ぎ、 わたしの杯を満たされる。 6 神の惠みと　いつくしみに生涯伴われ、 わたしは　とこしえに神の家に生きる。 1. kami wa watashi no bokusha, watashi wa toboshii koto ga nai. 2. kami wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase, ikoi no mizube ni tomonawareru. 3. kami wa watashi o ikikaerase, sono itsukushimi niyotte tadashii michi ni michibikareru. 4. kami yo, tatoe shi no kage no tani o ayundemo, watashi wa wazawai o osorenai. anata ga watashi to tomoni orare, anata no muchi to tsue wa watashi o mamoru.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 239

5. anata wa teki no miteiru mae de, watashi no tame ni kaishoku o totonoe, watashi no atama ni abura o sosogi, watashi no sakazuki wo mitasareru. 6. kami no megumi to itsukushimi ni shōgai tomonaware, watashi wa tokoshie ni kami no ie ni ikiru.

This translation, unlike most other Catholic ones, was by a committee of strictly Japanese translators, rather than foreign members of various monastic orders. Like the immediate former ones (A-6, A-5), it is relatively concise and avoids elaborate expressions, although pronouns and kami are often added. The choice of kami is explained by the purpose of the book being for use in the liturgy, which also explains the invocation kami yo. The use of honorifics is mainly through the auxiliary verb -reru. The notes at the bottom of the page give short interpretations of some words, and in some cases alternative translations, especially when the translation departs from earlier ones—and from the original—such as in v. 3 itsukushimi niyotte (in place of mina no yue ni). The last example illustrates the translators’ tendency to theologize the translation. Obviously, earlier translations were consulted, and the influence of A-5 is evident in some details (for example, the first clause of v. 5), but the translators also made their own independent decisions. 5.2.5 Protestant and Sectarian Translations from the Late 1960’s to the Early 1980’s In this section five translations of Psalm 23 are introduced, all taken from full OT translations: the individual translation by Sekine (A-4), the socalled New Revised Translation (A-7), the paraphrased Living Bible (A-8), the New World translation of Jehovah Witnesses (A-9), and Oyama’s Modern Japanese Bible (A-10). A-4 Sekine Masao’s translation (1956–1995) (Psalms published 1973) 牧者 （二三篇） 1 ダビデの歌。 ヤハヴェはわが牧者 わたしには欠ける所がない。 2 彼はわたしを緑の牧場に伏させ いこいの水際に導かれる。 3 彼はわが魂を生きかえらせ み名の故にわたしを 正しい道に導かれる。

240

chapter five

4 たとえ死の蔭の谷を歩んでも わたしは災いを恐れない、 あなたがわたしと一緒にい給うから。 あなたのしもと、あなたの杖、 それらはわたしに勇気を与える。 5 あなたはわが敵の面前で わたしの前に宴をもうけ わたしの頭にあぶらを注がれ わが杯はみちあふれる。 6 わたしの生きている限り 必ず惠みといつくしみがわたしを追いかけてくる。 わたしはいつまでもヤハヴェの家に住むであろう。 1. dabide no uta. yahawe wa waga bokusha watashi ni wa kakeru tokoro ga nai. 2. kare wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase ikoi no migiwa ni michibikareru. 3. kare wa waga tamashii o ikikaerase mina no yue ni watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru. 4. tatoe shi no kage no tani o ayundemo watashi wa wazawai o osorenai. anata ga watashi to isshoni i tamau kara. anata no shimoto, anata no tsue, sorera wa watashi ni yūki o ataeru. 5. anata wa waga teki no menzen de watashi no mae ni en o mōke watashi no kōbe ni abura o sosogare waga hai wa michiafureru. 6. watashi no ikiteiru kagiri kanarazu megumi to itsukushimi ga watashi o oikaketekuru. watashi wa itsumademo yahawe no ie ni sumu dearō.

The Psalms volume of Sekine’s individual translation of the OT was first published separately by Iwanami in 1973. His translation is considered scholarly, but can also be considered quite conservative and following A-2 (and by implication, A-1). Sekine kept the version shi no kage no tani in v. 4, and he even added titles to the psalms (in this case: ‘Shepherd’). He also used honorifics (not only tamau and mi, but also -reru). And although he modernized the style—again, similarly to A-2—he also retained some archaic forms (waga teki, en o mōke, kōbe). It is a little surprising that he translated two different Hebrew words, at the end of vv. 2&3, with the same Japanese one, michibikareru. He differed from A-2 in his avoidance



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 241

of using the polite form desu and masu; however, like A-2 he used the potential form at the end of v. 6 (dearō instead of deshō). Sekine used furigana sparingly (only for five words in this psalm, including kōbe), and the only short note that follows the psalm says shinrai no uta, ‘a song of trust’. A-7 New Revised Translation (1968–1970) 2 3 ダビデの賛歌 1 主は私の羊飼い。 私は、乏しいことがありません。 2 主は私を緑の牧場に伏させ、 いこいの水のほとりに伴われます。 3 主はわたしのたましいを生き返らせ、 御名のために、私を義の道に導かれます。 4 たとい、死の蔭の谷を歩くことがあっても 私はわざわいを恐れません。 あなたが私とともにおられますから。 あなたのむちと、あなたの杖、 それが私の慰めです。 5 私の敵の前で、あなたは私のために食事をととのえ、 私の頭に油をそそいでくださいます。 私の杯は、あふれています。 6 まことに、私のいのちの日の限り、いつくしみと 惠みとが、私を追って来るでしょう。 私は、いつまでも、主の家に住まいましょう。 dabide no sanka 1. shu wa watashi no hitsujikai. watashi wa, toboshii koto ga arimasen. 2. shu wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase, ikoi no mizu no hotori ni tomonawaremasu. 3. shu wa watashi no tamashii o ikikaerase, mina no tameni, watashi o gi no michi ni michibikaremasu. 4. tatoi, shi no kage no tani o aruku koto ga atte mo, watashi wa wazawai o osoremasen. anata ga watashi to tomoni oraremasu kara. anata no muchi to, anata no tsue, sore ga watashi no nagusame desu. 5. watashi no teki no mae de, anata wa watashi no tame ni shokuji wo totonoe, watashi no atama ni abura o sosoidekudasaimasu. watashi no sakazuki wa, afureteimasu. 6. makoto ni, watashi no inochi no hi no kagiri, itsukushimi to megumi to ga, watashi o otte kuru deshō. watashi wa, itsumademo, shu no ie ni sumaimashō.

242

chapter five

This ‘revised’, conservative translation indeed looks like a revision of A-2 in this case. A great deal of the text of A-2 has been retained, although several changes have been introduced. In v. 1 the word for ‘shepherd’ is changed from bokusha to hitsujikai (it was only used once before, in B-10). In vv. 2&3 the translation of only one word in each verse is different, and in the rest of the psalm the changes are hardly more numerous. This translation goes a step further than A-2 though in using the polite form desu or masu at the end of every verse, and enhancing the use of honorifics. The translation aims at being as clear as possible, and for that reason numerous pronouns are added compared with other translations. The potential form has been retained.16 Considering the criticism leveled at A-2 by the initiators of this translation (see Chapter 3, A-7 above), the number of changes in this case are very few. A title is given to the psalm before the notes printed at the bottom of the page, and in this case it is shu wa hitsujikai (‘The Lord is a shepherd’). Titles are also given to the two scenes (1–4, 5–6). The notes include some references to the NT. No changes have been made in the second and third editions of the translation (1987 & 2003). A-8 The Living Bible—Paraphrased (1978) 二三 1 主は私の羊飼いですから、必要なものはみな与えてくださいます。 2 3 主は私を牧草地にいこわせ、ゆるやかな流れのほとりに連れて行 かれます。傷ついたこの身を立ち直らせ、私が最高に主の栄 光を現わす仕事ができるように、手を貸してくださいます。 4 たとい、死の暗い谷間を通ることがあっても、こわがったりしませ ん。 主がすぐそばにいて、道中ずっとお守りくださるから です。 5 主は敵の面前で、私のためにおいしいごちそうを備えてくださいます。 たいせつな客としてもてなしてくださったのです。まるで、 あふれなばかりの祝福です。 6 生きている限り、主の恵みといつくしみが、私についてきます。 やがて、私は主の家に着き、いつまでもおそばで暮らすこと でしょう。

16 It should be noted that A-7 retained the potential form here probably because the speaker is a human being; in cases where God is the speaker, and where A-2 used the potential form to indicate the future, A-7 omitted it, for example Gen. 12:2, 15:13,14 etc.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 243

1. shu wa hitsujikai desu kara, hitsuyōna mono wa mina ataete kudasaimasu. 2–3. shu wa watashi o bokusōchi ni ikowase, yuruyakana nagare no hotori ni tsureteikaremasu. kizu tsuita kono mi wo tachinaorase, watashi ga saikō ni shu no eikō wo arawasu shigoto ga dekiru yōni, te o kashite kudasaimasu. 4. tatoi, shi no kurai tanima o tooru koto ga attemo, kowagattarishimasen. shu ga sugu sobani ite, dōchū zutto omamori kudasaru kara desu. 5. shu wa teki no menzen de, watashi no tameni oishii gochisō wo sonaete kudasaimasu. taisetsuna kyaku toshite motenashite kudasatta no desu. marude, afurena bakari no shokufuku desu. 6. ikiteiru kagiri, shu no megumi to itsukushimi ga, watashi ni tsuite kimasu. yagate, watashi wa shu no ie ni tsuki, itsumademo osobade kurasu koto deshō.

True to its name, this translation is a paraphrased version of the psalm, omitting much of the original text, or adding to it. The aim is to simplify and explain everything, as if to children, with expressions like oishii gochisō (‘tasty treats’) added, and unfamiliar objects of realia, like the rod or the oil, and obviously the cup, omitted. Surprisingly perhaps, the reference to “for the sake of his name” is also omitted, although shu (Lord) is inserted at least once in every verse. Honorifics, as well as the polite form desu and masu, are used extensively. A-9 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1982) 2 3 ダビデの調べ 1 エホバはわたしの牧者。 わたしは何にも不足しません。 2 [神]は草の多い牧場にわたしを横たわらせ、 水の十分にある休み場にわたしを導いてくださいます。 3 [神]はわたしの魂をさわやかにしてくださいます。 そのみ名のために義の進路にわたしを導いてくださいます。 4 たとえ深い蔭の谷を歩もうとも、 わたしは何も悪いものを恐れません。 あなたがわたしと共にいてくださるからです。 あなたのむち棒とつえは、わたしを慰めてくれるものなのです。 5 あなたは、わたしに敵意を示す者たちの前で、わたしの前に食卓 を整えてくださいます。 あなたはわたしの頭に油を塗ってくださいました。 わたしの杯はあふれんばかりです。 6 確かに、善良と愛ある親切が、わたしの命の日の限りわたしを追 うことでしょう。 わたしは長い日々にわたって、エホバの家に住むのです。

244

chapter five

dabide no shirabe 1. ehoba wa watashi no bokusha. watashi wa nani ni mo fusoku shimasen. 2. [kami] wa kusa no ooi bokujō ni watashi o yokotawarase, mizu no jūbun ni aru yasumiba ni watashi o michibite kudasaimasu. 3. [kami] wa watashi no tamashii o sawayakanishite kudasaimasu, sono mina no tameni gi no shinro ni watashi o michibiite kudasaimasu. 4. tatoe fukai kage no tani o ayumō to mo, watashi wa nani mo warui mono o osoremasen. anata ga watashi to tomoni ite kudasaru kara desu. anata no muchibō to tsue wa, watashi o nagusametekureru mono nanodesu. 5. anata wa, watashi ni tekii o shimesu monotachi no mae de, watashi no mae ni shokutaku o totonoete kudasaimasu. anata wa watashi no kōbe ni abura o nutte kudasaimashita. watashi no sakazuki wa afuren bakari desu. 6. tashikani, zenryō to ai aru shinsetsu ga, watashi no inochi no hi no kagiri watashi o ou koto deshō. watashi wa nagai hibi ni watatte, ehoba no ie ni sumu no desu.

This translation is supposed to be based on the MT, but, on the one hand, it seems to be following A-2; for example, most of v. 4 and parts of v. 5 are identical to A-2. On the other hand it follows the English version of the New World Bible (see text below); for example, the only place where the past tense is used (rarely, compared with the other translations), kudasaimashita in v. 5, it is done so following both the MT and the English translation (‘have greased’). The Japanese version even departs from the English one by adding kami in square brackets for the sake of clarity; additions also include many pronouns. The language is simple and direct, with the polite form desu or masu at the end of each verse and a copious use of honorifics, in particular the verb kudasaru. Psalm 23 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: A melody of David. 1 Jehovah is my Shepherd. I shall lack nothing. 2 In grassy pastures he makes me lie down; By well-watered resting-places he conducts me. 3 My soul he refreshes. He leads me in the tracks of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk in the valley of deep shadow, I fear nothing bad, For you are with me; Your rod and your staff are the things that comfort me. 5 You arrange before me a table in front of those showing hostility to me. With oil you have greased my head; My cup is well filled. 6 Surely goodness and loving-kindness themselves will pursue me all the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of Jehovah to the length of days.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 245

A-10 Oyama Reiji, Modern Japanese Bible (1983) 第二三篇 ダビデの詩 1 主は私の羊飼い。私には足りないものはありません。 2 主は、私を青々と草の生い茂った牧場に連れて行き、 また、水辺に伴って、いこわせてくださいます。 3 主は、私の魂にいのちを与え、 主の御心にかなった道に導いてくださいます。 4 たとい死の危険のある所を歩いとも、 私は少しも恐れません。 あなたがいつもいっしょにいてくださるからです。 あなたは私を守り、導いてくださいます。 5 あなたは敵の面前で、私のためにごちそうを用意し、 主の戦士として、頭に油を注いでくださいます。 私の胸はもう一杯です。 6 生きている限り、主の恵みといつくしみは、 私の上にあり続けます。 私はいつでも、主のおそばで暮らします。 dabide no shi 1. shu wa watashi no hitsujikai. watashi ni wa tarinai mono wa arimasen. 2. shu wa, watashi o aoaoto kusa no oishigetta makiba ni tsureteyuki, mata, mizube ni tomonatte, ikowasete kudasaimasu. 3. shu wa, watashi no tamashii ni inochi o atae, shu no mikokoro ni kanatta michi ni michibiite kudasaimasu. 4. tatoi shi no kiken no aru tokoro o aruite mo, watashi wa sukoshi mo osoremasen. anata ga itsumo isshoni ite kudasaru kara desu. anata wa watashi o mamori, michibite kudasaimasu. 5. anata wa teki no menzen de, watashi no tame ni gochisō o yōishi, shu no senshi toshite, atama ni abura o sosoide kudasaimasu. watashi no mune wa mō ippai desu. 6. ikiteiru kagiri, shu no megumi to itsukushimi wa, watashi no ue ni ari tsuzukemasu. watashi wa itsudemo, shu no osoba de kurashimasu.

This translation, which may have relied on some English version, can be considered a paraphrased version like A-8, although not to the same degree. Still, Oyama changed several expressions, adding and omitting at will. In v. 3 ‘his name’ is turned into ‘his heart’. In v. 4 the rod and staff have disappeared. In v. 5 the full cup turns into a full breast. Also in v. 5, God is depicted as senshi or ‘fighter’. The aim is to create a theologically clear and simple text, at the expense of the original meaning.

246

chapter five

5.2.6 The Most Recent Two The two final translations to appear so far are the standard Interconfessional Translation (A-11), and the scholarly translation issued by Iwanami Shoten (A-12). A-11 New Interconfessional Translation (1987) 2 3 賛歌。ダビデの詩。 1 主は羊飼い、わたしには何も欠けることがない。 2 主はわたしを青草の原に休ませ、 憩いの水のほとりに伴い 3 魂を生き返らせてくださる。 主は御名にふさわしく わたしを正しい道に導かれる。 4 死の蔭の谷を行くときも わたしは災いを恐れない。 あなたがわたしと共にいてくださる。 あなたの鞭、あなたのつえ それがわたしを力づける。 5 わたしを苦しめる者を前にしても あなたはわたしに食卓を整えてくださる。 わたしの頭に香油を注ぎ わたしの杯は溢れさせてくださる。 6 命のある限り 惠みと慈しみはいつもわたしを追う。　 主の家にわたしは帰り 生涯、そこにとどまるであろう。 sanka. dabide no shi. 1. shu wa hitsujikai, watashi ni wa nani mo kakeru koto ga nai. 2. shu wa watashi o aokusa no hara ni yasumase ikoi no mizu no hotori ni tomonai 3. tamashii o ikikaerasete kudasaru. shu wa mina ni fusawashiku watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru. 4. shi no kage no tani o yuku toki mo, watashi wa wazawai o osorenai. anata ga watashi to tomoni itekudasaru. anata no muchi, anata no tsue sore ga watashi o chikara zukeru.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 247

5. watashi o kurushimeru mono o mae ni shitemo anata wa watashi ni shokutaku o totonoete kudasaru. watashi no atama ni kōyu o sosogi watashi no sakazuki o afuresasete kudasaru. 6. inochi no aru kagiri megumi to itsukushimi wa itsumo watashi o ou. shu no ie ni watashi wa kaeri shōgai, sokoni todomaru dearō.

This “interconfessional” translation, the version of the Bible distributed by JBS since 1987 and adopted by the Catholic Church and many Protestant ones, is in some ways one of the strangest of all the Japanese versions of this psalm. While some influence of earlier translations can still be felt (especially of A-2; for example, the last clause of v. 3 is identical in both translations), it seems as if an effort has been made by the translators to be as original as possible. The psalm was divided by them into four parts, rather than two or three, and v. 3 was cut in the middle. Unlike most earlier Protestant, as well as Catholic translations, the common bokusha in v. 1 has been replaced with hitsujikai (see 5.3.2 below). In another departure from tradition—and from the MT which this translation is supposed to be following—the shepherd is no longer ‘my shepherd’. Several other words or expressions never used before in any translation appear here for the first time: mina ni fusawashiku in v. 3, chikara zukeru in v. 4, kurushimeru mono in v. 5, and, strangest of all, shu no ie ni watashi wa kaeri in v. 6 (see 5.3.19 below). It is surprising to find so many innovations—which are not necessarily improvements—in a translation which is the third in line of the common versions of the Bible distributed in Japan by JBS, and therefore is not expected to diverge to such an extent from the earlier two (see bellow). The use of the polite form desu and masu which was introduced in A-2 is omitted here, and the use of honorifics has undergone a change. The mi in mina is retained, while the use of -reru, which was very common in A-2, is retained only at the end of v. 3 (a clause that, as indicated above, was copied entirely from the earlier translation). On the other hand, a great number of kudasaru have been added (four times in vv. 3–5). The use of this verb is common to the more recent and very conservative translations of the Bible (A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10), and one can hardly help but feel that it serves to bring the translation down to the level of a more everyday language. As seen earlier (Chapter 3, A-11), at least some of the participants in this translation conceived it as a version for the use of the majority

248

chapter five

of ­non-Christian Japanese, before it turned into an ‘official’ version, and perhaps this is one of the reasons for the kind of language used and the departures from tradition mentioned earlier. This is also one of the longest translations, with over 300 syllables. A-12 Iwanami Shoten Translation (1998) 23 1 ダビデの歌。 ヤハウェがわが牧者、私に欠けるものはない。 2 若草の牧場にかれは私をいこわせ、 憩い場の水辺に私をともなう。 3 わが魂をかれは回復させ 義の道筋に私を導く、 かれの名のゆえに。 4 暗黒の谷を 私が行くときも 私は災いを畏れない。 あなたが私と御一緒にだから。 あなたの笞とあなたの杖、 これらこそ、私を励ます。 5 あなたはととのえる、わが前に食卓を 私を攻める者らの正面で。 あなたは油を垂らした、わが頭に わが杯は溢れている。 6 善きことと惠みのみが私を追う、 わがいのちのすべての日々。 そしてヤハウェの家に私は帰ろう、 長き日々にわたって。 1. dabide no uta. yahawe ga waga bokusha, watashi ni kakeru mono wa nai. 2. wakakusa no makiba ni kare wa watashi o ikowase, ikoi ba no mizube ni watashi o tomonau. 3. waga tamashii o kare wa kaifukusase gi no michisuji ni watashi o michibiku, kare no na no yue ni. 4. ankoku no tani o watashi ga yuku toki mo watashi wa wazawai o osorenai. anata ga watashi to goissho dakara. anata no shimoto to anata no tsue, korera koso, watashi o hagemasu.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 249

5. anata wa totonoeru, waga mae ni shokutaku o watashi o semeru monora no shōmen de. anata wa abura o tarashita, waga kōbe ni waga sakazuki wa afureteiru. 6. yoki koto to megumi nomi ga watashi o ou, waga inochi no subete no hibi. soshite yahawe no ie ni watashi wa kaerō, nagaki hibi ni watatte.

This is undoubtedly the translation which follows the original Hebrew more closely than any of the above; it often follows even the order of the Hebrew words, somewhat against usual Japanese syntax (for example, the first clause in v. 5), although this is not so when the result would have been too awkward (first two lines of v. 4, for example). The translation is very consistent in specifying each and every pronoun reflected by the Hebrew verbs, even when superfluous from the point of view of Japanese style. The translator was also careful not to add anything which was not in the original text, with very few and minor exceptions. Still there are one or two places where his choices are open to debate (see 5.3 below), and in length his translation is only slightly shorter than A-11. The psalm is followed by a long list of explanations and comments, including linguistic points and many cross references, mostly to other psalms, as well as other OT books (there are no NT references). Some words have an asterisk next to them, referring to general explanations added at the back of the book, including yahawe, tamashii, gi, na, and megumi. Some words and expressions are similar to earlier translations, but it is clear that they were carefully reconsidered. The translation often relies on the Septuagint for solving difficulties in the text, as revealed by the notes (but does not always accept its evidence). The language is simple and concise, refraining almost completely from honorifics, with the sole exception of the prefix go in goissho (v. 4). Although the language is modernized, there is a tendency to retain some archaic words, for example the furigana reading kōbe for the kanji 頭 (v. 5), or the use of waga rather than watashi no. It seems that at least some residue of the venerable Meiji Translation can be found more than a century later even in this, the most recent scholarly Japanese translation.

250

chapter five 5.3 Analysis of Words and Expressions

In the following every word in Psalm 23 as it appeared in the various translations presented above will be looked into. The text of the psalm is given in short clauses. For each clause the original Hebrew is quoted, with transliteration, literal translation of meaning (my own), and explanation of the Hebrew idioms. Then 26 Japanese versions will be presented (excluding Chamberlain’s poetic version), analyzed and compared. 5.3.1 The Title  ‫ִמזְ מֹור לְ ָדוִ ד‬ mizmor ledavid—‘mizmor of David’ In the OT the term mizmor appears only in the Book of Psalms, in the title of many of the psalms. In many cases the mizmorim are attributed to David, and in other cases to various individuals or groups. The term most probably denotes a hymn that is sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. ダビデの歌/うた dabide no uta A-1, A-2, A-4, A-12, B-9,  B-10 ダヴィドの詩 davido no shi A-3, A-6, C-11d ダヴィドの歌 davido no uta B-8 ダビドの詩 dabido no shi A-6a ダビデの詩 dabide no shi A-5, A-10 ダワィドノ詠 dawido no ei B-1 ダーヰドによりての樂歌 dawido ni yorite no uta B-5 ダビデの賛歌 dabide no sanka A-7 ダビデの調べ dabide no shirabe A-9 賛歌。ダビデの詩 sanka. dabide no shi A-11 称へ歌 tatae-uta C-8 聖 歌 seika B-4 Not included A-8, B-2, B-3, B-11, B-15

The term mizmor is translated in various ways; while the Protestant translations seem to favor uta (歌, B-5 has 樂歌), the Catholic ones seem to opt for shi (詩). In modern usage, the former word usually relates to a song sung to music (although originally it also meant a written poem, such as tanka), while the latter relates to various kinds of written poems, mostly modern ones. Considering the current usage, the former word may be regarded as more adequate. Other words used are: ei (詠) ‘poem’; sanka (賛歌) or tatae-uta (称へ歌) ‘poem of praise’; shirabe (調べ) ‘tune’; and finally seika (聖歌) ‘hymn’. Like all other aspects of the translation, a wide



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 251

variety of Japanese terms were used for the Hebrew one, none of which gained wide acceptance. The name of David is also transliterated in various ways, and once again with a dichotomy of the Protestant translations following A-1 with the last syllable transliterated de, while the Catholics prefer the ending do. Several Catholic translations also had the sound ‘v’, which is rarely depicted in Japanese even in transliteration—using the katakana ヴィ—but for some reason this practice was not followed later. The joint Protestant-Catholic translation (A-11) used the ‘Protestant’ transliteration. A special committee issued a booklet prescribing the transliteration of all Hebrew names in the OT version of A-11; in fact, the booklet lists the transliteration dabido (ダビド) for David, but the final translation has dabide (ダビデ).17 According to the Christian tradition, in several translations the title is given in smaller print and precedes the numbered verses. The earliest case of the inclusion of the title at the beginning of v. 1, as common in the MT, is in C-11d (1930’s), and this became common in most post-WWII translations. The versions which omit the title completely are mostly those prepared for liturgical purposes, such as B-2, B-11, B-15, as well as B-3, with its unique system of rearranging the psalms, and the paraphrased A-8. On the other hand, many translations added their own explanatory title to the psalm (and to all other psalms, as well as to episodes in other books of the Bible). The added titles in this case are as follows: 1. Titles added at the top of the psalm: B-3 善き牧者ヤーヱ B-10 良き羊飼い C-11d 善牧者 B-5, B-8 善き牧者 A-3(I) わが牧者なる天主 A-3(II) わが牧者なる天主 B-11 牧者たる天主の配慮 A-5 イスラエルの牧者 B-15 神は　わたしの牧者 A-4 牧者

yoki bokusha ‘YHWH the good  ya-we  shepherd’ yoki hitsujikai ‘good shepherd’ zen bokusha ‘good shepherd’ yoki bokusha ‘good shepherd’ waga bokusha naru tenshu ‘God, my shepherd’ waga bokusha naru tenshu ‘God, my shepherd’ bokusha taru tenshu ‘concern of God  no hairyo  the shepherd’ isuraeru no bokusha ‘Israel’s shepherd’ kami wa watashi ‘God is my  no bokusha  shepherd’ bokusha ‘shepherd’

17 See Hirata & Kishi 1980, 40, item 775; 207, item 1299.

252

chapter five

2. Titles added following the psalm, or in the notes: A-6 A-6a A-7

よい牧者 よい牧者 主は羊飼い

yoi bokusha yoi bokusha shu wa hitsujikai

‘good shepherd’ ‘good shepherd’ ‘Lord the shepherd’

3. No title added: A-1, B-1, B-2, B-4, B-9, A-2, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12. The translations that did not add a title are mostly the Protestant traditional ones, including the first two ‘official’ versions, A-1 and A-2. As for the third version, the ‘Interconfessional’ A-11, titles were added to chapters and episodes in other books of the Bible, and here too sanka can be considered an addition; here and elsewhere in the book it appears as the translation of mizmor, but shi also appears in the title. 5.3.2 YHWH ro‛i   ‫יהוה ר ִֹעי‬ ‘YHWH [is] my shepherd’ Following the title, the psalm opens with a short, declarative nominal clause. The implied meaning is that YHWH, and no one else, is the psalmist’s ‘shepherd’ on whom he relies. This clause introduces a four-verse long parable, in which the psalmist likens himself to a sheep (although this word is never mentioned!), well-tended by its protective shepherd. C-8 (II) ヱホバハ吾牧者ナリ A-1 ヱホバはわが牧者なり B-1 主ハ我ノ牧者ナリ B-2 主は我の牧者なり B-3 ヤーヱは　わが牧者なり B-4 ヤウェは我牧者 B-9 主はわが牧者なり　 A-2 主はわたしの牧者であって B-10 主は私の羊飼い C-11d ヤウェはわが牧者にませば B-5 ヤハヱはわが牧者にてまします B-8 主は、我が牧者にましませば A-3 (I) 主は我を導き給う A-3 (II) 主我を牧い給う B-11 主はわが飼いぬし A-6 主は、私の牧者

Yehoba wa waga bokusha nari ehoba wa waga bokusha nari shu wa ware no bokusha nari shu wa waga bokusha nari ya-we wa waga bokusha nari yawe wa waga bokusha shu wa waga bokusha nari shu wa watashi no bokusha  deatte shu wa watashi no hitsujikai yawe wa waga bokusha ni  maseba yahawe wa waga bokusha  nitemashimasu shu wa, waga bokusha ni  mashimaseba shu wa ware o michibiki tamau shu ware o kai tamau shu wa waga kainushi shu wa, watashi no bokusha



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 253

A-6a A-5 B-15 A-4 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12

主は私の牧者 ヤーウェは　わたしの牧者 神は　わたしの牧者　 ヤハヴェはわが牧者 主は私の羊飼い 主は私の羊飼いですから エホバはわたしの牧者 主は私の羊飼い 主は羊飼い ヤハウェがわが牧者

shu wa watashi no bokusha ya-we wa watashi no bokusha kami wa watashi no bokusha yahawe wa waga bokusha shu wa watashi no hitsujikai shu wa hitsujikai desu kara ehoba wa watashi no bokusha shu wa watashi no hitsujikai shu wa hitsujikai yahawe ga waga bokusha

The translation and the transliteration of the names of God have already been discussed in the previous chapter (4.2.2). As seen before, some translations retain the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) through various katakana transliterations (as many as eight varieties can be seen above); others replace it with shu, the equivalent of ‘Lord’; only one (B-16) replaced it with kami (God) consistently. Almost all translations follow this first noun with the particle wa; only A-12 uses ga here, creating a more closely-knit clause. The use of wa tends to isolate one element from the rest of the sentence, or put a special emphasis on it: “as for x, it is . . .” (see the discussion on pp. 150–2, 167). The use of ga may indeed be more appropriate in this case. As for the second noun, ‘shepherd’, four basic options have been used in the translation of this word: bokusha (in 18 translations), hitsujikai (5 translations), kainushi (1 translation), and the use of a verb rather than a noun (2 translations). 1. Beginning with the Meiji Translation (A-1, 1887) and other translations of the same decade, the most common form is 牧者 (bokusha). What is the origin of this Japanese word? Once again, it seems that the Chinese translation of the Bible may have had its influence. The BridgmanCulberstone translation has exactly the same kanji combination. Indeed, this combination already appears in Chamberlain’s translation (C-8; 1880), but there are several indications that Chamberlain too consulted the Chinese Bible. It is also likely that even before the actual translation of the Bible was begun, the word was used by missionaries in their work. It should be noted that in other places in A-1 the same kanji characters are sometimes given the furigana reading kaumono (Nu. 27:17, 1K 22:17), and even hitsujikai (Je. 51:23, although 49:19 and other places in the same book have bokusha).18 The first occurrence of the term in the Bible, in 18 In Je. 51:23, A-2 kept the reading hitsujikai, only changing the kanji to the appropriate ones; in 49:19 it has bokusha like A-1.

254

chapter five

Gen 4:2, has a descriptive expression: 羊を牧ふ者 (hitsuji o kau mono). All these indicate that there was as yet no one, familiar and universally accepted equivalent for ‘shepherd’ in Japanese. The largest dictionary of the Japanese language, commonly known as Nikkoku, gives two definitions under bokusha (牧者) (NKD1, V. 18, 112–113; 118): (1)  Same as bokujin (牧人). (2) Same as bokushi (牧師). Here a quote is added, and it is from our verse in the Meiji Translation; it seems, then, that the compilers of the dictionary were not aware of any earlier appearance of this word in Japanese texts, and in any case, none earlier than the context of biblical translations in the Meiji era.19 Under bokujin (牧人) there are also two definitions: (1)  In ancient China, the rank of a person in charge of a grazing area for cows, horses etc.; a quote is given from a Chinese poem. (2) A person raising cows, horses etc. (not sheep!) on a pasture. Here a quote is given from another famous Meiji era translated text, Samuel Smiles’ Self Help.20 Other variations are given as: bokusha (牧者), bokufu (牧夫), bokushi (牧士), bokko (牧子), bokuji (牧児). Under bokushi (牧師) again two definitions are given: (1)  A Chinese rank, as above. (2) A person officiating in the Christian church; the quote given here is once again from the translation of Smiles’ book. Another source to be consulted is J.C. Hepburn’s own dictionary, prepared even before his main efforts in biblical translation, and revised during his long years of work as a leader of the translators. The first edition of his Japanese and English Dictionary, with an English and Japanese index (1867) does not have bokusha, bokushi or hitsujikai in its main ­Japanese-English

19  The second edition of the dictionary has three more quotes, all from Meiji era literature; see NKD2, V. 12, 52. 20 The Japanese title is 『西国立志編』 published in 1871; originally, Samuel Smiles, Self Help, London 1859. It was one of the first books to be translated from English into Japanese, and one of the greatest best-sellers of the Meiji era; see Keene 1984, 17; Kawanishi Susumu in Kamei 1994, 79–96.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 255

part,21 nor does it have ‘shepherd’ or ‘pastor’ in its English-Japanese ‘index’.22 The same is true of the 1872 second edition of the dictionary, which, according to its Preface, was extended by 3,000 Japanese and 4,000 English words. Only in the third edition of 1886 can both bokusha (“A shepherd, cow-herd; a pastor”) and bokushi (“A pastor (of a church)”) be found (HEP3, 43). Surprisingly, the English part gives different equivalents for “Shepherd”: “Menyō wo kau hito, hitsuji-kai” (ibid., 921), both of which the main part of the dictionary does not contain. It seems safe to say that the word bokusha (牧者), designating ‘shepherd’, entered the Japanese language in the context of biblical translation specifically, or Christian mission activity generally, and from a Chinese source, during the Meiji era. As in so many other cases, a semantic void was solved through the use of familiar kanji to create an unfamiliar new word.23 This has been the favored source for neologisms during the long period in which Chinese was the most prestigious language on the horizon of Japanese culture, even in early modern times (thus 電話 denwa for ‘telephone’). More recently, when it was replaced by Western languages, and in particular English, the more common solution was the loan of the foreign term, or the creation of neologism by combining two English words (thus テレフォンカード terefonkādo = ‘telephone card’). However, in the case of ro‛eh it is doubtful whether the cultural residues that follow this word in the original, as well as in European translations, were also transplanted in Japan. The scene of the shepherd tending his flock, with the feeling of tender care it is supposed to raise in those familiar with such a scene, remains alien to the Japanese experience.24 2. For about one hundred years bokusha remained the favorite word for ‘shepherd’ in this verse, but from about 1970 a different word appeared in several translations: hitsujikai 羊飼い (A-7, A-8, A-10, A-11; earlier it

21  This dictionary has bokusha (卜者) with a different meaning: ‘A fortune-teller’; see HEP1, 31. 22 Although it does have ‘pasture’, translated as kusa; HEP1, Index, 75. However, in the main part, 243, ‘Kusa’ is defined only as “Grass, a plant”, while Maki (牧), 254, is defined as “(contr. of Uma and Oki) Pasture ground for horses”; this is broadened in the second edition to include also “park, game preserve, pasture-land”; HEP2, 297. 23 On semantic voids and the ways of dealing with them in translation see Weissbrod 2007, 52–60. 24 Contemporary writer Murakami Haruki (村上春樹), when asked, in an interview with the New York Times (1989) why he made a sheep the pivot character in his novel A Wild Sheep Chase, said that for the Japanese the sheep is an imaginary animal, which was first brought from the West during the Meiji Period, and which most Japanese still don’t get to see.

256

chapter five

had already appeared once in B-10; as seen above, it has already appeared in different places in A-1, although only in furigana with the kanji of bokusha). The latest translation, A-12, reverted to bokusha once again. In fact, hitsujikai is a Japanese word with a much longer history than bokusha. For hitsujikai the first edition of Nikkoku (NKD1, V.17, 13) gives as its earliest reference the Nippo Jisho, originally known as Vocabulario da Lingoa de Iapam etc., the celebrated Japanese-Portuguese dictionary, printed in rōmaji by the Jesuits in Nagasaki in 1603, with the Supplemento printed there in 1604.25 It is interesting to note that although hitsuji (or in fact Fitçuji according to the Romanization system of the Vocabulario) appears in the main part of the dictionary, Fitçujicai appears, almost as an afterthought, only in the Supplemento.26 The second edition of Nikkoku (NKD2, V.11, 332) quotes a slightly earlier source: Dictionarivm Latino Lvsitanicvm ac Iaponicvm, the Latin-PortugeseJapanese dictionary printed by the Jesuits in 1595.27 This dictionary has, under the Latin entry ‘Opilio’ (Portugese: Ouelbeiro): “Iap. Bocujŏ, fitçujicai”. The second word is familiar from the Vocabulario as shown above; the first word also appears in the Vocabulario, with a definition referring to 目上 (now usually read meue), and with the meaning of offering a cup of sake to one’s superior.28 Strangely, under ‘Pastor’ the Dictionarivm has ‘Fitçuji’ rather than ‘Fitçujicai’; perhaps this is another indication that hitsujikai was not a particularly common word. It would be reckless to read too much meaning into the peculiarities of these two old dictionaries, but it would be safe to assume that hitsujikai was not a commonly used word, because there were no sheep or shepherds in Japan at the time. Could it also mean that the word was actually coined by the Jesuits (either foreign-born or Japanese recruits) for use in their sermons or biblical translations? For the time being, this will remain

25 Abrivated here as NJ (1960 facsimile edition). For a review of the 1973–75 facsimile edition see Cooper 1976. 26 See NJ, 191 and 696 respectively. The original definition for Fitçujicai in Portuguese is: Pastor de ouelbas, ou ouelbeiro. See also HNJ, 245 (this dictionary lists all the entries from both the original dictionary and the supplement in alphabetical order, adding transcriptions in katakana and kanji, and the translation of the Portuguese definitions into Japanese). As for Fitçuji, the Vocabulario had two entries: the first has only one word of explanation, Ouelba, while the second has a much longer explanation of the word as the name for one of the hours in Japan. And indeed, hitsuji was known in Japan mostly as one of the twelve signs in the Chinese zodiac, which was used in counting years, days and hours. 27 See DLLI (no page numbers). 28 See HNJ 1980, 59. This is also quoted in NKD2, V. 12, 53.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 257

just a guess. However, it is noteworthy that Nikkoku has no other pre-Meiji reference for hitsujikai beside the Vocabulario. The second edition gives two more references: one from the Meiji translation of the NT, and the other from American Stories by Nagai Kafū (1908). In the ‘Preface’ to the first edition of his dictionary, J.C. Hepburn states that there were only two previous books that might have assisted him in his work: “the small vocabulary of Dr. Medhurst published in Batavia in 1830” (see 2.3 above), and “the Japanese and Portuguese Dictionary published by the Jesuit missionaries in 1603”, although his “principle dependence” was “the living teacher”. It is hard to know how much use Hepburn actually made of the Vocabulario; in any case he failed to pick up hitsujikai from it in the first two editions of his dictionary, and the word found its place, as mentioned above, only in the English-Japanese part of the third edition but not as a Japanese entry (could it mean that he possessed a copy of the main part of the Vocabulario but not of the Supplemento, which indeed he does not mention?). Finally, a modern Hebrew-Japanese lexicon of the OT (KSHD, 1247–8), has both words for ro‛eh, first hitsujikai and then bokusha. Examples from biblical verses are given first for the former noun and then for the latter, but no explanation is given for the choice. And according to the Computer Concordance of the “Interconfessional” A-11 (CC, 1354–5, 1449–50), this translation has hitsujikai 42 times and bokusha 36 times for no apparent reason; in the book of Jeremiah, for example, the latter is used 9 times from chapter 3 to chapter 25, while the former appears 9 times from chapter 31 to chapter 51 (with one exception, in 6:3). 3. One translation only (B-11) used the noun form kainushi (飼いぬし, written also 飼い主), meaning the ‘owner’ or ‘keeper’ of animals (a dog is the usual example given in Japanese dictionaries). 4. The fourth option used was to avoid the direct translation of ‘shepherd’ all together in favor of an indirect translation. This is seen in both versions of the Sapporo Translation (A-3), according to the Vulgate’s reget me—‘lead(s) me’: A-3 (I) 主は我を導き給う、 A-3 (II) 主我を牧い給う、

shu wa ware o michibiki tamau, shu ware o kai tamau,

In version (I), the translation of the line would be “The Lord leads me”, and the verb used is michibiku, which is used in many translations of this psalm in vv. 2 or 3. In version (II) the verb is kau, which means ‘raising’ (animals), and is usually written with the kanji 飼 (as in the above 飼いぬし), but here is written with 牧, which is a non-standard reading for this

258

chapter five

c­ haracter. It is probably used in order to bring it closer to the more specific idea of shepherding, and could be translated “The Lord shepherds me”. However, the original Hebrew clearly has a noun here, and only a translation dependent on the Vulgate could have used a verb in this case. Most translations follow the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun in the Hebrew text to create the meaning ‘my shepherd’. The pronouns used in Japanese change with the time: mostly waga and sometimes ware no in the early translations and in a few later ones; mostly watashi no in the post-war translations. Only two translations avoid the pronoun: the paraphrased A-8, and, surprisingly, the “Interconfessional” A-11; perhaps the compilers of the latter considered the appearance of watashi in the next part of the verse sufficient, but it is a clear deviation from the MT, as well as from the Christian tradition.29 It could be the product of the final editing process of the translation, or of the tendency, reflected elsewhere in A-11’s translation of this psalm, to be original almost at any cost. The connection between this nominal clause and the next part of the verse (a short verbal clause) is not clear. In the MT the two clauses are not connected, and several syntactical possibilities could be assumed: causal connection (“YHWH is my shepherd, therefore I shall not lack”), temporal connection (“as long as . . .”), or no connection (two independent declaratory sentences). Most English translations follow the MT and do not add a connective element between the two clauses (see the versions quoted under 5.2 above). Most of the Japanese translations did the same, avoiding a concrete causal connection. Some left a space, some used a comma, and some even put a full stop after the first clause (A-5, A-7, A-9, A-10). Only in C-11d and C-8 (maseba), and in A-8 (desukara), was a causal connection added.30 5.3.3 lo’ ’eḥsar ‫ֹלא ֶא ְח ָסר‬ ‘I do not [/shall not] lack (want)’ The verb is in the imperfect tense, which indicates an action on a continuum between present and future. The meaning is somewhat ambivalent: it can mean that the speaker is lacking nothing now, but it may also mean that he expresses his confidence that he will lack nothing in the future. This ambivalence is true for most verbs in this psalm. The Japanese verb 29 This rendering was already criticized in one of the early reviews of the translation; see Namiki et al. 1991, 204–205. 30 See also discussion in Sekine 1980, 152.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 259

system, in this case, is compatible with biblical Hebrew. While English translators had to choose between the present form (“I lack nothing”), or the future (“I shall not want”), Japanese, with the absence of a definite future tense, can maintain the ambiguity of the Hebrew tense. The problem arises with the need to clearly express the future, as we shall see later on. C-8 (II) 我ハ不足セジ ware wa fusoku seji A-1 われ乏しきことあらじ ware tomoshiki koto araji B-1 我萬事ニ乏シカラザラン ware banji ni toboshikarazaran B-2 われは乏しきことなからん ware wa tomoshiki koto nakaran B-3 我　　乏しからず ware tomoshikarazu B-4 我乏からず ware toboshikarazu B-9 われ乏しきことあらじ waga tomoshiki koto araji A-2 わたしには乏しいことがない watashi ni wa toboshii koto ga nai B-10 私に足りぬものはない watashi ni tarinu mono wa nai C-11d われにかくるものぞなき ware ni kakuru mono zo naki B-5 われは乏しくはおもはず ware tomoshiku wa omowazu B-8 我には乏しいことあらじ ware ni tomoshiki koto araji A-3 (I) 我に欠くるものあらじ ware ni kakuru mono araji A-3 (II) 我に缼くるものぞなき ware ni kakuru mono zo naki B-11 われに乏しきことあらじ ware ni tomoshiki koto araji A-6 私には、乏しいものがない watashi ni wa, toboshii mono ga nai A-6a 私には乏しいものがない watashi ni wa toboshii mono ga nai A-5 わたしには　乏しいことがない watashi ni wa toboshii koto ga nai B-15 わたしはは乏しいことがない watashi wa toboshii koto ga nai A-4 わたしには欠ける所がない watashi ni wa kakeru tokoro ga nai A-7 私は、乏しいことがありません watashi wa, toboshii koto ga  arimasen A-8 必要なものはみな与えてくださいます hitsuyōna mono wa mina ataete  kudasaimasu A-9 わたしは何にも不足しません watashi wa nani ni mo fusoku  shimasen A-10 私には足りないものはありません watashi ni wa tarinai mono wa  arimasen A-11 わたしには何も欠けることがない watashi ni wa nani mo kakeru  koto ga nai A-12 私に欠けるものはない watashi ni kakeru mono wa nai

The two Hebrew words in the original verse are reflected here in a great variety of translations. Four alternative words were used by the translators for the Hebrew verb, many turning it into an adjective in the negative

260

chapter five

declination, or, more often, into a combination of adjective, noun and negative auxiliary: 1. The majority of translations (15) followed A-1 in using the adjective 乏しい (toboshii/tomoshii), among the meanings of which are “be short (of provisions)”, “be deficient (lacking, wanting)”. Some of the earlier translations (B-1, B-3, B-4), used the negative declination of the adjective, but A-1 itself and many others after it chose the longer ­combination. 2. Three of the earliest Catholic versions (C-11d, A-3 I&II) used the verb 欠くる kakuru, while three later translations (A-4, A-11, A-12) used its more modern form 欠ける kakeru, meaning “be short of ”, “lack” or “want”. All six used it in the combination verb+noun+negative, with the later three also inserting a particle, ga or wa. 3. In the earliest Japanese version of the psalm, Chamberlain used 不足 する fusokusuru (with negative), also meaning “be lacking”, “be wanting”. About a hundred years later the New World translation (A-9) came up with the same solution, presumably independently. It is somewhat surprising that this alternative option was not used more often, a fact that may serve as another illustration of the power of an early, venerated translation—A-1 in this case—over its successors. 4. The last option, also used only twice (B-10, A-10), is the phrase 足りぬ tarinu (later, tarinai) again meaning “be lacking” or “be insufficient”, and also in a combination with noun and negative. Perhaps the double negation in this combination made it less popular, with translators preferring clearer, direct expression in a biblical text (although the case is often the opposite in many other types of Japanese texts). Another point worth considering is the translators’ use of either koto or mono as the noun following the above adjective or verb. The former was used 10 times and the latter 8 times (with one use of tokoro). Both can mean “a thing”, but koto is usually considered slightly more abstract, while mono is more concrete; when speaking of a tangible object, the latter would be used rather than the former. The difference in nuance is slight, but it may reflect the translator’s view on the things that could be lacking (the basic necessities of life, or also spiritual needs?), even inadvertently. Once again, the use of particles reflects the style of the translation. While classical-language translations (A-1, B-1, B-2, B-9, B-8, A-3 I, B-11) did not put a particle after koto or mono, ‘colloquial’ translations cannot do without it. The translations also differ in the use of ga, which seems



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 261

more appropriate grammatically (8 times), and wa (4 times); among the latter is, somewhat surprisingly, A-12, which perhaps used it for the sake of emphasis. The emphatic particle zo is also used once (A-3 II). This clause can also serve as an example for the expansion and lengthening of phrases in translating from biblical Hebrew. While the original has only 3 syllables (in two words), the translations usually have about 11–12 syllables and more (A-11 has 15, A-8 has 20). Only a few translations were able to reduce the number of syllables to 8 (C-8II, B-3, B-4). One might argue that the nature of the Japanese language demands expansion in this case, but the last examples, which manage to convey all the information in the original phrase, indicate that it is not necessary to expand limitlessly (the examples also show that classical Japanese, like classical Hebrew, was more concise than their modern counterparts). The tendency to expand is usually the result of the wish to make things clear and unambiguous. However, would it not be possible to omit the first-person pronoun in this case, an option that none of the above translations (with the exception of A-8, which is the longest translation anyhow) opted for? Would it not be clear enough that the person lacking nothing is the speaker, especially following the earlier clause in this verse? It is true that if the two clauses are viewed as independent ones, the pronoun in the second clause seems necessary. Still, omitting the pronoun would have brought the translation closer to the concise language of poetry generally, and Classical Japanese and Hebrew specifically, but it seems that all the translators opted for clarity even unnecessarily, and avoided risks. 5.3.4 bine’ot deše’ yarbiṣeni  ‫יצנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ִּבנְ אֹות ֶד ֶּשׁא יַ ְר ִּב‬ ‘in abodes of grass he makes me lie down’ The noun naveh—here appearing in the construct state form of the plural, ne’ot—is in the OT an abode in which shepherds and their flocks dwell (Is. 27:10, 33:20; 2 Sam 7:8 etc.). Metaphorically, it also came to mean a dwelling place for people, mostly in poetical use (Is. 32:18 etc.) (BDB, 627). The noun deše’ usually means ‘grass’, or more specifically new, fresh grass that shoots up after the rain and serves as pastureland; apparently, only once in the OT (Gen. 1:11), it refers to all vegetation which is then subdivided further (NIDO, V.1, #2012). The verbs from the root r.b.ṣ refer to animals lying down, and in the case of hirbiṣ, animals that are made to lie down (see table below).

262

chapter five

C-8 (II) 彼レガ青草ニ於テ我ヲシテ臥サシ kare ga ao kusa ni oite ware o shite fusashime A-1 ヱホバは我をみどりの野にふさせ ehoba wa ware o midori no no ni fusase B-1 彼ハ我ヲ茂キ草場ニ休ハセ kare wa ware o shigeki kusaba ni ikowase B-2 主ハわれを緑の野に臥さしめ shu wa ware o midori no no ni fusashime B-3 緑の牧場に 彼 我を 伏さしめ midori no maki ni kare ware o fusashime B-4 我を牧場の草に伏せたまふ ware o makiba no kusa ni fusase tamau B-9 主は我をみどりの牧場に臥させ shu wa waga o midori no makiba ni fusase A-2 主はわたしを緑の牧場に伏させ shu wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase B-10 主は私を緑の野原に臥させ shu wa watashi o midori no nohara ni fusase C-11d 彼、緑の牧場にわれを臥させ kare, midori no makiba ni ware o fusase B-5 ヤハヱはわれを緑の牧に臥させ yahawe wa ware o midori no maki ni fusase B-8 緑の野べに、我を臥させ midori no nobe ni, ware o fusase A-3 (I) 彼は我を牧場に置き kare wa ware o makiba ni oki A-3 (II) 彼緑の牧野に我を臥させ kare midori no makino ni ware o fusase B-11 かれ緑の牧場にわれをいこわせ kare midori no makiba ni ware o ikowase A-6 緑の牧場に、主は私を横たえ midori no makiba ni, shu wa watashi o yokotae A-6a 緑の牧場に主は私を横たえ midori no makiba ni shu wa watashi o yokotae A-5 ヤーウェはわたしを緑のまきばにいこわせた ya-we wa watashi o midori no makiba ni ikowaseta B-15 神はわたしを緑の牧場に伏させ kami wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase A-4 彼はわたしを緑の牧場に伏させ kare wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase A-7 主は私を緑の牧場に伏させ shu wa watashi o midori no makiba ni fusase A-8 主は私を牧草地にいこわせ shu wa watashi o bokusōchi ni ikowase A-9 [神]は草の多い牧場にわたしを横たわらせ [kami] wa kusa no ooi bokujō ni watashi o yokotawarase A-10 主は、私を青々と草の生い茂った牧場に連れて行き shu wa, watashi o aoaoto kusa no oishigetta makiba ni tsureteyuki



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 263

A-11 主はわたしを青草の原に休ませ shu wa watashi o aokusa no hara ni yasumase A-12 若草の牧場にかれは私をいこわせ wakakusa no makiba ni kare wa watashi o ikowase

The third-person pronoun, which in the Hebrew is indicated in the verb, was treated in the translations in the following ways: 1. Adding a transliteration of YHWH, who was mentioned in v. 1 although not in this verse (A-1, A-5, B-5). 2. Adding shu (Lord) by 10 translations, all of which used shu also in v. 1. 3. Adding kami—in B-15, which used it consistently, and in square brackets in A-9, also according to its consistent system. 4. Using the third-person pronoun kare by 9 translations, from the first one to the last (see discussion above under 4.1, A-4, p. 165). Out of the 26 translations, 15 added emphatic information about the divine identity of the third-person (in one of three ways), while 9 opted for the less emphatic pronoun. Only two (B-4 and B-8) avoided it completely. And like in the previous case, one might ask: is it necessary to add this information? The same could be asked also concerning the first-person pronoun, which is conveyed by the same Hebrew verb, and which all 26 translations included (ware/watashi), but also had to add the particle o to it. It could be argued that since the first- and third-person pronouns are indicated by the Hebrew verb, they constitute information that should be conveyed in the translation. However, the identity of the persons is clear enough from the context, and the absence of pronouns is not alien to the Japanese reader, so a more concise expression could have been achieved here too.31 As for the verb itself, 6 different Japanese verbs have been used to translate it. The most common (15 times), especially among the earlier translations, is 臥す/伏す fusu, ‘lie down’, in the causative form (with either sasu or the classical shime added to the verb). The next most popular verb (5 times) is the relatively uncommon ikou, meaning ‘rest’, written in hiragana (except in B-1, written with the kanji 休; the standard spelling 31 Saito 1967, 64, was critical of the great amount of pronouns added in A-2 compared with A-1, but as can be clearly seen, this is a problem common to most Japanese translations, and the later the translation, the more conspicuous it becomes.

264

chapter five

is 憩う), in the causative form ikowase; it was used first in B-1 and last in A-12. Other verbs used are: 横たえる yokotaeru, ‘lay down’ (3 times), and once each for 置く oku, ‘put’; 連れて行く tsureteyuku, ‘lead’; and 休ま せる yasumaseru, ‘cause to rest’. Of all these options, fusu and yokotaeru are the closest to the original; although ‘rest’ is implied by the context, it is not the meaning of the verb itself. The root r.b.ṣ appears 30 times in the OT, six of which are in the hif ‛il form, and of these, one (Is. 54:11) has a different meaning. The other five, including the one in our verse, all describe pastoral scenes, with shepherds making their sheep lie down. It could be expected that the same Japanese verb would be used in all these verses. Were the translators indeed so consistent? We will examine some of the major full translations: Is. 13:20 A-1 fusasuru A-2 fusaseru A-4 fusaseru A-6a todomaru A-7 fusaseru A-11 yasumase A-12 fusaseru

Jer. 33:12 Ez. 34:15 Song 1:7 Ps. 23:2 fusashimuru fusashimu yasumasuru fusase fusaseru fusaseru yasumaseru fusase fusaseru fusaseru fusaseru fusase yasumaseru yasumaseru yasumaseru yokotae fusaseru ikowaseru yasumaseru fusase ikowaseru ikowaseru ikowaseru yasumase fusaseru fusaseru yasumaseru ikowase

The most consistent was Sekine (A-4), who in his individual translation used the same verb in all five verses. Barbaro’s (A-6a) was also an individual translation, but he was far less consistent, using three different verbs; this may also indicate that his translation was influenced by the Vulgate and other translations, and that he was not working with the MT as closely as Sekine did. A-1 was the work of various translators, and although the committee strived for uniformity, it was not always successful, although in 4 out of 5 cases the same verb was used. As for A-2, we have here another indication of how closely it followed its predecessor; the verb forms were modernized, but in every case the same verb was used as in A-1. Once again it becomes clear that A-2 was more of a revision than an original translation. A-11 is also the work of a committee, which failed in this case in creating conformity. The same can be said of A-7, in which three different Japanese verbs were used, in spite of the fact that a note attached to Song 1:7 gives cross-references to exactly these five verses. In A-12 each book was translated individually (in the above example, only Isaiah and Jeremiah were the work of the same translator), and although there was a system for reviewing each translator’s work by others, there was no attempt to enforce uniformity.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 265

In addition to the verb, this clause has two nouns in a construct state (‘x of y’). The first is in the plural form, which is lost in the translation; as we have seen in Chapter 4, the absence of the plural in Japanese is sometimes solved with the adding of -ra or by doubling the noun, but here it would have been too awkward, and must have been deemed unnecessary. It is less clear why deše’ caused such difficulty to the translators, and why they so often translated it with midori (green, 17 cases), rather than kusa (grass); of course the grass is expected to be green, but this is an interpretive translation rather than a direct one. It may have been due to the influence of earlier translations (KJV: “green pastures”); A-3(I), following the Vulgate’s loco pascuae, has neither word. As for the second noun, the most commonly used 牧場 makiba (or makino), ‘a pasture’, is an appropriate choice, and perhaps the nearest one can get in Japanese to the original word (although like bokusha it is probably not a term very familiar to most Japanese readers); the use of 野 no, ‘field’, only (as in A-1 and B-2) is insufficient to convey the original meaning, and A-2 here justly used makiba. The translations that used kusa are: C-8 (II) 青草 ao kusa—‘green grass’; the place of pasture is not mentioned. B-1 茂キ草場 shigeki kusaba—‘luxuriant meadow’; information added. B-4 牧場の草 makiba no kusa—‘grass of pasture’; the original construct is reversed. A-9 草の多い牧場 kusa no ooi bokujō—‘pasture rich in grass’; information added; 牧場 is given here the onyomi, rather than the kunyomi preferred by most translations. A-10 青々と草の生い茂った牧場 aoaoto kusa no oishigetta makiba—‘a pasture of luxuriant, freshly green grass’; adding information luxuriantly. A-11 青草の原　 aokusa no hara—‘field of green grass’; once again A-11 demonstrates originality with hara, which in fact is an insufficient translation, in spite of the added information. A-12 若草の牧場 wakakusa no makiba—‘pasture of fresh grass’; the use of wakakusa rather than kusa may be intended to convey the correct meaning of deshe as grass edible for the flock, but perhaps is not necessary.

Since kusa hardly ever appears alone, and is often defined as ‘green’, ‘young’ etc., this choice may also be attributed to cultural differences. It could be that kusa does not necessarily portray an image which is positive to Japanese ears, while midori certainly does. A Hebrew-Japanese lexicon of the OT (KSHD, 289), gives Japanese words for deše in the following order: wakakusa (若草), kusa (草), shokubutsu (植物); for our verse it follows A-2 with midori no makiba, an equivalent of ‘green pastures’. For consistency of use, A-11 will be examined. The Hebrew deše appears 14 times in the OT. Of these, A-11 translates 11 times with aokusa, which is

266

chapter five

also used 7 other times to translate other Hebrew words, such as ‛esev. The other 3 occurrences of deše’ are translated twice with kusa (Gen. 1:11, 12), and once with wakakusa (2 Sam. 23:4). As for kusa, it is used 75 times to translate a variety of Hebrew words, including in cases of flocks grazing; for example, in Gen. 29:7 the verb re‛u (imperative) is translated kusa o tabesase. As for wakakusa, it is used only twice more; in Deut. 32:2, deše’ is translated as wakakusa while ‛esev is translated as aokusa; in Ezek. 16:7 wakakusa is the translation of ṣemaḥ. 5.3.5 ‘al mei menuḥot yenahaleni  ‫ַעל ֵמי ְמנֻ חֹות יְ נַ ֲהלֵ נִ י‬ ‘on water of quiet he guides me’ The noun menuḥot is in the plural form; menuḥah means resting-place or rest, and also a state of peace and quiet. The construct state mei menuḥot probably means standing water, or water that is running peacefully, making it easy for the flock to drink, although it may also mean “water in places of repose” as in the JPS translation (which gives “still waters” as an alternative translation in a footnote). The verb nehel means to lead or guide, and according to BDB (624–5), even more specifically: “lead to a watering-place (or station), and cause to rest there”, as also in Is. 49:10. C-8 (II) 彼レガ静流ノ傍ニ我ヲ率井 kare ga seiryū no katawara ni ware o hikii A-1 いこひの水濱にともなひたまふ ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau B-1 我ヲ静ナル水ニ導ク ware o shizuka naru mizu ni michibiku B-2 憩ひの水濱にともなひ給ふ ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau B-3 生命の水に 彼 我を 導き inochi no mizu ni kare ware o michibiki B-4 我を岩井の水に導きたまふ ware o iwai no mizu ni michibiki tamau B-9 憩ひの水濱にともなひ給ふ ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau A-2 いこいのみぎわに伴われる ikoi no migiwa ni tomonawareru B-10 疲れをいやす水辺に導く tsukare o iyasu mizube ni michibiku C-11d 安息の水にわれを連れ行き ansoku no mizu ni ware o tsureyuki B-5 われを憩の水の邊にともなひ ware o ikoi no mizu no he ni tomonai B-8 休みの水ぎわに我を憩わせ yasumi no migiwa ni ware o ikowase A-3 (I) 回復の水の辺に我を連れ出し kaifuku no mizu no hotori ni ware o tsureidashi A-3 (II) わが憩うべき水の辺に我を連れ行き waga ikou beki mizu no hotori ni ware tsureyuki B-11 活ける水に安らわせ給う ikeru mizu ni yasurawase tamau



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 267

A-6 物静かな水際に、ひきいて行く monoshizukana migiwa ni, hikiiteyuku A-6a 物静かなみぎわに引き連れて行く monoshizukana migiwa ni hikitsureteiku A-5 わたしを　もの静かな水べに伴い watashi o monoshizukana mizube ni tomonai B-15 いこいの水辺に伴われる ikoi no mizube ni tomonawareru A-4 いこいの水際に導かれる ikoi no migiwa ni michibikareru A-7 いこいの水のほとりに伴われます ikoi no mizu no hotori ni tomonawaremasu A-8 ゆるやかな流れのほとりに連れて行かれます yuruyakana nagare no hotori ni tsureteikaremasu A-9 水の十分にある休み場にわたしを導いてくださいます mizu no jūbun ni aru yasumiba ni watashi o michibite kudasaimasu A-10 また、水辺に伴って、いこわせてくださいます mata, mizube ni tomonatte, ikowasete kudasaimasu A-11 憩いの水のほとりに伴い ikoi no mizu no hotori ni tomonai A-12 憩い場の水辺に私をともなう ikoi ba no mizube ni watashi o tomonau

Once again, there are many variations in the translation of this clause. The translators seemed to have difficulty finding a suitable equivalent for the verb nehel, and to distinguish it from the verb naḥah in v. 3. Incidentally, both verbs appear together in Ps. 31:4 (v. 3 in some translations). See discussion under 5.3.7 below. As for ‛al mei menuḥot, the majority of translations conveyed the construct state through the somewhat similar Japanese possessive clause ‘N1 no N2’ (‘N2 of N1’), which, like the Hebrew, can also express adjectival meaning. Alternatively, about one third of the translations opted for an adjective-noun or verb-noun combination. For menuḥot, the most popular noun (10 times), following the example of A-1, is ikoi meaning ‘rest’. As we have seen above, 5 translations used the verb ikou in the translation of yarbiṣeni in the former clause of this verse. However, only one of these used them both, and that is A-12; it is somewhat surprising that this careful, scholarly translation used two similar Japanese words for the translation of two very different Hebrew ones (and while the use of ikoi here is to be expected, the use of ikou for the translation of yarbiṣeni is questionable). The translations that used a noun other than ikoi, as well as an adjective or a verb, sometimes went a long way in adding meaning, often a theological one, to the rather neutral original noun, for example: inochi (life) in B-3, kaifuku (recovery) in A-3 (I), ikeru (keep alive) in B-11, and, strangest of all, iwai (or ‘well-rock’, a kanji combination apparently created by the translator in order to suggest

268

chapter five

association with Gen. 29:10–11 and Ex. 2:16–21) in B-4. Closer alternatives for ikoi used in some translations were shizuka naru or monoshizukana (quiet), ansoku (rest) and yuruyakana (gentle). Incidentally, in his short comments on the translations of this psalm, Fujiwara Fujio praises A-1’s line ikoi no migiwa ni tomonai tamau as an especially beautiful Japanese expression, better than anything found in Chinese, English or French translations. According to him, ikoi no migiwa is the creation of the translators, saying that later translations which copied it but changed the rest of the line (A-2, for example), ruined its beauty. He also condemns the translation in A-7 as a “failure”, and the one in A-6 as being “not Japanese at all” (Fujiwara 1974, 268; 322). The other, simpler, noun in this clause, mayim (water), also received various and elaborate translations, perhaps in an attempt to interpret the whole combination in a more meaningful way. Only about one third of the translations found the Japanese equivalent mizu sufficient in this case. Several others preferred mizube, mizuba or migiwa (water’s edge). As often is the case, A-8 and A-10 created an elaborate interpretive clause, while A-9 was faithful to the English version of the New World Translation (mizu no jūbun ni aru yasumiba—“well-watered resting-places”). A-11 has ikoi no mizu no hotori ni; the use of hotori ni (‘by’ or ‘near’, in this case), can be seen in several earlier translations, although most of the translations found ni alone sufficient. A-12 has ikoi ba no mizube ni, which is close to the JPS translation “water in places of repose”. 5.3.6 napši yešobeb  ‫ׁשֹובב‬ ֵ ְ‫נַ ְפ ִשׁי י‬ ‘my life he brings back’ The word nepeš is often translated as ‘soul’, but it is clear that ‘soul’ has a residue of meaning that was not implied in the biblical word; ‘soul’ is usually regarded as an entity separate from the body, which may exist before and after the body’s life, but this was not the view of the OT. The confusion continues today, as some biblical dictionaries, such as TLOT (V.2, 743) still give “soul” as the English equivalent of nepeš, while ­others, such as NIDO (v. 3, #5883) avoid it, giving the meanings “breath, life, desire”. TDOT (v. 9, 497–519) details five basic meanings, beginning with the “throat, gullet” as a possible origin for the word, and going through “desire”, “vital self, reflexing pronoun”, “individuated life” and “living creature, person”. So although nepeš does not exactly mean “life” either (for which Hebrew has another word, ḥayim, here in v. 6), in the above expression it is more accurate to use this word rather than “soul”.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 269

The verb šobeb means to bring something back, to restore (Is. 49:5, 58: 12; Jer. 50:19; Iz. 38:4, 39:27). The combination hešib nepeš, is common in the OT, for example Ps. 19:9, Prov. 25:13, Ruth 4:15, Lam. 1:11, 16 and more. According to TDOT (v. 9, 510) it could mean something like “revive vital energy”. It could also mean restoring to life someone who was on the brink of death (Ps. 35:17, Job 33:30), but probably not someone who was already dead. C-8 (II) 彼レガ吾魂ヲ改復シ kare ga waga tamashii o kaifuku shi A-1 ヱホバはわが靈魂をいかし ehoba wa waga tamashii o ikashi B-1 我ガ靈ヲ固メ waga tamashii o katame B-2 主ハわが靈魂をいかし shu wa waga tamashii o ikashi B-3 彼とこしへにわが魂を活かしむ kare tokoshie ni waga tamashii o ikashimu B-4 我靈魂を永遠に活したまふ waga tamashii o towani ikashi tamau B-9 主はわが魂を生きかへらしめ shu wa waga tamashii o ikikaerashime A-2 主はわたしの魂をいきかえらせ shu wa watashi no tamashii o ikikaerase B-10 主は私に新しき生命を与え、 shu was watashi ni atarashiki seimei o atae, C-11d わが魂を新鮮にし waga tamashii o shinsen ni shi B-5 わが靈魂をいきほひづけ waga tamashii o ikihoizuke B-8 我が魂をはげまして waga tamashii o hagemashite A-3 (I) わが魂を回復せしめ waga tama o kaifukuseshime A-3 (II) わが魂を回復せしめ waga tamashii o kaifukuseshime B-11 わが魂を活かしめ waga tamashii o ikashime A-6 主は、私の魂をつよめ shu wa, watashi no tamashii o tsuyome A-6a 主は私の魂を強め shu wa watashi no tamashii o tsuyome A-5 魂を生き返らせ tamashii o ikikaerase B-15 神は　わたしを生き返らせ kami wa watashi o ikikaerase A-4 彼はわが魂を生きかえらせ kare wa waga tamashii o ikikaerase A-7 主はわたしのたましいを生き返らせ shu wa watashi no tamashii o ikikaerase A-8 傷ついたこの身を立ち直らせ kizu tsuita kono mi wo tachinaorase A-9 [神]はわたしの魂をさわやかにしてくださいます [kami] wa watashi no tamashii o sawayakanishite kudasaimasu A-10 主は、私の魂にいのちを与え shu wa, watashi no tamashii ni inochi o atae A-11 魂を生き返らせてくださる tamashii o ikikaerasete kudasaru A-12 わが魂をかれは回復させ waga tamashii o kare wa kaifukusase

As explained above, there is a difficulty in translating nepeš as ‘soul’, but even if this meaning is accepted, what would be the appropriate Japanese term? The great majority of translations chose to translate nepeš with

270

chapter five

tamashii (written in some of the earlier translations with the combination 靈魂, and later usually with only 魂), while A-3 (I) has tama (with the same kanji 魂); only three translations chose otherwise: watashi (me) in B-15, kono mi (this body) in A-8, while B-10, translating from the English version of the Short Bible, has atarashiki seimei, “new life”. While tamashii is the common word today, it seems that early in Japanese history the more common term was tama (玉), of which the basic meaning is a spherical object (a ball, a bead, a glob, a precious stone, etc.). However tama, and often in the honorific form mitama (御霊 or 御魂), also denoted for the Japanese people “a metaphysical substance of being”, that “functions through the medium of material substance but is independent from that substance. Disease or misfortune occurs when the function of tama declines, and death when this tama-spirit escapes from the corporal body” (KEJ, v. 7, 332). Anesaki (1963, 40), when writing about early Japanese beliefs, says: “. . . the idea of the soul was associated with breathing, and it is called tama, which means a precious or mysterious thing (globular in form as a rule). Another name for the soul, tama-shii, seems to mean ‘mysterious breathing’, and probably the word shinu, to die, the departure of breath”. The various meanings of tama (玉, 魂) have the same etymological derivation.32 The above quotations may imply that the concept of tama or tamashii is close to the idea of ‘soul’ in its common Western sense, and also, when considering Anesaki’s description, to the biblical nepeš, but there are also considerable differences. In Japanese folk beliefs the tamashii may dwell in an object, not only in a human body. It has many attributes resembling the kami on the one hand, and evil spirits on the other (Matsudaira 1980, 181–3). So just as there are similarities between biblical nepeš and contemporary ‘soul’, so there are between ‘soul’, nepeš and tamashii, but these three terms are not identical either. It should be pointed out that during the Kirishitan period, anima was one of the words which the Catholic missionaries used in the original Latin, apparently having failed to find a suitable Japanese word that would convey its meaning. The Latin-Portuguese-Japanese DLLI gives for Anima (Por. Alma) the basic definition Vjŏ [有情], which appears also in the Japanese-Portuguese Vocabvlario (NJ, 544). This and other Japanese words given under the same entry (and tamashii is not one of them!) clearly refer

32 See both NKD2, v. 8, 1091–1092 and IKJ 801. See also Yanabu 2003, 104–120 for a detailed discussion and somewhat different conclusions.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 271

to ‘sentience’, or ‘living things’.33 In the opposite direction, the NJ (477; HNJ 608) does list Tamaxij as Alma, but apparently the Jesuits did not consider the two words truly equivalent, probably because of tamasshii’s ‘pagan’ associations in Japanese folk religion ( just as they would not use kami), and therefore they consistently used anima in their translations of catechisms and sermons.34 In the first edition of his dictionary, Hepburn has for tama only “ball” etc. (as did the NJ, centuries before); for tamashii (靈) he has: “The soul, spirit, ghost”, and gives as synonyms kompaku, rei (HEP1, 454–5). Another entry, however, is mitama (靈魂): “The soul, spirit”, with the synonyms reikon, tamsahhii (ibid., 278). In the English-Japanese ‘index’ he has further entries under Soul: “Tamashii; rei-kon; mitama; seishin; kompaku” (HEP1, English part, 104). Under ‘Spirit’ he has 15 different words, beginning with ‘Ki’ (ibid., 105). In the third edition, the entry for tamashii is the same (HEP3, 638), but for tama the meaning “the spirit, soul” and the kanji 魂 were added (ibid., 637). In the English part there are now two separate entries for ‘Spirit’; the second is similar to the first edition’s, while the first is: “Spirit, n. The -, seirei, mitama. Holy -, seirei, kiyoki mitama” (ibid., 928). It should also be noted that in his 1883 lecture, Hepburn blamed the Chinese translations of the Bible for bringing over to Japan, as in the case of the translation of ‘God’, an unnecessary dispute over the translation of ‘spirit’, saying: “The Japanese had but one word for Spirit, Tama expressed by the character 靈” (Hepburn 1883, 420). However, the various editions of his own dictionary demonstrate that even for him the matter was hardly as unequivocal as that, and that like in the case of kami for ‘God’, he and the other missionaries cut the Gordian knot by choosing (almost ­arbitrarily) one Japanese word for every theologically-sensitive term, ignoring these words’ possible associations and residues in Japanese culture. Finally, A-12, in a note on tamashii included in the glossary at the back of the book (p. 34), indicates that the original meaning of nepeš was probably ‘throat’ (and indeed, the word nodo is used in the translation of Ps. 27:12), and has to do with breathing and life, and therefore tamashii (魂) here does not mean ‘soul/spirit’ (霊魂), but rather ‘living power’ (生きる力). 33 See also HNJ, 690–1: 「Vjŏ ウジヤウ (有情) すなわち、 Xŏarumono. （生ある もの）生命と感受能力とをもっているもの. [. . .]」 34 See various examples in Higashibaba 2001. See also the letter of January 13, 1558 by Melchior Nuñez Barreto SJ (the Jesuit Provincial who arrived in Japan in 1556), in which he says that when Japanese is used by the missionaries, ‘Fotoque’ (i.e. hotoke) will no longer be used but rather ‘Dios’, and ‘anima’ or ‘spiritu’ rather than ‘tamaxe’ (i.e. tamashii); quoted in German translation in Schurhammer 1928, 59.

272

chapter five

The meaning ‘me’, ‘myself ’, is also mentioned as a common translation. This note may indicate that ultimately, although tamashii (魂) is not the best translation for nepeš, as it requires a note of explanation, and could be avoided in some cases through a completely different translation (nodo, watashi), it could probably no longer be avoided in other cases, including in our verse. The translation of the verb in this clause, yešobeb, is the most varied encountered so far in this psalm; the original must have been ambiguous for the translators, who found a great variety of ways for rendering it in Japanese. Some of the solutions are reviewed below: 1. The verb ikasu (生[活]かす) can mean ‘revive’, ‘resuscitate’, ‘bring [restore] (a person) to life’. It was used first by A-1, and then by the revisions or translations following it early on—B-2, B-3 and B-4—as well as B-11. It seems an adequate translation, but for some reason most of the later translators felt the need to replace it. 2. The verb ikikaeru (生き返る) also means ‘revive’, ‘recover consciousness’, ‘be resuscitated’. Perhaps it was felt that the kaeru part is closer to the šuv root of the Hebrew verb. It was first used in B-9 (ikikaerashime, with the classical causative auxiliary verb attached), and from there picked up by A-2 (ikikaerase, in the modern form). A-2 was followed by A-5, B-15, A-4, A-7 and A-11. 3. The verb kaifukusuru (回[改]復する) means ‘recover (strength)’, ‘regain (health)’ etc., and seems particularly adequate in this case. It was used by Chamberlain in the first translation of the psalm, and appears also in the latest one (A-12), as well as in A-3 (I) & (II). 4. The combination shinsen ni suru (新鮮にする) which is used in C-11d, means ‘freshen’ or ‘refresh’, and can be said to be well-suited for the scene depicted in this psalm. 5. There are six other translations for this verb (some in much paraphrased forms), to be mentioned among them is katameru (固める) which can mean ‘strengthen’ (B-1), hagemasu (励ます) meaning ‘encourage’, ‘stimulate’ (B-8), and tsuyomeru (強める), which means the same (A-6, A-6a). These and other translations are further from the original than the previous four options. Disregarding the paraphrased translations, and/or those dependent on an English source (B-10, A-8, A-9 and perhaps A-10), two other translations added something to this clause: B-3 with tokoshie ni, and B-4 with towani,



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 273

both meaning ‘forever’. Besides showing once again that Yuasa probably consulted Sakon’s translation, it also shows that their tendency to theologize their translations sometimes went unchecked. As for honorifics, many translations delayed their inclusion until the next clause in this verse, and only very few added some here, mainly B-4 with tamau, and A-11 with kudasaru. 5.3.7 yanḥeni bema‛glei ṣedeq  ‫יַ נְ ֵחנִ י ְב ַמ ְעּגְ לֵ י ֶצ ֶדק‬ ‘he leads me on paths that are straight’ Like nehel (v. 2 above), the verb naḥah also means ‘to lead, guide’, and the two sometimes appear in a parallel expression, as in Ex. 15:13 (where the noun naveh also appears), and Ps. 31:4 (where we also find “for the sake of your name”). The root of the noun ma‛agal mostly has to do with something round, but this specific noun also means a road or a path, and when combined with ṣedeq (‘rightness’, ‘righteousness’), probably means ‘a straight way’ (one which is short and easy for the flock). See also: ma‛glei yošer in Prov. 4:11, and Is. 26:7. In this case, the translation of ṣedeq as “righteousness” (KJV) seems problematic; the NJB has: “He guides me in paths of saving justice as befits his name”, while the JPS translation “He guides me in right paths as befits His name” seems more accurate. However, it is possible to argue that in this verse the parable of the shepherd and the flock is meant to be interpreted not only in terms of material satisfaction, but also spiritual ones. The moral and religious aspect is implied also through the phrase “for the sake of his name”, and therefore “justice” or “righteousness” can be a justifiable translations here. C-8 (II) 彼レガ我ヲ直キ道ニ率ウ kare ga ware o naoki michi ni hikiu A-1 我をたゞしき路にみちびき給ふ ware wo tadashiki michi ni michibiku tamau B-1 我ヲ義ノ路ニ赴カシム ware o gi no michi ni omomukashimu B-2 義しき途にみちびき給ふ tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau B-3 彼 …我を 正しき路に 伴う kare . . . ware o tadashiki michi ni tomonau B-4 我を正し路に伴ひ給ふ ware o tadashiki michi ni tomonai tamau B-9 我を義しき道に導きたまふ ware o tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau A-2 わたしを正しい道に導かれる watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru B-10 私を安全な道に導く watashi o anzenna michi ni michibiku C-11d われを正路に導き給ふ ware o seiro ni michibiki tamau.

274

chapter five

B-5 われをただしき路にみちびきたまふ\ ware o tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau A-3 (I) 我を正義の徑によりて導き給えり ware o seiki no komichi ni yorite michibiki tamaeri A-3 (II) 我を正しき径によりて導き給う ware o tadashiki michi ni yorite michibiki tamou B-11 正しき道に導き給う tadashiki michi ni michibiki tamau A-6 正義の小道に立たせた seigi no komichi ni tataseta A-6a 正義の小道に立たせられた seigi no komichi ni tatasarareta A-5 正しい道に導かれた tadashii michi ni michibikareta B-8 正しき道に我を導給うなり tadashiki michi ni ware o michibiki tamau nari B-15 正しい道に導かれる tadashii michi ni michibikareru A-4 わたしを正しい道に導かれる watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru A-7 私を義の道に導かれます watashi o gi no michi ni michibikaremasu A-8 私が最高に主の栄光を現わす仕事ができるように、手を貸し てくださいます watashi ga saikō ni shu no eikō wo arawasu shigoto ga dekiru yōni,  te o kashite kudasaimasu A-9 義の進路にわたしを導いてくださいます gi no shinro ni watashi o michibiite kudasaimasu A-10 かなった道に導いてくださいます kanatta michi ni michibiite kudasaimasu A-11 主は…わたしを正しい道に導かれる shu wa . . . watashi o tadashii michi ni michibikareru A-12 義の道筋に私を導く gi no michisuji ni watashi o michibiku

Let us look firstly at the translation of the two somewhat similar verbs, yenahaleni in v. 2 (see 5.3.5 above), and yanḥeni in this clause of v. 3. In English, KJV used “lead” in both cases, while the NJB and JPS both used “lead” for the first and “guide” for the second. In the Japanese translations various verbs were used, and often a certain verb is used for translating either of the two Hebrew ones (although not the same one in any single translation, except in C-8(II), B-10, and A-9, all of which were dependent on English versions, and also, surprisingly, A-4, a scholarly translation closely following the MT; perhaps Sekine felt that there was not much difference between the two Hebrew verbs). Following is a table of the Japanese verbs, and the number of times they were used in the translation of each Hebrew verb:



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 275

Verb v. 2 yenahaleni v. 3 yanḥeni michibiku (導く)—guide, lead 6 19 tomonau (伴う)—accompany 10 2 tsureyuku/dasu (連れ行く/出す)—take along/lead out 4 hikii/ hikiiteyuku (率井/ひきいて行く)—lead (military context) 2 1 ikowaseru (いこわせる)—cause to rest 2 hikitsureteiku (引き連れて行く)—bring along 1 yasuwaraseru (安らわせる)—cause to rest 1 tataseru (立たせる)—cause to stand 2 omomukashimu (赴かしむ)—cause to walk 1 teokasu (手を貸す)—give a hand 1

For some reason, there was much sameness of mind regarding the translation of the second verb, for which 19 translations used michibiku (which 6 translations used for the first verb). The choice for the first verb was not as unanimous, with tomonau used 10 times (used also twice for the second verb). In fact, the difference in meaning between the two Hebrew verbs is slight, and it is hard to say what caused the different handling of them by the translators. As was mentioned above, the two verbs appear together in Ps. 31:4 (v. 3 in some translations): tanḥeni utenahaleni. How did the translators handle this case, in comparison with Ps. 23? Following are a few examples: A-1 われを引きわれを導きたまへ ware o hikiware o michibiki tamae A-2 わたしを引き、わたしを導き watashi o hiki, watashi o micibiki A-4 わたしを導き、道しるべとなり watashi o michibiki, michishirube to nari A-5 わたしを連れ出し、導いてください watashi o tsuredashi, michibiite kudasai A-6a わたしを導き、引き連れ watashi o michibiki, hikitsure A-7 私を導き、私を伴ってください watashi o michibiki, watashi o tomonatte kudasai A-11 わたしを守り導き watashi o mamori michibiki A-12 私を導き、私をともなってください watashi o michibiki, watashi o tomonatte kudasai

The above quotes demonstrate once again the inconsistencies in the work of the translators. Most of them did not try to translate the same Hebrew verb with the same Japanese one, although there was really no need to use different ones each time. As can already be expected, A-1 shows little consistency, and A-2 follows it closely. Sekine (A-4), who used the same

276

chapter five

translation for both verbs in Ps. 23, had to use two different ones here, and introduced a form not encountered before: michishirube to nari, ‘become a guide(post)’—a very cumbersome solution instead of a simple verb. A-5 and A-6a also show inconsistencies, and A-11, as often is the case, has the least satisfying translation, creating an interpretative combined expression. Only A-7 and A-12 show full consistency in using the same verbs as in Ps. 23, and they even come up with exactly the same translation in this verse. Next let us look at the construct state in this clause, ma‛glei ṣedeq, combined of two nouns. All translations regarded the first as meaning ‘way’ (once again, ignoring the plural form), and the majority of them translated it with the most common Japanese word, michi, written with a variety of kanji (道/路/途/径), although several translations opted for other related words, for example: komichi (小道), ‘path’, ‘lane’ in A-6, shinro (進路), ‘course’, in A-9, and michisuji (道筋), ‘way’, ‘route’ in A-12; these latter translations can be considered as attempts to get closer to the original scene, as well as finding a substitute for the relatively uncommon Hebrew noun. As for the second noun, which is in fact used in an adjectival meaning, in most cases it was translated using the adjective tadashii (正しい), which means ‘right’ (as well as ‘just’, ‘righteous’, ‘honest’ etc.). The other common option was to use the nouns gi (義) or seigi (正義), which are somewhat closer to the original meaning of the Hebrew noun, ‘justice’. However, the difference between these various options is slight. In all these cases the translators seem to have opted for the ‘spiritual’ or ‘moral’ meaning of the clause, rather than the more material one. 5.3.8 lema‛an šemo  ‫לְ ַמ ַען ְשׁמֹו‬ ‘for the sake of his name’ The combination of preposition and particle lema‛an, when used before a noun, can mean ‘for the benefit of ’, ‘for the sake of’ or ‘because’ (Gen. 18:24, Ps. 5:9, 6 etc.). In combination with ‘his/your/my name’ it is found in various OT books, including Is. 48:9, Jer. 14:7, and Ps. 25:11 (also “for the sake of your kindness [ḥesed]” in Ps. 6:5; “for the sake of your goodness [tob]” in Ps. 25:7). C-8 (II) A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3

彼ノ名ノ為ニ 名のゆゑをもて 己ガ名ノ為ニ 聖名のゆゑをもて その名の為に

kare no na no tame ni mina no yue o mote onore ga na no tame ni mina no yue o mote sono na no tameni



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 277

B-4 B-9 A-2 B-10 C-11d B-5 B-8 A-3 (I) A-3 (II) B-11 A-6 A-6a A-5 B-15 A-4 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12

聖名の為に 御名のために み名のために 御名のために、 御名のため、 御名にかけて 御名故に その御名のために その御名の為に み名によりて そのみ名のために そのみ名のために み名にふさわしく そのいつくしみによって み名の故に 御名のために — そのみ名のために 主の御心に 御名にふさわしく かれの名のゆえに

mina no tame ni mina no tame ni mina no tame ni mina no tame ni, mina no tame, mina ni kakete mina tame ni sono mina no tame ni sono mina no tame ni mina ni yorite sono mina no tame ni sono mina no tame ni mina ni fusawashiku sono itsukushimi niyotte mina no yue ni mina no tame ni sono mina no tame ni shu no mikokoro ni mina ni fusawashiku kare no na no yue ni

Almost all translations added the honorific prefix mi before na, ‘name’ (in A-1 it was not added as a separate character in the text, but was indicated in the furigana). The adding of the honorific makes clear that the name is God’s name, also making it unnecessary to add a pronoun meaning ‘his’, which was added only in the translations that avoided the honorific: C-8(II), B-1 and A-12. As we have already learned to expect of them, two scholarly translations that worked closely with MT still added the honorific, due to their religious nature: A-4 (Sekine) and A-5 (Franciscan). Some translations also added sono before mina, perhaps for the sake of emphasis: A-3 (I)&(II), A-6&A-6a and A-9. B-3 has sono na, according to his idiosyncratic system of printing in bold the first character of a word referring to God. A few translations did not translate ‘name’ literally: B-15 has itsukushimi, ‘love’, while A-10 has mikokoro, ‘heart’ (A-8 does not have any equivalent). The combination of preposition and particle lema‛an was translated most often with tame ni (or just tame, in C-11d), meaning ‘for the sake of ’. A-1 and B-2 used yue o mote, ‘on account of ’, but B-9 and A-2 changed to tame ni; A-4 and A-12 also reverted to the earlier usage in its modernized form, yue ni. A-5 and A-11 use fusawashiku, from the adjective fusawashii meaning ‘suitable’ or ‘worthy of ’, and a few other options were adopted by other translations, such as kakete (B-5), yorite (B-11), and sono itsukushimi

278

chapter five

niyotte, ‘through his love’ (B-15), an interpretative and ‘theological’ translation quite distant from the original. 5.3.9 gam ki ’elek begei’ ṣalmawet  ‫ּגַ ם ִּכי ֵאלֵ ְך ְּבגֵ יא ַצלְ ָמוֶ ת‬ ‘even if I walk in a valley of darkness’ The difficult word in this clause is ṣalmawet, traditionally translated “shadow of death”, but which modern scholarship (already since the 19th century), interpreted as ‘darkness’. Several Semitic languages have a similar word meaning ‘darkness’, and the original pronunciation of the word may have been ṣalmut (BDB 853). Further, the meaning ‘darkness’ is apparent in almost all the 18 occurrences of this word in the OT (Ps. 44:20, 107:10, 14; Job 12:22, 34:22 etc.). The vocalization of the current MT form ṣalmawet, which now contains the meanings of ‘shadow’ and ‘death’, was added centuries after the Book of Psalms was created, and although it may reflect a folk etymology or a common pun (and in fact, is already to be found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate), it is probably not the correct meaning of the original word. The clause opens with the combination of conjunctions gam ki, meaning ‘even if ’ or ‘although’ (Is. 1:15 etc.). The first noun in the construct state gei’ ṣalmawet denotes a valley between mountains. From this point to the end of v. 5 the psalmist speaks directly to YHWH. C-8 (II) 然レバ我ハ死陰ノ谷ニ歩行トモ sareba, ware wa shiin no tani ni ayumu to mo A-1 たとひわれ死のかげの谷をあゆむとも tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo B-1 若シ我死ノ蔭ノ谷ヲ行クトモ moshi ware shi no kage no tani o yuku to mo B-2 假令われ死の蔭の谷を歩むとも tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo B-3 げに我 凄き谷間を 歩む時も geni ware sugoki tanima o ayumu toki mo B-4 實に我は物凄き谷間を行く時も geni ware wa monosugoki tanima o yuku toki mo B-9 たとひわれ死の蔭の谷を歩むとも tatoi ware shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo A-2 たといわたしは死の蔭の谷を歩むとも tatoi watashi wa shi no kage no tani o ayumu to mo B-10 たとえ真暗な谷を歩いても tatoe makkurana tani o aruitemo C-11d たとひ、われ闇深き谷を通るとも tatoi, ware yamibukaki(?) tani o tooru to mo



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 279

B-5 よしや、われ死のごとき闇路をあゆまむとも yoshiya, ware shi no gotoki yamichi o ayumamu to mo B-8 我たとい、暗き谷間を歩むとも ware tatoi, kuraki tanima o ayumu to mo A-3 (I) 実に、我はたとい死の蔭の只中を歩むとも geni, ware wa tatoi shi no kage no tadanaka o ayumu to mo A-3 (II) 我たとい暗き谷に歩む入るとも ware tatoi kuraki tani ni ayumiiru to mo, B-11 かくてわれ、たとえくらき死の谷を歩むとも kakute ware, tatoe kuraki shi no tani o ayumu to mo A-6 闇の谷間を通っても yami no tanima o tootte mo A-6a やみの谷間を通っても yami no tanima o tootte mo A-5 わたしは死のかげの谷を歩むときでさえ watashi wa shi no kage no tani o ayumu toki de sae B-15 神よ、たとえ死のかげの谷を歩んでも kami yo, tatoe shi no kage no tani o ayundemo A-4 たとえ死の蔭の谷を歩んでも tatoe shi no kage no tani o ayundemo A-7 たとい、死の蔭の谷を歩くことがあっても tatoi, shi no kage no tani o aruku koto ga atte mo A-8 たとい、死の暗い谷間を通ることがあっても tatoi, shi no kurai tanima o tooru koto ga attemo A-9 たとえ深い蔭の谷を歩もうとも tatoe fukai kage no tani o ayumō to mo A-10 たとい死の危険のある所を歩いとも tatoi shi no kiken no aru tokoro o aruite mo A-11 死の蔭の谷を行くときも shi no kage no tani o yuku toki mo A-12 暗黒の谷を私が行くときも ankoku no tani o watashi ga yuku toki mo

Many of the translations conveyed the conjunctions gam ki with the combination tatoi/tatoe . . . tomo/mo, meaning ‘even if ’, but several translations (including A-11 and A-12), found mo alone sufficient for expressing the same meaning. As for the verb expressing walking, most of the translations used either the expected aruku or ayumu; a few, such as A-6, used tooru, ‘to pass’, which while conveying the same meaning is less faithful. For gai, most translations used the basic Japanese equivalent, tani (谷), while a few (B-3, B-4, B-8, A-6) opted for the more specific tanima (谷間), ‘ravine’, ‘gorge’, which may indeed convey the depicted scene more accurately. The main stumbling block in this clause is ṣalmawet; the translators, most of whom must have been aware of the difficulty, chose one of three solutions:

280

chapter five

1. The first option was to go with the “shadow of death” translation, and in Japanese shi no kage (死の蔭 or shiin 死蔭, a kango used only by Chamberlain, probably copied from the Chinese translation, in which it appears; A-1 turned it into a kunyomi phrase, which somehow also rings closer to the English). Using this phrase means giving priority to the traditional understanding (and translation) of the word over the modern scholarly interpretation. This was done in the following 12 translations: C-8 (II)—translating from English and also using the Chinese translation; A-1—probably keeping faith with KJV, while using the Chinese translation differently; B-1—a relatively unusual case of agreement with A-1; B-2, B-9 and A-2—all three retaining the translation by A-1; A-3 (I)—following the Vulgate: in medio [tadanaka 只中]umbrae mortis; A-5—a note explains that many read here ‘valley of darkness’, but that the meaning is almost the same; B-15—following the Catholic tradition; A-4—Sekine opts for the traditional reading without comment; A-7—following A-2, as in many other cases; A-11—following both Protestant and Catholic traditional translations.

2. The second option was to prefer the scholarly interpretation, based on philology, and translate with a word meaning ‘darkness’. The following translations chose that way, using a variety of adjectives or nouns: B-3—sugoki (凄き)—in fact ‘dreadful’ rather than actually ‘dark’; B-4—monosugoki (物凄き)—following B-3 with an emphasis. There is a footnote saying that shi no tani is wrong, but it does not elaborate; B-10—makurana (真暗な)—‘very dark’; following the English Short Bible which has here “darkest valley”; C-11d—yamibukaki (闇深き)—‘deeply dark’; this earliest Catholic translation followed the MT and modern interpretations; B-8—kuraki (暗き)—‘dark’; perhaps following its above predecessor; A-3 (II)—kuraki (暗き)—‘dark’; following the 1945 Catholic translation based on the MT; A-6 & A-6a—yami no (闇の)—‘dark’; Barbaro has some notes following this psalm, but he does not explain his choice here; A-9—fukai kage (深い蔭)—‘deep shadow’; as in other cases, following the English version of the New World Bible; A-12—ankoku no (暗黒の)—‘dark’; a relatively long note explains the problem, concluding that the Hebrew word has nothing to do with ‘death’, only with ‘darkness’. It should be noted also that the translator chose to use a kango rather than an adjective such as kurai.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 281

3. The third solution, adopted by some translators, was to combine the traditional interpretation and the modern one: B-5—shi no gotoki yamichi (死のごとき闇路)—‘a road as dark as death’; Shibutani, as in various other cases, creates a long and cumbersome expression, also losing the component of ‘valley’ along the way. B-11—kuraki shi no tani (くらき死の谷)—‘a dark valley of death’; like Shibutani, Abri chose a phrase that would incorporate both possible meanings. A-8—shi no kurai tanima (死の暗い谷間)—‘a dark death valley’; based on its English source.

Undoubtedly, some of the translators found themselves in a dilemma here; the expression “the valley of the shadow of death” in this verse is so famous, that striking it out might perplex the readers, at least those Christians familiar with the traditional translation. Perhaps that is the reason that even translators closely familiar with the MT and its modern interpretations, such as the Franciscans (A-5) and Sekine (A-4), preferred to keep the traditional expression in their translations.35 Sakon (B-3) and Yuasa (B-4) used a word which is close enough to the familiar expressions. Three translators preferred to combine both options rather than choose one of them. Two other translations, B-10 and A-9, followed their English source, and one, A-3 (II), its modern Latin source. Only four translators can be said to have made an independent choice in favor of ‘darkness’ in defiance of tradition: Ideguchi (C-11d), Hagiwara (C-8), Barbaro (A-6 & A-6a; however, it should be taken into consideration that he may have also followed the modern Latin translation), and Matsuda (A-12). 5.3.10 lo’ ’ira’ ra‛  ‫ֹלא ִא ָירא ָרע‬ ‘I fear no evil/injury’ For the noun ra‛ BDB (948) gives the meanings: “evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity”. This can be understood on both levels: in the parable, the sheep fears no injury, while in reality, the psalmist fears no evil.

35 So did Robert Alter in his recent English translation of the Psalms, retaining the traditional translation (although creating a more compact phrase than the KJV’s with “the vale of death’s shadow”), in spite of being aware of the other, more likely, possibility; see Alter 2007, 79.

282

chapter five

C-8 (II) 我ハ何レノ害ニテモ忙ントセズ ware wa izure no gai nite mo ojin to sezu A-1 禍害をおそれじ wazawai o osoreji B-1 害ヲ懼レザラン gai o osorezaran B-2 禍害をおそれじ wazawai o osoreji B-3 我 災禍を 恐れじ ware wazawai o osoreji B-4 災害をおそれず wazawai o osorezu B-9 禍ひを恐れじ wazawai o osoreji A-2 わざわいを恐れません wazawai o osoremasen B-10 私は少しもわざわいを恐れない watashi wa sukoshi mo wazawai o osernai C-11d 禍も恐れず wazawai mo osorezu B-5 災禍をおそれざらむ wazawai o osorezaramu B-8 我はおれず禍を ware wa orezu wazawai o A-3 (I) 禍を恐れじ wazawai o osoreji A-3 (II) 禍を恐れじ wazawai o osoreji B-11 災いを恐るることあらじ wazawai o osoruru koto araji A-6 私は悪をおそれない watashi wa aku o osorenai A-6a 私は悪をおそれない watashi wa aku o osorenai A-5 わざわいを恐れない wazawai o osorenai B-15 わたしは災を恐れない watashi wa wazawai o osorenai A-4 わたしは災いを恐れない watashi wa wazawai o osorenai A-7 私はわざわいを恐れません watashi wa wazawai o osoremasen A-8 こわがったりしません kowagattarishimasen A-9 わたしは何も悪いものを恐れません watashi wa nani mo warui mono o osoremasen A-10 私は少しも恐れません watashi wa sukoshi mo osoremasen A-11 わたしは災いを恐れない watashi wa wazawai o osorenai A-12 私は災いを畏れない watashi wa wazawai o osorenai

This clause reflects an uncommon unanimity between the translators: the noun ra‛ was translated 19 out of 26 times with wazawai (using various kanji), which can mean ‘(serious) trouble’, ‘an evil’, ‘misfortune’ etc. C-8 (II) and B-1 used gai (害) which means more specifically ‘injury’ or ‘harm’, while on the other hand Barbaro (A-6&A-6a) used aku (悪), which is a stronger term for ‘evil’. It seems that because of its wider range wazawai was the most popular term. An even greater unanimity was demonstrated in choosing the verb in this clause, with osoreru, ‘fear’ (again written using various kanji and kana, as well as various negative forms appended to it) appearing in all but two of the translations (C-8 (II) and A-8). The most original translation of this clause is probably in B-8 (see 5.3.11 below). Many of the translators were also able to produce a relatively concise Japanese clause, with 8 syllables compared with the Hebrew 4. Others could have produced shorter translations as well had they avoided using



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 283

the first-person pronoun, which also requires the use of a particle (watashi wa). And indeed, if in the earlier cases discussed above it could be argued that the use of the pronoun was necessary, in this case it is clearly redundant, as half of the translations above prove. As can be expected, the translations not using the pronoun are mostly the older ones and those using classical language (but also including A-2, remaining faithful to its predecessor), while later translations and those using ‘colloquial’ style included it. Another significant point regarding this clause is the use of alliteration in the original Hebrew: lo’ ’ira’ ra‛. Alliteration is a poetic device which is easily lost in translation. It is hard to surmise how many of the translators were aware of this device here and sought to find some equivalent for it in their translation. Indeed, the fact that the translations are so similar across such a long period of time may suggest that this was not a factor taken into consideration. It could be argued that since the word wazawai itself includes an alliteration, it constitutes a kind of equivalent; perhaps even the inclusion of watashi wa could be justified on that account, although it is repeated so many times in the translation of this psalm that it can hardly be considered a deliberate inclusion in this case. 5.3.11 ki ’atah ‛imadi  ‫ִּכי ַא ָּתה ִע ָּמ ִדי‬ ‘because you are with me’ The particle ki has already been discussed above, particularly in its function as an emphatic or connective particle (see 4.2.3). In this case it is used more clearly in its causal function, meaning ‘because’. The form ‛imadi is an alternative for ‛imi (the preposition ‛im with the first-person pronoun); both forms are distributed evenly in various OT books. C-8 (II) 如何トナレバ汝ハ我ト共ニアリ ikan to nareba Nanji wa ware to tomoni ari A-1 なんぢ我とともに在せばなり nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari B-1 蓋爾ハ我ト偕ニス kedashi nanji wa ware to tomoni su B-2 汝われと共に在し nanji ware to tomoni imashi B-3 そは 汝 我と共に 在り sowa nanji ware to tomo ni ari B-4 汝我と共に在ば mimashi ware totomoni imaseba B-9 なんぢ我と共にいませばなり nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari A-2 あなたがわたしと共におられるからです anata ga watashi to tomoni orareru kara desu B-10 あなたがそばにいてくださるから anata ga soba ni itekudasaru kara C-11d 汝われと共に在せば nanji ware to tomoni imaseba

284

chapter five

B-5 汝われとともにましませばなり mimashi ware to tomoni mashimasebanari B-8 御身は我と共なれば onmi wa ware to tomoni nareba A-3 (I) そは汝、我と共に在せばなり so wa nanji, ware to tomoni imasebanari A-3 (II) 汝我と共に在せばなり nanji ware to tomoni imasebanari B-11 そはおん身われと共にませばなり sowa onmi ware to tomoni imasebanari A-6 あなたが私といっしょにおられるのだから anata ga watashi to isshoni orareru no da kara A-6a あなたが私とともにおられるのだから anata ga watashi to tomoni orareru no da kara A-5 あなたが　ともにおられるからだ anata ga tomoni orareru kara da B-15 あなたが　わたしとともにおられ anata ga watashi to tomoni orare A-4 あなたがわたしと一緒にい給うから anata ga watashi to isshoni i tamau kara A-7 あなたが私とともにおられますから anata ga watashi to tomoni oraremasu kara A-8 主がすぐそばにいて shu ga sugu sobani ite A-9 あなたがわたしと共にいてくださるからです anata ga watashi to tomoni ite kudasaru kara desu A-10 あなたがいつもいっしょにいてくださるからで anata ga itsumo isshoni ite kudasaru kara desu A-11 あなたがわたしと共にいてくださる anata ga watashi to tomoni itekudasaru A-12 あなたが私と御一緒にだから anata ga watashi to goissho dakara

The translation of the second-person pronoun, referring to YHWH, is divided very distinctly according to the time of the translation: the archaic nanji (and the even more archaic mimashi in two cases, B-4 and B-5) in the earlier ones, and from A-2 on anata. The situation regarding the use of honorifics is a little more complex. In this case, the only translations that used no honorifics at all were C-8 (II) and B-1 (as well as B-3, which still has nanji in bold, as a form of honorific adopted consistently, and A-8 which adds shu). The other translations are divided as follows: 1. Most earlier translations and those using classical language, beginning with A-1, used the honorific verb imasu (在す/坐す) ‘to be’, in the izenkei conjugation with the particle ba giving the meaning ‘because’, followed by auxiliary verb nari (modern dearu) to create the combination imasebanari (A-1, B-9, A-3 (I)&(II), B-11; also, B-4 and C-11d have the shorter



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 285

imaseba; B-2 has only imashi, losing the meaning ‘because’; Shibutani, in B-5, as often is the case, has the longer mashimasebanari). 2. Beginning with A-2, several ‘colloquial’ translations used, as they often do, the honorific auxiliary verb resembling the passive form (see 4.2.4), and have here orareru. For ‘because’ they add kara or da kara (A-2, A-6&A-6a, A-5, B-15, A-7). 3. Beginning with B-10, four translations used the humble form itekudasaru; its advantage compared with the reru/rareru verb ending is that there is no fear of confusion with the passive form; its disadvantage is a little more difficult to define. Argument against using it may include its being very intrusive as an obvious addition to the text, its strong sense of submission, and its somewhat inelegancy. B-10, A-9 and A-10 followed it with kara; A-11 did not, and it lacks an equivalent for the particle ki in the source text. 4. Sekine (A-4) is the only translator to use the honorific verb tamau in this case. Unlike most other translators, Sekine did not use tamau or any other form of honorifics in Det. 32 (see 4.2.4), but here he did, perhaps because of the direct speech in this verse. On the whole, Sekine used honorifics less than some other translations, but apparently could not avoid their use altogether. 5. While all the above translations used a verb as a form of honorific, A-12 used the prefix go in goissho. In this scholarly translation this is a rare case, although some similarly ‘mild’ honorifics appear now and then, usually in direct speech of the psalmist to YHWH, such as in 13:2 owasure ni naru (お忘れになる); however in the same verse, it has kao where other translations, including Sekine (A-4), have mikao (御顔). An exceptional translation in this case is Hagiwara’s (B-8). For the honorific he uses here (and several other times in his translation) onmi (御身); this was later used in this verse only by B-11. More importantly, Hagiwara was the only translator to reverse the order of the two recent clauses, putting the current one before the former, and using the particle ba in the causal meaning, according to classical grammar, and as used before by Chamberlain in his ‘versified’ version for v. 1 (see 5.2.1 C-8(I) above). His translation of the former clause as ware wa orezu wazawai o is also unique.

286

chapter five

5.3.12 šibteka umiš‛anteka hemah yenaḥamuni  ‫ּומ ְשׁ ַענְ ֶּתָך ֵה ָּמה‬ ִ ‫ִשׁ ְב ְטָך‬ ‫יְ נַ ֲח ֻמנִ י‬ ‘your rod and your staff they lead/console me’ The two nouns in this clause both mean ‘stick’, and perhaps could be regarded as hendiadys (two words parallel in meaning that should be considered as one). The noun šebet is very common in the OT, while miš‛enet, which literally means ‘something to lean on’, appears far fewer times. Apart from its common meaning ‘tribe’, as a concrete object šebet can mean: ‘rod’ or ‘staff ’ that may also be used as a simple weapon; ‘shaft’ (such as spear); an implement used by a shepherd for mustering or counting sheep; and ‘specter’, used as a sign of authority (BDB, 986). The verb yenaḥamuni in fact may have originally been yanḥuni (the same as in v. 3), which would make much more sense in the context of the picture of the shepherd leading his flock (Dahood 1966, 147); it is less clear why a rod and a staff would console the psalmist. C-8 (II) 汝ノ指揮杖ト汝ノ杖ト我ヲ慰 nanji no shikitsue to Nanji no tsue to ware o nagusamu A-1 なんぢの笞なんぢの杖われを慰む nanji no shimoto nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu B-1 爾ノ杖爾ノ梃ハ是レ我ヲ安ンズ nanji no tsue nanji no tei wa kore ware o yasunzu B-2 汝の笞なんぢの杖われをなぐさむ nanji no shimoto nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu B-3 汝の鞭・汝の杖！それ我を慰むればなり nanji no muchi nanji no tsue! sore ware o nagusamurebanari B-4 汝の笞汝の杖筇彼等は我を慰む mimashi no shimoto mimashi no tsue karera wa ware o nagusamu B-9 汝の棒、汝の杖われを慰む nanji no bō, nanji no tsue ware o nagusamu A-2 あなたのむちと、あなたのつえはわたしを慰めます anata no muchi to, anata no tsue wa watashi o nagusamemasu B-10 あなたの笞、あなたの杖－それによって私は慰められる anata no shimoto, anata no tsue—sore niyotte watashi wa nagusamerareru C-11d 汝の笞と杖とはわれを慰むるなり nanji no shimoto to tsue to wa ware o nagusamuru nari. B-5 汝の牧杖、汝の杖、それらぞわれをなぐさむるなる mimashi no bokujō, mimashi no tsue, sorera zo ware o nagusamurunaru B-8 御身の杖と牧杖我を慰めむ onmi no tsue to bokujō wa, ware o nagusamemu A-3 (I) 汝の鞭と汝の杖これこそ我の慰めなれ nanji no muchi to nanji no tsue kore kosoware o nagusamenare A-3 (II) 汝の鞭と汝の杖、これこそ我を慰むれ nanji no muchi to nanji no tsue, kore koso ware o nagusamure



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 287

B-11 おん身のむちとつえは、よりたのみを与え給うなり onmi no muchi to tsue wa, yoritanomi o atae tamau nari A-6 あなたの棒と杖とは、私を慰める anata no bō to tsue to wa, watashi o nagusameru A-6a あなたの棒とつえは私を慰める anata no bō to tsue wa, watashi o nagusameru A-5 あなたのつえ、あなたの牧杖こそ、わたしを安心させる anata no tsue, anata no bokujō koso, watashi o anshinsaseru B-15 あなたのむちとつえは わたしを守る anata no muchi to tsue wa watashi o mamoru A-4 あなたのしもと、あなたの杖それらはわたしに勇気を与える anata no shimoto, anata no tsue sorera wa watashi ni yūki o ataeru A-7 あなたのむちと、あなたの杖、それが私の慰めです anata no muchi to, anata no tsue, sore ga watashi no nagusame desu A-8 道中ずっとお守りくださるからです dōchū zutto omamori kudasaru kara desu A-9 あなたのむち棒とつえは、わたしを慰めてくれるものなのです anata no muchibō to tsue wa, watashi o nagusametekureru mono nanodesu A-10 あなたは私を守り、導いてくださいます anata wa watashi o mamori, michibite kudasaimasu A-11 あなたの鞭、あなたのつえそれがわたしを力づける anata no muchi, anata no tsue sore ga watashi o chikara zukeru A-12 あなたの笞とあなたの杖、これらこそ、私を励ます anata no shimoto to anata no tsue, korera koso, watashi o hagemasu.

The majority of the translations went along with the MT and former translations when translating the verb in this clause. The verb nagusameru, ‘comfort’, ‘console’, was used in 17 translations. Other translations used close equivalents. B-1 has yasunzu, an archaic verb meaning ‘to calm the spirit’ (IKJ 1307, my translation); A-5 has anshinsaseru; A-11 has chikara zukeru, ‘encourage’, ‘cheer up’; A-12 has hagemasu, ‘encourage’. Other versions have more interpretive translations: B-15 has mamoru, ‘guard’ (so has A-8); A-4 has yūki o ataeru, ‘give me courage’; B-11 has a somewhat perplexing combination, yoritanomi o atae, which may mean ‘satisfy my requests’ (as in several other cases in B-11, this does not sound like a natural Japanese expression). Surprisingly, A-10 is the only translation to use what could be considered an emendation of the text, with michibite kudasaimasu, ‘lead me’. As for the two ‘sticky’ nouns in this clause, all translations, with the exception of the paraphrased A-8 and A-10, tried to find two distinct equivalents for them. A great deal of agreement can be seen regarding the second noun, miš‛enet, for which all but three translations used tsue (杖), meaning ‘walking stick/staff ’, which indeed seems an appropriate translation. The other three translations (B-1, B-8 and A-5) used tsue for the first noun,

288

chapter five

šebet, so this word appears in all of the said 24 translations. For miš‛enet B-1 has tei (梃), a rarely used character which can mean ‘lever’ (teko in kunyomi), while A-5 and B-8 have bokujō (see 6. below). The noun šebet caused much more difficulty, yielding seven different translations, as follows: 1. shimoto (笞)—‘scourge’, ‘whip’; shimoto seems to relate to an implement which was used for punishing criminals by whipping, and therefore probably not the best choice here (especially when connected with nagusameru; A-12 explains in a note that shimoto is used for defense against enemies, while tsue is used for leading the flock—a plausible interpretation but not necessarily the meaning of šebet). It was first used by A-1, followed by B-2, B-4, B-10, C-11d, as well as A-4 and A-12. However, in a relatively rare case of total disagreement, both the later revised version (B-9) and the first ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2) each chose a word different from A-1’s and from each other’s. 2. muchi (鞭, often written in hiragana only)—‘whip’, ‘rod’, ‘cane’; muchi is often mentioned in relation to horse riding, so perhaps it comes a little closer to the original intention, although it is also interchangeable with shimoto as an implement for punishment (and 笞 can also be read muchi). It was favored by B-3, A-2, A-3(I)&(II), B-11, B-15, A-7 and A-11. 3. bō (棒)—‘stick’, ‘rod’, ‘pole’, ‘staff ’, ‘club’; bō seems to be a much more adequate word in this case, but it appears only in B-9 (the unpublished revision of A-1, which was not followed by A-2 in this case), and by Barbaro (A-6&A-6a). A ventured guess as to why this option was not more popular is perhaps because bō has many homonyms in Japanese, and although the kanji makes the meaning clear, when only listened to, the meaning might be obscure. However, there could be further reasons for the preference given to the other words. 4. muchibō (むち棒)—a combination of the former two words, used only in A-9, and probably created by its translators. 5. shikitsue (指揮杖)—shiki means ‘command’, and shikitsue must have been coined by Chamberlain for his translation, C-8 (II), and is not to be found in the dictionaries. The somewhat similar shikibō (指揮棒) can be found, but it means ‘(a conductor’s) baton’ (NKD2 V. 6, 563). It seems that a certain military streak runs through Chamberlain’s translation (see 5.3.7), perhaps due to the fact that he was first taught Japanese by a samurai.36 36 “The dear old Samurai who first initiated the present writer into the mysteries of the Japanese language, wore a queue and two swords”; Chamberlain 1905, 1.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 289

6. bokujō (牧杖)—this is a combination of boku as in bokusha, ‘shepherd’, with the onyomi of 杖 (kunyomi tsue, above), introduced, and probably coined, by Shibutani (B-5), and used also by B-8 and A-5 for the translation of the second noun, miš‛enet. It is an appropriate translation, and readers unfamiliar with it can deduce the meaning from the kanji. 7. tsue (杖), as explained above, used by B-1 and A-5. To sum up, this is an example of dealing with an object of realia that does not have an obvious equivalent in the receptor language. It is also an item for which dictionaries of the source language give several translations, increasing the translators’ uncertainty. This, in turn, causes the translators along the axis of time to search for alternatives that seem more accurate, but are not always so. Judging from the context, the object in this case is probably the shepherd’s staff (see also Micah 7:14), and since the shepherd himself was missing from Japanese culture, so was his staff (a semantic void). The most common equivalents found for it by the translators are Japanese words for ‘whip’, used for punishment, or for ‘cane’ used in horse riding, neither of which is truly equivalent to the object a shepherd would use. In such cases a neologism may seem necessary for the sake of accuracy, so Shibutani may be commended for his effort (no. 6. above), although it was not popularly followed by most other translators, who preferred to revert to more familiar words. Another such neologism seems to have been coined in A-9 (no. 4. above). 5.3.13 ta‛arok lepanay šulḥan  ‫ַּת ֲערְֹך לְ ָפנַ י ֻשׁלְ ָחן‬ ‘you set [/will set] before me a table’ The verb ‛arak is quite common in the OT, and its main meaning is ‘arrange’ or ‘set in order’. The phrase ‛arak šulḥan—‘set the table (for a meal)’—is also common (Is. 21:5, Ps. 78:19 etc.). C-8 (II) A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-9

汝ハ我ニ向テ食台ヲ設ケ Nanji wa ware ni mukaite shokudai o mōke なんぢ…我がために筵をまうけ nanji . . . waga tame ni en o mōke 爾ハ…我ガ為ニ筵ヲ設ケ nanji wa . . . waga tame ni en o mōke 汝 …我為に筵をまうけ nanji . . . waga tame ni en o mōke 汝…わが為に 膳を 並べたり nanji . . . waga tame ni zen o narabetari 汝は…わが為に筵を設給ふ mimashi wa . . . waga tameni en o mōke tamau なんぢ … わがまへに筵を設け nanji . . . waga mae ni en o mōke

290

chapter five

A-2 あなたは…わたしのまえに宴を設け anata wa . . . watashi no mae ni en o mōke B-10 あなたは … 私の前に祝宴をはってくださる anata wa . . . watashi no mae ni shukuen o hattekudasaru C-11d 汝…わがため膳を備へ nanji . . . waga tame zen o sonae B-5 汝は …わがまへに饗設をなしたまふ mimashi wa . . . waga mae ni aruji mōke o nashi tamau B-8 御身 … 我がために食卓を備え onmi . . . waga tame ni shokutaku o sonae A-3 (I) 汝は我を…わがために食卓を備え nanji wa . . . ware o waga tameni shokutaku o sonae A-3 (II) 汝…、わが為に食卓を備え nanji . . ., waga tameni shokutaku o sonae B-11 おん身…、わが為に宴を設け給う onmi wa . . . waga tame ni en o mōke tamau A-6 あなたは、私に食事をととのえて下さる anata wa, watashi ni shokuji o totonoetekudasaru A-6a あなたは…私に食事を調え anata wa . . . watashi ni shokuji o totonoe A-5 あなたは …わたしのために食事をととのえ anata wa . . . watashi no tame ni shokuji o totonoe B-15 あなたは …わたしのために会食を整え anata wa . . . watashi no tame ni kaishoku o totonoe, A-4 あなたは …わたしの前に宴をもうけ anata wa . . . watashi no mae ni en o mōke A-7 あなたは私のために食事をととのえ anata wa watashi no tame ni shokuji wo totonoe A-8 主は…私のためにおいしいごちそうを備えてくださいます shu wa . . . watashi no tameni oishii gochisō wo sonaete kudasaimasu A-9 あなたは …わたしの前に食卓を整えてくださいます anata wa . . . watashi no mae ni shokutaku o totonoete kudasaimasu A-10 あなたは… 私のためにごちそうを用意し anata wa . . . watashi no tame ni gochisō o yōishi A-11 あなたはわたしに食卓を整えてくださる anata wa watashi ni shokutaku o totonoete kudasaru A-12 あなたはととのえる、わが前に食卓を anata wa totonoeru, waga mae ni shokutaku o

The Hebrew text here may be considered a metonymy, a figure of speech in which a thing is not called by its own name, but by the name of something else which is closely associated with it. In this case, rather than saying ‘you give me food’, the psalmist uses the indirect expression ‘you set the table for me’ (the meaning of ‘food’ is implied by the setting of the table). The English translations had no difficulty in using the same metonomy, since in this case the cultural background was familiar. The



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 291

Japanese translators had much more difficulty with the expression, perhaps because the setting of a ‘table’ as such was alien to their culture, at least in its pre-modern form. The strategies used by the translators in this case are as follows: 1.  Replacing the original metonymy with a different one. A-1 picked the phrase en o mōke ‘prepare a feast’. Incidentally, most dictionaries, including classical ones, indicate the kanji 宴 for en, but A-1 used the kanji 筵, which is usually read mushiro,37 probably under the influence of the Delegates’ Version Chinese translation, where it also appears. In one more relatively rare case where the two translations agree (see 5.3.9 above), the Orthodox translation B-1 picked the same expression. A-1 was followed by B-2, B-4, B-9, A-2, B-11 and A-4 (the last three changing only the kanji for en to the more common one). B-10 has a slightly different expression, shukuen o haru, also meaning ‘hold a feast’, while Shibutani (B-5), for some unfathomable reasons of his own, creates the cumbersome expression aruji mōke o nasu (perhaps ‘make preparations for a banquet’). By using such a phrase the translators avoided the somewhat culturally alien ‘table’, while retaining the expected image of an abundance of food. 2. Maintaining the original metonymy, while changing it slightly to fit cultural realia. B-3 introduced this option with the translation zen (膳) o naraberu, ‘arrange a tray’. This expression conjures the image of food arranged on an individual tray, or a small dining table, which is placed before each diner seated on the tatami mats: the authentic Japanese way of eating, especially on celebratory occasions. C-11d used the slightly different zen o sonaeru. 3. Translating the original metonymy as closely as possible, in spite of the cultural difficulty. The first to do this was Chamberlain in C-8 (II): shokudai o mōke, with shokudai (食台) meaning a ‘dining table’, a new term for a new item in his time.38 The Catholic translators of B-8 and A-3 (I)&(II) have shokutaku o sonae, again with a word (食卓) first appearing in the 1870’s and meaning ‘dining table’, and also used later 37 See NKD2, V. 2, 721–722; IKJ 204; Nelson, on the other hand, also gives the reading en and the meaning ‘feast’, ‘banquet’. 38 NKD2, v. 7, 334, has its earliest examples from the literature of the 1870’s, such as the series of humorous books 『西洋道中膝栗毛』(‘By Shank’s Mare Through the West’) by Kangaki Robun (仮名垣魯文), describing adventures which in fact take place outside Japan; see Keene 1984, 18–19.

292

chapter five

by A-9, A-11 and A-12. For the more recent translations this was no longer a problem. 4. Avoiding the metonymy while translating its implied meaning. This was started by Brabaro (A-6&A-6a) with shokuji o totonoe, ‘prepare a meal’, which is found also in A-5 and A-7; B-15 has the slightly different kaishoku o totonoe, while A-10 goes further with gochisō, and A-8 much further with the somewhat childish oishii gochisō, ‘tasty treats’. The Japanese word for ‘dining table’, freshly coined at that time, was first used in the translation of this verse by a Westerner, Chamberlain, although only in his literal version, which he considered secondary to his ‘versified’ one. The missionaries working with their Japanese assistants on the Meiji translation (A-1) opted for an original Japanese expression, and they were followed in this choice for many decades. Only in the 1950’s does the ‘Western’ table reappear in translations of this verse. In principle, which is the better way: adhering to the alien image or replacing it with something familiar? The first way would seem more ‘faithful’ to the original, but would risk alienating the readers, reminding them again that they are reading a foreign text. The other way would make the text easier to understand and closer to the readers’ sensibilities, but might introduce to the text something that was not there originally, and in the case of a sacred text, this might be a difficult issue (see discussion under 5.4 below). There will probably never be an ultimate answer to this dilemma, but another question worth asking is: how consistent are the translators in adopting one or the other method? This question will be asked again later on. Another difference between the translations is in the rendering of lepanay—‘before me’. In the original, one can clearly see the image of a table set in front of a sitting person who is ready to partake of the feast. This image, using the equivalent prepositions mae ni, could have been expected in those translations that mentioned a table of some sort literally (groups 2 & 3 above), while those mentioning more generally a ‘feast’ or ‘food’ (1 & 4) would use a different word, such as tame ni, ‘for my sake’. But this expectation was not met in the translations. In fact, tame ni was used much more often (15 times) in translations in all four groups, and ni alone was used four more times. The prepositions mae ni were used seven times only, by B-9, A-2, B-10, B-5 and A-4 from group 1, and by A-9 and A-12 from group 3. C-8 (II) should be included with them, having used ware ni mukaite, which carries the same meaning. This result is somewhat surprising, and demonstrates once again the power of tradition. For example, A-1 translated waga tame ni en o mōke; the translators of A-2 must have



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 293

r­ ealized the difficulty in the translation of lepanay and corrected it, but they could not bring themselves to change the main expression in this clause, and the result therefore was waga mae ni en o mōke. Another point to consider here is the syntax, and on two levels. First, on the level of this clause: in biblical Hebrew the verb usually comes first, as it does here: ta‛arok (verb, including the pronoun and subject, ‘you set’) lepanay (preposition and pronoun, ‘before me’) šulḥan (object, ‘table’). In Japanese the normal order would be: ‘you—[+topic/subject particle]— me—before—table—[+direct object particle]—set’. The great majority of translations—all the other differences between them notwithstanding— maintained this order. The only exception is A-12, which has: anata wa totonoeru, waga mae ni shokutaku o—‘you—[+topic particle]—set, me— before—table—[+direct object particle]’. In bringing the verb forward (followed by a comma), the Japanese clause resembles the Hebrew one to a greater extent. Matsuda, the translator of Psalms for A-12, attempts to go with the original syntax elsewhere in the psalm as well, for example at the beginning of v. 3 (5.3.6 above), waga tamashii o kare wa kaifukusase, in which he places the subject and particle kare wa just before the verb connected with it, rather than at the beginning of the clause, as other translators would do. It seems that the Japanese reader would be somewhat surprised by this, although the sentences are certainly not ungrammatical. Matsuda can be said to have gone the longest way towards Hepburn’s ideal of ‘literal translation’, and achieving it to a greater degree than Hepburn’s own translation, although in a somewhat different sense. The second level of syntax is the combination of this and the following clause (5.3.14 below). In Hebrew the words neged ṣorerai—‘in front of my enemies’—follow the clause under discussion. In most Japanese translations these words come earlier, and the order of the sentence is: [1] ‘you’ (some of the translations omit this pronoun, or put it in the second position) [2] ‘in front of my enemies’ [3] ‘set before me a table’, an order which agrees with common Japanese syntax. There are only two exceptions. The first was A-6, Barbaro’s first translation, in which the Hebrew order is maintained; however, in his revised translation, A-6a, Barbaro adopted the ‘correct’ Japanese order. The other, as expected, is A-12. 5.3.14 neged ṣoreray  ‫נֶ גֶ ד צ ְֹר ָרי‬ ‘in front of my enemies’ The word neged here is a preposition meaning ‘in front of’, ‘in sight of ’ and so on. The noun ṣorer for ‘enemy’ is less common than the synonym ’oyeb,

294

chapter five

but it does appear in various OT books. The point of setting the meal in the sight of the psalmist’s enemies is presumably to spite them. C-8 (II) 我ヲ苛酷スル人ノ眼前ニ ware o kakoku suru hito no ganzen ni A-1 わが仇のまへに waga ata no mae ni B-1 我ガ敵ノ目前ニ於テ waga teki no mokuzen ni oite B-2 わが仇の前に waga ata no mae ni B-3 わが仇の前にて waga ata no mae ni te B-4 我敵の前にて waga ada no mae ni te B-9 我が仇の前にて waga ata no mae ni te A-2 わたしの敵の前で watashi no teki no mae de B-10 私の敵の前で watashi no teki no mae de C-11d わが仇の前にて waga eda no mae ni te B-5 わが敵を目の前に置きながら waga teki o me no mae ni oki nagara B-8 我が敵の前に waga teki no mae ni A-3 (I) 悩ます者に向かいて nayamasu mono ni mukaite A-3 (II) わが仇の見る所にて waga ada no miru tokoro ni te B-11 われをしいたぐる者の前にて ware o shiitaguru mono no mae nite A-6 私の敵の前で watashi no teki no mae de A-6a 敵の前で teki no mae de A-5 敵の見ている前で teki no miteiru mae de B-15 敵の見ている前で teki no miteiru mae de A-4 わが敵の面前で waga teki no menzen de A-7 私の敵の前で watashi no teki no mae de A-8 敵の面前で teki no menzen de A-9 わたしに敵意を示す者たちの前で watashi ni tekii o shimesu monotachi no mae de A-10 敵の面前で teki no menzen de A-11 わたしを苦しめる者を前にしても watashi o kurushimeru mono o mae ni shitemo A-12 私を攻める者らの正面で watashi o semeru monora no shōmen de

As before, the plural form of the noun is lost in the translation, except in two cases, A-9 and A-12, in which the plural form is indicated. In order to do so it was necessary to use a longer expression; most of the translations used either ata/ada/eta (仇) or teki (敵) for ‘enemy’, and adding a plural suffix to such nouns is most uncommon. The above-mentioned two had to use a combination of verb followed by the noun mono (person), which can more easily receive either of the plural suffixes -tachi or -ra. However, it should be noted that a few other translations used the same combination of verb+noun without adding the plural suffix, including C-8 (II) (which has hito), A-3 (I), B-11, and even A-11 (all of which have mono).



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 295

In all the cases where the plural is not indicated, the Japanese readers must decide for themselves whether the psalmist is faced by one or several enemies, as there is no way for them to know it. While the readers are probably used to reading texts in which the plural form must be inferred, and while adding the plural suffix may sound inelegant (and perhaps for that reason the majority of the translators avoided it, unless it was just carelessness), in cases like this, in which the difference between one or several enemies could be substantial, the translator can be expected to strive for accuracy.39 For the Hebrew neged (in front of ) many translations used the common mae ni/mae de/ mae ni te (before), while several others used the more descriptive menzen de (面前で), ‘in the presence of ’. Other variations include: ganzen ni (眼前に) ‘before one’s eyes’ (or even ‘under one’s nose’), mokuzen ni (目前に) ‘before one’s eyes’, and shōmen de (正面で), which is perhaps the closest to the meaning ‘in front of ’ (A-12). As was mentioned above, in almost all the translations this clause comes before the previous one (5.3.13), combined into one sentence. This should have made the repetition of the first-person pronoun redundant. Still, most of the translators found it necessary to repeat it. All 26 translations have the first-person pronoun in the later part of their sentence, and all but six have it here too (except for A-3 (I), A-6a, A-5, B-15, A-8 and A-10). 5.3.15 dišanta bašemen ro’ši   ‫ֹאשׁי‬ ִ ‫ִּד ַּׁשנְ ָּת ַב ֶשּׁ ֶמן ר‬ ‘you lubricate with oil my head’ The verb dišen, meaning to ‘lubricate’ or ‘anoint’, is not so common in the OT (compared with mašaḥ, which is much more common), and like the noun dešen it often appears in cultic circumstances (Nu. 4:13, Ps. 20:4 etc.). The lubricating of the head with oil is an action symbolizing the preparation for a celebration (Am. 6:6; Ecles. 9:8), and in time of mourning it was to be avoided (Is. 61:3 etc.).

39 It should be noted that the plural form in the original Hebrew is according to the current vocalization of the MT, which reads ṣorerai; in principle the word could also have been vocalized to read ṣoreri, in singular form. However, the plural form is already attested to in the Vulgate, which reads: “adversus eos qui tribulant me”.

296

chapter five

C-8 (II) 汝ハ油ヲ以テ吾頭ベヲ潤シ Nanji wa abura o mote waga kōbe o uruoshi A-1 わが首にあぶらをそゝぎたまふ waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau B-1 我ガ首ニ膏ヲ潤シ waga kōbe ni abura o uruoshi B-2 わが首に膏を注ぎたまふ waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau B-3 汝 わが頭に 油を塗り nanji waga kashira ni abura o nuri B-4 汝は我頭に膏を注ぎ給へり mimashi wa waga kashira ni abura o sosogi tamaeri B-9 わが頭に油を注ぎ給ふ waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamau A-2 わたしのこうべに油をそそがれる watashi no kōbe ni abura o sosogareru B-10 あなたは私の頭に油を注ぎ anata wa watashi no atama ni abura o sosogi C-11d わが頭に膏を注ぎ給ひ waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamai B-5 汝はわが頭に油をそそぎたまへり mimashi wa waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamaeri B-8 我が頭には油をぬり給い waga kōbe ni wa abura o nuri tamai A-3 (I) わが頭に油を注ぎ給えり waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamaeri A-3 (II) わが頭に油を注ぎ給う waga kōbe ni abura o sosogi tamou B-11 わが頭に油を注ぎ給い waga kashira ni abura o sosogi tamai A-6 油を注いで、あなたは私の頭を匂わせ abura o sosoide, anata wa watashi no atama o niowase A-6a 油を注いで私の頭を匂わせ abura o sosoide watashi no atama o niowase A-5 わたしの頭に香油をそそがれた watashi no atama(?) ni kōyu o sosogareta B-15 わたしのあたまに油を注ぎ watashi no atama ni abura o sosogi A-4 わたしの頭にあぶらを注がれ watashi no kōbe ni abura o sosogare A-7 私の頭に油をそそいでくださいます watashi no atama ni abura o sosoidekudasaimasu A-8 たいせつな客としてもてなしてくださったのです taisetsuna kyaku toshite motenashite kudasatta no desu A-9 あなたはわたしの頭に油を塗ってくださいました anata wa watashi no kōbe ni abura o nutte kudasaimashita A-10 主の戦士として、頭に油を注いでくださいます shu no senshi toshite, atama ni abura o sosoide kudasaimasu A-11 わたしの頭に香油を注ぎ watashi no atama ni kōyu o sosogi A-12 あなたは油を垂らした、わが頭に anata wa abura o tarashita, waga kōbe ni

For ‘oil’ the majority of the translations used the common Japanese noun abura (油, or 膏 in a few early translations), while A-5 and A-11 used kōyu (香油), ‘perfumed hair oil’ (could it be the work of Schneider or his Franciscan colleagues who were involved in both translations?). In the ­translation



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 297

of the whole OT, A-11 used kōyu 18 times, not only for the noun šemen (usually when used for cosmetics), but also occasionally, and in the same context, for the verb suk, ‘lubricate’ (2 Sam. 12:20, Ruth 3:3) (cf. CC 620). As for the head, several combinations of a kanji character and reading in furigana can be observed: 1. The character 首 read kōbe (A-1, B-1, B-2)—in modern usage this character is associated with the neck (kubi) more often than with the head, so in later translations it was no longer used. The reading kōbe is an archaic word for the whole head (IKJ 269). 2. The character 頭 read kōbe (C-8 (II), B-9, C-11d, B-5, A-3 (I)&(II), A-4, A-9, A-12; also A-2, using hiragana only, and probably B-8, which has no furigana)—in modern Japanese kōbe is considered highly literary, and was used by many translators for better effect, or following earlier translations. The most recent translations (see 4. below), abandoned it, except for Matsuda in A-12, who saw fit to bring it back. 3. The character 頭 read kashira (B-3, B-4, B-11)—in archaic times kashira was the most common word for the head (IKJ 291–2; see also 4. below). It is typical of Sakon to use more archaic or literary words, and of Yuasa to follow him. Abri’s (B-11) style is often uneven. However, the fact that many translators preferred the use of kōbe over kashira may serve as another indication of the power of tradition in translation. 4. The character 頭 read atama (B-10, A-6&A-6a, A-7, A-10, A-11, and perhaps also A-5, which does not give a furigana reading here; B-15 has only hiragana)—regarding atama, “in ancient times it was used for the forehead or for a baby’s head, while kashira was used for the whole head, but from the Middle Ages atama came into frequent use, while kashira turned gradually into a word used only in literature” (IKJ 32, my translation). In contemporary Japanese it is the most commonly used word for the head. Culturally, this expression must be unintelligible to most Japanese readers (and in this case, perhaps also to most modern readers outside Japan as well). The difficulty is demonstrated by the paraphrased A-8, which bypasses the whole issue by translating ‘you treat me like a distinguished guest’. Several translations that included notes tried to explain this to their readers based on parallel biblical expressions or external information. Unlike the difficulty with the shepherd and his flock, which is, so to speak, spatial (their non-existence in Japan), here the problem is temporal, pertaining to a custom from the ancient past no longer familiar in an

298

chapter five

era when most people shampoo their hair to remove grease rather than add it. In any case, most translators are left with no other option but to translate the expression more or less literally, and either leave it to the readers to figure out or explain it to them in footnotes. The verb dišanta is the only one in this psalm in the perfect form, indicating a completed action (usually translated in past tense), but most Japanese translators treated it the same way as the other verbs, with the exception of A-5, A-9 and A-12. The majority of translations (19) used the verb sosogu (注ぐ) ‘pour on’; Barbaro (A-6&A-6a) added also niowaseru (匂わせる) ‘to perfume’. The verb uruosu (潤す) ‘to wet’ was used by C-8 (II) and B-1, and the verb nuru (塗る) ‘to paint’ by B-3, B-8 and A-9. A-12 has anata wa abura o tarashita, waga kōbe ni, which like in earlier cases follows the order of the Hebrew words. The verb used here is tarasu (垂らす) in the past tense. Also using the past tense are A-5 with sosogareta, and A-9 with nutte kudasaimashita. Many translations used honorifics in this clause. These include the verb tamau (A-1, B-2, B-4, B-9, C-11d, B-5, B-8, A-3 (I)&(II), B-11); the verb-ending reru/rareru (A-2, A-5, A-4); and the verb kudasaru (A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10). No honorifics were used by: C-8 (II), B-1, B-3, A-6&A-6a, B-15, A-11 and A-12. 5.3.16 kosi rewayah  ‫ּכֹוסי ְרוָ יָ ה‬ ִ ‘my cup [is] well-filled’ The noun kos simply means ‘cup’; it is common to regard this cup here as a cup of wine, but it is not the unequivocal meaning. The noun rewayah is rare (only here and in Ps. 66:12), but the verb rawah and the adjective raweh support the meaning of ‘to be saturated, drink one’s fill’ (BDB, 924). C-8 (II) 而乄吾盃ハ満ツ sōshite waga hai wa mitsu A-1 わが酒杯はあふるゝなり waga sakazuki wa afururu nari B-1 我ガ爵ハ滿チ溢ル waga shaku wa michiafuru B-2 我さかづきハ溢るゝなり waga sakazuki wa afururu nari B-3 わが盃は　　溢る waga sakazuki wa afuru B-4 我盃は溢る waga sakazuki wa afuru B-9 わが杯はあふるるなり waga sakazuki wa afururu nari A-2 わたしの杯はあふれます watashi no sakazuki wa afuremasu B-10 私の杯はあふれる watashi no sakazuki wa afureru C-11d わが盃は滿ち溢れる waga sakazuki wa machi afururu B-5 わが杯に（酒）あふるるあひだに waga sakazuki ni (sake) afururu aida ni B-8 我が杯は溢るなり waga sakazuki wa afureru nari A-3 (I) 酔いをもたらすわが酒杯はいかに妙なるかな yoi o motarasu waga sakazuki wa ikani taenaru kana



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 299

A-3 (II) わが酒杯は充ち溢れたり waga sakazuki wa michiafuretari B-11 かくてわがの喜びのさかずきはあふるゝなり kakute waga yorokobi no sakazuki wa afururu nari A-6 そして私の盃はあふれる soshite watashi no sakazuki wa afureru A-6a そして私の杯はあふれる soshite watashi no sakazuki wa afureru A-5 わたしの杯は　あふれた watashi no sakazuki wa afureta B-15 わたしの杯を満たされる watashi no sakazuki wo mitasareru A-4 わが杯はみちあふれる waga hai wa michiafureru A-7 私の杯は、あふれています watashi no sakazuki wa, afureteimasu A-8 まるで、あふれなばかりの祝福です marude, afurena bakari no shokufuku desu A-9 わたしの杯はあふれんばかりです watashi no sakazuki wa afuren bakari desu A-10 私の胸はもう一杯です watashi no mune wa mō ippai desu A-11 わたしの杯は溢れさせてくださる watashi no sakazuki o afuresasete kudasaru A-12 わが杯は溢れている waga sakazuki wa afureteiru

As expected, the two paraphrased translations ignored the cup altogether, mentioning instead bountiful blessings (A-8) or a breast full of emotion (A-10). Most other translators mentioned the cup and regarded it as full of wine, or rather, full of saké, or perhaps an unspecified alcoholic beverage (again, this is a cultural problem: wine and saké are not the same, although they may have a similar effect). The following kanji characters and words were used: 1. In the majority of cases (21) the translation is sakazuki, translated in contemporary dictionaries as ‘wine-cup’, but in pre-modern Japan this object could not have contained wine, which was an unfamiliar beverage. The kanji characters used were: 酒杯 (3 times, beginning with A-1), a combination that makes it clear that the cup is full of alcohol; 盃 (4 times, in earlier translations), which was replaced in use with the following character; and 杯 (12 times), a character that has hai as its onyomi and sakazuki as its kunyomi. Two more translations used only hiragana for sakazuki. 2. C-8(II) and A-4 are the only two translations to use the more neutral word hai (with the characters 盃/杯 respectively), which corresponds to ‘cup’ without the alcoholic nuance. 3. B-1 has shaku with the character 爵, which may be an error (it means ‘peerage, court rank’); the character intended was probably 酌, which also reads shaku and has to do with serving saké.

300

chapter five

Incidentally, many translations used sakazuki indiscriminately to translate not only kos, but also gawi‛a, ‘goblet’, such as in the story of Joseph in Gen. 44. These include A-1, A-2, A-6&A-6a, A-7, A-9, A-11 and even A-12; the exception is Sekine (A-4) who used the loan-word koppu (コップ). Apparently, no originally Japanese word was available. The noun rewayah is turned in most of the translations into a verb. The majority of translations (19) used the verb afureru (溢れる, also afururu), with another three using michiafureru (満ち溢れる), and one (Chamberlain) only mitsu (満つ), all meaning ‘overflow’. Only A-3 (I) has a different translation, with a line in the style of Japanese poetry, ikani taenaru kana (いかに妙なるかな), ‘how exquisite!’. 5.3.17 ’ak tob waḥesed yirdepuni  ‫ַאְך טֹוב וָ ֶח ֶסד יִ ְר ְּדפּונִ י‬ ‘only good thing(s) and kindness pursue me’ The conjunction ’ak here means ‘only’ (it can also mean ‘but’). The two nouns that are connected directly here—tob, meaning ‘a good thing’, and ḥesed, meaning ‘goodness, kindness’—and may be considered another case of hendiadys, sometimes appear separately in parallel clauses (Ps. 100:5, 106: 1 etc.). The verb radap has a negative connotation: ‘pursue’, ‘chase’, or ‘persecute’; here it comes in a rare positive connotation, and the effect is somewhat surprising for the reader, perhaps enhancing the meaning (‘if I am chased by anything, it is only by good things and kindness [rather than by the enemies mentioned in the former verse]’). C-8 (II) 幸ト恵ト而己我ニ及ントシ saiwai to megumi to nomi ware ni oyoban to shi A-1 かならず恩惠と憐憫とわれにそひきたらん kanarazu megumi to awaremi to ware ni soikitaran B-1 願ハクハ斯ク爾ノ仁慈ト慈憐トハ … 我ニ伴ハン negawaku wa kaku nanji no itsukushimi to awaremi to wa . . . ware ni tomonawan B-2 恩惠と憐憫とハ必ずわれにそひ来らん megumi to awaremi to wa kanarazu ware ni soikitaran B-3 げに… 恩惠と仁慈とは　我に　添ひ geni . . . megumi to itsukushimi to wa ware ni soi B-4 實に… 幸福と仁慈とはわれに添ふ geni . . . saiwai to itsukushimi to wa ware ni sou B-9 必ず幸ひと惠みとわれにそひ来らん kanarazu saiwai to megumi to ware ni soikoran A-2 必ず惠みといつくしみとが伴うでしょう kanarazu megumi to itsukushimi to ga tomonau deshō B-10 仁慈と恵みだけは…私をはなれることなく nasake to megumi dake wa . . . watashi o hanareru koto naku



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 301

C-11d 幸福と恩恵をわれに添ひ saiwai to onkei to ware ni soi B-5 かならずや幸福と御恩惠とは…われにしたがひきたりぬべし kanarazu ya saiwai to mimegumi to wa . . . ware ni shitagai kinarinubeshi B-8 ただ幸と恵のみ、我に添きたらん tada saiwai to megumi nomi, ware ni soikitaran A-3 (I) 汝の御憐憫は我に添い来らん nanji no onawaremi wa ware ni soikitaran A-3 (II) 御仁慈と御恩惠と我に添わん onitsukushimi to omegumi to ware wo sowan B-11 おん身のおん恵みとおんいつくしみは、… われにそい来らん onmi no on megumi to on itsukushimi wa, . . . ware ni soi koran A-6 ああ、いつくしみとおん情けとが、私と共にある aa, itsukushimi to onnasake to ga, watashi to tomoni aru A-6a ああ、慈しみと情けとが、…私とともにある aa, itsukushimi to nasake ga, . . . watashi to tomoni aru A-5 ああ、惠みといつくしみは…わたしに伴う aa, megumi to itsukushimi wa . . . watashi ni tomonau B-15 神の惠みといつくしみに … 伴われ kami no megumi to itsukushimi ni tomonaware A-4 必ず惠みといつくしみがわたしを追いかけてくる kanarazu megumi to itsukushimi ga watashi o oikaketekuru A-7 まことに…いつくしみと惠みとが、私を追って来るでしょう makoto ni . . . itsukushimi to megumi to ga, watashi o otte kuru deshō A-8 主の恵みといつくしみが、私についてきます shu no megumi to itsukushimi ga, watashi ni tsuite kimasu A-9 確かに、善良と愛ある親切が …わたしを追うことでしょう tashikani, zenryō to ai aru shinsetsu ga . . . watashi o ou koto deshō A-10 主の恵みといつくしみは、私の上にあり続けます shu no megumi to itsukushimi wa, watashi no ue ni ari tsuzukemasu A-11 惠みと慈しみはいつもわたしを追う megumi to itsukushimi wa itsumo watashi o ou A-12 善きことと惠みのみが私を追う yoki koto to megumi nomi ga watashi o ou

To begin with the conjunction, like everything else in this clause it received a great variety of translations, as many as nine in this case. Indeed, the English translations also differed substantially: KJV has “surely”, JPS has “only”, while NJB has no equivalent. 1. Surprisingly perhaps, only four of the translators kept the meaning ‘only’, ‘nothing but’, which seems the most correct understanding of the original Hebrew here. Not for the first time, the earliest and latest translations agree with the choice of words, nomi, in this case. And while it is clear that A-12 followed the MT closely, it is not clear from where Chamberlain, who was translating from English (probably with

302

chapter five

the aid of the Chinese translations), got this meaning. B-8 has tada, and B-10 has dake, with the same meaning. Perhaps A-11’s itsumo (always) can also be included in this group. 2. A-1 must have followed the KJV in translating kanarazu (surely), and was itself followed by B-2, B-9, A-2, B-5 and even A-4. In the same sense, B-3 and B-4 used geni, and A-9 tashikani. Close to them also is A-7 with makoto ni (indeed). 3. A-6&A-6a, as well as A-5 (in the original but not in the accumulative version), used here what seems to be an interjection, aa, which has the advantage of sounding a little like the original Hebrew, but does not carry the same meaning. 4. B-1 has an interpretive addition with negawaku wa kaku (‘praying that like that . . .”[?]). 5. Finally, there are those translations that have no equivalent for the conjunction: A-3(I)&(II), following the Vulgate which does not have it either, and followed by the Catholic B-11 and B-15, as well as the paraphrased A-8 & A-10. For the two nouns in this clause the variety is even greater, with 13 different combinations. The noun tob, ‘a good thing’, is translated by 7 different words or expressions, and ḥesed, ‘goodness, kindness’, by 6; 3 words are used interchangeably for either noun, 3 only for the first, and 3 only for the second. A-3 (I)&(II), B-5 and A-6 add honorifics to some of the words. 1.  Words used for both nouns: megumi (恩惠; 恵み) ‘blessing’, ‘grace’, ‘favor’, which would fit the second Hebrew noun better, but is used more often for the first; itsukushimi (仁慈; 慈しみ) ‘affection’, ‘love’, used 9 times for the second noun, and 4 times for the first, but really fits neither of them, unless by theological expansion; nasake (仁慈; 情け) ‘sympathy’, ‘compassion’, ‘mercy’, used once for each noun. 2. Words used only for the first noun: saiwai (幸; 幸ひ; 幸福) ‘happiness’, ‘good fortune’, and could be considered a good choice, as the opposite of the earlier wazawai ‘misfortune’; zenryō (善良) ‘goodness’; yoki koto (善きこと) ‘good thing(s)’. 3. Words used only for the second noun: awaremi (憐憫) ‘pity’, ‘compassion’, and not a fitting translation; onkei (恩恵) ‘favor’, and written with the same kanji used for megumi above; ai aru shinsetsu (愛ある親切) ‘loving kindness’, which is again an expansion of the original expression.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 303

Looking at a few of the translations individually, it can be seen that A-1 used the combination megumi to awaremi, and was followed by B-2, but this was later changed to the more popular combination megumi to itsukushimi (used 9 times, including by A-2, A-5, A-4 and A-11), which is hardly a better choice. A-12 has yoki koto to megumi, which is a quite literal translation; in an appended list of names and terms megumi is indicated as the consistent translation for ḥesed, mentioning also that A-11 used itsukushimi for it. The verb in this clause was translated in the earlier versions mostly by sou (添う) ‘accompany’, which does not convey the original meaning literally, although it conveys its intention (A-1, B-2 and B-8 use the combined verb soikuru, while 7 others use only sou). Similarly, the expression to tomoni aru (と共にある) ‘be with’, and the verb tomonau (伴う) ‘accompany’—often appearing earlier in vv. 2 or 3—were also used. The more literal translation, using the verb ou (追う) ‘pursue’, first appeared in A-4 (in the combined verb oikaketekuru), and later in A-7 (ottekuru), followed by A-9, A-11 and A-12 (ou). In vv. 1–5 of this psalm there are 9 verbs in the imperfect tense which, as mentioned above (5.3.3), indicates an incomplete action, on a continuum between present and future, with which the Japanese verb system is very compatible (there was also one verb in the perfect tense; see 5.3.15). In all these earlier cases it could be interpreted that the action is either in the present or expressing a continuous state expected or desired, but in v. 6 the psalmist is clearly looking into the distant future, and his hopes are indicated by the two verbs, yirdepuni and wešabti, the first of which is in the imperfect, while the second is less clear and may require emendation (see 5.3.19). In the Japanese verb system the same form of verb is used to indicate present and future actions. In order to indicate unequivocally a future action, some noun, adverb or other words must be added (such as ashita ‘tomorrow’, korekara ‘later’ etc.). However, it is very common for Japanese native speakers to add a conjecture marker to the verb (such as darō, deshō), which makes the statement more ambiguous, probably stemming from the notion that nothing certain can be known about the future, and from a reluctance to commit. In translation between Japanese and other languages, the ‘potential form’ was sometimes used as if it was equivalent to future tense. In Bible translation it came into constant use beginning with A-2, bringing this translation under criticism for making the word of God sound like a probability rather than a certainty (see above 3.1, A-2).

304

chapter five

Still, this usage can be found in later translations as well. In the case of the verb yirdepuni in this clause, the following methods for indicating the future are observed: 1. The earliest translations, as well as some of the later ones which adopted classical language to some extent, used the auxiliary verb む mu (which is often written and pronounced like a final ん n, as in the above examples), and which has a range of meanings, including presumption or expectation for the future. This usage is found in C-8 (II), A-1, B-1, B-2, B-9, B-8, A-3 (I)&(II) and B-11. 1.a. A smaller group of classical-language translations did not use mu in this clause, but they did use it for the second verb in this verse (see 5.3.19 below), which perhaps by extension could include the action in this clause as well. These are B-3, B-4 and C-11d. 2. The modern form that can be considered equivalent to mu in some of its meanings is dearō/darō, or in its polite form, deshō; and the latter has been used by A-2, A-7 and A-9. 2.a. As in the case of mu, some translations did not use such a marker here, but added it following the second verb in this verse. Only A-8 used deshō, while B-10, A-4 and A-11 used dearō. A-12 used the potential form of the verb itself, kaerō. 3. Another classical form is the auxiliary verb beshi which expresses conjecture with certain confidence. It was used by B-5. 4. Finally, several translations did not use any of the above, and there is no difference in their handling of the verbs in this verse and in the rest of the psalm. They are: A-6&A-6a, A-5, B-15, and A-10. Beginning with the last group, the translators in these cases either relied on the context to convey the idea of an action extending to the future, or perhaps did not see a substantial difference between the intention of the verbs in this verse and the earlier ones. Checking the previous Psalm 22:28–32 we find that in the case of A-5, deshō was used several times to indicate future actions. A-6&A-6a on the other hand avoided it, as did B-15 and A-10, so it would seem that their translators rejected the potential form as an indication of future tense. In the translations using classical language, the use of mu seems quite natural for indicating a future event (Ikeda 1980, 68–71). However, this form sounds archaic and is no longer usable in contemporary Japanese. The modern equivalent dearō/deshō conveys a certain amount of uncertainty, and perhaps its systematic use in indicating the future is rightly



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 305

criticized. The potential form of the verb (such as kaerō in A-12) also indicates intention rather than certainty. For grammatical, rather than theological reasons, it would seem better to allow the future tense to be assumed from the context (“all the days of my life”) rather than use this form. 5.3.18 kol yemei ḥayay  ‫ָּכל יְ ֵמי ַחיָּי‬ ‘all the days of my life’ The expression “all the days of (someone’s) life” is common in the OT, and appears, for example, in Gen. 3:14&17 (“your life”), Deut. 17:19 (“his life”) etc. The implied meaning is ‘for as long as I shall live’. C-8 (II) A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-9 A-2 B-10 C-11d B-5 B-8 A-3 (I) A-3 (II) B-11 A-6 A-6a A-5 B-15 A-4 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12

吾一生涯 わが世にあらん限りは 我ガ生命アル日 われ世に在んかぎり わが　　在ふる間 我生涯 わが生ける限りは わたしの生きているかぎりは 一生 わが生命のあらん限り わが生くる日のかぎり 我が命のある限り わが生くる日の限り わが生くる日の限り わが世にある限り 生涯の日々に 生涯の日々 生涯 生涯 わたしの生きている限り 私のいのちの日の限り 生きている限り わたしの命の日の限り 生きている限り 命のある限り わがいのちのすべての日々

waga itsushōgai waga yo ni aran kagiri wa waga inochi aru hi ware yo ni aran kagiri waga nagarauru aida waga shōgai waga ikeru kagiri wa watashi no ikiteiru kagiri wa isshō waga seimei no aran kagiri, waga ikuru hi no kagiri waga inochi no aru kagiri waga ikuru hi no kagiri waga ikuru hi no kagiri waga yo ni aru kagiri shōgai no hibi ni shōgai no hibi shōgai shōgai watashi no ikiteiru kagiri watashi no inochi no hi no kagiri ikiteiru kagiri watashi no inochi no hi no kagiri ikiteiru kagiri inochi no aru kagiri waga inochi no subete no hibi

The translations include no less than 13 variations for the relatively simple Hebrew clause. These variations also differ considerably in length, from 3 to 13 syllables. The translations can be divided into two groups:

306

chapter five

1.  Non-literal translations of the original expression, giving the assumed meaning. Some of these mention just ‘life’ (but not ‘days’): itsushōgai (一生涯), isshō (一生), or shōgai (生涯) (3 times), or alternatively using a longer expression with a verb or a noun: ikiteiru/ikeru kagiri (生きている限り) (5 times), nagarauru aida (在ふる間), seimei no aran kagiri (生命のあらん限り), inochi no aru kagiri (命のある限 り)—‘as long as I live’. Other translations were even more non-literal: yo ni aran kagiri wa (世にあらん限り) (3 times), ‘as long as I am in the world’. (17 in total). 2. More literal translations (mentioning also ‘days’): inochi aru hi (生命ア ル日), ikuru hi no kagiri (生くる日のかぎり) (3 times), shōgai no hibi (生涯の日々) (2 times), inochi no hi no kagiri (いのちの日の限り) (2 times), and finally, the most literal translation in A-12: inochi no subete no hibi (いのちのすべての日々). (9 in total). It seems that several translators in both groups read here kol ‛od (as long as), rather than kol (all). This meaning may be implied in the original Hebrew, but it is not its literal meaning, and the translators’ interpretation added information unnecessarily. A-12 was the most accurate in that respect as well. 5.3.19 wešabti bebeit YHWH  ‫וְ ַשׁ ְב ִּתי ְּב ֵבית יהוה‬ ‘and my dwelling/I shall dwell in the house of YHWH’ The expression beit YHWH appears in the OT approximately 250 times, referring to the temple (mostly the one erected in Jerusalem, but previously others, such as the one in Shilo, in 1 Sam. 1:24). The verb šabti, according to the vocalization, is from šub, meaning ‘to return’, which does not make good sense here (unless the psalm is regarded as unequivocally post-exilic, but even then there are grammatical difficulties). It is common to emend the MT here in either the vocalization, to read wešibti (as in Ps. 27:4), or the spelling, yašabti, to reach the expected meaning, ‘dwell’, which is already found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, as well as in the KJV and other English translations.40 Also, the preposition letter be (in) does not agree with the meaning ‘to return’, which would require le (to), and the following expression le’orek yamim, ‘for many days’, is associated

40 See Dahood 1966, 148, for some other possible explanations, leading to the same conclusion.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 307

with dwelling in a place, rather than with returning to it. The emendation of the MT here, therefore, seems necessary. C-8 (II) ヱホバノ家ニ住ントス Yehoba no ie ni suman to su A-1 ヱホバの宮にすまん ehoba no miya ni suman B-1 主ノ家ニ居ラン shu no ie ni oran B-2 我ハ…主の宮の中に住まはん ware wa . . . shu no miya no uchi ni sumawan B-3 ヤーヱの家に　　　住まん ya-we no ie ni suman B-4 ヤウェの家に住まん yawe no ie ni suman B-9 主の家に住まん shu no ie ni suman A-2 主の宮に住むでしょう shu no miya ni sumu deshō B-10 主の家に住むであろう shu no ie ni sumu dearō C-11d われヤウェの家に住まん ware yawe no ie ni suman B-5 ヤハヱの御館に住むをえむ yahawe no miyakata ni sumu o emu B-8 主のやかたに我は住まん shu no yakata ni ware wa suman A-3 (I) 主の家に住むを得んためなり shu no ie ni sumu o entamenari A-3 (II) 主の家に住まん shu no ie ni suman B-11 主のおん住みかに住むを得ん shu no on sumi ka ni sumu o en A-6 私の住居は、主の家 watashi no sumai wa, shu no ie A-6a 私の住まいは主の家である watashi no sumai wa shu no ie de aru A-5 わたしはヤーウェの家に…住む watashi wa ya-we no ie ni . . . sumu B-15 わたしは…神の家に生きる watashi wa . . . kami no ie ni ikiru A-4 わたしは…ヤハヴェの家に住むであろう watashi wa . . . yahawe no ie ni sumu dearō A-7 私は…主の家に住まいましょう watashi wa . . .  shu no ie ni sumaimashō A-8 やがて、私は主の家に着き、…おそばで暮らすことでしょう yagate, watashi wa shu no ie ni tsuki . . . osobade kurasu koto deshō A-9 わたしは…エホバの家に住むのです watashi wa. . . ehoba no ie ni sumu no desu A-10 私は…主のおそばで暮らします watashi wa . . .  shu no osoba de kurashimasu A-11 主の家にわたしは帰り…そこにとどまるであろう shu no ie ni watashi wa kaeri . . . sokoni todomaru dearō A-12 そしてヤハウェの家に私は帰ろう soshite yahawe no ie ni watashi wa kaerō

In most cases wešabti was translated using sumu (住む), meaning ‘to live’, ‘dwell’, ‘reside’. In 14 cases the verb was used as such; 3 translations (B-5, A-3(I) and B-11) have the combination sumu o emu (住むをえむ) that could mean ‘I will be able to live’, and A-6&A-6a have the noun form sumai (住まい). Other verbs with similar meaning include oru (居る) ‘to be’, ikiru (生きる) ‘to live’, kurasu (暮らす) ‘to live in’, (there is also tsuku

308

chapter five

(着く) ‘to reach’ in A-8). A-11 has a long combination: kaeri . . . sokoni todomaru (帰り…そこにとどまる), ‘I [shall] return . . . and remain there’.41 A-12 also has the less plausible meaning kaeru (帰る) ‘return’; a note for this verse says: “there is also a view, based on the Septuagint, reading ‘to live’, through the change of one vowel” (my translation). This is particularly strange, since in 27:4, where the form wešibti is clearly the correct one, A-12 translates sumu as expected (A-11 has there yadoru which means the same, but again very inconsistent), so why insist on the unlikely form and meaning here? In other cases Matsuda, the translator of Psalms for A-12, showed remarkable faithfulness to the MT, so it is possible that he felt obligated to do so here too rather than emend the text. As in the earlier clause in this verse (5.3.17), the context seems to require an expression of the future tense. In the former case, 12 translations used either an auxiliary verb or the potential form; in this clause the following usage may be found: 1.  The auxiliary verb mu was used by C-8 (II), A-1, B-1, B-2, B-9, B-8, A-3 (I)&(II) and B-11 earlier, and is used by all of them again here. Also, B-3, B-4 and C-11d, which did not use it earlier, do so here, as well as B-5, which used beshi earlier. (12 in all). 2. The potential-polite form deshō was used earlier by A-2, A-7 and A-9; here it is used again only by A-2 (A-8 also uses it now). A-7 uses the potential-polite form of the verb sumaimashō (A-9 uses neither). Also, 3 translations, B-10, A-4 and A-11, which did not use it earlier, here used the potential-neutral form dearō. A-12 used the potential-neutral form of the verb, kaerō. (7 in all). 3. Finally, the five translations that did not use the potential form before did not do so here either: A-6&A-6a, A-5, B-15, and A-10. To them is added A-9. (6 in all). As for the construct state beit YHWH denoting the temple, the majority of translations (19) maintained the simple meaning ‘house’ with the translation ie (家). A-1, B-2 and A-2 chose the loftier miya (宮), denoting ‘shrine’ or ‘palace’. B-5 has miyakata (御館), and B-8 has only yakata (‘mansion’, ‘palace’) without the honorific. B-11 has on sumi ka (おん住みか), with honorific, while A-10 has no equivalent. 41 This point, like others mentioned earlier, was also criticized in one of the early reviews of the translation; see Namiki et al. 1991, 205.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 309

5.3.20 le’orek yamim  ‫לְ א ֶֹרך יָ ִמים‬ ‘for many days’ This phrase literally means ‘for long days’, implying ‘many years of life’ (Ps. 91:16, Prov. 3:2 etc.). There may also be the implied meaning of ‘forever’ (as in Ps. 21:5), but it is not necessarily so in this case. C-8 (II) A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-9 A-2 B-10 C-11d B-5 B-8 A-3 (I) A-3 (II) B-11 A-6 A-6a A-5 B-15 A-4 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12

而乄我ハ又永久ニ 我はとこしへに 然セバ我多クノ日 永遠に 而して我　日の続く限り われ世に在んかぎりは 我はとこしへに わたしはとこしえに 私は年老いるまで 日數多く かくてわれは生くるかぎり 命のあらんその限り これ、我が日久しく かくて我が時久しく われは末長く 日のつづく限り 日のつづく限り とわに とこしえに いつまでも いつまでも いつまでも 長い日々にわたって、 いつでも 生涯 長き日々にわたって

sōshite ware wa mata eikyū ni ware wa tokoshie ni shikaseba ware ooku no hi tokoshie ni shikashite ware hi no tsuzuku kagiri waga yo ni aran kagiri wa ware wa tokoshie ni watashi wa tokoshie ni watashi wa toshioiru made nissū ooku kakute ware wa ikuru kagiri inochi no aran sono kagiri kore, ware ga hi hisashiku kakute ware toki hisashiku ware wa suenagaku hi no tsuzuku kagiri hi no tsuzuku kagiri towani tokoshie ni itsumademo itsumademo itsumademo nagai hibi ni watatte itsudemo shōgai nagaki hibi ni watatte

This last phrase in the psalm generated a rich variety of translations, even breaking the record of the somewhat similar phrase earlier in this verse (5.3.18), with no less than 17 different versions, compared with the earlier record of 13. Once again there are two basic kinds of translation: the interpretive and the literal. 1. Non-literal translations: tokoshie ni (永遠に)(5), itsumademo (い つまでも) (3), itsudemo (いつでも), eikyū ni (永久に), towani (とわ に), suenagaku (末長く)—all meaning ‘forever’ (or ‘always’); yo ni aran kagiri (世に在んかぎりは), ware wa ikuru kagiri (われは生くるかぎ り), shōgai (生涯)—‘for as long as I live’. B-10 has the rather imaginative

310

chapter five

t­ oshioiru made (年老いるまで) ‘until I’m old’. B-8 repeated its translation of the former phrase in this verse (5.3.18), adding sono for emphasis, and creating a certain poetical effect: waga inochi no aru kagiri / inochi no aran sono kagiri

2. Literal translations (or relatively so, mentioning ‘days’ or long time): ooku no hi (我多クノ日), hi no tsuzuku kagiri (日のつづく限り), nissū ooku (日數多く), hi hisashiku (日久しく), toki hisashiku (時久しく), and finally, nagai/nagaki hibi ni watatte (長い/長き日々にわたって) (in A-9 and A-12—a strange coincidence). It should also be pointed out that although in the MT this clause is the final one in the psalm, in most translations it comes before the earlier one (5.3.19), or in its earlier part, following the first-person pronoun. The only exceptions are A-6 (but like in 5.3.13, in his revised version, A-6a, Barbaro reverted to the ‘correct’ Japanese order), and, as in several earlier cases, A-12. 5.4 Some Aspects of the Translation Fujiwara Fujio (1974, 287), when viewing briefly some of the translations of Psalm 23 published up to his time, made the observation that as far as Japanese style is concerned, no progress has been made since the Meiji translation, and there has even been a deterioration. In this he may be right, even regarding the translations that came after his time, but still, there are various other aspects of the translations that should be considered and analyzed. In this section some observations will be made and discussed based on the data gathered from the detailed analysis of the various translations above. The issues to be discussed here are the translation of the psalm as poetry, the question of ‘faithfulness’, and the variety in translation. Further discussions will be left for the concluding chapter of the book. 5.4.1 Translating Psalm 23 as Poetry Was Psalm 23 treated as poetry by the translators? We are now in a position to discuss which strategies were adopted in the various translations. However, the poetry of the psalm in its original Hebrew version should be considered first. Referring to the aspects of biblical poetry mentioned above (5.1), the following observations can be made:



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions

311

1.  Compared with many other examples of biblical poetry, parallelism is not very conspicuous in this psalm, at least not the type using synonymity. However, we do find in this psalm what Alter (1985, 22) terms “static parallelism” which works with complementary notions, “that is, two coordinated items belonging to the same category”, and is “at least as common a form of static parallelism as synonymity”.42 This principle can be detected, to various degrees, all along the psalm; it is most obvious in v. 2 (green pastures and still waters), and in v. 5 (the table, the oil, the cup), but the other verses can also be said to include complementary notions. This form of parallelism should not be difficult to maintain in the translation, as long as all the elements are faithfully preserved. 2. In rhythm too, psalm 23 is relatively inconsistent when compared with some other psalms. Still, although the rhythm changes from verse to verse, there is regularity to it, as well as a gradual increase in length: in v. 1 the rhythm is based on 2:2 stresses; in v. 2 on 3:3; in v. 3 on 2:3:2; in v. 4 on 4:3:3:4; in v. 5 on 3:2:3:2; in v. 6 on 4:3:3:2. In spite of the irregularity, the internal rhythm of each verse can be felt, and the notion of poetry reading is unmistakable. Regarding translation, any attempt to preserve this or similar rhythm will necessarily cause compromises in terms of conveying the contents. However, another aspect should be regarded here, and this is the concise nature of each verset; to quote Harushovsky again (2007, 599): “The versets are static, independent units, well balanced against each other. This is supported by the nature of biblical syntax which favors parataxis to the subordination of clauses and phrases.” Maintaining the concise and independent nature of the versets and their balance against each other would be one of the means for conveying the poetic nature of the original in the translation. But can this be done with a syntax that is governed by subordination rather than by parataxis? 3. As for other poetic means which are based on sound repetition, we can mention the rhyming with the final syllable ni in v. 2, a syllable which is repeated later 3 more times, becoming persistent and associated with the psalm in Hebrew, and the alliteration in v. 4, lo ’ira ra‛, and probably also in v. 3, napši yešobeb, and v. 5, dišanta bašemen ro’ši.

42 For a different view see Kugel 1981, 49–51; and see Alter 1985, 4–6.

312

chapter five

Three strategies for translating poetry were mentioned above (5.1), and we will now consider how they were adopted in the case of Psalm 23. 1. The first strategy would have been to convert the Hebrew psalm into a familiar form of Japanese poetry. The only translator to do so consistently was Chamberlain in his ‘versified’ version, C-8(I) (above 5.2.1). Using the ancient form of the chōka, with its 5–7 rhythm, makura kotoba and archaic grammar and idioms, Chamberlain created a free version of the original to suite Japanese classical tastes. He was probably the only translator to regard the psalm first and foremost as poetry, which must remain true poetry in the translation as well. In going the way he did, he sacrificed some of the original poetic elements in favor of native ones. Still, in one respect his version can be said to be close to the original, in that the short units of 5 or 7 syllables somewhat resemble the original, although they are not independent units as most of the Hebrew versets are (parataxis), but rather often joined by a grammatical connection from line to line (subordination). Chamberlain also sacrificed the specific theological content of the psalm, which for him must have been less important, but which for Christian translators is of the utmost importance. The missionaries were skeptic of Chamberlain’s proposal, realizing the constraints it would put on their work, and opted for clarity over beauty. Another, much more partial attempt, to adopt the psalm to a familiar form of Japanese prosody was made by Yuasa Hangetsu in B-4 (5.2.2). He was aiming at maintaining the familiar Japanese quantitative rhythm of 5 and 7 syllables, but in an innovative way, perhaps influenced by Western poetry: rather than counting syllables he created a system of counting characters, which led to printed lines of even length in each stanza, but without any familiar rhythm when read aloud. The result can hardly be considered poetic, and there was no reason for it to be adopted by other translators. Although full-scale adoption of a Japanese poetic form in translating the psalms may not be considered a viable option, the occasional adoption of Japanese poetic elements should not be ruled out, as already suggested by Sekine (see 3.1, A-1 above). What seems like a rather incidental example is found in A-3 (5.3.16) where kosi rewayah was translated with the line ikani taenaru kana (‘how exquisite!’), resembling familiar Japanese poetical conventions, particularly if we regard only the last two words as a fivesyllable last line from a haiku, including a kireji. Perhaps a more consistent use of such methods should be considered by future translators. 2. The second strategy of translating would be to set Psalm 23 in Japanese in a form similar or resembling biblical Hebrew poetical ­conventions.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 313

Unlike the first strategy, this one is less clear-cut in this particular case. It is often difficult to determine from the translated texts to what extent the translators were consistently conscious of translating poetry, and attempting to preserve the original form, especially in the case of the relatively free rhythm of biblical poetry, and particularly in the case of Psalm 23, which has little semantic parallelism. Some points to consider in this respect are as follows: a.  The parallelism in Psalm 23 is based mainly on complementary notions, as demonstrated above. These are mostly maintained in the translations, but perhaps would be hard to experience as a form of poetry. An interesting case is B-8, which in its translation of v. 6 translated the parallel ‘all the days of my life’ and ‘for many days’ with similar words in Japanese but with a certain enhancement:   inochi no aru kagiri / inochi no aran sono kagiri

b. The most difficult element to preserve in this case would be the rhythm, based on units of stressed words of similar or corresponding length in each verse. Japanese is markedly different from Hebrew, and it would probably be impossible to base a translation on stress elements (unlike rhythm based on units of numbered syllables, which although difficult, could have been possible, as mentioned above). c. A somewhat related issue is the question of parataxis versus subordination. The concise, often independent versets are part of the nature and appeal of biblical poetry. The difficulty in preserving this element lies in the substantially different syntax of Hebrew and Japanese. The majority of translators sacrificed this element in favor of the conservative Japanese syntax. The main exception is Matsuda Isaku, the translator of A-12, who in a few cases reflected Hebrew syntax in his translation (see discussion under 5.3.13 above). Another interesting example is Barbaro, who in a few cases in his earlier translation (A-6) did the same as Matsuda (perhaps inadvertently?), but who in his later revision (A-6a) ‘corrected’ the syntax in favor of the traditional Japanese one. These examples show that awareness of this element may lead to at least partial preservation of it in the translation. d. Another related issue is the quantitative measure. Due to the nature of biblical poetry, translators can be expected to make an effort to reduce the length of their translated units, and the overall length of the psalm. However, since the translators usually opted for clarity of expression, sometimes expanding phrases much beyond the original, very little is

314

chapter five

left of this element in the translations. This could be measured through the number of syllables, and in most cases the translations are much longer than the original, which has about 125 syllables. The most concise translation is C-11d, with close to 250 syllables,43 double the original in length; A-1, B-3 and A-5 have more than 250 each; A-6a has nearly 280, A-2, A-4 and B-11 nearly 290; A-11 and A-12 have about 300 each; B-5 has about 320. Although it is probably unavoidable that a Japanese text be longer than a corresponding Hebrew one (and in particular a biblical Hebrew one), still, efforts could be made to reduce the length, as the substantial difference in lengths of the various translations indicate. The inclusion of many pronouns, some particles (and in particular wa),44 as well as honorifics, all contribute to the expansion of the translation, as do occasional elements added by the translators. e. The final element to be mentioned in this respect is sound repetition. A translator conscious of this poetic means could find equivalents for the occurrences of sound repetition such as alliterations and rhymes, but this did not seem to happen here. The rhyming with the syllable ni was not duplicated, and cases of alliteration were apparently ignored as well (see 5.3.10 above).45 3. The third strategy for translating poetry would be to ignore it, and although this could not be claimed to have been the case in many translations of Psalm 23, the result is much the same. The only element to be preserved in the majority of the translations is the division into short lines, more or less according to the original versets (although sometimes changed for the sake of Japanese syntax), but with most other elements of poetry missing from the translations, they can hardly be called poetic.

43 The counting of syllables in the Japanese text is according to the traditional way of Japanese poetry, thus the final n sound is counted as an extra syllable, a long vowel is counted as two syllables etc. 44 Fujiwara (1974, 304) argues, with examples from translations of Ps. 19, that the adding of wa in the middle of verses which did not have it in earlier translations spoilt the beauty and rhythm of these verses. 45 Takahashi (1972) tackled the matter of sound repetition in biblical poetry through examples in the book of Isaiah, arguing for the necessity of creating the same effect in translation as in the original Hebrew, quoting Nida. He demonstrates the possibilities of reflecting the sound elements in the translation, but even so his version is not very poetic.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 315

5.4.2 A Question of Faithfulness What constitutes ‘faithfulness’ in translation? This question has been debated for many generations. It was sometimes expressed in terms of ‘free’ versus ‘literal’ translations, but these and other terms are clearly insufficient for expressing the complexity of the issue. Eugene A. Nida, who was a main figure in the field of Bible translation since the middle of the 20th century, coined the term “dynamic equivalence” (later known also as “functional equivalence”), as distinguished from “formal equivalence”.46 Nida’s method is rather complicated, and caused much debate, misuse and misunderstanding, and only a very simple exposition will be attempted here. The two methods cannot be expected to exist in reality in a pure form; rather, they represent a spectrum of approaches, with various translations falling closer to one or the other end. In the case of “formal equivalence” (FE), a translator strives to render the source text as closely as possible, even to the extent of word-for-word translation. According to this approach, the source text should be allowed to speak “in its own terms”, rather than be adjusted to the circumstances of the receptor culture. On the other hand, “dynamic equivalence” (DE) is an attempt to convey the message behind the text in terms familiar to the reader in the receptor language. Nida’s ideal in Bible translation was creating an “equivalent effect”, so that the response of the reader to the translated text would be the same as that of the reader of the original one (Nida & Taber 1969, 200). This is a difficult aim, no less so because there is no uniformity in the response to the original text and its presumed message to begin with. A famous example of DE is the decision to translate the NT phrase “Lamb of God” into an Eskimo language as “Seal of God”, replacing an unfamiliar item of realia with a familiar one, which is supposed to evoke the same feeling of innocence (Snell-Hornby 1988, 19). A conscientious attempt to implement DE in Japan took place during the work on the Interconfessional Translation but failed and had to be abandoned (see above pp. 89–90). As expected, the Japanese translations of Psalm 23 demonstrate a wide spectrum in terms of DE and FE. The closest to DE are naturally the paraphrased translations, which try to render the text as familiar as possible to 46 See Nida 1964; Nida & Taber 1969; Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997, 47–48; 60–64; Bassnett 2002, 30–36. For a reevaluation of Nida’s method see Wilt 2003, 1–13; Strauss 2005 argues in favor of functional equivalence that puts the emphasis on meaning and is against the “fallacy” of formal equivalence.

316

chapter five

their readers, in particular A-8, as well as Oyama Reiji (A-10) who argued in favor of DE, although they might not have gained Nida’s approval for their methods, and it is indeed questionable whether they were able to create the required “equivalent effect”; more often, they seem to have been following their own theological sensibilities. But the other translations also contain aspects close to DE, even against their formal strategy. Hepburn made the following rule for translating the Bible: “The exact meaning of the original should be rendered without addition or subtraction, and, as much as possible, with strict adherence to the letter, to the figurative expressions, and peculiar idioms of the original” (see Appendix). His ideal was strict FE, and A-1 can be said to be relatively loyal to this ideal, although there are cases where it is closer to the DE pole, for example, with en o mōke in v. 5 (see 5.3.15). The extent to which Japanese words such as tamashii, megumi, awaremi and others convey “the exact meaning of the original” is also questionable. The relative loss of the poetic function is another matter, as is the use of honorifics, which add an element not prevalent in the original to the translation, and again pushes the translation towards the DE pole. So although when measured along the spectrum, the majority of Japanese translations can be judged closer to FE, they cannot be said to adhere firmly to that pole. Another way to discuss the question of faithfulness is according to the distinction between ‘adequacy’ and ‘acceptability’ in translation. This question will be taken up later (see 7.2 below). 5.4.3 The Variety in Translation The last point to be considered briefly at this stage is the great variety of words and expressions encountered in the various translations of Psalm 23. On the one hand there is the considerable influence of a prestigious translation over the following ones, and the translators’ relative faithfulness to its tradition; at least some expressions set in the Meiji Translation (A-1) found their way into almost every subsequent translation, with few exceptions (usually those of paraphrased translations and/or those totally dependent on another, usually English translation), but on the other hand, even those translators following A-1 found it necessary to choose new expressions and replace many words used by their predecessors. In part this is due to the passing of time and the changes in language, which always necessitate the editing or replacing of former translations. Another factor is the relative richness of the Japanese language, which often offers a variety of apparently synonymous expressions, many of which have



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 317

been adopted from other languages (Miller 1982, 29–30). There is also the issue of originality: all translators feel they must bring something new into their translation, in order to justify their endeavor. Still, when compared with the English translations, the amount of variety in the Japanese ones is almost staggering. In 20 examined English translations or revisions, all but two had “lead” for yenahaleni in v. 2, while the Japanese translations had seven different verbs, with tomonau repeated no more than 10 times out of 26. Again, in v. 4 all but two English versions had “rod” and “staff ” for the two objects mentioned (one translation had “support” and another one had “crook” for the second noun), while in 23 Japanese translations seven different words were used for the first noun, and three for the second. This may have to do with the cultural difficulty and the attempt to find the best equivalent, but even this consideration does not satisfactorily explain the vacillation to and fro between certain words. Also, as we have seen, variety is evident not only between translations, but also within the same translation, showing inconsistency and the use of many different Japanese words for translating the same Hebrew one. Again, this was something Hepburn warned against: “To observe, as much as possible, uniformity in the use of words, namely, translating the original word uniformly by the same word; especially in important and official terms” (see Appendix). However, even in the translation supervised by him, as well as in later translations, the result fell short of the target. This phenomenon was strongly criticized by Nakazawa, who apparently was the first to combine lists of Hebrew words and check how were they translated in A-1 and A-2 (Nakazawa 1960, 111–18). He found that each Hebrew word was translated with various Japanese ones, and although in some cases this is unavoidable, since the Hebrew word can mean slightly different things according to context, in many cases there was no good reason to use a different Japanese word. As was demonstrated above, the same phenomenon can still be observed in the latest translations, in particular A-11 (but also A-12). Presumably, the larger the committee involved in the process of translation, the less consistent the result. 5.5 Psalm 100 and the Identity of the Meiji Psalms Translators The Japanese translation of Psalm 100 is exceptional for being extant in three early versions which came from the same ‘environment’ of translators: one in the earliest version of the Book of Common Prayer, one in a missionaries’ translation appended to Chamberlain’s presentation, and

318

chapter five

one in the Meiji Translation (A-1) itself.47 Comparing these translations is of special interest in connection with the identity of the translators of the Book of Psalms in A-1, and the methods implemented in their work. Finding definite answers to these questions may prove impossible due to conflicting evidence and lack of documentation, but an attempt to tackle them may still prove rewarding to some extent. 5.5.1 The Three Early Versions of Psalm 100 As was mentioned in Chapter 3, at the meeting of the Asiatic Society of Japan on April 13, 1880, in which B.H. Chamberlain presented his suggestion for the translation of the Psalms into Japanese verse, a “Mr. Blanchet” handed out a translation of Psalm 100 “translated by a committee of missionaries in Sinico-Japanese style.” This was Clement T. Blanchet, an Episcopalian missionary who served in Japan from 1873 to 1883, and was an influential co-worker of C.M. Williams (NKRD 1235–6). At the time of this meeting, the first partial Japanese-language prayer book of the Episcopalian Church, translated mostly by Williams, had already been printed (before 1878, see Chapter 3 above, C-4b), and work was in progress on its edited and extended version (C-4c). Comparing the translation handed out in the meeting by Blanchet with the translation of Psalm 100 in the prayer book,48 reveals many similarities, as well as some differences. Following are the two translations, quoted verse by verse, first the earlier translation and then the 1880 one: 1. 世界皆主に楽しんでさけび喜をもつて主に事へ歌をもつてその前 に来るべし 世界皆ヱホバに喜び號はり喜びを以てヱホバに事へ歌を以て其前 に来るべし 2. 汝等、主は神なるを知るべし主我等を造り玉へり 汝等ヱホバは神なるを知るべし主は我らを造り玉へり 3. 我等は自ら造りしにあらず、主の民主の牧養ふ羊なり 我等自ら造りしにあらず主の民主に牧養る羊なり 4. 主の門に入れて謝し、主の殿に昇て讃美主に謝し、聖名を讃美奉 るべし 感謝を以て主の門に入り讃美を以て主の殿に昇り主に謝し聖名を 讃美奉るべし 5. 主は憐みあり主の恩み限りなく、その誠世々に尽ざればなり 主は恩あり主の憐み永遠くその誠世々に盡ざればなり 47 There were also the relatively early Russian Orthodox translation in B-1, as well as Chamberlain’s in C-8, but they came from different environments from the other three. 48 Printed in Chamberlain 1880, 311–312; Yazaki 1960, 77, respectively.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 319

1. sekai mina shu ni tanoshinde sakebi yorokobi o motte shu ni tsukae uta o motte sono mae ni kitarubeshi. sekai mina Yehoba ni yorokobi yobawari; yorokobi o motte Yehoba ni tsukae, uta o motte sono mae ni kitarubeshi. 2. nanjira, shu wa kami naru o shirubeshi shu warera o tsukuri tamaheri. nanjira Yehoba wa kami naru o shirubeshi, shu wa warera o tsukuri tamaheri. 3. warera mizukara tsukurishi ni arazu, shu no tami shu no yashinau hitsuji nari. warera wa mizukara tsukurishi ni arazu, shu no tami shu ni kawaruru hitsuji nari. 4. shu no mon ni irite shashi, shu no den ni noborite home shu ni shashi, mina o home tatematsurubeshi. kansha o motte shu no mon ni iri, sanbi o motte shu no den ni nobori, shu ni shashi, mina o home tatematsurubeshi. 5. shu wa awaremi ari shu no megumi kagiri naku, sono makoto yoyo ni tsukizareba nari. shu wa megumi ari, shu no awaremi kagiri naku, sono makoto yoyo ni tsukizareba nari. The translation of Psalm 100 in KJV is: 1.  Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands. 2. Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing. 3. Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. 4. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name. 5. For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

This is the version of the psalm in the original BOCP: O Be joyful in the LORD, all ye lands. Serve the LORD with gladness, and come before his presence with a song. Be ye sure that the LORD he is God; it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. O go your way into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise; be thankful unto him, and speak good of his Name. For the LORD is gracious, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth from generation to generation.

The translation of Psalm 100 as appended to Chamberlain’s article appears in two forms: first in rōmaji transliteration, with verse numbers as above, and then, on a separate page, the text in Japanese script combining kanji and hiragana (with only Yehoba in katakana), is printed from a woodblock. Only on this latter page are appended two more lines, which are found also in the Episcopalian prayer book (C-4b), where they follow

320

chapter five

every psalm (unlike the original BOCP, where they appear only once, after the Lord’s Prayer). These lines are the translation of: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen”. The connection between the translation shown by Blanchet and the prayer book is therefore obvious. As for the psalm itself, the division and numbering of the verses do not follow those in the MT or the KJV. Verse 1 in the Japanese translation includes vv. 1 & 2 of the MT (in the BOCP they are also printed together); v. 2 equals the first half of v. 3 in MT, while v. 3 equals its second half (in the BOCP these two verses are printed together); vv. 4–5 are similar to MT. However, it seems that the translators also consulted the KJV; there are a few small differences between the English texts of the KJV and the BOCP, for example in v. 1: “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD” in KJV, as compared with “O Be joyful in the LORD” in BOCP; the translation here seems to depend on the former, in both versions: shu ni tanoshinde sakebi / Yehoba ni yorokobi yobawari. The 1880 version appears to be a revision of the earlier translation, and those responsible for it may have consulted the MT, or, more likely, the Chinese translation (from which the printing of Yehoba with a line next to it was probably taken). It should be mentioned in this context that because of the length of time it took the missionaries’ committee to complete its translation of the OT, they first printed a kanbun version of the Psalter (1880), followed by Genesis (1881) and other OT books, and finally the full OT (1883). This was done for the benefit of educated Japanese, and also for those missionaries who were already versed in Chinese. Apparently, C.M. Williams was the initiator of the 1880 kanbun Psalter, and may have been the one who inserted the kanbun marks in the Chinese text (Ebisawa 1981, 264; 306–309). All this is to show that Williams and the people around him were very familiar with the Chinese Bible, although they were not dependent on it, and at this stage apparently translated mostly from English. The most outstanding revision is the use of Yehoba instead of shu, although inconsistently. The MT has YHWH four times in this psalm, and the revisers followed three of them, but not in v. 5. The reason for the change may be that while in a prayer book it was apparently necessary to use ‘Lord’, in other translations Yehoba could be maintained. There is no other indication of reference having been made to the MT, and it is therefore more likely that the Chinese Bible was consulted. The revisers also tried to make the use of particles more consistent, and added wa



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 321

twice after nouns in vv. 2&3. The translation of v. 4 was likewise made more consistent grammatically. Looking now at the Meiji Translation (A-1) it is evident that someone else was the translator of this psalm, completely independent of both the Episcopal versions, and probably more aware of the MT. In v. 3 the MT has a case of qere and ketib: the ketib is ‫ וְ לֹא ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬while the qere is ‫וְ לֹו ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬, altering the meaning considerably. The KJV goes with the ketib, as did the Septuagint and the Vulgate; its translation reads: “it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves.” Most later translations adopted the qere reading, for example, RSV: “It is he that made us, and we are his”, and so did A-1. It is highly illuminating to see how completely different two translations, made in the same place, and at more or less the same time, both by foreign missionaries assisted by native Japanese speakers and dependent at least partially on the Chinese translation, can be. Following is the translation of the psalm in A-1: 第100篇 感謝のうた 1 全地よヱホバにむかひて歡ばしき聲をあげよ 2 欣喜をいだきてヱホバに事へ うたいつゝその前にきたれ 3 知れヱホバこそ神にますなれ われらを造りたまへるものはヱホバ にましませば我 儕はその屬なり われらはその民その草苑のひ つじなり 4 感謝しつゝその門にいり ほめたゝへつゝその大庭にいれ 感謝し てその名をほめ たゝへよ 5 ヱホバはめぐみふかくその憐憫かぎりなく その眞實よろづ世にお よぶべければなり 1. zenchi yo yehoba ni mukaite yorokobashiki koe o ageyo 2. yorokobi o idakite yehoba ni tsukae utaitsutsu sono mimae ni kitare 3. shire yehoba koso kami ni masunare warera o tsukuri tamaeru mono wa yehoba ni masimaseba warera wa sono mono nari warera wa sono tami sono maki no hitsuji nari 4. kansha shitsutsu sono mikado ni ire hometataetsutsu sono ooniwa ni ire kansha shite sono na o hometataeyo 5. yehoba wa megumi fukaku sono awaremi kagiri naku sono makoto yorozu yo ni oyobubekerebanari

The connection with the Chinese translation is also evident here; several kanji and kanji combinations that are used in A-1 but cannot be found in the two Episcopalian versions, were taken from the Chinese translation: v. 1 全地, 歡; v. 2 欣喜; v. 3 草苑; v. 5 眞實. However, this probably belongs to the final editing stage, when the Japanese participants prepared the translated text for publication and made it look more ‘respectable’ (see below).

322

chapter five

This translation of Ps. 100 in A-1 shows consistency with that of Ps. 23 in various ways: the use of kanji compounds is similar; the style is much more concise and flowing than the earlier translations of this psalm (except for v. 3, which is a bit too long); tob and ḥesed are translated the same as in Ps. 23, megumi / awaremi (恩惠と憐憫) and the use of kanji is inconsistent as usual. 5.5.2 The Identity of the Translators The above comparison was made also in order to try and clear another point, which is the authorship of the translation of the Book of Psalms in A-1. Was it the work of G.F. Verbeck, Matsuyama Takayoshi and Uemura Masahisa alone, or did C.M. Williams have a major part in it, as several sources insist? And what was the share of the Japanese participants compared with that of the missionaries? Definite answers may not be possible, but certain questions must be asked and deliberated. The translation of the psalms was considered by many to be the greatest achievement of the Meiji translation, which was accomplished by the combined efforts of foreigners and native Japanese speakers. Matsuyama is recorded as saying (although he made this statement in old age, some 40 years after the facts): “regarding the psalms, Dr. Verbeck would make a literal translation directly from the Hebrew text, I would construct sentences, and the three of us discussed them and made decisions”.49 The three would meet in Verbeck’s study in Tsukiji, Tokyo, starting from 1884. However, Verbeck began his translation years earlier; in fact, in a letter to his mission headquarters of May 3, 1881, he notes: “. . . O. T. translations are gradually and favorably advancing under the auspices of the Perm. Com.—Joshua and some of the Minor Prophets have been published, Psalms and a few other books will probably appear in the course of the year” (VL, 454). This means that as early as 1881 Verbeck seems to have had a more or less full translation of the Psalms; however, publication was delayed for another six years despite the urgent need. One reason must have been the great load of mission work, of preaching and teaching, shouldered by Verbeck and his colleagues, as often mentioned in his letters, which in fact include but a few references to his work on the Bible translation, compared with his long and detailed reports on various other

49 From an article about Bible translation written in December 1926; in Mizoguchi 1969, 244 (my translation).



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 323

missionary tasks.50 He was also busy with revising the work of other translators, for which he declared himself, after apologizing profusely, to be “particularly qualified”.51 And as for the translation of the Psalms themselves, according to his own evidence, Verbeck spent twice the amount of time on them than he did on other biblical texts due to “the difficulty of the poetic style”, and because “special pains ought to be bestowed on the translation of the Book of Psalms, since it is likely to be used more largely, both in the church services and in the family, than any other book of the O. T., if not of the entire Scriptures” (VL, 348). Verbeck also indicated (ibid.): in the case of the Psalms it is highly desirable to observe purity, all possible freedom from Chinese or other alien admixtures, both as regards terms and grammatical forms. In order to the attainment of this end, it devolved upon me to prepare long lists of Hebrew words with their Japanese equivalents. This necessitated a careful examination of Hebrew and Japanese philological authorities, as well as consultations with other translators. The result of this labor will, however, be available for all other O. T. translations.52

But the long delay in the publication of the Psalms must also be explained by the need for having reliable Japanese assistants for editing his work. This assistance was found only much later; in a letter of June 24, 1884 (VL, 375; Takaya 1978, 313–4) Verbeck writes that “the Rev. Mr. Matsuyama”, whom he considered “the best Christian scholar in Japan”, will come from Kobe to Tokyo “to assist me in the final revision of the Psalms, so that (D. V.) they will soon be ready for publication. Of this arrangement I am very glad!” In fact, Matsuyama mentions in his diary going to Tokyo for a period of a few weeks to work on the Psalms with Verbeck at the latter’s request, already during July-August 1882 (Mizoguchi 1969, 76), but apparently he was able to dedicate himself to the task only after two more years had passed, having moved from Kobe to Tokyo in September 1884 (ibid, 80). Still, it took another three years of joint work before the Psalms could be sent to the printer, on July 19, 1887 (ibid., 81).

50 For example, see his letter of Sept. 9, 1881 in which he enumerates his various activities, adding: “Under these circumstances it could not be expected that I should make much progress in Bible translation”. He asks to be relieved of some of his tasks, but apparently continued many of them for years to come; VL, 322; Japanese translation in Takaya 1978, 269. 51  Letter of June 7, 1884, in VL, 376; Japanese translation in Takaya 1978, 314–315. 52 Unfortunately, there is no trace left of these lists.

324

chapter five

There used to exist notebooks in which Verbeck had written his own translation for the whole Book of Psalms in rōmaji (presumably the text which was used during his sessions with Matsuyama and Uemura). It was written in black ink, with corrections added in red, and later in purple ink and blue pencil. According to Washiyama Teisaburō (1893–1980), who must have been one of the last to have seen these notebooks, in some cases, such as those of Psalms 19 and 23, it was very difficult to make out all the corrections, but the final result is very similar to the printed version (Washiyama 1927, 124–127). The notebooks were borrowed by Washiyama from Dr. Albert Oltmans (1854–1939), who, like Verbeck, was born in the Netherlands, studied in the USA, and went as a missionary to Japan, where, among many activities, he taught at Meiji Gakuin.53 Nobody seems to know what happened to the notebooks after Oltmans’ death (Fujiwara 1974, 277). All that is left are photocopies of Psalms 53–54 in Verbeck’s handwriting; the corrections are evident especially in the former psalm.54 The photocopy is not very clear, but it is possible to detect some differences between the manuscript and the final printed version in the Meiji Translation. So if Verbeck indeed wrote down the translation of all 150 psalms, and was aided by Matsuyama and Uemura in turning them into beautifully written Japanese, where does C.M. Williams come into the picture? His involvement in the translation of the Psalms is unquestionable, but its extent and importance are still not clear. It is well established that since their time in Nagasaki, and although they belonged to different missions, Williams and Verbeck cooperated in various ways and were on very friendly terms, Verbeck even naming one of his sons “Channing” in honor of Williams. It seemed almost inevitable that they would cooperate in a task of such importance to them both. As we have seen before, Williams was involved in some of the earliest efforts of translating the Bible into Japanese, and he was most likely responsible for the translation of some psalms which are included in the Japanese versions of BOCP (see Chapter 3, C-4). He was never a member of the missionaries’ committee for translating the OT, but he agreed to take part in the translation of the Psalms. Williams’ published letters deal mainly with his other missionary activities, but in a rare reference

53 NKRD 274; Akiyama 1982, 95–100. 54 A photocopy can be seen in Sawa 1938, 352–353; also in Washiyama 1927, between pp. 126–127, and in Ogata 1961, before p. 1; see also Fujiwara 1974, 276–278.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 325

to the subject of translation, in a letter of January 23, 1882, he mentions “Dr. Verbeck—who has been appointed with me to translate the Psalms into Japanese”, and asks for books on Hebrew and the Psalms (Williams 2000, 313, Letter 190). And from Verbeck’s side, there is also some testimony in his letters to Williams’ involvement. There is among Verbeck’s letters a page which is a part of a longer letter the beginning and end of which are missing. Takaya Michio, who typed the letters, placed this page after the letter of August 21, 1882 (but did not include it in his Japanese translation of the letters). In it Verbeck writes: “I am happy to say that my part of the Psalms (from the first to the end of seventy-seventh) is now translated. It only remains to be submitted to my collaborator, (Bishop Williams) and subsequently delivered to the Permanent Committee and . . .” [the rest is missing] (VL, 348–9). This seems to indicate that Verbeck and Williams first divided the Psalms between themselves; however, Williams’ contribution may have been reduced later to Psalms 78 to 120 (see below). In his 1883 history of the Protestant mission in Japan (p. 133*), Verbeck writes that in 1882 Williams’ “literary work [. . .] consisted partly of the translation of large portions of the Book of Common Prayer and, in cooperation with another missionary [himself, presumably], of the Book of Psalms”. Also, in a Japanese article reviewing the history of the translation of the Bible in Japan, published in the Kirisutokyō Shinbun in February 1888, Verbeck, when detailing the contributions sent by various missionaries to the OT translation committee, indicates: “Williams, Psalms 78 to 120”.55 However, later in the same article, where he lists the different OT books according to their first year of publication in separate volumes and the names of their translators, Verbeck inexplicably ascribes the Psalms to himself alone. Another piece of evidence comes from Hepburn, the leader of the translators. In a letter written on December 26, 1884, in which he reports to his mission headquarters on the progress of OT translating work, Hepburn says that Verbeck had been focusing on the translation of the Psalms together with Williams.56 Similar mentions are made in his letters to his brother Slator; already in a letter of May 10, 1882 he reports that 55 The article is reprinted in Sawa 1938, 116–119. Ebisawa deduced from this that Williams had a “partial responsibility” for the translation of the above psalms as they appeared in the final version (Ebisawa 1980, 264, my translation). 56 I was able to locate this letter only in its Japanese translation, in Hepburn 2009, 396.

326

chapter five

Dr. ­Verbeck and Bishop Williams were translating the Psalms, and were nearly done, adding that publication could be expected the same year, even before Genesis, since Thompson was doing a very slow job and he wished he would make a greater effort; in a letter of December 22, 1884 he reports that Dr. Verbeck was very busy with sermons and missionary work, but he was working on the Psalms and Isaiah and expected to finish soon (Williams is not mentioned); in a letter of May 13, 1886 he reports that Verbeck was still working on the Psalms; on November 9, 1886 he reports the completion of the translation of the OT, and listed the books translated by himself; on March 11, 1887 he reports on editing the translation, mentioning that Verbeck’s Psalms still needed revision, and the work was still in progress on July 27; the final OT translations were by then being printed.57 Yazaki Kenichi dedicated very detailed studies to Williams’ work, and especially his translation of the BOCP, but in an article reviewing his “translation and literary work”, the translation of Psalms is not mentioned. However, in his book about Williams, in a chapter dedicated to his “friendship with Verbeck”, he mentions the psalms included in the BOCP and Williams’ initiative in printing the kanbun Psalms, finally adding: “it is said that Williams translated Psalms 78 to 120 in the OT that was published in 1887” (my translation).58 Apparently, Yazaki did not study this subject as closely as he did regarding the BOCP, so he only quoted what “is said” about it. A letter from Verbeck to Williams, dated October 31, 1881, was printed in an early book about the latter.59 The letter is printed in Japanese, but it was in all probability written originally in English, and translated into Japanese by Motoda, the compiler of the book.60 The Japanese version 57 According to the Japanese translation of the letters in Takaya 1976, pp. 179, 199, 201, 217–8, 221, 225. 58 Yazaki 1965; Yazaki 1988, 53; the latter book is written in popular format and does not quote its sources. 59 Motoda 1914, 235–236; reproduced in Fujiwara 1974, 279, and in Ebisawa 1981, 270. The letter is not included in the collection of Verbeck’s letters which appeared in Japanese translation (Takaya 1978), and is not on the list of Verbeck’s letters appended to a later book (Griffis 2003, 447–452). My efforts to locate the original letter have failed. Inquiring at the Kyoto Chapter of the Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan (日本聖公会), I was told that it seems that this letter, as well as other documents concerning Williams and printed in Motoda’s book, no longer exist, and must have been burned on Williams’ instructions (see more below). However, a few other documents are still kept in their archives, as mentioned below. 60 In the same book several other documents that were obviously written in English are given in Japanese translation only, without any comment.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 327

is written in a very elaborate sōrōbun style, which sometimes makes it difficult to perceive the original meaning. In his letter Verbeck informs Williams that he was sending him the translation of Ps. 39, which he had made from the original Hebrew. He says that apart from a few places, his translation agreed with that of Williams (the language from which the latter’s translation was done is not specified, but it could have been Hebrew as well). The letter seems to suggest that Williams had shown Verbeck his translation not only for Ps. 78–120 as indicated elsewhere, but of other psalms as well (Ps. 39 in this case), and that there was a constant discussion of the translation between the two. Verbeck writes that he understood that Williams preferred the use of certain expressions, but apparently he preferred otherwise, although he suggested that Williams might change them back later and let him know. The expressions he mentions are: nanji (汝) rather than shu (主), omote (をもて) rather than nite (にて), and shime (しめ) rather than sase (させ). In the printed version of Ps. 39 in A-1 the translation is according to Verbeck’s preferences, so he must have had the final say. Although the above-mentioned letter no longer seems to exist, a later one from Verbeck to Williams can be read in photocopy at the archive of the Kyoto Chapter of the Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan (II-B/162/167). It is a short hand-written note on a lined stationary paper: Feb. 8th / 82. My Dear Bishop, Herewith please to receive the Psalms. The 51st you have. I also send the 130th, as I had it done before receiving yours. Sincerely yours G.F. Verbeck

Beginning immediately below this, and continuing on the other side of the page, are notes written in a different hand, much more difficult to read, apparently Williams’, regarding linguistic questions in Psalms 130, 128, 116, 127 (in that order).61 A few words are written in Hebrew, in square letters, and Japanese words are transliterated in English letters. It seems that the troublesome little word ki (see 4.2.3) was a major concern; it is mentioned in a note on 130:4, as well as 128:2, where it says: “what is the

61  Nakai 2007, 250, also quotes Verbeck’s letter, but writes that “The rest of his letter . . . is filled with discussion about Hebrew terms”, ignoring the fact that these “discussions” were not written by Verbeck, but that the empty space was most likely used by Williams to write points for himself.

328

chapter five

meaning . . . when (also[? ] 4)”. Regarding 130:1 it says “omit aa”; however, A-1 still has aa at the beginning of the verse—another example of Verbeck’s sticking to his own opinion. Another little-known document concerning Williams, Verbeck and the translation of the Psalms is also kept in the archives of the Kyoto Chapter of the Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan (I-B/3/26/97).62 These are notes in Williams’ hand in a thick, bound diary; Nakai (2007, 235, 250 & 304), writes about “A number of rare documents discovered during this research”, “newly found rare documents” and “A number of new precious manuscripts [which] were, during this research, unfolded in Kyoto”. However, this diary was already exhibited at Rikkyō University in 1999, and a photo of a double-spread can be seen in the catalogue of the exhibition (Rikkyō 1999, 61). Still, as far as I could ascertain, this document has never been studied or described in detail, and Nakai too fails to give any description of it,63 so a short description will be offered here. This volume is an untitled diary of several hundred unnumbered white pages (25.5 × 20 cm.), which apparently was used for two different purposes before Williams started scribing his notes in it.64 Four pages at one end of the diary and seven at the other end are written in ink, in a very clear cursive hand, listing recipes (“Rice Pie”, “Boiled Custard”) and menus (“Breakfast”, “Dinner”, “Desert”, “Tea”). Then there are 104 pages which were used for studying kanji characters; these are cursive characters, printed on paper that was cut into small squares and pasted onto the page in a line from top to bottom. Next to each piece of paper—on eight of those pages only—the same character is written in a beautiful hand, often showing two or three stages of writing the character. Some of the characters—on six of those pages—also have next to them a few lines of explanations written in English and using katakana for transliteration; the hand here could be Williams’, although the writing is much clearer than in his notes on the Psalms. This looks like an aid for learning which was 62 The fact that this document still exists is an extremely lucky break for us; in a will written already 30 years before his death, Williams ordered all his papers to be burned, and on returning to the USA shortly before his death himself burned many documents; see Williams 2000, xix. 63 Nakai refers misleadingly to Williams’ Psalms notes as “manuscripts”, while in fact it is but one volume. Apart from that she only quotes the one letter by Verbeck cited above. Also, she calls Williams’ notes “annotated Hebrew lexicon on the Psalms” (297, 304), which gives the wrong impression of these notes. 64 The reuse made of this diary, and the use of the empty space in Verbeck’s letter to him, illustrate the observation made by Ion 2009, 71, that “Williams was careful with money (to the point of parsimoniousness)”.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 329

prepared specifically by a Japanese teacher, but abandoned at an early stage. Some of the notes on the Psalms are written over these pages. The notes on the Psalms can be divided into four parts, which altogether fill perhaps a fifth of the diary or less (many blank pages are left in the middle). From left to right at the beginning of the diary (opposite to the direction of the kanji exercise) is a detailed study of Psalms 78–119, filling 84 pages (not including two pages in the middle left blank perhaps by mistake). Almost every word of many psalms is written in square Hebrew letters, followed by an English explanation in cursive hand which is sometimes difficult to read. The first pages are written in pencil, later ones are in ink. The Hebrew words are often not written as appearing in the psalm, but analyzed; for example, in 78:1 ‫( אזנכם‬your ear) is given as: “‫ אזנ‬the ear ‫ כם‬yours”; in v. 2, for the verb ‫ אביעה‬the root ‫ נבע‬is given; for ‫‘( משל‬parable’ or ‘proverb’), four numbered definitions are given, apparently copied from a biblical dictionary. Before Psalm 101 appears the date 1882 Jan. [?] 2; on the next page the date at the top is 1882 Jan. [?] 3, but the last digit of the year has been changed to 3 in ink.65 For some of the later Psalms only a few words are analyzed. Occasionally there is a Japanese word in rōmaji written next to a Hebrew one, but this is not done systematically. The second part, on the other side of the diary, has 41 pages which go from right to left, beginning on the page facing the first one of the third part (which goes from left to right). This includes short notes on most of the psalms, divided into three groups in the following order: 1–77, then 120–150, and then 78–119. This grouping has to do with the division of labor between Verbeck and Williams; it now seems to me, based on the above evidence, that initially the two divided the book between themselves more or less in half, but while Verbeck translated Psalms 1–77, Williams translated only 78–119, and then Verbeck must have picked up the rest and did 120–150 as well (although the final version was basically his for the whole book). The notes in this part include Japanese translations of full verses in rōmaji, but these are not full translations of any specific psalm. There are often question marks next to words. The third part includes five pages written from left to right over the kanji exercise pages, and it carries the title “Psalms suggestions and Dr. Verbeck’s translation”. This includes notes on some, but not all Psalms 1–23.

65 If the dates are indeed January 2 and 3, perhaps the writer inscribed “1882” out of habit, and realizing the mistake later corrected to “1883”. There are no other dates in the book as far as I could see.

330

chapter five

The fourth part comprises 6 pages, written on the inner cover and adjacent pages, again including the analysis of Hebrew words in a few psalms. At the top of one of these pages, next to “Ps 71” is written “Dr. Verbeck’s translation”, but this is not followed by a full translation, but again only by the analysis of some Hebrew words. On another page we find “Notes on Dr. Verbeck”. Of special interest to us here is Psalm 100, the three translations of which were introduced above. We have noticed the great difference between what appears to be William’s translation in the BOCP, and the later version in the Meiji Translation. In his manuscript Williams dealt with Psalm 100 in two places. In the first part of the manuscript, which he started by analyzing every word in the Hebrew text, Williams analyzes only 7 words from this psalm (the others must have been familiar to him by then), but writes an English translation for its 5 verses, as follows: [1] Thanksgiving praises Shout for joy to Jehovah all the earth [2] Serve Jehovah with gladness ( joy) come before him with songs [3] Know that Jehovah is God He made [. . .] us and not we ourselves (we are) his people & the s[h]eep of his pasture [4] Come into His gates with thanksgiving & His courts with praise give thanks unto Him bless His name [5] For Jehovah is good, to eternity his mercy to generations & generations his faithfulness or truth. It is clear that Williams used both the MT and KJV here (as well as other sources). It would seem that he strived to prepare for himself a literal translation of the MT, perhaps in preparation for translating it into Japanese, but he was either referring back to the KJV, or recollecting its text from memory. For example, in v. 4 his version “Come into His gates with thanksgiving & His courts with praise” is very similar to the KJV’s “Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise”. Note that here he writes “Jehovah” rather than “Lord”, which he used in the BOCP translation. In the above, Williams still avoids the question of qere and ketib in v. 3, going with the traditional rendering as he did in the BOCP translation. However, this question comes up in the second part of the manuscript. Here Williams tackles the textual problem with the aid of the scholarly books available to him, and considers different translations for v. 3 (the rest of the Psalm is not mentioned in this case). The writing here is difficult to read, and Williams uses shorthand codes to refer to various books,



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 331

not all of which were deciphered. He begins with two possible versions for the first part of the verse, both somewhat different from the BOCP version but with the same meaning as before (the question-mark is written in the margin): ? warera mizukara ni aradzu Kare (wa) warera wo tskure66 tamaeyo or Kare wa warera wo tskure tamayero warera ni mizukara ni aradzu

Also in the margin next to the translation he writes: “which ‫ לו‬or ‫”לא‬. He then adds four lines in which he refers to various authors using many abbreviations (see below), before considering another translation which follows the qere, and which also includes the last words of the verse in a rendering already quite similar to A-1: ? warera wa sono [‫ לו‬written above the line] mono (nari) sono tami sono[?] maki no hitsuji

In his above-mentioned letter of January 23, 1882 (Williams 2000, 313, Letter 190), Williams was asking to be sent from the USA “any good critical work on the Psalms—other than Delitezsch [sic] and Alexander”, meaning that he was already using the latter two critical works. By the first he meant Franz Delitzsch (1813–90), the noted German theologian who published a celebrated commentary on the Bible, including the Psalms, which had been available in English translation at least since 1871. The second, Joseph A. Alexander (1809–60), was an American biblical scholar who published The Psalms: Translated and Explained in 3 volumes (Philadelphia, 1850). In the fourth line of his abbreviated discussion mentioned above, Williams writes “alex” as one of three authors who “prefer ‫”לא‬. And indeed, Alexander (v. 2, 347–8) explains both options in his interpretation, but rules in favor of the ketib. Williams himself seems not to have made up his mind at this stage: he writes down both translations with a question mark next to each. The final decision must have been Verbeck’s. Here we must return once more to a point mentioned earlier: the long delay in the publishing of the translation of the Psalms, in spite of the fact that it was considered urgent from the missionaries’ point of view. We have learned that as early as 1881 Verbeck was expecting the publication of the translation in a matter of months; however, he then recruited Williams to help him, and may have decided to start all over again. A year later, in 66 Note that Williams spells this word as it is commonly pronounced, tskure, rather than as it should be transcribed, tsukure.

332

chapter five

May 1882, Hepburn was expecting that the work of Verbeck and Williams would be concluded within the same year. We now know from the dates in Williams’ manuscript that during that year—and perhaps the following one—he was still busy analyzing the language of the Psalms. Even with the heavy load of other duties which burdened the translators, and the evidently painstaking effort they took to analyze every Hebrew word, the long delay is inexplicable, unless we take into account the pivotal role of the Japanese ‘assistants’. In fact, in spite of their clear advantage in the knowledge of the source languages (Hebrew, English and others), and their considerable ability in Japanese, the missionaries would not assume responsibility for a translated biblical version that had not undergone the editing of native speakers. Verbeck was able to enlist Matsuyama’s full cooperation only in 1884, and even then it took another three years before the task was completed. So although, as argued by Nakai (2007, 254; 304), we have a good reason to believe that the translation of the Psalms was accomplished by Verbeck and Williams based on their close study of the Hebrew text and its contemporary interpreters, we must also accept that Matsuyama and Uemura had a crucial part in the final result.67 I would also argue, based on the above evidence, that Verbeck’s part was more crucial than Williams’; he was the one writing down the final rōmaji version upon which the Japanese script version was based, and he was the one collaborating with the Japanese ‘assistants’ in deciding the final version, sometimes overruling Williams’ suggestions. On the other hand, Williams’ involvement was not limited to Psalms 78–120 as has often been stated (or 78–119, as the manuscript suggests), but he and Verbeck must have exchanged views on most other psalms as well, as the evidence suggests. However, Williams’ contribution was not absorbed directly, but underwent substantial editing at the hands of Verbeck, and later his Japanese colleagues. Perhaps Verbeck’s wish to hear Williams’ opinion on all the psalms, or the latter’s constant suggestions for revision, was another reason for the long delay. Another possible reason is that although Verbeck must have received from Williams his version of Psalms 78–120 (more or less), he kept on working in order to make an independent version of his own.

67 In his 1909 memorial lecture, Prof. M.N. Wyckoff who knew him well says about Verbeck: “Besides revision of the whole [OT], Dr. Verbeck’s special work, in which he took great delight, was the translation in connection with Rev. Matsuyama of the Psalms”; Biographical Sketches, 12.



translations compared: psalm 23 in its numerous versions 333

The last point above can be illustrated by the case of Psalm 100. We may now safely assume that in the BOCP version Williams was still translating from English. Although he must have known some Hebrew already, he only took up the detailed study of the language of the Book of Psalms in the early 1880’s. He may have given Verbeck a new version based on this study, but still, the printed version must have been mostly Verbeck’s own work, as can be seen also from the disagreement over the question of qere and ketib in Williams’ notes and the printed translation.68 The contribution of the Japanese assistants, both to the style and in the use of kanji (some borrowed from the Chinese translation) must have been substantial. Moreover, the interesting conclusion is that although the missionaries may have seemed in a powerful position in comparison with their younger converts, who needed to be taught everything about their adopted religion, the Japanese were in a no less powerful position over the missionaries as far as the Bible translation was concerned. The result of their cooperation turned out a modern classic, and perhaps the very long period it took to complete was one of the reasons for the success of this translation.

68 Further examination of Williams’ surviving manuscript may still clear up a few more puzzles regarding the translation of the Psalms. And if Verbeck’s notebooks ever turn up again, they would be a major factor in solving the questions surrounding the translation.

chapter six

Translations compared: A variety of examples While each of the previous two chapters offered a detailed comparative analysis of the Japanese translations of only a few OT verses, the current chapter offers concise discussions of the translations of numerous verses from various OT books. This is done with the aim of introducing examples from the work of several individual translators who have not been represented so far (together with a few familiar faces). Also, the intention is to give a taste of the translations of several more OT books and of textual styles such as dialogue, narrative and proverb. And although all the translations presented below deserve thorough analysis, by necessity the discussion of each will be brief. First the focus is on three OT books with examples from numerous individual translations, and then it shifts to examine to what extent Hebraisms can be detected in the Japanese Bible, particularly in comparison with the KJV, which is famous for its great amount of Hebraisms, and which was one of the sources for the early Japanese translations. 6.1 Genesis The book of Genesis, as can be expected by its position as the first book of the Bible and its essential story of Creation and Fall, is one of the OT books with the largest number of full or partial translations into Japanese, second only to the Psalms. Apart from the full OT translations (A-1 through A-12), and the various short versions (B-8, B-10), translations of Genesis include the following, in chronological order: 1. B-3b—Sakon Yoshisuke (Protestant, classical language, full translation). 2. C-11e—Max Knappstein SJ & Chiba Ichiju (Catholic, classical, chapters 1–2). 3. C-11f—Franciscan monastery of Den-en-chōfu (Catholic, mildly classical, full). 4. B-5—Shibutani Osamu (Catholic, classical, full). 5. C-12—Wakiya Yoshito (Protestant, colloquial, chapters 1–5). 6. B-6—Terada Hiroshi (Protestant, colloquial, chapters 1–11).



translations compared: a variety of examples

335

7. B-13—Nakazawa Kōki (Protestant, colloquial, full except for 6 chapters or parts thereof). 8. B-14a—Kida Kenichi (Protestant, colloquial, full except for chapter 36). Of the above numbers 1–6, only a short example of the first three verses of Genesis will be given; of numbers 7–8 a few more verses will be quoted. As before, only a few facts regarding each translation will be repeated below (for further details see Chapter 3). Transliteration follows the furigana in the original texts, or the most common reading where furigana was not provided. 6.1.1 Genesis 1:1–3: From the Earliest Digest to the Latest Translation The following short examples demonstrate the great variety of styles, as well as theological and scholarly positions, that are typical of the Japanese translations of the OT. However, before quoting from the full and partial translations, an earlier text should be remembered. This is Hamada Hikozō’s “Digest of Creation” (see Chapter 3, C-1), which although a digest and not a real translation, has the distinction of including some biblical verses in Japanese translation perhaps for the first time in modern Japan. Below is the part from Hamada’s text which is the equivalent of Genesis 1:1–3: C-1 Hamada Hikozō (1866) (1) 始て神ハ天と地とを創造なしたりしか、(2) 未だ地に定まりし形も なく、・・・ことに暗黒なりき。(3) 然ところ神声を揚て明あれとい ひしかバ即光り生したり 1. hajimete kami wa ten to chi to o sōzō shitari shika, 2. imada chi ni sadamarishi katachi mo naku, . . . kotoni ankoku nariki. 3. shikarutokoro kami koe o agete akari are to ii shikaba soku hikari shōjiitari

Some striking similarities to later translations can be seen here, as well as differences; the reason for the similarities must be that although Hamada translated from English, he (or whoever he may have collaborated with), no doubt, must have seen a Chinese translation as well. Hamada was in contact with missionaries in Yokohama, who must have already had the Chinese Bible with them in the first few years of their stay in Japan.1 It is 1 We know this, for example, from Hepburn’s letter of February 14, 1861, quoted above Chapter 3, A-1.

336

chapter six

also likely that some missionaries were involved in his enterprise, but of course he could not state this openly, since Christianity was still banned. Following is the text of the first three verses in the Bridgman-Culbertson (‘American’) Chinese version of the OT: 1 元始時、神創造天地。2 地之虚曠、淵面晦冥、神之靈覆育水面。3 神 曰、宜有光、即有光焉。

The influence is obvious in the first verse, in particular the choice of 創造 sōzō for ‘create’. The use of 即 in v. 3 is probably also according to the example of the Chinese version. It is interesting to note that in v. 1 Hamada added the particle wa after kami, which A-1 and other translations loyal to the classical style did not do (although he did not add it after kami in v. 3); he also added the particle to twice; these and other elements distance his text from the respectable wabun style, bringing it closer to what would be later called ‘colloquial’ style. Compare his version with the Meiji Translation which follows: A-1 The Meiji Translation (1887) 1 元始に神天地を創造り給へり 2 地は定形なく曠空しくして黑暗淵の面 にあり神の靈水の面を覆ひたりき 3 神光あれと言給ひければ光ありき 1. hajime ni kami tenchi o tsukuri tamaeri 2. chi wa katachi naku munashikushite yami wada no omote ni ari kami no rei mizu no omote o ōitariki 3. kami hikari are to ii tamaikereba hikari ariki

A-1 depends on the Chinese version to a greater extent; out of 8 kanji characters in the Chinese version of v. 1, 7 appear in the Japanese (except for 時), and what is added are two particles and the honorific verb. In his study of the language of the Meiji Translation, Morioka Kenji found that Genesis has the largest amount of kanji in the OT: 420 out of the first 1,000 printed characters, compared with 177 in the Psalms (Morioka 1991, 214–5); this is another indication of the extensive influence of the Chinese translation on the style of A-1, and also of the differences in the work of the various translators. The translation of the first and third verses is classical and succinct, and can hardly be improved upon (unless the translation is based on a different interpretation of the MT, as we shall see below), but the second verse is less clear. Since nobody knows for sure the true meaning of tohu wabohu, translators will always have a difficulty with it. The translators used here both katachi naku (formless) and munashikushite (void, empty),



translations compared: a variety of examples

337

an obvious indication that they were also following the KJV, which has the speculative translation: “And the earth was without form, and void”. B-3b Sakon Yoshisuke (1911) 1 太始に 神 天地を造れり2 地は 渾沌・虚空、闇 淵の面に在りき。 而して 神 の靈水の面を覆ひたりき。3 其時 神 言へり「光 在らしめ よ」。而して 光在りき。 1. hajime ni kami tenchi o tsukureri. 2. chi wa konton kokū, yami wada no omote ni ariki. shikōshite kami no rei mizu no omote o ōitariki 3. sono toki kami ieri “hikari arashimeyo”. shikōshite hikari ariki.

As in his version of the Psalms, Sakon revised the text of A-1 even less than would seem apparent on first impression. His only conspicuous contribution here is in v. 2 with konton kokū (‘chaos’ and ‘empty space’), which is similar to what A-1 says in different words (kango rather than wago), but also creates a concise expression, somewhat reflecting the alliteration in the MT. As he had already done with the Psalms, Sakon rearranged the text of Genesis according to source criticism. For example, the first half of 2:4 in his version comes before 1:1; the verses 2:10–15, concerning the four rivers, are printed in smaller font, because they are intrusive to the story of the Garden of Eden. The page is sometimes divided into two or even three parts to give episodes which are considered parallel, one above the other. An index at the back of the book assists the reader in locating each chapter and verse. In this sense Sakon may have been a forerunner of biblical criticism in Japan, but as far as translation goes, he was more of a reviser than an original translator, as he himself might have acknowledged. C-11e Max Knappstein SJ & Chiba Ichiju (1934) 1 元始に神天地を創造り給ひき。2 然るに地は定形無く空曠しくし て、暗黑深淵の面にあり、神の息吹水面を呵嘘けり。3 神光成れとし も曰ひければ、光成りぬ。 1. hajime ni kami tenchi o tsukuri tamaiki 2. saruni chi wa katachi naku munashikushite, yami wada no mo ni ari, kami no ibuki minamo o fukeri. 3. kami hikari nare to shimo notamaikereba, hikari narinu.

This is clearly a revision of A-1 but not necessarily an improvement on it, in spite of the effort to produce a loftier version. However, some noticeable revisions include, in v. 2, ibuki (breath) for God’s ‘spirit’ rather than rei (which was taken from the Chinese), and, in v. 3, the use of naru (to become) rather than aru (to be). Only chapters 1–2 of this version were

338

chapter six

published; Chiba later worked with Shibutani, and Knappstein translated Ruth. C-11f The Franciscan monastery of Den-en-chōfu (1936–37) 1 元始に天主天地を創造り給へり。2 地は形なく空しくして暗黑淵の面 に覆ひ、天主の靈水の上を動き給ひぬ。3 天主光あれと宣ひければ光 ありき。 1. hajime ni tenshu tenchi o tsukuri tamaeri 2. chi wa katachi naku munashikushite yami wada no omote ni ōi, tenshu no rei mizu no ue o ugoki tamainu 3. tenshu hikari are to notamaikereba hikari ariki

Here the revision of A-1 is very slight, although in the opposite direction from C-11e: simpler language and less kanji, although this is not very noticeable in the above verses (it should be noted that no furigana are provided). The major change is the use of tenshu for ‘God’, according to the Catholic position of that time (which C-11e, surprisingly, did not follow). B-5 Shibutani Osamu (1941) 1 はじめに、天主は天地を創造りたまへり。2 その地は、いまだ定りた る形なく、空漠しくして、暗黑は洪淵の面上にありき。しかして、天 主の御靈氣は水面の上を旋ひうごきましつつあり。3 ここにおいて天 主のたまひけり、「光明、成れよ」と。すなわち、光明成りぬ。 1. hajime ni, kami ametsuchi o tsukuri tamaeri 2. sono chi wa, imada sadamaritaru katachi naku, munashikushite, yami wa ōwada no ue ni ariki. shikashite, kami no mitama wa minome no ue o mai ugokimashi tsutsu ariki. 3. koko ni oite kami no tamaikeri, “hikari, nare yo” to. sunawachi, hikari narinu.

Like in his translation of the Psalms, Shibutani did not make do with one word when three could be used. He also added conjunctions such as shikashite and sunawachi. For ‘God’ he uses the kanji for tenshu, but with the furigana reading kami. In v. 2 he uses mitama for ‘spirit’ (see 5.3.6). He also uses naru in v. 3 like C-11e. C-12 Wakiya Yoshito (1941) (1) 元始、エロヒームが天地をお創りなされた時、(2) 地は混乱として 定形なく、暗黑が深き淵の上にあった。されどエロヒームの靈はその 水のおもてを覆ひ包んで居られた。(3) エロヒームが「光あれよ」と 仰せられたので、光が出て来た。 1. hajime, erohīmu tenchi o otsukuri nasareta toki, 2. chi wa konran toshite katachi naku, yami ga fukaki fuchi no ue ni atta. saredo erohīmu no rei wa sono mizu no omote ōitsutsunde orareta. 3. erohīmu ga “hikari are yo” to ōserareta node, hikari ga detekita.



translations compared: a variety of examples

339

Once again, this is a revision of A-1, but other translations were also consulted, including B-3. In v. 2 Wakiya has konran (chaos; B-3 had konton). The use of erohīmu in transliteration is conspicuous, and was not adopted by other translators. The style is ‘colloquial’, with many honorifics. Only a few words have furigana readings. B-6 Terada Hiroshi (1951) 1 元始に神が天と地とを創造りたもうたのである。2 地は形もなく、内 容もなく、深い闇が低のない淵の上にあった。しかし、神の霊が水の 表面を覆いつゝんで動いていた。3 神は言いたもうた、光あれと。す なわち、光があった。 1. hajime ni kami ga ten to chi to o tsukuri tamōta no dearu 2. chi wa katachi mo naku, naiyō mo naku, fukai yami ga soko no nai fuchi no ue ni atta. shikashi, kami no rei ga mizu no hyōmen o ōite tsutsunde ugoiteita. 3. kami wa iitamōta, hikari are to. sunawachi, hikari ga atta.

This translation anticipates the ‘colloquial’ style of A-2, including the use of dearu. The translator expanded somewhat on the original, such as with soko no nai or ‘bottomless’ deep. Like most other earlier translations, the use of honorifics is extensive. To round up the picture concerning the first verses of the Bible, it would be appropriate to quote also the two other JBS versions, as well as the most recent scholarly one: A-2 JBS Colloquial Translation (1955) 1 はじめに神は天と地とを創造された。2 地は形なく、むなしく、や みが淵のおもてにあり、神の霊が水のおもてをおおっていた。3 神は 「光あれ」と言われた。すると光があった。 1. hajime ni kami wa ten to chi to o sōzō sareta 2. chi wa katachi naku, munashiku, yami ga fuchi no omote ni ari, kami no rei ga mizu no omote o ōtteita. 3. kami wa “hikari are” to iwareta. suruto hikari ga atta.

Nothing substantial has been changed here compared with A-1, although there are many ‘cosmetic’ changes: many kanji have been replaced with kana (although sōzō, which was taken from the Chinese version, is deeply rooted and appears in all translations except for B-3b), the grammar has been modernized and honorifics updated, but the translation is principally the same. It is also a noteworthy fact that various optional translations in vv. 2 & 3 appearing in the above-quoted individual translations had no effect on this version.

340

chapter six

A-11 New Interconfessional Translation (1987) 1 始めに、神は天地を創造された。2 地は混沌であって、闇が深淵の面 にあり、神の霊が水の面を動いていた。3 神は言われた。「光あれ。」こ うして、光があった。 1. hajime ni, kami wa tenchi o sōzō sareta 2. chi wa konton deatte, yami ga shinen no omote ni ari, kami no rei ga mizu no omote o ugoiteita. 3. kami wa iwareta. “hikari are.” kōshite, hikari ga atta.

As can be expected, this translation follows A-1 and A-2, but with several small variations. In v. 2, where all other translations have two different expressions to represent tohu wabohu, here we find only one, konton, first used in B-3b. In the first half of v. 3 the words are the same as in A-2, but the order is different (A-2 followed A-1 in that respect too), closer to the Hebrew and also having a better dramatic effect. A-12 Iwanami Shoten Translation (1997) 1 はじめに神は天と地を創造した。2 地は空漠として、闇が混沌の海の 面にあり、神の霊がその水の面に働きかけていた。3 神は言った、「光 あれ」。すると光があった。 1. hajime ni kami wa ten to chi o sōzō shita 2. chi wa kūbaku toshite, yami ga konton no umi no omote ni ari, kami no rei ga sono mizu no omote ni hataraki kaketeita. 3. kami wa itta, “hikari are”. suruto hikari ga atta.

In this most recent scholarly version by Tsukimoto Akio for the Iwanami Shoten translation, v. 1 is translated traditionally (unlike the two earlier scholarly versions quoted below). Like A-11 Tsukimoto also has one word only for tohu wabohu, this time kūbaku (boundless, vague), although konton appears later on, modifying ‘the deep’, which unusually, is translated here umi (sea).2 In v. 3 Tsukimoto has the same order of words as A-11. As can be expected, this translation has no honorifics. 6.1.2 Nakazawa’s Translation for Great Books of the World (B-13, 1968) Nakazawa Kōki was a strong critic of the JBS ‘colloquial’ translation, as we have seen above (Chapter 3, A-2; 5.4.3). He criticized its style as too low, its dependence on A-1 and the RSV, its inconsistencies and the use of honorifics in the descriptive and narrative parts. He also criticized the fact that the MT text was sometimes emended without alerting the readers to 2 Tsukimoto explains this choice in a footnote, connecting the Hebrew tehom with ti’amat in the Babylonian creation story. See also Sekine 1980, 146, about the translation of these verses.



translations compared: a variety of examples

341

that fact. His own translation addresses some of these issues; it is fresh and original (although not ignoring the earlier translations altogether), and the use of honorifics is limited to the dialogue parts. Furthermore, although it relies on contemporary biblical scholarship, whenever the translation might perplex readers familiar with earlier versions, an explanation is given in a note. His translation of Genesis excludes the following chapters and verses: 20; 25:1–6, 12–18; 26:1–33; 34; 36:9–43; 38; these are mostly lists of names, and stories which seem like variations on a theme (Sarah and Abimelech, Rebecca and Abimelech; only the story of Sarah and Pharaoh is retained), or stories with potentially-embarrassing sexual overtones (Dinah, Tamar), although the story of Lot’s daughters is included. These episodes may have been excluded for reasons of space, because this volume was the only one to represent both OT and NT in Chūō Kōronsha prestigious series of Great Books of the World. Following is Nakazawa’s translation for Gen. 1:1–3: (1) 神が天地を創造した始めに – (2) 地は荒涼混沌として闇が淵をおお い、暴風が水面を吹き流れていた – (3)「光あれ」と神が言った。す ると光があった。 1. kami ga ten chi o sōzō shita hajime ni – 2. chi wa kōryō konton toshite yami ga fuchi o ooi, bōfū ga suimen o fukingareteita – 3. “hikari are” to kami ga itta. suruto hikari ga atta.

Nakazawa says in a footnote that the common way of translating the first verse independently is wrong, because the first sentence continues until the middle of v. 3, and v. 2 is a parenthetic explanation of the circumstances. He refers the reader to 2:4–6 and to the Babylonian creation story Enuma ’eliš, although he says that the Hebrew creation story refutes the polytheism of the Babylonian one. Concerning ruaḥ ’elohim in v. 2, he explains that ’elohim here is used adjectively, and therefore rather than “god’s spirit” his translation means “strong wind”. Nakazawa did not list any references, but most probably one of them was Speiser’s translation and commentary in The Anchor Bible series, which appeared in 1964 (pp. 3–13).3 Following is Speiser’s translation of the relevant verses:

3 In one of a few short general notes on his translation (p. 56), Nakazawa indicated the use of Biblia Hebraica as the source text, and the Septuagint, Syriac, Dead Sea Scrolls and modern translations as references. In a later book he dedicated a chapter to Gen. 1:1–3, in which he listed several references, mostly German, but also quoted from the JPS

342

chapter six 1 When God set about to create heaven and earth – 2 the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water – 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

Nakazawa followed Speiser (or a similar German version) in reading the first words to mean “At the beginning of . . .” (rather than “In/At the beginning”; the possibility of reading here berešit bero’ is mentioned by Speiser),4 in putting the second verse in a parenthetic position, in explaining ’elohim in v. 2 as adjectival (“awesome wind” / bōfū), as well as in referring to the Enuma ’eliš in the notes. An interesting choice of his own is kōryō konton (‘desolate’ and ‘chaos’) for tohu wabohu; the second word appeared already in B-3b and A-4 (and was to appear later in A-11 and A-12) but the first word seems to be Nakazawa’s contribution, and the combination sounds like an attempt to create an equivalent for the alliteration in the Hebrew expression. On the other hand, and as we shall see again below, Nakazawa is very meticulous about the correct Japanese way of expression, and in this case about the syntax: in v. 3 his is the only translation not to mention God first, but rather his quoted words.5 Nakazawa’s translation is, on the one hand, very scholarly, using the most up-to-date biblical scholarship and quoting relevant Ancient Near Eastern texts; on the other hand, he strived to make his translation as accessible as possible. According to his stated principle he avoided the use of honorifics except in some cases of dialogue, for which he also used very authentic Japanese expressions. In fact the biblical figures—animal, human or divine—all sound like prototypical contemporary Japanese speakers, almost to the degree of parody, as the following few examples may demonstrate: 3:1 The snake speaks to the woman: ⌈まさか神は、園の木 (の実) はどれもたべてはならぬ、などと言いは しなかったでしょうね⌋ masaka kami wa, sono no ki (no mi) wa doremo tabete wa naranu, nado to ii wa shinakatta deshō ne translation; however, his translation is closest to Speiser’s; Nakazawa 1968, 178–203; also 123–126. See also idem, 1971, 36–37. 4 For an explanation of the two possible translations see also Sarna 1989, 7. 5 For a critical discussion of the translation of these verses here, see Shinmi 1969, 12–13; Tokita et al. 1971, 38–39. Shinmi complained that Nakazawa’s footnote explanation in this place was too succinct, especially considering his detailed discussion of these verses in his book.



translations compared: a variety of examples

343

3:9 God is looking for Adam in the garden: ⌈どこにいるのだ、おまえは⌋ doko ni iru no da, omae wa

3:13 The woman blames the snake: ⌈蛇がわたくしを惑わしたのです。それで食べたのです。⌋ hebi ga watakushi o madowashita no desu. sore de tabeta no desu.

27:6–8 Rebecca speaks to her son Jacob about getting Isaac’s blessing: ⌈ねえ、おまえ、お父さんがお兄さんのエサウに、・・・と言っている のをわたしは聞いたんだよ。そこでおまえ、お母さんのいうとおりに しなさい。⌋ nee, omae, otōsan ga oniisan no esau ni, . . . to itteiru no o watashi wa kiitanda yo. sokode omae, okaasan no iu toori ni shinasai.

29:19 Laban agrees to give his daughter to Jacob: ⌈ほかの男にあの子をやるぐらいなら、おまえにやるさ。まあ、わし の所にいるがよい。⌋ hoka no otoko ni ano ko o yaru gurai nara, omae ni yaru sa. maa, washi no tokoro ni iru ga yoi.

Male figures sound like tough guys in a samurai drama, while the women speak properly and correctly, or sound just like the prototype Japanese mother talking to her small son. The effect is to bring the text closer to the Japanese reader, but at the price of faithfulness (see 5.4.2 and 7.2), and of solidifying gender roles through language, an issue which, admittedly, was not yet of much concern in Nakazawa’s time.6 6.1.3 Kida’s Translation for World of the Bible Series (B-14a, 1970) Kida Ken’ichi (b. 1930), the translator of Genesis in the series World of the Bible, studied at Tokyo University as well as the Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, the same institutes attended by Nakazawa. 6 In a later article, giving the example of Genesis 3, Nakazawa calls the dialogue translation in A-2 and A-7 “flat” and his own translation “colorful”. However, he acknowledges that a translation made for church use would be different from one made for the general public; it is not necessarily that the one is good and the other bad, and it is up to the readers to choose the one they prefer, according to the purpose; see Nakazawa 1971, 36.

344

chapter six

He later taught at Aoyama Gakuin (Nakazawa taught at Rikkyō, both Christian universities in Tokyo). Although 15 years younger than Nakazawa, Kida shared the same educational background and intellectual sensibilities, as can be seen from their translations, which were virtually contemporary. In one respect, regarding the composition of the biblical text, Kida went even further than Nakazawa. He rearranged some verses and placed them in what was supposed to be their original place according to source criticism, as did Sakon 60 years earlier (see B-3b above); for example, Kida too puts the first half of Gen. 2:4 (“Such is the story of heaven and earth as they were created”) before 1:1, translating the Hebrew word ’eleh with 以下 ika, ‘as follows’ (Sakon translated it more literally, 此等 korera, ‘these’). The story of the flood (chapters 6–9) was considerably rearranged by him. Kida also indicated the alleged source of each unit, or of single verses therein, with the letters E, J & P. However, while going a step further in matters of scholarship, his method of rendering Hebrew into Japanese is somewhat more conservative than Nakazawa’s. Gen. 1:1–3 in his translation is as follows: (1) 神が天と地を創造し始められたとき – (2) 地は形なく、むなしく、や みが淵のおもてにあり、神のおこされる大風が水の表面を波立たせて いた – (3) そのとき神は「光あれ」と言われた。すると光ができた。 1. kami ga ten to chi o sōzō shi hajimerareta toki – 2. chi wa katachi naku, munashiku, yami ga fuchi no omote ni ari, kami no okosareru ōkaze ga mizu no hyōmen wo namidataseteita – 3. sono toki kami wa “hikari are” to iwareta. suruto hikari ga dekita.

On the one hand, it is clear that Kida follows contemporary scholarship exemplified by Speiser (although like Nakazawa, he did not specify his references). At the end of v. 1 he added toki which is similar to Speiser’s “When”. He also adopted the other interpretations as did Nakazawa, although he rendered them differently.7 However, in other respects he remained more loyal to A-1 than Nakazawa, following it in the first half of v. 2. Also, unlike the former, he used honorifics (-rareru) in descriptions of God’s actions.

7 Several details in the translation of these verses were criticized by Tokita; for example, if ’elohim in v. 2 is considered adjectival, creating the meaning “strong wind”, then the mention of kami in this verse is redundant; Tokita et al. 1971, 39.



translations compared: a variety of examples

345

Dialogues in Kida’s translation are also rendered in ‘natural’ spoken Japanese, but the style is less ‘rough’ than the above, much more ‘respectable’, for example: 3:9「おまえはどこにいるのか」omae wa doko ni iru no ka 27:6–8「ご覧、わたしはね、お父さんがおまえのお兄さんに、こう言 っているのを聞きましたよ。・・・だからね今、そこでおまえはわた しの言うことを聞くんですよ。」 goran, watashi wa ne, otōsan ga omae no oniisan ni, kō itteiru no o kikimashita yo. . . . dakara ne ima, soko de omae wa watashi no iu koto o kikun desu yo. [Note that the name of Esau was dropped.] 29:19「わたしも娘を他の人にやるよりは君にやる方が良い。わたしと 一緒にいなさい。」 watashi mo musume o ta no hito ni yaru yori wa kimi ni yaru hō ga yoi. watashi to isshoni inasai.

Both Nakazawa and Kida were free to implement contemporary scholarship to a degree unparalleled in most full versions of the OT, because their work was not ‘official’ in any way, and not intended for church use. The translators of A-2, A-7 or A-11 had no such freedom (and some of them may not have wished for it either). 6.2 Proverbs Proverbs was one of the most popular of the OT books from the very beginning of the arrival and expansion of the Bible in Japan, already translated partially in 1873 by Nagata Hōsei (C-3), and appearing as a separate volume in the Chinese translation with kunten and later in the Japanese translation, both during the 1880’s (Ebisawa 1981, 312–3). In 1903 a JapaneseEnglish volume was published by Ōtsuki Takashi (大月隆), using the text of the Meiji Translation, but carrying the baffling caption translated as: “a joint translation by 5 persons holding doctor degree in Japan”.8 Separate 8 The front cover has the following inscription: 大聖ソロモン氏原著、日本五名博 士共譯、原文譯文合冊、箴言全、東京文斈同志会蔵版; this is followed by a page with a woodcut picture of a man of an indistinct nature, and then comes the text in Japanese, this time attributed slightly differently to: 大祖ソロモン原著; the translation is followed by the colophon of the Japanese printer, and then comes the text in English (mentioned on the title page as the genbun or ‘source text’), according to the KJV.

346

chapter six

volumes of both the A-1 and A-2 versions were published occasionally by JBS. Proverbs came out three more times in different individual translations (Yuasa’s B-4b, Ogaeri’s B-7 and Matsuda’s B-12), some verses of each will be quoted below and compared with A-1. 6.2.1 Nagata’s Early Translation (C-3) Nagata Hōsei’s translation was the earliest in Japan, with the exception of Hamada’s (C-1), to include chapters and verses from the OT. His translation was from English, with the aid of the Chinese translation (although there is little evidence of this in the following translation). The use of punctuation marks in the western sense was obviously in its infancy: Nagata used the maru ‘full stop’ also as a comma, and has no other mark in his text. Following is his translation of Proverbs 1:1–6, which is headed by the “original title”: ze puroverubusu. 元名 ゼ プロヴェルブス 教誡ノ言 イズレルノ王ダヴィドノ子ソロモンノ教戒ノ言ハ。人々に智慧ト教法 トヲ知ラシメ智識アル人ノ言ヲ合点セシメテ。智慧。公平ノ裁判。義ナ ル鞠問及ビ正直ナルー等ノ。教ヘヲ承知セシメ。拙劣者ヲシテ明徹ト 為ラシメ。少年ノ者ニ。學問ト智慧トヲ與フ。智識ノ人ハ。之ヲ聞テ文 學益進歩シ。聰明ノ人ハ之ヲ聞テ謀畧ヲ増ス。夫ノ教戒ノ言。及ビ教戒 ノ解釋。智慧ノ語。及ビ其ノ隠語ヲ會得セシム [1] izureru no ō davido no ko soromon no kyōkai no kotoba wa. [2] hitobito ni chie to kyōhō (/oshie) to o shirashime chishiki aru hito no kotoba o gaten seshimete. [3] chie. kōhei no sabaki. gi naru kikumon/tameshi(?) oyobi shōjiki naru— nado no. oshie o shōchi seshime. [4] tsutanaki mono o shite meitetsu/satoku to narashime. shōnen/wakaki no mono ni. gakumon to chie to o atau. [5] chishiki no hito wa. kore o kikite bungaku masumasu shinposhi. sōmei no hito wa kore o kikite hakarigoto o masu. [6] sono kyōkai no kotoba. oyobi kyōkai no tokiakashi. chie no go. oyobi sono ingo o etoku seshimu

A few notes on the translation: V. 1: “Israel” is transliterated izureru, with the ‘s’ sound as ‘z’ (perhaps as heard from American or European missionaries, in whose pronunciation it would indeed sound so), and with one syllable missing (later transliterated isuraeru); “Proverbs” is translated as kyōkai no kotoba or “words of preaching”. V. 2: Nagata added hitobito ni . . . shirashime “to make people know”, instead of “to know” (Hebrew lada‛at); somewhat similarly A-1 has:



translations compared: a variety of examples

347

人に智慧と訓誨とをしらしめ   hito ni chie to oshie to o shirashime

The English translations do not have the causative here. V. 3: The KJV has four nouns, which are translated as follows: “wisdom”— chie (wisdom); “justice”—kōhei no sabaki (fair judgment); “judgment”— gi naru kikumon/tameshi (? the print is not clear; “a just decision?”); “equity”—shōjiki (honesty). V. 4: The translation here follows the KJV closely. For “simple” (Hebrew peta’im) Nagata used tsutanaki mono, the same noun that is used in A-1. V. 5: Here too the translation is very close. For the KJV’s “learning” Nagata has bungaku (A-1 has gaku). V. 6: The word kyōkai is used both here and in v. 5, probably as the translation of “council” and of “proverb”; this obsolete word probably means “admonition” (see also B-4b below). In spite of the difficulties in reading his text today, especially the use of many kanji that have changed in shape or in use since his time, it is still possible to see that Nagata’s translation is simple and straightforward, not adding much to his source text and conveying its literary meaning in most cases. However, since the KJV here often strays from the accurate meaning of the Hebrew, this translation is further from the MT than later translations based directly on the latter. 6.2.2 Yuasa’s Translation (B-4b, 1936) As in his Psalms translation quoted earlier, here too Yuasa used his strange system of even-looking printed lines that lack true rhythm (see above 5.2.2). His translation is in fact a revision of A-1, often without really improving on it, but in some cases he did manage to produce a bettersounding translation. Following are some examples of both cases: 1:8 ‫ּתֹורת ִא ֶּמָך‬ ַ ‫מּוסר ָא ִביָך וְ ַאל ִּתּטֹש‬ ַ ‫ְש ַמע ְּבנִ י‬ A-1 我が子よ汝の父の教をきけ 汝の母の法を棄つることなかれ waga ko yo nanji no chichi no oshie o kike nanji no haha no okite o sutsuru koto nakare B-4b 我子よ汝の父の教訓を聽け、 汝の母の教戒を棄つるなかれ。 waga ko yo sonata no chichi no kyōkun o kike, sonata no haha no kyōkai o sutsuru nakare

348

chapter six

The translators of A-1 used the verb suteru in the classical form sutsuru (連体形 rentaikei conjugation of a 下二段 shimonidan verb); Yuasa (p. 4) kept this reading in the furigana. He also kept the character 汝 for ‘you’, but gave it the reading sonata instead of nanji (in Ps. 23 he used the archaic reading mimeshi). Other than that he changed little, except in the two parallel nouns kyōkun and kyōkai (the latter used also by Nagata), which create an interesting alliteration. However, it meant that he used more kango than A-1. He was also less consistent than A-1, as can be seen in the following example: 6:20 ‫ּתֹורת ִא ֶּמָך‬ ַ ‫נְ צֹר ְּבנִ י ִמ ְצוַ ת ָא ִביָך וְ ַאל ִּתּטֹש‬ A-1 我子よ汝の父の誡命を守り 汝の母の法を棄つる勿れ waga ko yo nanji no chichi no imashime o mamori nanji no haha no okite o sutsuru nakare B-4b 我子よ汝の父の誡命を守れ、 汝の母の教訓を拒むなかれ。 waga ko yo sonata no chichi no imashime o mamore, nanji no haha no oshie o kobamu nakare.

The second half of the two verses 1:8 and 6:20 is identical in the MT, and A-1 reflects this (albeit with a slightly different orthography), but Yuasa’s translation (p. 42) is dissimilar in the two cases; Matsuda in B-12 (pp. 176 & 229) was similarly inconsistent in this case. Yuasa was more successful in the following case: 11:22 ‫נֶ זֶ ם זָ ָהב ְּב ַאף ֲחזִ יר ִא ָּשה יָ ָפה וְ ָס ַרת ָט ַעם‬ A-1 美しき婦のつゝしみなきは金の環の豚の鼻にあるが如し uruwashiki onna no tsutsushiminaki wa kin no wa no buta no hana ni aru ga gotoshi B-4b 豕の鼻に飾れる黄金の環は、 思慮分別のなき美人である。 buta no hana ni kazareru kogane no wa wa, shiryo funbetsu no naki bijin dearu.

A-1 reversed the order of the original verse, added gotoshi (like), and the repeated use of no three times in the second half of the verse to connect



translations compared: a variety of examples

349

four nouns is cumbersome. Yuasa (p. 87) reverted to the original order, got rid of gotoshi, and created a more elegant expression. Matsuda in B-12 (276) has the same reversed order as A-1. 6.2.3 Ogaeri’s Translation (B-7, 1947) This is a rather unique case of a biblical translation in Japan by a selfdeclared non-Christian, who wished the Bible to be read by his fellow Japanese for cultural reasons, and perhaps for a spiritual reason as well (see above pp. 103–105). His translation was also part of the wave of translations unleashed with the ending of WWII, including several translations prepared before or during the war (B-5, B-6, B-8 and B-9, among others). Ogaeri uses a simple and direct language, unburdened by the loyalty to the Meiji Translation (A-1), that shackled the first full ‘colloquial’ translation (A-2), which was also bound by the respectability expected of an ‘official’ translation, of which Ogaeri was also free. For example (p. 29; verse numbers are not indicated in the text): 1:22 ‫ּוכ ִס ִילים יִ ְׂשנְ אּו ָד ַעת‬ ְ ‫ַעד ָמ ַתי ְּפ ָתיִ ם ְּת ֵא ֲהבּו ֶפ ִתי וְ ֵל ִצים ָלצֹון ָח ְמדּו ָל ֶהם‬ A-1 汝ら拙者のつたなきを愛し 嘲笑者のあざけりを楽しみ 愚かなる者 の知識を惡むは幾時までぞや nanjira tsutanakimono no tsutanaki o ai shi azakerumono no azakeri o tanoshimi orokanarumono no chishiki o nikumu wa itsumade zo ya B-7 のろまよ、いつまでのろまでいるのか、皮肉屋よ、いつまで皮肉をい うのか、馬鹿者よ、いつまで學問をけなすか。 noroma yo, itsumade noroma de iru no ka, hinikuya yo, itsumade hiniku o iu no ka, bakamono yo, itsumade gakumon o kenasu ka

The MT has two cases of word-play in this verse, and both translations retained them. However, Ogaeri’s language is markedly different from A-1’s; below are three examples of those differences: a. For A-1’s tsutanakimono (clumsy, inapt, KJV: “simple ones”, Hebrew petayim; this is the same translation for the same Hebrew word used by C-3 and A-1 in 1:4, above), Ogaeri uses the more colloquial noroma (stupid, dull).

350

chapter six

b. For A-1’s azakeri (sneer, jeer, KJV: “scorning”, Hebrew laṣon) Ogaeri has the contemporary apt hiniku (cynicism, sarcasm). c. For A-1’s orokanarumono (fool, KJV: “fools”, Hebrew kesilim), he has the much more colloquial bakamono (fool, stupid). Ogaeri also uses the particle yo three times for emphasis, and also repeats itsumade three times, for clarity of expression. Of the other two translations quoted here, Yuasa in B-4b (pp. 7, 10) omitted the middle part of the verse, arguing in a note that it was not there originally; Matsuda in B-12 (p. 182) revised the text in A-1 and A-2 only a little. Ogaeri seems to have particularly enjoyed the use of baka wherever he could find a place for it. Another example: 30:17 ‫לּוה ְבנֵ י נָ ֶשר‬ ָ ‫אכ‬ ְ ֹ ‫רּוה ע ְֹר ֵבי נַ ַחל וְ י‬ ָ ‫ַעיִ ן ִּת ְל ַעג ְל ָאב וְ ָתבּוז ִל ֲיּק ַהת ֵאם יִ ְּק‬ A-1 おのれの父を嘲り母に従ふことをいやしとする眼は 谷の鴉これを拔き いだし鷲の雛これを食はん onore no chichi o azakeri haha ni shitagau koto o iyashi to suru me wa tani no karasu kore o nukiidashi washi no ko kore o kurawan B-7 父親を馬鹿にし、母親のいうことをきかぬ者の目は、谷間の烏につつ き出されて鷲の子に食われる chichioya o baka ni shi, hahaoya no iu koto o kikanu mono no me wa, tanima no karasu ni tsutsuki idasarete washi no ko ni kuwareru

Here Ogaeri (p. 98) replaces A-1’s azakeri, which was also used in the former verse (sneer, jeer, KJV: “mocketh”, Hebrew til‛ag) with the stronger baka ni shi, ‘treat with contempt’. Otherwise, the presence of A-1 can be felt in the background, but Ogaeri modernized and simplified both the expressions and the choice of kanji characters. 6.2.4 Matsuda’s Translation (B-12, 1967) This is a very scholarly translation, with a long introduction and many elaborate notes which bring the book up to 500 pages. Matsuda basically follows former translations (A-2), but with many corrections of his own. His extensive use of scholarship is evident in the following case of a verse with many difficulties:



translations compared: a variety of examples

351

30:1 ‫יאל וְ ֻא ָכל‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫יאל ְל ִא‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ִּד ְב ֵרי ָאגּור ִּבן יָ ֶקה ַה ַּמ ָּׂשא נְ ֻאם ַהּגֶ ֶבר ְל ִא‬ A-1 ヤケの子アグルの語なる箴言 かれイテエルにむかひて之をいへり 即ちイテエルとウカルとにいへるところのものなり yake no ko aguru no kotoba naru shingen kare iteeru ni mukaite kore o ieri sunawachi iteeru to ukaru to ni ieru tokoro no mono nari B-12 マッサの人ヤケの子アグルの言葉 その人の預言、「わたしは疲れたあ あ神よ、わたしは疲れたああ神よ、そして (わたしの知恵を) 用いつく した。 massa no hito yake no ko aguru no kotoba sono hito no yogen, “watashi wa tsukareta aa kami yo, watashi wa tsukareta aa kami yo, soshite (watashi no chie o) mochii tsukushita.

A-1 followed the KJV, which reads: “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal”. Several other translations followed suit (the above-quoted B-4b and B-7, as well as A-2, A-7 and A-9). The Septuagint and Vulgate both have here a markedly different version, and the translations following the latter consequently differ here (only A-3 in this case; Barbaro in A-6 & A-6a, although sometimes following the Vulgate, translated as A-1; B-8 did not translate this verse). Later translations (A-4, A-5, A-11, A-12) followed a different scholarly interpretation, to be introduced below, and Matsuda (p. 471) was one of the first to do so. Two of the main problems in this verse are as follows (see Fox 2009, 850–4): 1. The word hamaśa’; this could mean either ‘the pronouncement’, ‘the utterance’ (as often in the prophetic books of the OT, e.g. Is. 14:28, Je. 23:36 etc.); or it could be the name of a place or a tribe, as in Gen. 25:15, in which case the text should be emended and the ha dropped (and see also in the following example, 31:1). The first option was the common one traditionally, and is still convincingly argued by Fox (ibid., and also by TDOT, V. 9, 22–3). However, the second option—regarding the word as a proper noun—is the one adopted by Matsuda (see his notes pp. 476–7) and the other scholarly translations (A-4, A-5, A-12, as well as A-11). 2. The meaning of le’iti’el and ’ukal, and the repetition of the former; traditionally, these two words were regarded as names of two people to whom Agur speaks his words (but then why is the first repeated twice?). Modern interpretations regard them quite differently, as in Fox’s translation:

352

chapter six

“I am weary, God, I am weary, God, and have wasted away”. This interpretation also has its difficulties, but it has been adopted by most translations since the 1960’s.9 The demarcation line is between the more scholarly— B-12, A-4, A-5, A-12—and the more traditional translations—B-6a, A-7, A-9—with A-11 going the scholarly way. 6.2.5 Further Comparisons Finally, a comparison is introduced of two verses in all of the above-quoted versions (except for Nagata’s), as well as one more of the full translations besides A-1: 31:1–2

‫ּומה ַּבר‬ ֶ ‫ּומה ַּבר ִּב ְטנִ י‬ ַ ‫ ַמה ְּב ִרי‬:‫מּואל ֶמ ֶלך ַמ ָּׂשא ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְּס ַרּתּו ִאּמֹו‬ ֵ ‫ִּד ְב ֵרי ְל‬ ‫נְ ָד ָרי‬

A-1 1レムエル王のことば即ちその母の彼に敎へし箴言なり 2 わが子よ何を 言はんか わが胎の子よ何をいはんか 我が願ひて得たる子よ何をいは んか 1. remueru ō no kotoba sunawachi sono haha no kare ni oshieshi shingen nari 2. waga ko yo nani o iwan ka waga hara no ko yo nani o iwan ka waga negaite etaru ko nani o iwan ka

The KJV reads here: “The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him. What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?” A few points to be considered regarding these verses (see Fox 2009, 882–5): 1. As in 30:1, here too we find maśa’, although without the definite article. Here it is much more clearly a place name, although the MT placed the major disjunctive on “king”, thus leading to the translation in the KJV and A-1, but this is unlikely (the structure lemu’el melek is uncommon in Hebrew; it would have to be lemu’el hamelek or hamelek lemu’el ). The construct state melek maśa’ is much more likely and maśa’ would be a place or a tribe’s name (BDB 601 lists it as the “realm of king Lemuel”, together with the name of Ishmael’s ‘son’ in Gen. 25:14). It should be noted

9 Alter, in his recent English translation (2010a, 323) maintained the traditional interpretation, arguing that Fox’s version of this part of the verse remains conjectural, lacking support in the ancient versions.



translations compared: a variety of examples

353

also that the KJV translated maśa’ as “prophecy”, although in the prophetic books it translated it as “burden” (see below 6.4), but A-1, as it did in 30:1, translates it with shingen, “proverb”, which is also the Japanese name of the whole book (following the Chinese translation; in A-5 the title was changed to 格言の書, kakugen no sho, also meaning ‘Book of Proverbs’, but in the 2011 edition the title is again the traditional Shingen). 2. The second verse is a poetical utterance in three units that increase quantitatively, from 3 to 5 to 6 syllables. One of the difficulties here is the repeated use of the word mah, which literally means ‘what’ as in the KJV, but this meaning does not sound right here. The translators of A-1 felt that, and expanded to nani o iwan ka, ‘what should I say?’ However, mah is also used in negation, as is the probable interpretation in 1 Kings 12:16, Job 16:6, 31:1, and Song 8:4; mah is used also in negative expressions in Arabic. Consequently, JPS translated here: “No, my son! No, O son of my womb! No, O son of my vows!”, which leads adequately to the next verse, “Do not give your strength to women, Your vigor, to those who destroy kings.”10 B-4b 1 レムエル王の言即ちその母の彼に敎へし神託。2 我子我言を聽けわが 産める子よ、誓て得たる子よ我言ふ事を守れ 1. remueru ō no kotoba sunawachi sono haha no kare ni oshieshi shintaku. 2. waga ko waga kotoba o kike waga umeru ko yo, chikaite etaru ko yo waga iu koto o mamore.

As usual, Yuasa (p. 286) followed A-1, and in the first verse changed only the last word to shintaku (oracle), closer to the KJV’s meaning. In v. 2 his translation is much freer, adding expressions such as waga kotoba o kike (listen to my words) etc. B-7 1 レムエルという王さまのことば—これはその母ぎみから敎わつたこ とわざである。2 わたしの子よ、何を話しましょう—わたしの腹をい ためた子、わたしがお願をかけた子。 1. remueru to iu ōsama no kotoba—kore wa sono hahagimi kara osowatta kotowaza dearu. 2. watashi no ko yo, nani o hanashimashō—watashi no hara o itameta ko, watashi ga ogan o kaketa ko.

10 Alter (2010a, 330) translates according to the same meaning, but with slightly different wording.

354

chapter six

Ogaeri (p. 100) followed A-1 in principle, but also changed much to fit his everyday-language style, also using the respect form in words such as ōsama and hahagimi. Compared with A-1’s three times, he used “what should I say” only once. B-12 1 その母が彼に敎えたマッサの王レムエルの言葉。2 何を言おうか、わ たしの子よ、何を言おうか、わたしの産んだ子よ。何を言おうか、わ たしの誓願の子よ。 1. sono haha ga kare ni oshieta massa no ō remueru no kotoba. 2. nani o iō ka, watashi no ko yo, nani o iō ka, watashi no unda ko yo. nani o i ō ka, watashi no seigan no ko yo.

Matsuda (p. 483) went the other way in v. 1, regarding maśa’ as a place name. This use appeared already earlier in A-2 (which otherwise changed little in A-1). In v. 2 he did not find a different solution from A-1’s, using “what should I say” three times. A-11 1 マッサの王レムエルが母から受けた諭しの言葉。2 ああ、わが子よ ああ、わが腹の子よ ああ、わが誓いの子よ。 1. massa no ō remueru ga haha kara uketa satoshi no kotoba. 2. aa, waga ko yo aa, waga hara no ko yo aa, waga chikai no ko yo.

In previous chapters A-11 was often found to be the least satisfactory translation, but in this case it stands out. In v. 1 it has satoshi (admonition), which is perhaps the closest to the Hebrew meaning so far; the verb yisrattu is conjugated in the pi‛el and means ‘to admonish’ or ‘to punish’; Fox (ibid., 884) writes that the verb means “teach musar”, “give disciplinary instruction”, and therefore translates “instructed”, but this meaning is found only in the hif ‛il conjugation, as in Hosea 7:12. In v. 2 A-11 retained the concise nature of the Hebrew verse; rather than translate mah as ‘what’, the translators regarded it as an exclamation, which is another usage of mah, although before adjectives and verbs, not before a noun (BDB 553, meaning 2.b). But even regardless of the meaning, the effect of the sound brings it closer to the original. (A-12 made a less satisfying choice with 聴け kike, ‘listen’; another option, although a much less satisfactory one, is to ignore the word entirely, as A-5 did).



translations compared: a variety of examples

355

6.3 Job The Book of Job, like the other books of the “wisdom literature” in the OT (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and some of the Psalms), was popular in translation, with 3 full and 3 partial translations as follows (all Protestant): 1. C-10—Fujii Takeshi (colloquial style, chapters 3–5) 2. B-4a—Yuasa Hangetsu (classical, full) 3. B-12—Matsuda Akemirō (colloquial, full) 4. B-14d—Gotō Kōichirō (colloquial, full except for chapters 32–37) 5. B-13b—Nakazawa Kōki (colloquial, full) 6. C-13—Fujisaki Hideyoshi (classical, chapters 1–10) All the above translations are quoted below briefly, with the exception of Yuasa’s (B-4a), whose methods were sufficiently introduced above through his translations of Proverbs and the Psalms. 6.3.1 Fujii’s Translation (C-10, 1923) This is one of the earliest biblical translations to use ‘colloquial’ language. Unfortunately, this fragmentary translation of only chapters 3–5, does not include the narrative or dialogue parts of the prologue and epilogue to the book. The fact that it is so short is regrettable, since its potential is evident. Following is a relatively long quotation, side by side with A-1 (no furigana were printed by Fujii, except for hairuna in vv. 6–7): 3:3–8 A-1 v. 3 我が生れし日亡びうせよ 男子胎にやどれりと言ひし夜も亦 然あれ

C-10

waga umare shi hi horobōseyo onoko hara ni yadoreri to iishi yomo mata shikaare

horobi yo, watashi no umareta hi! mata otoko no ko ga haramareta to yūta yo!

v.4 その日は暗くなれ 神上よりこれを顧み給はざれ 光これを照らす勿れ

その日は暗黑なれ。 神は上からそれを尋ねるな。 また光はその上にかゞやくな。

亡びよ、わたしの生れた日！ また男の兒が孕まれたと言うた 夜！

356

chapter six

sono hi wa kuraku nare kami ue yori kore o kaerimi tamawazare hikari kore o terasu nakare v. 5 黑暗および死蔭これを取りも どせ 雲これが上をおほへ 日を暗くする者これを懼れし めよ kurayami oyobi shinokage kore o torimodose kumo kore ga ue o ōe hi o kurakusuru mono kore o osoreshimeyo v. 6 その夜は黑暗の執らふるところと なれ 年の日の中に加はらざれ 月の數に入らざれ

sono hi wa ankoku nare. kami wa ue kara sore o tazune­runa. mata hikari wa sono ue ni kaga­ yakuna. 暗黑と死の陰とがそれを買ひ戻 せ。 雲がその上に宿れ。 すべて日を黑くするものがそれ を脅かせ。 ankoku oyobi shinokage ga sore o kaimodose kumo ga sono ue ni yodore. subete hi o kurakusuru mono ga sore o obiyakase. その夜！濃き暗黑がそれを捉へ よ。 年の日に加はつてそれは喜 ぶな。 月の數のなかに入るな。

sono yo wa kurayami no torauru sono yo! koki ankoku tokoro to nare ga sore o toraeyo. toshi no hi no uchi ni kuwawarazare toshi no hi ni kuwatte sore wa yorokobu na. tsuki no kazu ni irazare tsuki no kazu no naka ni hairuna. v. 7 その夜は孕むこと有らざれ 歡喜の聲その中に興らざれ sono yo wa haramu koto arazare yorokobi no koe sono uchi ni okorazare

見よ、その夜は孕まずあれ。 歡呼の聲はそこに入るな miyo, sono yo wa aramazu are. kanko no koe wa soko ni hairuna

v. 8 A-1 日を詛ふ者レビヤタンを激發すに巧みなる者これを詛へ C-10 日を詛ふ者らそれを詛へ すなわちレビヤタンを振ひ起すに巧みな る者ら。 hi o norou mono rebiyatan o furiokosu ni takuminaru mono kore o noroe hi o norou monora sore o noroe, sunawachi rebiyatan o furuiokosu ni takuminaru monora.



translations compared: a variety of examples

357

Compared with A-1, Fujii’s translation is relatively simple and direct. His extensive use of exclamation marks stands out as a sign of his enthusiastic style. He is obviously aware of the earlier translation, and sometimes follows it, but is more likely to introduce his own version. Grammatically there are many points that stand out, for example: where A-1 has the pronoun kore, Fujii is more likely to use sore; in v. 4 A-1 has sono-korekore while Fujii has sono-sore-sono; in v. 5 it is kore-kore-kore compared with sore-sono-sore; Fujii is more consistent, but there must have been another reason for his choice. Another point is the use of particles; as often seen before, A-1 used subject/topic-marking particles very sparingly; Fujii conforms with his contemporary writing style in using them more consistently: ga after ko in v. 3, after kumo in v. 5 and so on. A-1 does not have ga, and uses wa at the beginning of vv. 4, 6 & 7, apparently for emphasis (see above Chapter 4.1). The use of verbs is also very different, and Fujii often uses the negative ending -na, compared with A-1’s -zare. The Japanese language indeed changed a great deal in a period of less than 40 years, but still Fujii was ahead of his times in his use of everyday written style in Bible translation. He also seemed to have made an effort to make his translation concise and accurate, without any unnecessary additions, and even without honorifics (compare the middle verset in v. 4 in the two translations). In v. 8, which is an extremely difficult verse to interpret and translate, his translation is much clearer than A-1’s, although in this case he did add sunawachi for clarification. One more point: in the Hebrew source there are three different words expressing ‘darkness’: ḥošek, appearing twice in vv. 4 & 5 (KJV: “darkness”); ṣalmawet in v. 5 (KJV: “shadow of death”); ’opel in v. 6 (KJV: “darkness”). The second word is familiar from Psalm 23, and as was explained there, the “shadow of death” translation is probably incorrect. Neither of the translations distinguishes accurately between the first and the third words (A-1: kuraku and then kurayami for the first, and again kurayami for the third; C-10: three times ankoku). For the second word both have shinokage as in Ps. 23; looking at later translations we find that A-2, A-4 and A-12 avoided shinokage here; A-11 has shi no yami (death darkness), which is holding the stick at both ends. Fujii belonged to the Mukyōkai tradition of Uchimura Kanzō, which put the greatest emphasis on reading the Bible as the sole guiding source for the Christian believer; reputable Bible translators Sekine Masao and Tsukamoto Toraji belonged to the same tradition.11 Making the Bible readily 11 See Caldarola 1979, 66; on the Mukyōkai perceptions of Tsukamoto and Sekine see ibid., 58–61, and the literature quoted there; on Fujii see ibid., 80–83.

358

chapter six

accessible without glossing over its difficulties was of great importance to them, and Fujii’s partial effort is a good example in that respect. 6.3.2 Matsuda’s Translation (B-12, 1954) This is the first of Matsuda Akemirō’s two translations, and it came out 13 years before his translation of Proverbs which was quoted above. Like the later book, this too is a scholarly translation, with extensive notes. However, it retains the traditional use of honorifics, including tamau for God’s actions. Matsuda also went out of his way to use colloquial expressions, for example: 3:3 わたしの生れた日は亡びてしまえ、「男の子が生れた」と言つた夜も ［さうなつてしまえ］、 watashi no umareta hi wa horobite shimae, “otoko no ko ga umareta” to itta yo mo [sō natte shimae]

The Book of Job is comprised mostly of poetry, and the so-called “Poem of Wisdom” in chapter 28 is one of its most celebrated parts. Matsuda often found the right tone (although not really solving any of the issues of biblical poetry translation discussed in Chapter 5), but whenever direct speech is involved, the tone, as in the above example, becomes rougher. Following are a few representative verses: 28:12–14 さりながら智慧は何処に見出し 得ようか、 人はその道を知らず、 淵は云う「わしの内にはない」と

明哲のあるところは何処で あろうか、 また生けるものの地に見出し 得ない。 海は云う「わしと共にいな い」と。

12. sarinagara chie wa izuko ni midashi eyōka, satori no aru tokoro wa doko de arōka, 13. hito wa sono michi o shirazu, mata ikeru mono no chi ni midashi enai. 14. fuchi wa iu “washi no uchi ni wa nai” to  umi wa iu “washi to tomo ni inai” to

The rhythm is not consistent, although in vv. 12 and 14 it is quite successful. But why must fuchi (the deep) and umi (the sea) use washi for the first person pronoun? (A-1 has ware; A-2, A-4, A-11 and A-12 have watashi).



translations compared: a variety of examples

359

Regarding michi (way) in v. 13, Matsuda has a footnote indicating that the original word means ‘value’ (in Hebrew ‛erkah). Indeed, it is considered plausible to emend the MT to darkah ‘her way’, as in v. 23, and based on the Septuagint (Dhorme 1967, 406). The KJV and some other English translations did not adopt the emendation (RSV and NJB did), and A-1 also followed the MT with 價 atai (price, cost, value). However, A-2 followed RSV, and A-4 also emended without comment. A-11 has 備えられた場 sonaerareta ba; A-12 has 備なわるところ sonawaru tokoro (reserved place). 6.3.3 Gotō’s Translation for World of the Bible Series (B-14d, 1970) Gotō Kōichirō (b. 1930) studied at Tokyo University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Münster, and later taught at Tokyo University and elsewhere. The fourth volume of the World of the Bible series includes his translations of four poetical books of the OT: Psalms (selection of about 30 psalms), Lamentations, Song of Songs, and Job (except for chapters 32–37). Surprisingly, Gotō incorporated in his translation of Job some explanations which are usually reserved for the notes,12 and thus expanded it to a degree unparalleled in the Japanese translations of the OT. For example, for the first words of 1:1, usually translated in English “There was a man in the land of Uz”, Gotō has: 1:1 [partial] 死海の南のエドムとアラビアの間に位置するといわれるウーツ地に、 ある人が住んでいた。 shikai no minami no edomu to arabiya no aida ni ichisuru to iwareru u-tsu chi ni, aru hito ga sundeita.

In English this would be: “In a land called Uz, situated between Edom and Arabia south of the Dead Sea, lived a certain man”. Gotō inserted similar (though shorter) geographical explanations also in 1:15&17, but the most startling expansion is in 1:5, where Job makes offerings on behalf of his sons, saying to himself: “may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts”, in the KJV translation; and in Hebrew: ‫אּולי ָח ְטאּו‬ ַ

12 Unlike volume 1 of the series, which had many notes on the text, this volume has none, only very short introductions to some of the books, as well as a general introduction to the volume.

360

chapter six

‫ֹלהים ִּב ְל ָב ָבם‬ ִ ‫ּוב ֲרכּו ֱא‬ ֵ ‫בנַ י‬.ָ Gotō managed to turn these six words into three long lines of text: 1:5 [partial] ⌈わたしの息子たちはまだ年が若いのに、裕福になれ安逸に流れ分不 相応の享楽にふけって、神に心から感謝し祝福することを忘れている のではないだろうか。それどころか神をないがしろにして罪を犯した あげく、愚かにももったいをつけて神をたたえ、あのかたを侮蔑した りするのではないだろうか」。 Translated into English this would be: “Although my sons are still young, they have become used to affluence, idleness and inappropriate pleasures, and they will probably forget to bless God and thank him from the bottom of their hearts. They might even make light of God and commit a sin, foolishly praise God only to impress, and in fact hold him with contempt.” This is a fine sermon indeed, but how did it get into the biblical text? Only the translator knows.13

Another point to consider here is what is known as tiqqun soferim, a few places in the MT, where the original text is believed to have been changed by later scribes for reasons of respect towards God.14 For example, where the original text must have had “curse God”, the text was emended to read “bless God”, as a kind of euphemism (although it is also possible that the euphemism was already used by the original writer). The prologue to the Book of Job contains four such places (one of which is repeated twice): 1:5 ( Job worries that his sons might have cursed God in their hearts), 1:11 & 2:5 (Satan promises YHWH that once stricken, Job would curse him), and 2:9 ( Job’s wife tells him to curse God and die). The KJV and most other English translations ignored the euphemism and translated “curse” in all these cases; so, more or less, did A-1: in 1:11, 2:5 and 2:9 it has norou, ‘curse’, while in 1:5 it is a little more circumspect: 我子ら罪を犯し心に神を忘れたらんも知るべからず waga kora tsumi o okashi kokoro ni kami o wasuretaran mo shirubekarazu

In English this would be: “my children might have sinned and forgot God in their hearts” (which sounds like the seed for Gotō’s elaborate ‘sermon’).

13 This is what J.C. Catford (in ELL 4746–7) calls “gratuitous embellishment”, quoting Samuel Johnson: “A translator is to be like his author: it is not his business to excel him.” 14 The traditional number of such emendations is 18, but there may have been more, including those mentioned below; see Dhorme 1967, cxciii.



translations compared: a variety of examples

361

A-2 changed wasureta to norotta in this verse, and later translations followed suit. Gotō’s case is more complicated, showing considerable inconsistency. In his above-cited translation of 1:5 we find both “forget to bless” and “hold with contempt” as well as other subtle psychological observations; in 1:11 and 2:5 he has 悪態をつくakutai o tsuku, “abuse”, while in 2:9 he has Job’s wife telling him: どうなりと心にもなく神を祝福なさるがいい。 dōnari to kokoro nimonaku kami o shukufuku nasaru ga ii. Translation: “it is better to bless God, even if not from the heart”.

Another point in which Gotō’s version differs from the other Japanese translations is in the rendering of Satan; while the other translations regarded it as a proper name and transliterated it in katakana, Gotō used the kanji 悪魔 akuma (devil, evil spirit), although with the furigana reading satan, and in the epilogue, 42:14, he did the same with the names of Job’s daughters.15 Finally, although the Book of Job is comprised mostly of poetry, Gotō’s translation is hardly poetic in any respect, and his tendency to expand on the text went unchecked. To give just one example, the middle verset of 3:4 (see above 6.3.1): 高いところにおられる神もその失われる日に心を痛めたりなさら ないように。 takai tokoro ni orareru kami mo sono ushinawareru hi ni kokoro o itametari nasaranai yō ni.

Notice also the use of honorifics, -rareru, which other translations avoided. 6.3.4 Nakazawa’s Translation (B-13b, 1991) This is the second of Nakazawa Kōki’s three translations, following his Genesis and other translations in the volume of Great Books of the World (above), and previous to his translation of Isaiah. As in his translation of Genesis, Nakazawa strives to present naturalsounding dialogue (although not going as far as he did in his earlier translation). For example:

15 Interestingly, Alter (2010a) does not regard Satan as a proper name, indicating that it is preceded by the definite article, and he translates it as “the Adversary”; he also gives English names to Job’s daughters.

362

chapter six

1:7 そこでヤハウェがサタンに言った。 ⌈お前どこから来たのだ」。 サタンがヤハウェに答えて言った。 ⌈地上をあちらこちら遍歴してま いりました」。

sokode yahawe ga satan ni itta. “omae doko kara kita no da”. satan ga yahawe ni kotaete itta. “chijō o achira kochira henreki shite mairimashita”.

YHWA speaks to Satan like a boss to an underling, and Satan answers with due respect (the Hebrew, as in other similar cases, has no such nuances). And indeed, contrary to Gotō, Nakazawa explains in a footnote that Satan is not akuma, but an angel fulfilling the role of the accuser. Satan’s lively answer to YHWH includes a pun on his own name: ‫ּומ ִה ְת ַה ֵּלְך‬ ֵ ‫ִמּׁשּוט ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫ ָּבּה‬mišuṭ ba’areṣ wumehithalek bah (śaṭan/mišuṭ)—“From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it”, in the KJV translation. In Nakazaw’s version Satan’s words sound a little stiff; below are a few other versions: A-1 地を行きめぐり此彼經より来たりし chi o yukimeguri kokokashikoe yori kitarishi A-2 地を行きめぐり、あちらこちら歩いてきました chi o yukimeguri, achirakochira aruitekimashita A-4 地上を歩きまわり、ふらついてきました chijō o arukimawari, furatsuite kimashita A-11 地上を巡回しておりました。ほうぼうをあるきまわっていました chijō o junkaishite orimashita. hōbō o arukimawatteimashita A-12 地上を巡回し、そのあちらを歩き回って来ました chijō o junkaishi, sono achira o arukimawatte kimashita

None of the above was able to convey the pun, and the translations seem to become gradually more cumbersome (A-11’s is once again unnecessarily long). In this case A-2’s translation is simple and to the point. Nakazawa’s translation of the poetic parts of the book is usually concise, if not very poetic. For example: 3:25–26 恐れに恐れたものがわれに臨み、 osore ni osoreta mono ga ware ni nozomi, 恐怖がわれを捉えたからだ。 kyōfu ga ware o toraeta kara da. われは安らいえず、憩いえず、 ware wa yasuraiezu, ikoiezu, 休むひまなく苦しみが襲う yasumu hima naku kurushimi ga osou



translations compared: a variety of examples

363

6.3.5 Fujisaki’s Translation (C-13, c.2000) Fujisaki Hideyoshi’s partial translation was prepared many years earlier and was never printed as a regular book but distributed after his death by his family in bound photocopies. This is a rare case of reverting to the classical style by a contemporary translator. By necessity Fujisaki followed A-1 closer than any other translation of Job. For example, in 3:4 (see above), he didn’t change anything, only adding the particle wa after kami and after hikari. He even kept the use of nanji for the second-person pronoun in all cases. To the text of A-1, Fujisaki added particles and punctuation marks, replaced ehoba with shu, modernized the orthography, and changed some obsolete expressions. In the chapters following the prologue he changed more than in chapters 1–2, but still, it is often a revision more than a new translation. His translation maintains an archaic tone, for example: 9:1–3 ヨブは答えて言えり。 うべや、さなり。 人やは神のみ前に正しかるべき。 よし、主上と争わむとするも 千に一つも答うる能わず。

yobu wa kotaete ieri. ube ya, sanari. hito ya wa kami nomi mae ni tadashikaru beki. yoshi, shujō to arasowamu tosuru mo sen ni hitotsu mo kotauru atowazu.

Fujisaki’s attempt to revive the classical style of the Meiji Translation at the end of the twentieth century may seem almost as anachronistic as Chamberlain’s attempt to revive Heian poetry near the end of the nineteenth, but it should not necessarily be scoffed at. After all, the Meiji Translation is a fact (unlike Chamberlain’s fancy), and although for contemporary Japanese it is difficult to read, perhaps a certain revision and a ‘facelift’ may make it more accessible, and ensure its position as a modern Japanese classic. To round things off, here is a famous verse from the Book of Job in the classical rendition of the Meiji Translation, which no later translation was able to improve upon (and none has actually tried, except for orthographic and grammatical updating):

364

chapter six

1:21 ‫אמר ָער ֹם יָ ָצ ִתי ִמ ֶּב ֶטן ִא ִּמי וְ ָער ֹם ָאשּוב ָׁש ָּמה יהוה נָ ַתן וַ יהוה ָל ָקח יְ ִהי ֵׁשם יהוה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ :‫ְמב ָֹרְך‬ 言ふ 我裸にて母の胎を出でたり 又裸にて彼處に帰らん ヱホバ與えヱホバ取り給ふなり ヱホバの御名は讃むべきかな

iu ware hadaka nite haha no tai o idetari mata hadaka nite kashiko ni kaeran ehoba atae ehoba tori tamau nari ehoba no mina wa homu beki kana

6.4 Hebraisms in the Japanese Translations? William Rosenau published a book in 1903 based on his Ph.D. dissertation titled Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible.16 In it he strived to show the influence of biblical Hebrew on the English language by searching the KJV “for all the Hebraisms the company of translators, either consciously or unconsciously, retained” (p. 13). Rosenau, as expected, found a multitude of examples, both lexicographical and syntactical, in phrases, nouns, verbs and so on, which were carried over from the Hebrew source into the English translation, creating new meanings and nuances that had not existed in the English language before the Bible was translated. And because of the unparalleled influence of the KJV on the use of the English language in both literature and daily life, the language absorbed these usages and phrases so deeply, that they became a natural part of it. F.S. Heuman followed Rosenau’s criteria in his own dissertation published in 1977, focusing on Hebraisms in three English translations of the Psalms. He defined ‘Hebraism’ as an “expression translated into English by a literal rendition of the Hebrew idiom rather than the utilization of the simplest English expression rendering the literal meaning” (Heuman 1977, 2). Heuman writes that for the early English translators, since every word in the Bible was divinely inspired, they “did not want to tamper with any words or change them in the slightest. Therefore many Biblical Hebrew figurative uses of words passed into English” (ibid., 4). Hepburn was still holding on to the same view (see Appendix), although generally speaking, later translators opted for clarity over literality.

16 In this sub-chapter, ‘Hebraism’ is used solely in the linguistic meaning (i.e., an English [or a Japanese] phrase coined on the basis of an expression or construction distinctive of biblical Hebrew), not in the wider meaning of anything pertaining to the ancient Hebrews.



translations compared: a variety of examples

365

In his recent study Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible (2010), Robert Alter writes (p. 1): In England, the Protestant Reformation took an important step toward its consolidation in 1611 when the Bible was made fully accessible to the reading public in a translation that rapidly became canonical. The King James Version was famously eloquent and a beautiful instrument for conveying the vision of the biblical writers to the English-speaking populace. Its distinctive style would in the case of many major writers, beginning as early as the seventeenth century, give literary English a new and memorable coloration. (The fact that it is often inaccurate, and that the eloquence is not entirely unflagging as most readers remember, scarcely diminishes this broad impact.) But it was in America that the potential of the 1611 translation to determine the foundational language and symbolic imagery of a whole culture was most fully realized.

When considering the case of Japan, the first question that comes to mind is: Hebraisms or Anglicisms? After all, the first translators of the Bible were members of that culture in which the KJV was so predominant, and their heritage was passed on, at least partially, to their Japanese assistants. We have also seen the influence of the Chinese versions on the Japanese one, which in turn were also influenced by the KJV. So when translating literally, which one had the greater influence on the Meiji translators: the KJV or the MT? Or perhaps the latter through the prism of KJV? It is hard to tell, and we must also keep in mind that in the case of the Meiji Translation there were several translators working independently, and that their work was not always edited to the same standard, as we have also seen. And to what extent did their renditions influence later translations? There is, of course, a major difference between the positions of each translation among their respective audiences: although the Meiji Translation was widely read, and in particular by writers and intellectuals, it had not entered the language to the same extent that the KJV had, if at all. However, it is not easy to judge accurately the impact that the language of the Meiji Translation (and Christianity generally) had on the Japanese language. Suzuki Norihisa (2006, 179–92) checked the occurrence of 30 Christian and biblical terms in major Japanese dictionaries appearing between 1889 and 1976, in order to determine since when they had become standardized in the language. He found that while the earliest dictionary had but two of these words, the latest had all 30. But, as Suzuki himself knows, the fact that a certain word appears in a dictionary does not mean that it is widely used or even recognized. Suzuki then checked the occurrence

366

chapter six

of such words in the titles of literary works, and found quite a few (ibid., 192–199). He also showed how certain Japanese words, such as kami (God) or ai (love), had undergone a change of meaning under the influence of Christianity (ibid., 199–217). All his findings indicate that Christianity had certain lasting effects on Japanese culture, but it remains difficult to estimate the influence of the Meiji Translation. The aim in what follows is limited to the OT translation itself and to the influence the KJV may have had on the Meiji and later translations. Did the translators stick to the literal meaning as often as the KJV translators did? Were they bound by the example of their distinguished predecessors, or were they able to liberate themselves from it? We have already seen in Chapter 5 how the KJV expressions “valley of the shadow of death” and “My cup runneth over” were treated by the Japanese translators and in what follows, their work is examined further. Only several dozen of Rosenau’s hundreds of examples of Hebraisms have been checked, and only a few of these are quoted below. Running a similar check of all the ways a certain word was translated into Japanese throughout the Bible (in its various translations) would require a different project altogether, so only a limited survey has been attempted.17 Apart from A-1, four other major translations are quoted for each example (A-2, A-4, A-11, A-12; A-7 was also checked and is quoted in cases of important differences). Mostly passages including proverbs and metaphorical expressions were checked, but also a few verbs (which Rosenau treated separately), as well as some cases of euphemism. 6.4.1 Hebraism Retained 1. Gen. 3:19 “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” ‫ֹאכל ֶל ֶחם‬ ַ ‫ְּבזֵ ַעת ַא ֶּפיָך ּת‬ A-1 汝は面に汗して食物を食ひ nanji wa kao ni ase shite shokumotsu o kurai A-2 あなたは顔に汗してパンを食べ anata wa kao ni ase shite pan o tabe A-4 君は顔に汗してパンを食い kimi wa kao ni ase shite pan o kurai A-7 あなたは、顔に汗を流して糧を得 anata wa, kao ni ase o nagashite kate o e

17 It should also be noted that Rosenau’s many examples of syntactical Hebraisms in the KJV are mostly irrelevant in our case, since the Japanese translators were almost unanimously careful in the use of correct Japanese syntax, and only in rare cases, as we have seen a few times in Chapter 5, did they try to consciously imitate the Hebrew one.



translations compared: a variety of examples

367

A-11 お前は顔に汗を流してパンを得る omae wa kao ni ase o nagashite shite pan o eru A-12 あなたは顔に汗して食物を得る anata wa kao ni ase shite ことになろう shokumotsu o eru koto ni narō

Here “the sweat of thy face” was preserved; it could be a direct translation from the Hebrew, although the KJV must have had its influence, otherwise an authentic Japanese expression for making a hard effort would have been used.18 In fact, there is a very similar Japanese expression, attested to as early as the 17th century, 額に汗するhitai ni ase suru, literally “to sweat on the brow”, meaning “work with all one’s might” (my translation, NKD2 V. 11, 296), or “live by the sweat of one’s brow” (Kodansha’s Dictionary, 455). Why wasn’t this expression used, with hitai instead of kao, which would have created a natural Japanese expression rather than an unfamiliar one? And if A-1’s literal translation policy is understandable, why didn’t any of the later translators, who often changed A-1’s wording, choose the other option? There is no clear answer to these questions; the tendency to adhere to a familiar and famous expression may serve as a partial explanation. However, “bread” was treated differently; A-1 has shokumotsu (food) perhaps because bread was not yet a staple food in Japan of the 1880’s; however A-12 also made the same choice, in a period when bread is much more ubiquitous, having entered the Japanese people’s diet in recent decades. A-2, A-4 and A-11 translated directly, pan (‘bread’, a loan-word from the Portuguese pão). A-7 translated differently here with kate, which means ‘food’ (basically rice). 2. Gen. 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife” A-1 アダム其妻エバを知る A-2 人はその妻エバを知った A-4 その人は彼の妻エバを知った A-11 さて、アダムは妻エバを知った A-12 人は妻エバを知った

‫וְ ָה ָא ָדם יָ ַדע ֶאת ַחּוָ ה ִא ְׁשּתֹו‬ adamu sono tsuma eba o shiru hito wa sono tsuma eba o shitta sono hito wa kare no tsuma eba o shitta sate, adamu wa tsuma eba o shitta hito wa tsuma eba o shitta

18 NKD2, v. 3, 324 has several expressions with kao ni . . . but not this one; nor does it appear under ase (NKD2, v. 1, 353–4).

368

chapter six

This is a very famous Hebraism in the English language, and when used with this meaning it is often followed by a clarification, “’to know’, in the biblical sense”. All Japanese translations followed the KJV’s example and translated literally rather than use a Japanese expression that means having sexual intercourse.19 As far as I can tell, this meaning of shiru is familiar mostly to Bible readers, and has not become generally familiar to Japanese speakers.20 Incidentally, all translations retain the Latinized form of the woman’s proper name, eba in Japanese transliteration, rather than transliterate from the Hebrew ḥawa; as for her male partner’s soubriquet, A-1 and A-11 regarded it as a proper noun, adamu, while the other translations treated it as a common noun with hito; A-4 also strived to reflect the definite article with sono hito. 3. Ex. 20:7 “[Thou] shalt not take the name ‫ֹלהיָך ַלשָּׁ וְ א‬ ֶ ‫לא ִת ָּׂשא ֶאת ֵׁשם יהוה ֱא‬ [of the LORD thy God] in vain” A-1 名を妄に口にあぐべからず na o midari ni kuchi ni agubekarazu A-2 名を、みだりに唱えてはならない na o, midari ni tonaete wa naranai A-4 み名をみだりに唱えてはならない mina o midari ni tonaete wa naranai A-11 名をみだりに唱えてはならない na o midari ni tonaete wa naranai A-12 名を、空しいことのために唱え na o, munashii koto no tame てはならない ni tonaete wa naranai

This KJV rendering had a considerable impact on English and American cultures, as it was taken to mean not to pronounce God’s name—and by extension, Christ’s name—heedlessly (Rosenau 1903, 156). The original meaning is more likely not to perjure oneself; JPS has here: “You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God” (and see JSB 149), and NJB: “You shall not misuse the name . . .”. The verb naśa’ means ‘to lift’, ‘carry’, and is used in various figurative ways, including ‘utter’, as in this case (BDB 669–70); uttering God’s name appears also in Ps. 16:4, 50:16. As for the Hebrew šaw’, it means ‘emptiness’ or ‘vanity’ (BDB 996), and with the preposition la- it appears eleven times in the OT. The meaning ‘falsely’ 19 Only the two paraphrased translations have different versions; A-8: 交わりmajiwari, which can mean “to have sex with”; A-10: 夫婦生活をし fūfu seikatsu o shi, “have family life”. 20 NKD2, v. 7, 474–5 does not mention it.



translations compared: a variety of examples

369

for šaw’, as in the JPS translation, is found in Ex. 23:1; Ezek. 13:6–9; Ps. 24:4 etc.; the meaning ‘in vain’, ‘uselessly’, ‘for no purpose’ in Jer. 2:30, 4:30, 6:29; Ps. 127:1 etc.; swearing falsely is mentioned in Lev. 19:12. According to Sarna (1991, 111) the ambiguity allows for both meanings: the proscription of perjury, and of the unnecessary or frivolous use of the divine name.21 Most Japanese translations used the verb tonaeru for tiśa’, which means ‘recite’ or even ‘chant’, and is used in Buddhist contexts, such as in chanting Buddha’s name (念仏を唱える). For lašaw’ the Japanese translations used midarini which can mean ‘without (any) cause’, ‘without (good) reason’, and even ‘without permission’. The latest translation, A-12, used munashii, which means ‘empty’ or ‘vain’, and in the adverbial form munashiki, ‘in vain’. The same word was used by A-1 and later translators of Gen. 1:2 to describe the formless earth. It seems that the Japanese translations followed the KJV in understanding this verse to speak against uttering God’s name for no good reason, rather than for the more specific meaning of using it in giving false evidence while under oath. 4. Num. 27:17 “as sheep which have no shepherd” A-1 牧者なき羊のごとく A-2 牧者のない羊のように A-4 牧う者なき家畜の群れのように A-11 飼う者のいない羊の群れのように A-12 牧者のいない小家畜の群れの ように

‫ַּכּצֹאן ֲא ֶשר ֵאין ָל ֶהם ר ֶֹעה‬ kaumono naki hitsuji no gotoku bokusha no nai hitsuji no yō ni kaumono naki kachiku no mure no yō ni kaumono no inai hitsuji no mure no yō ni bokusha no inai shōkachiku no mure no yō ni

The simile of sheep and shepherd was encountered earlier in Ps. 23 (Chapter 5); there we saw a variety of Japanese translations for “shepherd”, and here we also see a variety in the translation of ṣo’n, which indeed can be translated in various ways (BDB 838) as “sheep and goats” (hitsuji in A-1, A-2 and A-11), “small cattle” (kachiku in A-4 and shōkachiku in A-12), as well as “flock” (mure in A-4, A-11 and A-12, all three of which representing the single Hebrew noun by two Japanese ones). As in Ps. 23, here too the Japanese reader would encounter a scene not quite familiar, but as in the 21 For šaw’ see also TDOT v. 14, 447–461, and in particular p. 458 where the meaning of ‘perjury’ in this verse is rejected, but no definite meaning is proposed.

370

chapter six

psalm, the translators had no choice but to translate literally. However, unlike in English, where it became a familiar idiom, it is unlikely to enter general use in Japanese. 5. Judges 3:24 “Coverth his feet”

‫ֵמ ִסיך הּוא ֶאת ַרגְ ָליו‬

This is a case in which the biblical text itself uses a euphemism, and the translations are divided on whether to retain the euphemism through literal translation, or to say plainly what is hidden behind the expression. This is demonstrated already by the ancient translations: the Septuagint translated the euphemism literally, while the Vulgate says plainly: purgat alvum, “cleans his bowels”. Some English translations followed the KJV in its literal translation, including the modern NJB, while others, including RSV, NASU and JPS have “relieving himself ”. The Japanese translations were similarly divided; literal translation is found in A-1 (足を蔽ひ ashi o ōi) and is followed in A-2 (足をおおって ashi o ōtte) (see also no. 6 below); on the other hand A-4, A-7, A-11 and A-12 translated 用を足して yō o tashite, “doing his business”.22 6. Judges 15:8 “he smote them hip and thigh” ‫אֹותם ׁשֹוק ַעל יָ ֵרְך‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיַ ְך‬ A-1 脛に腿にかれらを撃ちて hagi ni momo ni karera o uchite A-2 かれらをさんざん撃って karera o sanzan utte A-4 彼らをこっぴどくやっつけ karera o koppidoku yattsuke A-7 彼らを取りひしいで karera o torihishide A-11 かれらを徹底的に打ちのめし karera o tetteitekini uchinomeshi A-12 かれらを打ちのめして karera o uchinomeshite

In the KJV this is a good example of a literal translation that should have been avoided. The Hebrew expression is metaphorical, and the literal translation creates a meaningless expression. The fact that A-1 also translated literally is most probably under the influence of the KJV; the later translations avoided literal rendering, using various Japanese expressions meaning “to beat severely”. Incidentally, A-2, which sometimes followed

22 It is probably a coincidence that ashi and tashite are written with the same kanji character.



translations compared: a variety of examples

371

RSV while revising A-1, did not do so here (RSV kept the original KJV expression); from the opposite direction, it did not follow RSV in Judges 3:24 either: while RSV has “relieving himself ” A-2 remained faithful to A-1 in the use of the euphemism. 7. 1 Sam. 25:22 “Pisseth against the wall”

‫ַמ ְׁש ִּתין ְּב ִקיר‬

This expression appears in the OT six times, usually as part of a threat to annihilate somebody’s male offspring or retainers (1 Sam. 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8). It is a figurative metonymy, obviously meaning “a male person” (BDB 1010), which is the translation in most later English versions, having rejected the KJV’s literal one. Some of the Japanese translations, beginning with A-1, also avoided the KJV’s example, in spite of Hepburn’s policy of translating ad literam rather than interpreting the text, perhaps for puritanical reasons in this case. In all six cases A-1 has 男 otoko, except in 1 Kings 16:11 where it has 男子 but with the furigana reading otoko. A-2 followed suit, and as often is the case, copied also A-1’s case of variant spelling, although in A-2 it is given the more common reading danshi in the furigana. A-11 has 男 in the two cases in 1 Samuel, and 男子 in the four cases in Kings (probably due to the work of different translators). A-7 has in all six verses 小わっぱ kowappa (youngster, kid), which is a consistent but inaccurate translation, as it does not include all males. However, Sekine (A-4) went a different way. In 1 Sam. 25:22, 34 he has 小僧っ子 kozōkko, meaning something like “servant boys”; on the other hand, in the four verses in Kings he has: 壁に小便する者kabe ni shōbensuru mono, a very literal translation. Similarly Ikeda Yutaka, who translated both books for A-12, has two different translations. In 1 Sam. 25:22, 34 he translates 野郎ども yarōdomo (guys), while in Kings he has: 壁に向かって放尿するもの kabe ni mukatte hōnyōsuru mono, a rather more clinical expression than the one used by Sekine, but still a literal translation. In his note for 1 Sam. 25:22, Ikeda gives the literal translation (here with the same wording used by Sekine in Kings), and remarks that David uses this lewd expression coolly in front of Abigail. In his note for 1 Kings 14:10 Ikeda gives the transliteration of the Hebrew expression, saying that it usually means “male”, but that it can also mean “dog”. Perhaps for this reason both he and Sekine chose to translate literally (and thus inclusively of both possible

372

chapter six

i­ nterpretations), but if so, why not in 1 Samuel as well? Is it perhaps out of respect for David, or for Abigail? 8. 2 Samuel 15:6 “so Absalom stole the hearts of the ‫וַ יְ גַ ּנֵ ב ַא ְב ָׁשלֹום ֶאת ֵלב ַאנְ ֵשי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ men of Israel” A-1 斯アブサロムはイスラエルの人々の心を取れリ kaku abusaromu wa isuraeru no hitobito no kokoro o toreri A-2 こ う し て ア ブ サ ロ ム は イ ス ラ エ ル の 人 々 の 心 を 自 分 の も のとした kōshite abusaromu wa isuraeru no hitobito no kokoro o jibun no mono to shita A-4 アブサロムはこうしてイスラエル人の心を奪った abusaromu wa kōshite isuraerujin no kokoro o ubatta A-7 こうしてアブサロムはイスラエル人の心を盗んだ kōshite abusaromu wa isuraerujin no kokoro o nusunda A-11 アブサロムは・・・イスラエルの人々の心を盗み取った abusaromu wa . . . isuraeru no hitobito no kokoro o nusumi totta23 A-12 こうしてアブサロムは、イスラエルの人々の心を摑んだ kōshite abusaromu wa, isuraeru no hitobito no kokoro o tsukanda

This is a case reminiscent of the variety encountered in the translations of Psalm 23: all the above six translations retained the “heart”, kokoro, but each followed it with a different verb. Is this an indication of difficulty? Was there no equivalent Japanese expression? After all, the verse does not describe a unique phenomenon, but something generally human. Perhaps the attempt to translate literally caused the difficulty; in fact, only A-7’s translation is fully literal with the verb nusunda (stole); A-11 is close by with nusumi totta (took and stole); A-1 has “took”, A-2 “made his own”, A-4 “grabbed”, A-12 “seized”. The noun kokoro holds a prominent position in the Japanese language and culture, and expressions including it are numberless, occupying dozens of pages in the large volumes of Nihon Kokugo Daijiten. Expressions involving kokoro followed by the direct-object particle o alone occupy seven pages in NKD2, and among them can be found two that seem similar to some of the above translations:

23 In the MT Absalom is mentioned twice in this verse, and all the translations followed suit, but A-11 mentioned him only once, at the beginning of the verse.



translations compared: a variety of examples

373

1. 心を取るkokoro o toru (NKD2, V. 5, 678)—the definition of this expression is “presume a person’s feelings, humor a person” (my translation); several examples from classical literature are given, beginning with the Tale of Genji (c. 1001–14). The meaning seems different from the one used in A-1, which looks like a direct translation, “take/grab the hearts”. 2. 心を奪うkokoro o ubau (NKD2, V. 5, 675)—the definition here is “attract a person’s heart, charm [a person]” (my translation); examples begin with a book published in 1599. This expression, used by Sekine in A-4, seems to be very close to the original meaning. The process we see here is rather interesting: the earliest translation, A-1, avoided exact literal translation of both the KJV and MT, and perhaps coined an expression that seems to give the same idea. The translators of the following version, A-2, although very often following their predecessors, must have found this expression inadequate, and chose another one, which was probably not a very good choice either, since all later translations avoided it. Then Sekine in A-4 chose what seems to be a suitably original Japanese expression, but later translations did not follow his example either; instead, in A-7 and A-11, the translators reverted to literal translation of the Hebrew idiom, which must sound strange to Japanese readers. And finally A-12 used an expression that although not listed in the dictionaries as such, is not unfamiliar to Japanese ears. 9. 2 Samuel 16:11 “Seeketh my life” A-1 わが生命を求む A-2 わたしの命を求めている A-4 わたしの生命を求めている A-11 わたしの命をねらっている A-12 わたしのいのちをねらっている

‫ְמ ַבקֵּ ש ֶאת נַ ְפ ִׁשי‬ waga inochi o motomu watashi no inochi o motometeiru watashi no inochi o motometeiru watashi no inochi o neratteiru watashi no inochi o neratteiru

This idiom clearly expresses danger to one’s life, and JPS translates simply: “seeks to kill me”. Unlike in the case of Psalm 23 (5.3.6 above), nepeš was appropriately translated here as “life” both by the KJV and by the Japanese translations. It is likely that A-1 followed the KJV’s example, and that later translations followed it in turn. As for the two verbs used in the various translations: motomeru basically means ‘want’, ‘desire’ (it may also mean ‘pursue’, ‘hunt for’, ‘seek’); nerau means ‘take aim at’, ‘be after’, and can have a threatening nuance. I was not able to find the whole expression in

374

chapter six

the dictionaries as such, but the use of nerau in this context would seem to be familiar to Japanese readers. However this idiom, in various forms, appears 30 times in the OT, and was not translated consistently in A-1. Although other cases of this phrase in the books of Samuel are translated similarly, it is not the case elsewhere, demonstrating again the different results coming from the work of different translators. The case of the Psalms is especially complicated: Ps. 35:4 わが靈魂をたづねる waga tamashii o tazuneru Ps. 38:12 (MT v. 13) わが生命をたずねる waga inochi o tazuneru Ps. 54:3 (MT v. 5) わがたましひを索むる waga tamashii o motomuru

There are a few other cases in the Psalms, some with slight variations (40:15, 63:10, 70:3). In Jeremiah the expression appears 12 times, and the translation is closer to the one in the books of Samuel, although with some variations too: 11:21 生命を取らんと索めて 21:7 生命を索む

inochi o toran to motomete inochi o motomu

A-2 reformed the Psalms translation in this case, using the same wording as in Samuel uniformly instead of the alternate versions. A-4 was consistent in its translation, but A-11 and A-12 show some variations. 10. 2 Samuel 22:3 “horn of my salvation” A-1 わが救いの角 waga sukui no tsuno A-2 わが救いの角 waga sukui no tsuno A-4 わが救いの角 waga sukui no tsuno A-11 わたしの・・・救いの角 watashi no . . . sukui no tsuno A-12 わが救いの角 waga sukui no tsuno

‫ֶק ֶרן יִ ְׁש ִעי‬

Contrary to the previous example, this expression would not be readily recognized or easy to understand by Japanese readers. It is a metaphorical expression that need not be translated directly. One in a string of similar expressions, it is a symbol of strength, of YHWH as deliverer (BDB 901–2). However, the expression became popular in English and was used in many translations following the KJV, although NJB has “my saving strength”, and JPS “my mighty champion”, both avoiding the metaphor. In Japan horned animals were relatively rare (there were only deer, and some bulls), and instead of dignity, power and glory, horns were often associated with



translations compared: a variety of examples

375

oni (ogres and demons), and with jealousy (角を生やすtsuno o hayasu; 角が生える tsuno ga haeru). Horns are therefore usually associated in Japanese culture with fear or anger, so when combined with sukui (rescue), the effect is strange.24 11. Mal. 1:1 “The burden of the word of the LORD” ‫ַמ ָּׂשא ְד ַבר יהוה‬ A-1 ヱホバの言の重負なり ehoba no kotoba no omoni naru A-2 主の言葉の託宣 shu no kotoba no takusen A-4 ヤハヴェの言 yahave no kotoba A-11 託宣。・・・主の言葉。 takusen. [. . .] shu no kotoba A-12 託宣。・・・ヤハウェの言葉。 takusen. [. . .] yahawe no kotoba

The noun maśa’, encountered already twice before in this chapter (Pr. 30:1 & 31:1), has two basic meanings (as well as the third meaning, as a proper noun of place or tribe): the first and more common is ‘load’, ‘burden’; the second is ‘utterance’, ‘oracle’ (BDB 672). The second meaning appears about 30 times in the OT, mostly in the prophetical books (Is. 14:28, Jer. 23:36, Ez. 12;10, Hab. 1:1 etc.); regarding this meaning, TDOT (V. 9, 20–24) distinguishes between “general usage”, in which Pr. 30:1 & 31:1 are both included, and “prophetic oracles”. However, the KJV is consistent in translating maśa’ as “burden” in these cases, with very few exceptions: “oracle” in 2 King. 9:25, “prophecy” in Prov. 30:1 & 31:1, and “song” in 1 Chron. 15:22. Here A-1 clearly followed the KJV with 重負 (omoni, now usually written 重荷, ‘a heavy burden’); A-2 introduced takusen (oracle), a word appearing in early Japanese literature, probably of Buddhist origin (NKD2, V. 8, 851), and A-4 has simply kotoba (words) for the whole expression. Following is a table showing the translation of maśa’ in the three relevant verses discussed in this chapter; on the left is the most likely translation for each case: Prov. 30:1 ‘utterance’ Prov. 31:1 p. n. Maśa’ Mal 1:1 ‘utterance’

KJV A-1 A-2

A-11 A-12

prophecy

shingen

massa

takusen

massa

prophecy

shingen

massa

massa

massa

burden

omoni

takusen

takusen

takusen

24 A-10 avoided literal translation once again, rendering here: 私の救い主, “my savior”.

376

chapter six

The above table shows that A-1 was loyal to KJV’s translation in all three cases; surprisingly, A-2 was disloyal to A-1 also in all 3 cases, probably consulting contemporary scholarship. A-11 is perhaps the most accurate, although the heavily burdened takusen is probably not the best choice. 12. Job 19:20 “and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth” ‫וָ ֶא ְת ַמ ְּל ָטה ְּבעֹור ִׁשּנָ י‬ A-1 我は僅かに歯の皮を全うして逃れしのみ ware wa wazukani ha no kawa o mattaushite nogareshi nomi A-2 わたしはわずかに歯の皮をもってのがれた watashi wa wazukani ha no kawa o motte nogareta A-4 わたしはわが歯の皮をもって逃れた watashi wa waga ha no kawa o motte nogareta A-11 皮膚と歯ばかりになって   わたしは生き延びている hifu to ha bakari ni natte   watashi wa ikinobiteiru A-12 私は歯の皮で逃れている watashi wa ha no kawa de nogareteiru

This is the case of a difficult expression, the meaning of which is obscure (after all, teeth, normally, don’t have skin), and many ways to emend the text and extract plausible meaning from it have been tried, none easily acceptable (cf. Dhorme 1967, 279–80). So translating literally may seem inevitable, or otherwise fancifully, like NJB’s “my bones are sticking out like teeth”. A-1 followed the KJV in translating the MT very literally, without attempting to emend it; A-2 followed A-1, simplifying its expressions slightly; A-4 and A-12 continued the same tendency; A-11 changed the order of the words, and also the meaning (“becoming only skin and teeth, I lived on”), representing the sole attempt to emend the text. 13. Eccl. 1:2 “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”  ‫ֲה ֵבל ֲה ַב ִלים ַהּכֹל ָה ֶבל‬ A-1 空の空なる哉 都て空なり kū no kū naru kana subete kū nari A-2 空の空、いっさいは空である。 kū no kū, issai wa kū dearu A-4 空の空、すべては空だ。 kū no kū, subete wa kū da A-11 なんという空しさ、すべて nantoiu munashisa, subete wa は空しい。 munashii A-12 空の空、いっさいは空、と。 kū no kū, issai wa kū, to

This famous declaration of the futility of human existence could be considered a mistranslation on the part of the KJV (which must have fol-



translations compared: a variety of examples

377

lowed the Vulgate’s vanitas); indeed, the NJB and JPS replaced “vanity” with “futility”, but that is not accurate either. The basic meaning of hebel is ‘vapor’, ‘breath’; figuratively it refers to “what is evanescent, unsubstantial, worthless, vanity, as of idols” (BDB 210). The exact meaning of hebel in Ecclesiastes is hotly debated, and there is no definite consensus, although clearly the word has various nuances in the book (see Seow 1997, 101–2).25 A-1 and most of the translations following it translated hebel with kū, which is a striking example of a fortunate translation, since it means both ‘air’ and ‘emptiness’ or ‘vanity’ (NKD2, V. 4, 747).26 The adjectival form kūna can mean ‘void’, ‘vain’, ‘futile’ etc. The translators of A-11 (following Barbaro, A-6a, which was not quoted above) preferred to use the adjective munashii, which was encountered previously in some translations of Gen. 1:2 and Ex. 20:7, and which includes the same kanji of kū and means the same as kūna (see NKD2 V. 12, 1009). As for kū no kū, I was not able to find it in NKD, but in Kodansha Japanese-English Dictionary (963) one finds: “空の空なるもの vanity of vanities; vanitas vanitatum”, although with no indication of the biblical source.27 14. Eccl. 9:4 “for a living dog is better than a dead lion” ‫ִּכי ְל ֶכ ֶלב ַחי הּוא טֹוב ִמן ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ַה ֵּמת‬ A-1 其は生ける犬は死せる獅子に愈ればなり sowa ikeru inu wa shiseru shishi ni masareba nari A-2 生ける犬は、死せるししにまさるからである ikeru inu wa, shiseru shishi ni masaru kara dearu A-4 生きている犬は死んだ獅子よりましだ ikiteiru inu wa shinda shishi yori mashi da A-11 犬でも、生きていれば、死んだ獅子よりましだ inu demo, ikiteireba, shinda shishi yori mashi da A-12 たしかに、死んだ獅子より生きている犬のほうが幸である tashikani, shinda shishi yori ikiteiru inu no hō ga saiwai dearu

25 Alter (2010a, 346) argues in favor of translating the metaphor literarily here, allowing it to suggest to the reader several related ideas such as futility, ephemerality and the absurdity of existence; he therefore translates: “Merest breath, said Qohelet, merest breath. All is mere breath”. 26 A-1 is dependent here on the Chinese translation; see also a short discussion in Yi 2008, 26–27. 27 See further discussion in Tsukimoto 2000, 29–31, and also in Iwanami 2005, 252–253.

378

chapter six

This is the case of a proverb translated literally; the English language has adopted it, but it is uncommon in Japanese. No true equivalent has been found so far, perhaps because it is contrary to the traditional samurai spirit, according to which it is better to die in honor than to live in shame. Incidentally, once more we encounter here the little word ki discussed in Chapter 4 and mentioned in 5 (4.2.3; 5.3.11). A-1 has sowa which reflects the KJV’s “for”; A-12 has tashikani which is the closest equivalent to the meaning of the Hebrew in this case; the rest of the translations ignored the word. 6.4.2 Hebraism Avoided As can be seen above, in several cases the Japanese translations, following the KJV directly or indirectly, retained the literal translation of the Hebrew idiom (although in some cases later translations corrected the rendering in the earlier ones). However, in several other cases checked, they did not; ignoring the KJV’s example, they used authentic Japanese expressions. Following are a few examples (only A-1 is quoted; other translations were checked and mostly did not have literal translations either, with the few exceptions quoted below): a. Gen. 16:2 “And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai” ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע ַא ְב ָרם ְלקֹול ָׂש ָרי‬ A-1 アブラム、サライの言を聽きいれたり aburamu, sarai no kotoba o kiki iretari In Japanese Abram listens to the words of Sarai (with the nuance of ‘obey’), and not literally to her “voice”.

b. Gen. 49:11 “The blood of grapes” ‫ַדם ֲענָ ִבים‬ A-1 葡萄の汁 budō no shiru Avoiding the metaphor, the translation means “juice of grapes” (compare with “horn of my salvation” where the metaphor was retained, perhaps because here there was an easier solution?). However, A-7 has ぶどうの血 budō no chi, a literal translation.

c. Ex. 15:8 “In the heart of the sea” A-1 海の中に umi no uchi ni

‫ְּב ֶלב יָ ם‬



translations compared: a variety of examples

379

“In the middle of the sea” rather than “in the heart of ”; again, the metaphor is avoided. It is interesting to see that in Jonah 2:4 (v. 3 in some versions) the KJV translated a similar Hebrew expression with “in the midst of the seas”, while many other translations—perhaps following the Septuagint and Vulgate—translated “in the heart of the seas” (NASU, NJB, RSV, JPS). A-1 has here: うみの中心に umi no monaka ni, using the kanji for “heart”, but the furigana meaning “in the midst of ”. Later translations (A-2, A-4, A-7, A-11, A-12) dispensed of the kanji as well.

d. 1 Sam. 2:12 “Sons of Belial” ‫ְּבנֵ י ְב ִלּיָ ַעל‬ A-1 邪なる者 yokoshimanaru mono The meaning of the Japanese is “wicked person(s)”, thus avoiding a famous KJV mistranslation.

e. 1 Sam. 17:32 “Let no man’s heart fail” ‫ַאל יִ ּפֹל ֵלב ָא ָדם‬ A-1 氣をおとすべからず ki o otosu bekarazu Here an authentic Japanese expression is used, conveying the meaning “not lose courage”. Still, the MT may have brought up an association: “heart” is not mentioned, but the Hebrew verb means ‘fall’, and the Japanese one means ‘let fall’, ‘drop’.

f. Is. 1:12 “Who hath required this at your hand?” ‫ִמי ִב ֵּקׁש זֹאת ִמּיֶ ְד ֶכם‬ A-1 このことを誰が汝らに要めしや kono koto o ta ga nanjira ni motomeshi ya In Japanese: “who has asked this of you”, avoiding the literal “hand”.

g. Is. 40:5 “All flesh shall see it together” ‫וְ ָראּו ָכל ָּב ָׂשר יַ ְח ָּדו‬ A-1: 人みな共にこれを見ん hito mina tomoni kore o min “Flesh” here means “mankind”, and in Japanese: “all men shall see it together”. However, A-11 and A-12 have: 肉なる者は共に見る niku naru mono wa tomoni miru, refelcting the original expression.

6.4.3 Conclusion The above survey demonstrates many cases of literal translation and of calque (loan translation) in the Japanese versions of the Hebrew language of the OT. Regarding A-1, it is also possible, and occasionally plausible,

380

chapter six

that the translation was under the influence of the KJV, thus representing cases of Anglicisms as well as Hebraisms. Regarding the later translations, it is also clear that they often followed, or were influenced at least partially, by the precedence of A-1. It is also clear that none of the above translations followed the KJV, MT or A-1 blindly in all cases, but that there was often an amount of individual consideration that shaped the translations. To these general observations a few specific ones can be added: Example 1 demonstrates the power of the original text (KJV or MT): although a similar Japanese expression was available, requiring only a slight modification, the translators of A-1 chose a literal translation with kao rather than hitai and none of the later translations have chosen otherwise. Metaphors are often translated literally, even if the translation is obscure to a certain extent (examples 1, 4, 9, 10, 12). In one case (6) A-1 translated literally, but the other translations did not, perhaps because the result was too obscure, and a different solution was available. However, examples b & c are cases where the metaphor was avoided. The treatment of euphemisms varied: in example 5, A-1 and A-2 adopted the biblical euphemism literally, while the others translated it with a clearer expression (although somewhat euphemistic in itself ). In example 7 most of the translations introduced a euphemism rather than translate literally (which was not difficult to do in this case), but some scholarly versions translated literally, although not consistently. Example 2, “to know” in the sexual meaning, can also be considered a form of euphemism in the OT, which all the Japanese translations retained (with the exception of the two paraphrased ones). Reverting to a literal translation against the example of earlier translations was demonstrated by A-7 in examples 8 and b (probably due to its conservative nature and policy of literal translation), and also by A-11 in examples 8 and g, and by A-12 in the latter.

chapter seven

Concluding observations In this final chapter several issues concerning the Japanese translations of the OT which came up in the previous chapters will be summed up and discussed. In the main, this chapter will not repeat earlier discussions, but offer some new angles from which to view the material accumulated above, including a typology of the translations, another view of the question of faithfulness, further discussion of the comparative method (including a critical review of a previous Japanese study), a look at the future of Japanese translations, and finally some personal observations on the OT in Japan and on those who read and translate it. 7.1 Types of Translation Each civilization, each soul, is different, unique. Translation is our way to face this otherness of the universe and history. Octavio Paz1

Translation is our way for knowing the other; even when speaking the same language, we often need to translate a message for ourselves in terms that will make it meaningful to us, and always at the risk of misunderstanding the other. When translating from a foreign language and culture, the difficulties and risks are much higher, and even more so with ancient texts such as the Bible. Also, the Bible belongs to the category of sacred texts, and sacred texts tend to be approached with certain preconceived intentions by believers, and even by non-believers. This may be true of other kinds of texts as well, but in the case of the Bible there is the added element of what is conceived to be the Word of God, which makes matters much more complicated. Translating the same text repeatedly over a long period of time inevitably produces a great variety of results. This is not only the outcome of the translators’ abilities, sensibilities and idiosyncrasies, but also of their methods and targets. In the previous chapters various kinds of 1 In conversation with Edwin Honig, quoted in Barnstone 1993, vi.

382

chapter seven

translations were encountered, and now consideration should be given to whether they can be classified according to type. One way to divide them is according to the purpose of the translation, its expected use and audience. Although neither accurate nor unequivocal, the following typology still seems appropriate:  1. Translations for church use, with enhancement of religious contents due to the conservative views of the translators: a typical translation of this type would be the “New Revised Translation” (A-7); its translators strived to be literal, but their work was done in an evangelical spirit, which had an effect on various decisions to do with the translators’ strategy. For example, the translation has a great amount of honorifics, it uses shu for YHWH, avoids theologically difficult emendations, and its crossreferences include the NT. Other translations of this type, although considerably different from each other in many ways, are A-3, A-8, A-9, and A-10. To this group can be added some of the partial translations, in particular the Psalms versions prepared for church use (the Anglican B-2 and the Catholic B-11 & B-15), as well as several of the earliest partial and fragmentary translations or digests, meant to introduce Christian teaching to Japan or to be used in services (C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7). 2. Translations for church use, also by conservative Christians, but with a somewhat more cautious attitude: A-1 is unique among these translations in transliterating YHWH. A-2 (as well as its partial predecessor B-9) and A-11 are close to it in spirit, although using shu. The Orthodox translation of the Psalms (B-1) is unique in its avoidance of the use of honorifics. 3. Scholarly translations which also have a religious intention: this category includes mainly two translations: Sekine’s (A-4), and the Franciscan (A-5); Barbaro’s translations (A-6, A-6a) fall somewhere between this and the former category. There are clear differences between the former two: A-4 has fewer honorifics compared with A-5; on the other hand, A-4 has a minimal amount of explanations, while A-5’s are very extensive, and often include theological argumentations. Still, in the 2011 accumulative edition the explanations are more limited, and the religious intention overtakes the scholarly one in other matters, such as the use of shu. Many of the partial translations also belong in this group, including those by Sakon (B-3), Yuasa (B-4), Shibutani (B-5), Hagiwara (B-8), the Catholic partial translations (C-11), and more. 4. Scholarly translations with no religious intention: the sole example of this type among the full translations is A-12, which strives to represent the OT as such (cross-references are given with the OT only), although



concluding observations

383

an occasional honorific did slip in. In the first pages of this book B.H. Chamberlain was quoted on the cultural value of the Bible, and the necessity to know it in order to understand Western languages and cultures. A scholarly translation such as A-12 is perhaps the best representative of the cultural approach. Also, if we consider the cultural aspect of the translations, or the wish to introduce the Bible or some of its books to the wider Japanese public without an overt religious purpose, several partial translations must also be added to this category, beginning with Chamberlain’s own attempt (C-8), as well as some of the earliest digests, such as Ishikawa’s (C-2), and then continuing with several post-WWII books including Ogaeri’s translation (B-7), the volumes in the Great Books of the World (B-13) and the World of the Bible (B-14) series, individual books such as Matsuda’s (B-12) and Nakazawa’s (B-13), as well as some volumes based on earlier translations (D-2, D-3 and others). The main dichotomy then is between those translations which are for church use and those which are not, although several nuances can be detected in each group. A religiously-enhanced translation by definition cannot be totally ‘faithful’; it will always contain elements which are considered essential from a theological point of view (such as honorifics, in the case of Japan, and harmonizing the text in various ways). A scholarly translation can be expected to better represent the peculiarities of the original text, but it would not usually be used in church and would have a lesser impact than the ‘official’ translations prepared for the believers of mainstream or sectarian denominations. 7.2 Faithfulness Most analyses of Bible translation are concerned with accuracy, a buzz word in religious translation for linguistic and theological purity. In practice such purity is deeply subjective (as perhaps it should be) and depends on the values, prejudices, and religious politics of each denomination. Willis Barnstone2

It must be obvious to all those who engage in translation work and study that it is impossible to produce an identical text in translation, only a metaphor (Barnstone 1993, 16). It would be naive to believe that a certain translation of the Bible is the same book as the original. Apart from the problem of shifting from language to language, there is the issue of the 2 In Barnstone 1993, 62.

384

chapter seven

text itself. Which is the ‘correct’ text of the Bible? With the great amount of evidence from recently discovered manuscripts, ancient translations, and from other external testimonies, the text of the Bible is becoming gradually more fluid. Certainly, there have always been those who chose to sanctify a certain text—the MT, the Vulgate, the KJV and others—but once a new translation is undertaken, decisions must be made regarding the text that is to be translated, and theological difficulties are bound to arise, as we have witnessed through several examples of text emendation introduced in former chapters. And returning to the previous point: even while realizing that a translation is never the same as the original, there is always the ambition, especially in Bible translation, to remain faithful to the source text. But what constitutes ‘faithfulness’? Earlier (5.4.2 above) this question was tackled from the angle of ‘dynamic equivalence’ as opposed to ‘formal equivalence’; here a somewhat different angle will be examined. Certain trends in Translation Studies use the distinction between ‘adequacy’ and ‘acceptability’ in translation, terms that can be viewed as the two opposite poles of a continuum along which all translations may be placed, since neither kind of translation can be found in a pure form.3 Very simply put, an ‘adequate’ translation is one that strives for functional equivalence with the source text (or even more simply, for ‘fidelity’). An ‘acceptable’ translation, on the other hand, would be one striving to adapt itself to the linguistic and cultural systems of the receptor language. On the linguistic level this would mean subordinating the text to the structure of the receptor language and its linguistic norms. On the cultural level it would mean adapting the translated text to the receptor culture generally, in matters such as ideology, customs, manners, etiquette, gender distinctions, as well as aspects of realia. The continuum from ‘adequacy’ to ‘acceptability’ is studied in the framework of norms in translation, which in turn was devised in the framework of ‘polysystem theory’.4 Norms, as defined by Toury, are divided into two general types or levels.5 ‘Preliminary norms’ refer to the factors that govern the choice of texts to be translated, and the directness or indirectness of the translation. ‘Operational norms’ are those directing the decisions made during the act 3 See Toury 1995, 56–61; Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997, 2–3, 5–6; Weissbrod 2007, 161– 162; 188. 4 See Even-Zohar 1990; Gentzler 2001, 106–144; Bassnett 2002, 6–8. 5 See Toury 1995, 53–69 (also in Venuti 2004, 205–218); Weissbrod 2007, 179–216.



concluding observations

385

of translation itself; these are also divided into two types. ‘Matrical norms’ determine the extent to which a translation will be adequate regarding the translated material and its fullness (with or without omissions or editions), the segmentation of the text (paragraphs, dialogue representation) and more. ‘Textual-linguistic norms’ govern the ways by which the translator deals with the textual material itself while translating it from one language to another: following the original style or choosing differently, leaving traces of the original language or hiding them, interpreting the text or avoiding interpretation, as well as the handling of semantic voids (see 5.3.2), figurative language and so on. The identification of norms helps to situate the translated text on the continuum from ‘adequacy’ to ‘acceptability’, and to better understand some general tendencies in the receptor culture: would it adopt foreign models easily, or would it give preference to familiar, local models? As far as I am aware, the theoretical work briefly introduced above was not followed in Japan,6 and therefore the necessary data for meaningful conclusions is missing. However, relying on some general observations I would risk an argument that the norms of translation in Japan point markedly toward the ‘acceptability’ pole. For example, anyone following Japanese subtitles added to foreign films in cinema and television must be aware of their high degree of acceptability. The subtitles rarely convey the literal meaning of the original pronouncement, but rather supply the Japanese viewer with a familiar utterance.7 For example, names are usually replaced by status words (‘director’, ‘older brother’, etc.), original idioms are often translated by Japanese idioms, and more.8

6 According to Kondo & Wakabayashi, 492: “There is a large body of Japanese writing on translation, but Japanese writers are largely unacquainted with Western writing on translation and interpreting theory. This may, however, have allowed their ideas to develop along independent channels. Although Japanese writers have not developed a fully-fledged theory of translation, preferring discussions of specific works and problems to abstract theorizing, there are several distinct translation traditions in Japan, largely differentiated by their position on the issue of whether or not translations should actively transform Japanese language and style.” Concerning the last point see more below. 7 This is even more obvious in the much more common practice of dubbing, but subtitles allow for comparison. 8 This is an evidence for both the relatively high standard of the translators’ work, and for the expectations of the audience who are used to the prevailing norm. Subtitles constitute a distinctive form of translation, and have been studied as such in various cultures; see Weissbrod 2007, 83–92; however, they also have much in common with other forms of translation.

386

chapter seven

Generally speaking, Japan is a society where everything must be constantly explained; people must not be left in the dark. To remain for a moment in the realm of the visual media, in Japan the position of professional narrators-commentators in silent films was more developed and lasted longer than anywhere else. These professionals, called benshi (弁士), were considered such an indispensable part of the show, that they lasted well into the 1930’s and the talking film era (Richie 2001, 18–22). Even in contemporary films, especially on television, there are sometimes written captions or voice-over explanations for identifying names and positions of figures appearing on the screen, including in local dramas. Looking more widely, there is perhaps no other country in the world with such an amount of information, directions and admonitions pouring out of loudspeakers in public transportation, both on platforms and inside train cars, buses and so on. In almost any conceivable situation—at school, work and even leisure—a great amount of oral and written directions are supplied. The examples are endless, and it is possible to view them as various expressions of a society which expects ‘acceptability’.9 In Japanese literary translation there was a strong—although not exclusive—trend advocating the rewriting of foreign works into natural Japanese. Among its champions were the writers and translators Uchida Roan (内田魯庵 1868–1929), Tsubouchi Shōyō (坪内逍遥 1859–1935) and Mori Ōgai (森鷗外 1862–1922); Tsubouchi’s translations from English and Mori’s from German are considered classics of modern Japanese literature. Great novelists such as Tanizaki Jun’ichirō (谷崎潤一郎 1886–1965) and Kawabata Yasunari (川端康成 1899–1972) feared that direct translation of foreign literature would mean the demise of ‘pure Japanese’ literature.10 Polysystem theory and the research of norms focused more or less exclusively on the translation of literature, while Bible translation forms a distinctly separate field. Norms in literary translation are different from those in Bible translation, because of the added religious considerations, although some overlapping can certainly be expected, and norms in literary translation are likely to influence Bible translators as well. Some tendencies that can be found in Bible translations in Japan according to

9 In Sociology, Anthropology and other fields there is an on-going debate over Japan as a “maternal society”, which would be one way for explaining this over-protectiveness. A famous publication in this respect was psychiatrist Doi Takeo’s The Anatomy of Dependence (1973; originally: 土居健郎,『甘えの構造』1971,). For a major critic of the notion of the “maternal society” and its political ramifications see Yoda 2000. 10 Kondo & Wakabayashi, 492; and see in Kamei 1994, 335–390.



concluding observations

387

this study, and which agree with the distinction of ‘acceptability’ are as follows: 1. Elaborate explanations rather than direct translation: this phenomenon was never the case in the Meiji Translation, but it does occur in some later full and partial translations. The common tendency is to make the translation as clear and unequivocal as possible (this was manifest, for example, in the work of Catholic translator Shibutani, B-5; the most extreme example was Gotō’s translation of Job, see 6.3.3). 2. The use of honorifics (see 4.2.4; 5.3.11): this is one of the most outstanding expressions of ‘acceptability’, occurring through the adding of elements that are not in the original text, for the sake of making the translation more naturally acceptable to the readers. The supporters of the use of honorifics argue that it is a must in Japanese texts. However, as Roman Jakobson famously observed: “languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey” (Jakobson 1959, 236); a Hebrew verb must convey gender, while a Japanese verb must not. On the other hand, the use of honorifics is not a linguistic ‘must’, even though it is very common as a social norm; the Russian Orthodox translation of the Psalms (B-1) is an example, albeit a rare one, of a text prepared for liturgical use in a church context but without honorifics. 3. The use of distinguishing pronouns: the Meiji Translation was an exception through its constant use of nanji in all cases of the second person pronoun, thus maintaining functional equivalence or adequacy; most other translations used a variety of pronouns (anata, omae, kimi) in an attempt to sound more acceptably Japanese (see 4.2.4). 4. Dialogue, reflecting manners, etiquette and gender distinctions: the general tendency towards acceptability can in extreme cases, such as Nakazawa’s translation of Genesis (B-13, 6.1.2 above) produce a totally ‘Japanized’ text. But even in milder cases the tendency is to make biblical figures adopt the various distinctions of Japanese speech, including a distinctly different male and female language. 5. Items of realia: although less common than the above categories (except in the paraphrased translations), changing items of realia to suit Japanese reality may also occur occasionally, as was demonstrated in Chapter 5 (for example, 5.3.13). 6. Syntax: this point is somewhat different from the above five, as it can be expected that for the sake of readability and respectability, translations would usually prefer the use of the correct syntax of the receptor language. However, for the sake of bringing the translation closer to the

388

chapter seven

original text, concessions could be made, especially in the poetic parts of the Bible. This happened occasionally in the translations we have examined (A-9 in De. 32:8, A-6 and A-12 in Psalm 23). However, the relative rarity of these cases again points in the direction of the acceptability pole, exemplified also in the ‘correcting’ of A-6 in A-6a (see above pp. 172; 293; 313). 7. Titles added to chapters or episodes: this practice seems to have been initiated in the Catholic tradition, and is not to be found in A-1 and A-2, which followed the strict Protestant practice. But in A-11 these titles appear, perhaps as an expression of, or a concession to, the ecumenical spirit of the translation, and even scholarly translations such as A-4 and A-12 have them. While considering the findings of the current and previous sub-chapters we must hasten to add that it is no doubt the prerogative of Japanese Christians to formulate their Bible in a form more communicative to themselves, giving the believers a text they can identify with easily rather than regarded as something alien. However, it would seem fair to alert the readers to the degree of distance from the original text.11 Further, somewhere between the adequate and the acceptable lies a third possibility, or a “third territory”, in the expression coined by Nilly Mirsky (1978). This idea goes back as far as Goethe and Schleiermacher and their ideal of a translation that does not follow rigidly the acceptable rules of the receptor language but intentionally reflects the style and structure of the source language.12 From another direction it is expressed in the messianic language philosophy of Walter Benjamin, who argued that the translator’s task is to break through the barriers of his language,

11   The subject matter of the current and previous sub-chapters can also be viewed from the point of view of the “skopos theory”, which offered a functional approach to translation, emphasizing its purpose (skopos in Greek; for an overview see Baker 2001, 235–237). The founder of the theory, Hans Vermeer (1996, 44), argued that cultural conditions could guide the translation as much as linguistic conditions. Nord (1997, 46) argued that in this theory the focus shifts from the source text to the target text, and the translator is guided by the target culture’s “expectations, conventions, norms, models, realworld knowledge, perspective, etc.” However, such an approach would require extreme caution, especially in the case of Bible translation, as it can easily cross the line from translation to adaptation. For other criticism of this theory see Baker 2001, 237–238 and the literature there; see also Naudé 2002, 59–61. 12 Friedrich Schleiermacher, “On the different methods of translating”, translated by Susan Bernofsky, in Venuti 2004, 43–63; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Translations”, translated by Sharon Sloan, ibid., 64–66.



concluding observations

389

as source and translation edge towards a “pure language”, which is outside the realm of all languages.13 However, realizing this ideal in the realm of Bible translation would be a messianic feat indeed. 7.3 Comparative Analysis The dictionary is based on the hypothesis—obviously an unproven one— that languages are made up of equivalent synonyms. Jorge Luis Borges14

The focus of our attention has been on the comparison of Japanese translations of the OT with the source text of the MT, and with various other versions that served as source or as consulted texts, including the Vulgate, various English translations and in particular the KJV, as well as some of the Chinese translations of the Bible. The aim of the comparison was not to detect specific errors or problems in the translation of various words (although it was unavoidable to point out certain such problems along the way), but rather to discover distinctive tendencies in the work of the translators, either stated or implicit. Often translators declare a certain policy of translation, but in practice do things quite differently (Barnstone 1993, 52–62). This was certainly the case with some of the translations examined in this work, beginning with A-1. The comparison yielded many interesting results regarding the strategy adopted by the translators, the influence of various sources and of earlier translations on later ones, inconsistencies in the translation, and more. Further comparative studies of this kind are bound to yield more meaningful results. It is also obvious that the larger the body of comparisons, the more accurate the results will be. As far as it was possible to ascertain, in the vast framework of Japanese scholarship on the translations of the Bible, only very few studies so far have adopted the comparative method. Nakazawa Kōki, in his abovementioned 1960 article, checked the translation of certain Hebrew words in A-1 and A-2 and pointed out their inconsistencies; other scholars usually checked specific translations against the source text, but did not compare between translations in any systematic way. However, there was one 13 Walter Benjamin, “The Translator’s Task”, translated by Steven Rendall (cf. Biblio­ graphy); a different translation by Harry Zohn in Venuti 2004, 75–82. And see G.M. Hyde in ELL, 4727–4729. 14 In “Translation”; quoted in Barnstone 1993, 113.

390

chapter seven

comparative study somewhat similar to the present work, and at this stage it can be examined and discussed against the background of the previous chapters. Toki Kenji and Kawashima Daijirō published their joint article in 1988 (cf. Bibliography). Their aim was to compare three major Japanese translations (our A-1, A-2 & A-11) with the MT, and learn through their differences about the origins of each translation and its accuracy. The two scholars did not limit themselves to these three versions though, but also quoted a wide range of other translations: Japanese (A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7), Chinese (two, and sometimes three major 19th century versions), English (KJV, RSV and several others), Greek, Latin, Aramaic, German, French and others, as well as various biblical commentaries, including Medieval Jewish ones. They devoted the first 10 or so pages of their article to describing this plethora of translations, the relevance of some of which to the Japanese translations is dubious. They then compare 24 OT expressions in the various translations; rarely do they compare a full verse, but mostly isolated expressions, and sometimes single words. Of the 24 examples, 14 are taken from Genesis, and the other ten from eight other OT books.15 After quoting the various translations in each case, they dedicate only a few lines to commenting on aspects of the translations, mainly trying to establish which source determined the specific choice of words in the Japanese translations; only in one case (Lea’s “soft eyes” in Ge. 29:17) is there a long discussion comprising 5 pages. Finally, Toki & Kawashima dedicate little more than a page (129–130) to the conclusions of their study, which they believe helped clear up points that have so far been vague. They also make value judgments. Following is my attempt to sum up their conclusions, each followed by some comments: 1. The Meiji Translation (A-1), in its OT part, was influenced not by one or two, but by three Chinese translations: the Bridgman-Culbertson version, the Delegates’ Version, as well as Schereschewsky’s Mandarin translation. The influence of the first is well known, and we have also found evidence for that of the second in the course of the current study. However, the evidence for the influence of the third is not convincing. Toki &

15 Two of their examples are also the focus of Chapter 4 of the present work, but I was not yet aware of this article when writing that chapter.



concluding observations

391

Kawashima quote the Mandarin version in 8 out of their 24 cases, and in most cases the quotes do not seem relevant. Even in the few cases where they try to establish a possible connection (e.g. 92, 116, 118), the evidence does not seem conclusive and the influence can, and probably should, be attributed to the Bridgman-Culbertson version. Indeed, the Mandarin version was extant in Japan, and the occasional influence of it on some of the translators of A-1 is not out of the question, although this version was not approved by Hepburn (see Appendix); however, with the availability of the other translations there was no apparent reason to resort to it. 2. In their translation process the translators of the Meiji Translation were influenced not only by the KJV, but also by the RV and contemporary exegetical works. All these influences are regarded favorably as having improved the quality of the Japanese translation. The evidence for this, although limited, is more convincing, and the authors were able to identify a few places where the influence of RV, or a certain exegetical work such as that of Delitzsch, is plausible. The use of these sources is well documented in the translators’ records, such as Verbeck’s letters, as we have seen above (5.5), although the availability of RV was limited to the latest stages of the translation work (see p. 60 above). 3. The influence of RSV on the Colloquial Translation (A-2) should not be regarded unfavorably either. This influence is a fact, attested to by the translators themselves and often commented upon by critics (see pp. 69, 71–72 above). However, as Nakazawa (1960, 91–93) argued, emending the text (as the translators of A-2 did while following the RSV) without comment is unfair to the readers. Also, the authors here express an implicit opinion in favor of emending the text, an opinion which is open to debate, since not all emendments are necessarily an improvement (see 4.2.5). 4. Errors and misappropriate translations in Meiji Translation (A-1) and the Colloquial Translation (A-2) are rarely due to the influence of the Chinese and English versions. This point is obviously also open to debate on several grounds. Firstly, how can one determine, based on such a limited survey (24 short examples), that there are but few mistranslations in these two Japanese versions? Secondly, why would reliance on two other translations, which may themselves be inaccurate, ensure the accuracy of the Japanese versions? And thirdly, the authors argue that the Meiji Translation relied on the RV, which was not yet available to the translators into Chinese, and which, according to them, improved the quality of the Japanese translation, so was not the Japanese version in fact superior to the Chinese one?

392

chapter seven

In a joint chapter published some years later (2001, 452) Toki & Kawashima repeated the same argument, saying in this case that the reliance of the Meiji translators’ committee on the Bridgman-Culbertson version increased the Meiji Translations’ fidelity to the original text. Again, even if the Chinese version was a very faithful one, it was still a translation, and if the original-language texts were followed, as the authors admit, why ascribe such a crucial role to the Chinese version? Do they perhaps mean that by adopting the Bridgman-Culbertson method of literal translation they were able to produce a faithful translation? But this was in any case the principle which guided Hepburn in his work, regardless of the Chinese version. 5. The New Interconfessional Translation (A-11) attempted to remain faithful to the MT rather than follow RSV, which used ancient versions and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and therefore ignored A-2 and returned to A-1. The authors admit in that respect that their examples may have been too few for conclusive results, saying also that they had not intended to criticize A-11 (but they could not avoid doing so, here and elsewhere). This is another problematic conclusion, perhaps relying on the fact that A-11 did not emend the text in Gen. 4:8, which is included in the article. However, as we have seen above, A-11 did emend the text in Deut. 32:8 based on external evidence, and this verse is also included in the article. Also, it is hard to see A-11 ‘returning’ to A-1; as we have seen time and again, its translators often went an independent way, sometimes striving for originality at all costs. The work of Toki & Kawashima is impressive and extensive in many ways,16 but some of their arguments and conclusions are not convincing, as already stated above. Here is another example: the authors quote (61) Sekine Bunnosuke, who was in charge of the Japanese style in A-2 (not one of the translators!) as saying that at times of doubt he read the Chinese Bible. On this they base the apparent conclusion that in any given case A-2 translators can be considered to have consulted the Chinese version; for example, in the case of Gen. 3:8 they say (66) that A-1 picked the character 涼 from the Chinese version, and added another one to create the form 清涼き with the furigana reading すずしき (suzushiki), and that A-2 also lifted the same character from the Chinese text to create the

16 In particular, a thorough study of the various printings of the Chinese translations was conducted by them as evident from their endnotes. The study of many versions in several languages is also impressive, although not always relevant.



concluding observations

393

form 涼しい (suzushii). However, as we have seen in numerous examples in Chapters 4–6 above, A-2 was clearly relying on A-1, copying from it extensively or editing it, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that in this case the Chinese version was consulted or served as a source for the translators. Also, the conclusions regarding the influence of the Chinese translations may have been biased by the fact that the majority of their examples were taken from Genesis. As we have seen before, and as Morioka established (see pp. 335–336 above), Genesis in A-1 was perhaps the OT book most influenced by the Chinese versions, while in other parts of the OT the influence was less felt. Also, it must always be remembered that the Meiji Translation was conducted by various translators with several Japanese assistants over a considerable period of time, and although edited by the committee, the result was far from uniform. Five years after their joint articles both Toki and Kawashima published short articles in the Japanese monthly magazine Sinica (September and November, 1993), in which they drew on the results of their joint study. Here they seem to have gone a step further in arguing that their study had shown that “it would not be an exaggeration” to say that the source of the Japanese Bible is in the Chinese one, the Japanese version being a tributary of the wider flow of the Chinese Bible (Toki 1993, 66–67; Kawashima 1993, 82). This is somewhat contradictory to their argument that the translators followed the original languages, used the English and other modern language translations and consulted exegetical works to a considerable extent. Toki also argues that A-11 did not meet expectations to be academically up to date, and even lagged behind A-1 and A-2, because its translators failed to consult the Chinese Bible (ibid.). Kawashima argues that the Chinese translations were not only a source of words and terms that did not exist in Japanese, but that they served as common ground for the missionaries and their Japanese assistants (ibid., 82–83). This last argument contains more than a grain of truth, but it probably also creates the wrong impression that the Japanese Bible was based on the Chinese one; as we have learned all along this study, the Chinese versions were no doubt consulted and used, but they were merely one of several tools used by the Meiji translators in fashioning their Japanese version, with various degrees of influence on different parts of the translation. The MT was the base for the Japanese translation and not the Chinese versions; and while in some cases, such as in Genesis, the influence of the Chinese versions went deep, in many other cases, such as the Psalms, it influenced only the final shaping of the translation to some extent.

394

chapter seven

* * * Another result of the comparative analysis in our study is the detection of inconsistencies, not only on the level of failing to translate the same Hebrew words consistently with the same Japanese ones (a problem already observed by Nakazawa, as mentioned above), but also on the literary level of the translation. For example, how to deal with metaphors: translate them literally or find an equivalent? As we have seen in Chapter 6, metaphors were sometimes retained and sometimes replaced. Also, how to translate poetry in a more-or-less consistent way? As we have seen in Chapters 4 and 5, satisfactory solutions were hard to come by, and no translator seems to have found the optimal way. This might be the right place to point out that today’s translators, armed with computers and sophisticated software, are better equipped to deal with the complicated task of translating the Bible while avoiding inconsistencies. However, it must also be remembered that in spite of the efforts to make it more and more scientific, translation remains an art.17 Attempts to mechanize it have so far failed; there are many kinds of translation software available now, but their results are not yet satisfactory. Still, the computer with its data bases is an excellent tool for assuring the consistency of the translation on various levels: of the translation of single words, grammatical structures and of poetical usages. One more result of these comparisons is the detection of the influence of one Japanese translation upon another. Many interesting points were brought to light, but perhaps the most conspicuous one is the ongoing influence of the Meiji Translation, directly or indirectly, on almost all subsequent translations. Even in translations striving for originality, some traces of A-1’s word choice or phraseology can be found. Just as English Bible translations will never be free of at least some residues of the KJV (which in turn was based on earlier English translations), so the Meiji Translation can be expected to live on through future translations; hopefully, it will live on also on its own.

17 It is also a skill, and to a certain degree, a science. See Nida 1964, 3; also in ELL 4686. I tend to believe that translation—and certainly the translation that yields satisfactory results—is more an art than a science, based on skill; see ELL 4699. On creativity in translation, including Bible translation, and other related issues see also Salevsky 1991.



concluding observations

395

7.4 New Translation or Revision? . . . whereas the poetic word endures in its own language, even the greatest translation is destined to be taken up into the growth of its language and perish as a result of its renewal. Walter Benjamin18

Bible translation is a never-ending process; some translations gain authoritative or even sacred status, but even such texts must be succeeded by others, updated to the language and sensibilities of the times. Nakazawa (1968, 115–131) was in favor of new translations rather than revisions; according to him, while the source does not change, each translation must use the language of its time. But on the other hand, what about tradition? A new translation is not used only by a new, oblivious generation, but also by those familiar with the text, who would expect to find in the new versions phrases well known and loved. Perhaps in Japan, where the Bible is not rooted as deeply as in some other places, and is known well only to a small minority, the attitude might be different; however, as we have seen in the case of A-11, straying too far from the familiar path caused an outcry and a change of course. Writing about English translations of the Bible, Robert P. Carroll (2002, 59) observed that (the italics are in the original): . . . many translated Bibles copy each other in order to constitute a tradition of translation. That is, once a translation has been made the tendency is for revised editions to be produced, so that there is invariably and inevitably a family resemblance between Bibles and their revisions.

We have seen some clear evidence for this tendency among the Japanese translations of the OT. On the other hand, Sijbolt Noorda (2002, 15) commented on both originality and tradition as follows: Translators are fond of being original. We hate to plagiarize our predecessors, to repeat existing versions. By giving in to this inclination, however, we not only run the risk of producing sub-optimal translations. (Why avoid perfectly adequate prevailing rendering?). In so doing we may also be disturbing a particular quality of books like the Bible: they are texts that some people read again and again, they contain numerous passages that are familiar to many, they belong to extensive intertextual networks, not only in religious language, but in literature and general usage as well. A new translation is a new text, yes, but it is a new version of a familiar text, and what is

18 In “The Translator’s Task”, translated by Steven Rendall (cf. Bibliography), 156.

396

chapter seven more important, a rival translation to existing translations and traditional wordings. While there are many good reasons for innovations, there are also many good reasons for restraint and for staying with the familiar. And, as always in the art of translating, what counts is keeping one’s balance.

So, it would seem that while striving for originality and relevance, Bible translators should not ignore their predecessors, but try to find the middle way between tradition and innovation. This is, undoubtedly, a formidable and complicated task. As we have seen, A-2, as a revision, sometimes maintained the Meiji Translation’s weaknesses while losing some of its finer points. On the other hand, insistence on originality yielded some strange results. Future Japanese translators must try to find the correct balance. * * * According to currently available data, Japan can expect three new major versions of the Bible in the coming decade, the second of the new millennium. One is already imminent, the second is being prepared, and the third is still in the initial stages of planning. The first to appear is expected to be a new translation, initiated by the Pentecostalist churches in Japan:19 Title: 『聖書－現改訳』Bible - contemporary revised translation Religious body: グレース・フェローシップ・ジャパン Grace Fellowship Japan Translators: 現改訳聖書翻訳委員会　Members of the translation committee of the contemporary revised translation Publisher: 日本聖書出版会　Nihon Seisho Shuppankai Distributed by: マルコーシュ・プブリケーション Malkoushu Publication20

This Bible is being published in three editions: “general”, “business” (smaller size, horizontal lines in two columns), and “study” (larger size). The first two have no cross references; the third one has cross references in the margin, as well as interpretations in the margin and at the bottom of the page. All three have the original book titles in Hebrew or Greek printed together with the Japanese titles. In the NT, verses quoted from the OT are printed in bold and followed by the reference in parentheses; words uttered by Jesus are printed in red.

19  See the website: http://jesuscom.org/malkoushu2/special_bible/index.htm. 20 See their website: http://malkoushu.jesuscom.net/.



concluding observations

397

The translation policy includes the following principles (in digest): a literal translation as close as possible to the original text, but not word for word, and being led by the Holy Spirit; the Tetragrammaton is translated as 主 (Lord), but with the furigana ヤーウェ (Ya-we, viewed as the closest approximate pronunciation) next to it; the word for God in this translation is 神 kami, as in the other Japanese versions, but it must not be confused with the original Japanese meaning of the word; using beautiful Japanese, with the hope of influencing Japanese literature in the same way the Meiji Translation has. The next to appear is expected to be a revised Bible: a new version of the New Revised Translation (A-7). This translation has been revised twice before (the last time in 2003), but apparently this time the revision is expected to be a ‘major’ one, although it is not clear yet in what way. It is scheduled to be published by 2016. This Bible will be issued by a new body, incorporated in 2009 under the name: 新日本聖書刊行会 (shin nihon seisho kankōkai), absorbing the former body which held the rights to the translation: 新改訳聖書刊行会 (shinkaiyaku seisho kankōkai).21 It is now separated from the American organization which sponsored the original translation. The third major translation which is expected to appear during the same decade is the new JBS version, which will succeed the current New Interconfessional Translation (A-11). Like its predecessor, this too will be a joint Catholic-Protestant effort. The target year is also 2016, but the project will probably take longer. About 50 translators have been recruited, all of them scholars who will be working on the translation part-time. There have been certain difficulties in enlisting scholars, especially for the OT translation (and since NT scholars are more numerous in Japan, and the text is much shorter, it is expected to be published first once again). It is supposed to be a new translation, not a revision. The policy of UBS, which JBS follows, is to have a ‘new project’, not a revision, because the translators can be easily influenced by the text they revise. Still, the translators will be asked to ‘study’ the earlier translations, and then go on to create their own translation. Regarding the New Interconfessional Translation (A-11), JBS is allowed to sell it but not revise it; the rights for the

21 See their website: http://www.seisho.or.jp/gaiyou. It includes a list of churches, theological departments and other organizations in Japan that support the translation.

398

chapter seven

translation belong elsewhere, however JBS is negotiating for the rights of revision.22 It may be worthwhile to note at this point that the JBS Bible is not considered ‘official’ or ‘authorized’, although it is the most common by far. It is not ‘authorized’ since there is no source of authority in Japan, as there was with the King James Bible (known also as the ‘Authorized Version’) and some other versions (see Rogerson 2002). JBS is independent; it does not answer to the Japanese churches, although it listens to them. It may be that the missionaries responsible for the Meiji Translation regarded their work as the authorized version, in order to distinguish it from other versions, since from early on it was not exclusive (there was, for example, the Baptist NT version by Nathan Brown). The 1892 rōmaji printing carried the English title: The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments in Japanese, Transliterated according to the authorised [sic] version and published by the Bible Societies’ Committee for Japan. It seems that the Protestant missionaries, backed by the three foreign Bible Societies, considered their mainstream version as ‘authorized’, although what would the source of authority have been? Later translations would not claim such a position. It should also be pointed out that all three of the above expected translations are the work of a committee. Nakazawa (1970, 37–39) distinguished between “committee”, “individual” and “joint” translations, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each kind. He believed that translating the whole Bible is too big a task for one person to achieve, although it allows freedom and personal expression; however, although a committee’s translation is usually “flat”, it is common and may also yield good results when done by experts in their fields. A joint translation by a few people is recommended by him, as it has some of the advantages of both other forms. In fact, there is also another way, exemplified by the Iwanami translation (A-12): the Bible is divided among individual translators, who work according to agreed-upon guidelines and whose work is checked by the other participants, but with minimal intervention and with no impositions by a committee. The result of this method seems particularly satisfactory, although it may somewhat lack in uniformity. New translations of classical works, especially scripture, always meet with criticism, even those versions bound to become classical themselves.23 22 Interview with Dr. Shimasaki Katsuomi, head of the Translation Department at JBS, August 27, 2010. 23 Such as Jerome’s translation that became known as the Vulgate; see Venuti 1998, 78–81.



concluding observations

399

As we have seen, it was the fate of all Japanese translations of the Bible to be received with various admixtures of praise and disapproval. This, no doubt, will also be the fate of future translations, since there is no such thing as a ‘definitive’ translation, as argued by Bassnett (2002, 18–19): It is pointless [. . .] to argue for a definitive translation, since translation is intimately tied up with the context in which it is made. [. . .] any assessment of a translation can only be made by taking into account both the process of creating it and its function in a given context.

To a certain extent, that is what was attempted in this work: viewing the Japanese translations of the OT according to the process of their creation and their expected function. Only a miniscule part of this task may have been achieved, but such work can never be definitive either. 7.5 A Personal Perspective When Christian exegetes read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew [. . .] they read it as Christian prehistory. The material text lies unchanged but through the translation of active rereading its meaning alters profoundly. By guided reading, misreading, and rereading, the Jewish Bible became a Christian document. Willis Barnstone24

As someone who grew up reading the Hebrew Bible in his mother tongue, I have often felt ‘protective’ about it, perhaps even slightly ‘possessive’. On the other hand, I was always fascinated by the expression it assumed in other languages, and following the Hebrew verses which I knew so intimately in various foreign guises brought me pleasure, as well as occasional pain. I would often ask myself: how would the readers of these versions view those verses, compared with the way I read them? In the course of this work I came upon various expressions by Japanese readers of the Bible, and I will now quote one that seems quite typical. Writer Ogawa Kunio (小川国夫, 1927–2008), who was baptized Catholic in 1946, said in his dialogue with Japan’s most famous critic, Yoshimoto Takaaki (吉本隆明, 1924–2012), during their discussion which focused on the New Interconfessional Translation (A-11) (Yoshimoto & Ogawa 1988, 186; my translation): Specially the Old Testament, in the past and also today the scripture of Judaism, is pulled very strongly by Christians in the direction of Christianity, 24 In Barnstone 1993, 138.

400

chapter seven interpreting it from the view-point of a book of prophecies about Christ— this is one way to read it, but if a Japanese scholar who spent many years as a student at the Hebrew University is asked for his opinion, it would be a different one. I mean people of the Jewish religion read [the Bible with the same] attitude that we the Japanese read our history and literature. Or maybe they are more scientific than the Japanese. They do not go according to the presupposition that prophecies of the future coming of Christ are written here. On hearing this I realized how large and varied the OT is.

Ogawa seems surprised by the realization that there are other ways of reading the Bible, and particularly the OT, rather than through Christian eyes. In this he probably represents the majority of Japanese Christians, as well as non-Christians in Japan who are aware of the Bible but recognize it mainly as a Christian book. That is how it was introduced to them by the missionaries, and this is the image that has taken root. From a different point of view, that of a biblical scholar and Bible translator, Tsukimoto Akio wrote as follows (2000, 31–32; my translation): The OT has been translated into Japanese as the Christian Bible, and is read as the Christian Bible. But historically it was already formed before Christianity, expressing the faith and thought of what is called Hebraism, and from here Judaism had grown, and Christianity too was born. Its later influence on Islam should not be overlooked either. The OT is not only a sacred book, it is a classic of humankind. Through it human beings are touched by the spirit of Hebraism. However, the OT was formed in a world far removed in time and space from contemporary Japan, and is a book written originally in Hebrew, with its radically different structure. Therefore, when transferring it into Japanese language, Japanese thoughts and feelings unavoidably get mixed into it. Some would say that “translation is like that”. But if the cultural-historical significance of the Japanese translation of the OT is the encounter between Hebraism and Japan, such an encounter could hardly be born out of a translation which was done through a Japanese way of understanding. [. . .] A translation which would make a fruitful encounter possible must begin with the translator himself facing directly every word and verse of the Hebrew Bible, which is steeped in Hebraic thought and faith.

Such a way of looking at things seems relatively rare in the framework of Japanese Bible translations.25 To some extent it can be found in Sekine’s

25 My observation here is limited to the framework of the translations; the picture may look slightly different when all Japanese theological, exegetical and other types of writing on the Bible generally, and the OT particularly, are taken into account. However, it should also be acknowledged that strict academic writing is usually removed from general life experience; see Phillips 1981, 215–217.



concluding observations

401

translation (A-4), and the one by Iwanami (A-12), in the making of which Tsukimoto had taken part. Perhaps it can be found also in some partial translations, such as the World of the Bible (B-14). Even more interestingly, it can be found in a partial translation by a non-Christian, Ogaeri Yoshio, who shortly after World War II published his own version of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs (B-7), wishing to encourage his fellow Japanese through the example of the Jewish people, who have withstood so many hardships. However, can this attitude be expected in the mainstream Japanese translations, which were produced and are still expected to be produced for Christian church use? Probably not. Still, I cannot but hope that the origins of the Hebrew Bible and its function outside the exclusively Christian context will be better understood in Japan. Finally, while compiling this work, sifting through the mountain of translations and studies, I was fascinated not only by the great variety of the translations themselves, but also by the captivating life-stories of the translators who carried out the work over a span of nearly two centuries. Readers of the previous chapters have encountered a long line of outstanding personalities, who, unfortunately, often had to be introduced only briefly: the picturesque Gützlaff in China and the stubborn Bettelheim in Okinawa; the towering figures of J.C. Hepburn and G.F. Verbeck, Bishop C.M. Williams and Archbishop Nikolai, as well as the other pioneer missionaries, who at risk to life and health ventured into the medieval environment of Bakumatsu Japan and dedicated long years to the study of the language and the translation of their sacred texts into it; their talented local followers, who soon joined in the work, among them Matsuyama Takayoshi, Uemura Masahisa, Takahashi Gorō and Ono Seichū; the Japanese individuals who made some of the first tentative steps in introducing the Bible to Japan, beginning with the former shipwrecked sailor Hamada Hikozō and former samurai Nagata Hōsei; the witty and brilliant B.H. Chamberlain and his love of the Japanese classics; the stubbornly individualistic Sakon Yoshisuke and Yuasa Hangetsu, who were the first to study biblical languages abroad and put their studies to use; the fiery prophet Fujii Takeshi whose great promise was cut short by his early death; the sensitive translator of the Psalms, Ideguchi Miyoichi, who perished at sea; Ogaeri Yoshio, who wished to lift the spirits of his defeated compatriots with ancient words of wisdom offered in their everyday language; the scholarly erudite Shibutani Osamu, Tsuru Senji, Sekine Masao and Nakazawa Kōki, among others; the life-long dedication of F. Barbaro and B. Schneider—all of these and the many, many others mentioned in these pages, and even those who are not: they all had their strengths and

402

chapter seven

weaknesses, their successes and failures, but what they all seem to have had in common was the courage to tackle the formidable task of introducing the Bible into a language so distant from its sources such as the Japanese. My desire for this book is that apart from its hoped-for usefulness, it will be a tribute to the admirable efforts of these translators, whose fascinating saga is alluded to in its pages.

Appendix

Bible translation debates from the Meiji missionaries conferences Two large-scale missionaries’ conferences were held in Japan during the Meiji Period,1 both producing thick volumes of Proceedings which include some important material on the translation of the Bible.2 This material was often used in the previous chapters, and some further quotes and summaries are given in this appendix. a. The 1883 Osaka Conference When the “General Conference of the Missionaries of Japan at Osaka” was held (April 16–21, 1883), the NT translation had already been published, and work on the OT translation was in progress. In his lecture to the conference, in which he put the emphasis on translating ad literam (see above Chapter 3, A-1), J.C. Hepburn made the following “rules or principles” for translating the Bible into Japanese (Hepburn 1883, 414–415): 1. There should be a thorough understanding of the true meaning of the original. 2. The exact meaning of the original should be rendered without addition or subtraction, and, as much as possible, with strict adherence to the letter, to the figurative expressions, and peculiar idioms of the original.

1  A first, much smaller conference was held in Yokohama, September 20–24, 1872, with the participation of between 20 to 30 missionaries and their wives, following which the Yokohama Committee for translating the NT was organized (NKRD 1467–8; Verbeck 1883, 42–43). On the Osaka conference see also NKRD 220–221; 106 missionaries participated, as well as many Japanese. On the Tokyo conference see also ibid. 926; the number of missionaries rose to 379, with many Japanese and other guests. 2 Cf. Bibliography, Missionaries. The 1901 volume (p. 502) is also the source for the collage of photos of “Translators of the Bible into Japanese”, which was reproduced many times in Japanese books that have to do with Bible translation or missionaries in Japan (this volume has several other such collages of photos of missionaries alive and deceased). J.C. Hepburn is placed in the middle in the largest photo; above and under him there are three rows of three photos: D.C. Greene, G.F. Verbeck, S.R. Brown; F. Matsuyama, M. Okuno, Takahashi Goro [sic]; N. Brown, P.K. Fyson, R.S. Maclay.

404

appendix 3. To observe, as much as possible, uniformity in the use of words, namely, translating the original word uniformly by the same word; especially in important and official terms. 4. Ambiguous phrases should be rendered ambiguously. The translator has no right to interpret the meaning; though the substitution of a proper name for a personal pronoun to suite the Japanese idiom is allowable. 5. The translation should be made into the vernacular or native language, should be in a respectable and easily understood style, and in strict conformity to its grammar and idioms. 6. To choose and adhere to one form of personal pronouns; Shu not to be used for the second person singular when not so expressed in the text. 7. To avoid the use of honorific terms and phrases, especially the change in the voice of the verb; the only exception to this rule being in the use of Mi and Tamau in speaking of a Divine person. 8. Uniformity in the transferring of proper names, and modern and well known names, instead of the ancient and unknown names of the text; as Egypt for Mitsraim etc. 9. To transfer the names of weights, coins, and measures, or other terms only when no equivalents are found in the native language.

In the discussion following Hepburn’s lecture, six missionaries expressed their opinions, and then Hepburn replied to some of their arguments (ibid., 415–420). Only some of these comments will be summarized or quoted below. The longest response was by Walter Dening, who praised Hepburn for his lecture while criticizing his methods.3 Many years before E.A. Nida, Dening insisted that the aim in translating the Scriptures should be “transferring of ideas”. According to him, adopting a literal method may cause the message to be distorted. Unlike Hepburn who criticized it, Dening praised the Delegates’ Version (‘British’) Chinese translation as achieving that aim of conveying the true meaning of the Bible, allowing readers to use it without the aid of commentary. He also pointed out that colloquial Japanese was full of Chinese words, and there was no sense in speaking of Japanese as distinct from Chinese. Hepburn rejected this latter point, saying that Chinese words were absorbed into Japanese like Latin words into English, without affecting the syntax. Hepburn also insisted that the only reliable Chinese translation was the Bridgman-Culbertson (‘American’) one, while the “Delegates’ version departed from the original text so frequently that it could not be regarded as the word of God”, and 3 Dening’s offered contribution to the OT part of the Meiji Translation was apparently rejected by the committee, probably due to disagreement over methods (see p. 52 above).



bible translation debates

405

the Mandarin version was “too paraphrastical”. Hepburn was very stubborn in his views, and even the arguments of his colleague D.C. Greene in favor of the Delegates’ Version and the Mandarin translation, recommending to consult them even if not to follow them, did not impress him. Hugh Waddell, one of the participants in the earliest efforts of OT translation,4 supported Hepburn wholeheartedly: “We must translate literally. When the text is ambiguous, the translation should be ambiguous also. The translator has no right to give the sense according to his own interpretation or idea,” thus pointing out the difficulty in the base of future “dynamic equivalence” method. However, Dening answered Waddell pointing out the fact that “a translator had to be in a certain sense an interpreter of the meaning of the Original Scriptures”. He also pointed out that it was impossible to have a perfect translation of the Scriptures that would represent the exact meaning of the text as faithfully as the original languages. b. The 1900 Tokyo Conference When the Tokyo Missionary Conference was held (October 24–31, 1900), the full translation of the Bible had already been in existence for more than 12 years, and attention was given to the need for its revision, as well as to questions of its circulation. Two lectures were given, each followed by discussion. The second, which will not be quoted here, considered “Bible Circulation in Japan” (Missionaries 1901, 521–537). The first lecture was by Bishop P.K. Fyson, one of the leading translators of the OT, who discussed various opinions both in favor of the revision and against it (ibid., 503–521). His conclusion was that the time was ripe for a revision, which could be carried out in collaboration with missionaries and Japanese, although not for a new translation, which, it was agreed, should be done by the Japanese, but who were not yet ready for the task. Nine missionaries participated in the following discussion, some at great length. Both lecture and discussion are highly illuminating; here only a few passages which are relevant to the current work will be quoted. In the course of his lecture Fyson made several predictions, some of which have turned out accurate, some less so (including his certainty that Japan would become

4 See p. 52 above; NKRD 1547; Akiyama 1982, 73–78.

406

appendix

Christian before long). Among his accurate predictions or estimates was the following (ibid., 503): In considering the question of the desirability of a revision of the Japanese Bible I think we may confine our attention at present to the New Testament. If a revision is made at all the New Testament is of course the part that will be first taken in hand, and the revision of the Old Testament portion might very likely be deferred to a much later date.

Indeed, while the revised NT was eventually published in 1917, a new translation of the OT did not appear until 1955, although it was started much earlier (see A-2 and B-9). Regarding the criticism leveled at the existing translation, Fyson, who in preparation for his lecture conducted a written survey of foreign missionaries and Japanese churchmen,5 had this to say (ibid., 504–505; the italics are Fyson’s): Foreigners, as might be expected from their better knowledge of the English version and of the original languages of the Old and New Testaments complain mostly of inaccuracies of translation,—some involving doctrinal error,—of words omitted, of mere paraphrases or interpretations in several places instead of faithful translations, and of a want of uniformity, the same word in the original being rendered in many different ways. Japanese principally criticise the Chinese characters and the Kana. Several complain that the Chinese characters are unnecessarily difficult, and if it were not for the Kana at the side many passages would be unintelligible to the majority of readers; and again that in numbers of other cases the Kana does not correspond to the Chinese character, that no one would think of reading the character in that way, and thus confusion is caused. Another complaint is that the translation is not sufficiently reverent, that there is lack of honorifics in speaking of our Lord and so on. And again another criticism is that there has been a too slavish adherence to the Chinese version.

The rapid changes which the Japanese language was undergoing at the time were mentioned as an argument not only in favor of a revision, but even against it, because (ibid., 507–508): . . . the Japanese language is in a transition state and therefore there is much reason to fear that a few years hence the whole work would have to be largely done over again. 5 I found a copy of Fyson’s survey in C.M. Williams’ archive at the Kyoto Chapter of the Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan (日本聖公会), Williams’ boxes of letters, p. 466. It is a printed double postcard, sent to Williams in Kyoto from Fyson in Hakodate, July 25, 1900. The printed text begins with the question: “Is it desirable to have an early Revision of the present version of the Japanese Bible?” followed by a request for the recipient’s opinion. Apparently, Williams did not send back the questionnaire.



bible translation debates

407

On the other hand, Fyson quotes D.C. Greene, one of the original translators of the NT, as saying (ibid., 509): The Japanese language has changed under the influence of Western literature and as a result of this change the work of the translator has been rendered easier. And aside from changes in the language itself certain forms of expression have grown up which would have solved many difficult problems which cost the translators not a few hours of perplexing thought. Further still there are now among the Japanese Christians those who are qualified both by their sympathy and scholarship to take a responsible part in the work.

During the discussion that followed Fyson’s lecture, Greene added another observation (ibid., 517): It is not merely that the language itself has changed, but that the public sentiment as regards literary questions has also greatly changed under the influence of western literature, so that many forms of expression are tolerated and even approved to-day which would not have been even entertained by the older critics.

And finally, one more quote from the discussion is of special interest to us. It was made by the Reverend E. Rothersay Miller 6 (ibid., 519): I was surprised to hear Bishop Fyson speak in his paper as if there might possibly be a revision of the New Testament undertaken before that of the Old. Although I think a revision of the New Testament desirable I think that of the Old Testament imperative. While the style of the translation of the former is for the most part clear, idiomatic, and graceful, that of the latter is stiff, deformedly literal, and inelegant (exception must be made in this statement to the translation of the Psalms, and some of the prophetical books which were revised last). The reason of this was inherent in the composition of the Revision Committees of the two Testaments. The committee on the New Testament had full powers, and all the work that passed through their hands was thoroughly digested, while the Committee on the Revision of the Old Testament had very little revising power delegated to them, and in consequence there is no harmony or consistency in the translations of the different parts.

This criticism must have been painful to Fyson, who was one of the three members of the mentioned committee. However we may assume that his argument in favor of revising the NT first was based on the same way of thinking which lead Hepburn and the others to translate it first. 6 Edward Rothersay Miller (1843–1915) was an American missionary who came to Japan in 1872 and stayed most of his life; NKRD 1376.

Chronology The following list includes some main dates in the history of Japanese Christianity, as well as all of the OT translations described in this work under A, B & C sections (see Chapter 3 and List of Translations), and the NT translations mentioned along the book Kirishitan and Edo Periods 1543 First Portuguese merchants arrive in Japan 1549 Francisco de Xavier SJ begins Japan mission 1587 First edict expelling missionaries, imposed partially 1590 Jesuits’ printing press in Japan begins operation 1595 Dictionarivm Latino Lvsitanicvm ac Iaponicvm printed 1603 Tokugawa Ieasu appointed shogun—beginning of Edo Period 1603–4 Vocabvlario da Lingua de Iapam printed in Nagasaki 1612 Bakufu’s ban on Christianity, gradually imposed 1644 Last missionary martyred in Japan 1813 First NT translation in Chinese by R. Morrison 1837 Partial Japanese NT translation by K.F.A. Gützlaff The Morrison attempts landing in Japan but repelled 1846 B.J. Bettelheim settles in Okinawa 1852–4 Delegates’ Version Chinese translation printed 1859–62 Bridgman-Culbertson Version Chinese translation printed Bakumatsu and Meiji Periods 1853–54  Perry’s expedition; gradual opening of Japan begins 1855 Bettelheim’s partial NT translations printed in Hong Kong 1859 July: 4 ports are opened for foreign residence and commerce C.M. Williams and G.F. Verbeck arrive in Nagasaki J.C. Hepburn and S.R. Brown arrive in Kanagawa 1866  C-1 Hamada Hikozō, “Digest of Creation” 1867 Hepburn’s Japanese-English & English-Japanese Dictionary 1868 Meiji Restoration—beginning of Meiji Period 1871 Goble’s translation of Matthew printed in Yokohama



chronology

409

1872 First NT translations by Hepburn and Brown printed; Yokohama Protestant missionaries’ conference forms NT translating committee (September 20–24) 1871–73 C-2 Ishikawa Tsune, Western Night Stories 1873 February, removal of the public edict against Christianity 1873 C-3 Nagata Hōsei, Western Doctrines 1873 (?) C-4a C.M. Williams, The Ten Commandments 1876 (?) C-5 Theobald A. Palm, A Discourse on Idols as False Gods 1876 C-6 Ono Seichū-Peter, Old Testament Holy History Digest 1877 D. Thompson’s Genesis 1–11 printed (later included in A-1) 1878 (?) C-4b Morning and evening prayers, additional litany 1879 J. Piper’s Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi (later included in A-1) Nathan Brown’s Baptist NT translation published 1879–80 C-7 Kojima Junji, The Tradition of Both Old and New Testaments 1880 C-8 B.H. Chamberlain, “Suggestions for [. . .] the Psalms” 1880 Full NT committee’s translation printed 1882–1887 A-1 Classical Language Translation / Meiji Translation 1883 General Conference of the Missionaries, Osaka (16–21 April) 1885 B-1 The Holy Psalms—The Japan Orthodox Church Translation 1899 B-2 The Psalms—Anglican-Episcopal Church retranslation 1900 Tokyo Missionary Conference (24–31 October) 1901 Orthodox NT tranaslation 1909–1911 B-3 Sakon Yoshisuke’s Psalms, Genesis 1910 Catholic NT translation by Raguet 1912 Death of Emperor Meiji, beginning of Taishō Period Taishō and early Shōwa Periods 1911–1939 B-4 Yuasa Hangetsu’s Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecc., Song, Isaiah 1913–1933 C-9 Takada Kōan’s different fragment translations 1917 “Taishō Revised Translation” of the NT 1923 C-10 Fujii Takeshi, “An Individual Translation of Job” 1926 Beginning of Shōwa Period 1928 NT translation by Nagai Naoji

410

chronology

1933–1939  C-11  Different Partial Catholic Translations1 1941 C-12 Wakiya Yoshito, “Genesis, with short notes” 1941–1954 B-5 Shibutani Osamu’s Catholic Translation: Genesis, Psalms 1–50 Post WWII Period—late Shōwa and Heisei 1946–1951 B-6 Terada Hiroshi’s Amos, Genesis 1–11 1947 B-7 Ogaeri Yoshio’s Solomon—All people’s Bible—Ecc., Proverbs 1947 B-8 Hagiwara Akira’s Selections from the Old Testament 1948–1951 B-9 Revised classical-style—JBS—Psalms, Job 1952 Colloquial NT translation initiated by Kagawa Toyohiko 1954 B-10 Katayama Tetsu’s The Short Bible 1954 B-12 Matsuda Akemirō’s Job 1954–1959 A-3 Catholic “moderate classical style” / Sapporo Translation 1955 A-2 JBS Colloquial Translation 1956 B-11 Julius Abri’s Psalms: A book of daily prayer (Catholic) 1956–1995 A-4 Sekine Masao’s translation 1958–2002 A-5 Studium Biblicum Franciscanum’s translation 1958–1964 A-6 Sacra Biblia Japonice, Versio: Barbaro-Del Col / Barbaro I 1963 Tsukamoto Toraji begins publishing his NT translation 1967 B-12 Matsuda Akemirō’s Proverbs 1968 B-13 Great books of the world—Gen., Ex., Isaiah, Ecc. (partial) 1968–1970 A-7 New Revised Translation 1970–1974 B-14 The World of the Bible2 1972 B-15 Psalms: prayed together, sung together (Catholic) 1972–1976 B-16 Sasaki Jirō’s Isaiah, Jeremiah 1973–1990 NT translation by Iwakuma Naoshi (bilingual) 1978 A-8 The Living Bible—Paraphrased 1980 A-6a Revisio et nova versio Veteris et Novi Testamenti / Barbaro II

1  Genesis, Psalms (partial), Isaiah (partial), Jonah, Ruth. 2 Gen., Ex., Nu., Deu., I&II Sam., I&II King., Ps., Job, Is. (partial); Josh., Jud., Ez., Ne., Song, Ruth, Jon., Es., Dan., Prov., Amos (full).



chronology

411

1982 A-9 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures 1983 A-10 Oyama Reiji’s Modern Japanese Bible 1983 NT translation by Maeda Gorō 1985 NT translation by Yagyū Naoyuki 1987 A-11 New Interconfessional Translation 1989 NT translation by Shinotō Yoshito 1989 Death of Emperor Shōwa, beginning of Heisei Period 1990–1991 B-13 Nakazawa Kōki’s Job, Isaiah 1994 The Japanese Hexapla of the NT 1997–2004 A-12 Iwanami Shoten Translation 2000 C-13 Fujisaki Hideyoshi’s An Individual Translation of Job— (partial, prepared years earlier) 2011 A-5 SBF translation in one-volume edition

Glossary Bakufu (幕府)—Also known in English as “Shogunate”; the feudalistic system of government under the Shogun (the military leader who ruled in the name of the emperor), which was in force in Japan from the late 12th century to the middle of the 19th (see Tokugawa Bakufu). Bakumatsu Period (幕末時代)—The final years of the Tokugawa Bakufu, roughly from 1853 (the arrival of the Perry expedition) to 1868 (the restoration of Meiji). Japan was forced to open its gates for trade with the West, leading to upheaval in government and rapid modernization. Bungo (文語)—“Written language”; the “classical style” in which the early Japanese translations of the Bible in the 19th century were done. Chōka (長歌)—“Long poem”; a form of Japanese poetry which was common in ancient times but has been in disuse since the early Heian Period. Comprising of an unspecific number of 5–7 syllable units; cf. Tanka. Daimyō (大名)—Feudal lords of the samurai class. Deusu (デウス)—The Japanese transliteration of Deus; the term used for “God” by the Catholic missionaries and their followers in the Kirishitan Period. Dochiriina Kirishitan (ドチリイナ・キリシタン)—The basic catechism of the Catholic mission in the Kirishitan Period; printed in Japan in 1592 & 1600. Edo Period (江戸時代)—The period 1603–1868, during which Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa Bakufu from its capital in Edo (modern Tokyo). Furigana (振り仮名)—Small kana characters written or printed next to or above kanji characters to indicate the latter’s pronunciation. Genbun itchi (言文一致)—“Unifying spoken and written language”; the efforts during the 19th and 20th centuries to overcome diglossia, or genbun nito (言文二途), and create a written language which reflects the spoken one. Genji Monogatari (源氏物語)—The Tale of Genji, a long novel written around 1000 ce and attributed to noblewoman Murasaki Shikibu; considered a great masterpiece of world literature, reflecting Heian culture at its zenith. Gikobun (擬古文)—A form of wabun created in the 18th century by scholars wishing to purify the language by removing Chinese elements and retaining the Heian vocabulary. Heian Period (平安時代)—The period from 794 to 1185 during which Japan was governed by the nobility surrounding the emperor at the capital Kyoto (then called Heian-kyō), which saw the zenith of court culture in literature and the arts. Heisei Period (平成時代)—The period beginning in 1989 with the ascending to the throne of Emperor Akihito. Hiragana (ひらがな)—A syllabary (see kana), now used for writing the inflected parts of verbs and adjectives, particles and prefixes, or in place of kanji characters. Iwakura Mission (岩倉使節団)—A diplomatic mission of senior Japanese politicians who traveled around the globe (December 1871–September 1873), visiting mainly the USA and Europe and gathering data on the trip which had a significant impact on Japan’s modernization. Izenkei (已然形)—Indefinite (or perfect) form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Kakure Kirishitan (隠れキリシタン)—The “hidden Christians” who secretly kept their own version of the Catholic faith throughout Japan’s long period of seclusion (see Sakoku); a few small communities still keep this faith. Kami (神)—Originally the Japanese word for spirits or deities; since the 19th century the generic term for “God”, including the Christian one. The kanji, which is also pronounced shin and jin, was adopted from the “American” version of the Chinese Bible (the “Bridgman-Culbertson version”).

414

glossary

Kana (仮名)—Syllabaries developed as a derivative of the kanji to represent all sounds in the Japanese language (see Hiragana and Katakana). Kanamajiribun (仮名交じり文)—A writing style of popular literature in the Edo Period, which was a mixture of Japanese and Chinese styles; known also as wakankonkōbun (和漢混交文). Kanbun (漢文)—“Chinese writing”; a peculiar Japanese way of writing or reading Chinese texts as Japanese. Includes jun-kanbun (純漢文), in which Chinese syntax is used, and hentai kanbun (変体漢文), which is closer to Japanese in its syntax (see also Kundoku kanbun). Kango (漢語)—A Japanese word of Chinese origin (cf. Wago). Kanji (漢字)—Chinese characters used in Japanese script. Katakana (カタカナ)—A syllabary (see kana), now used for writing words of foreign origin, colloquialism and slang, onomatopoeia, and sometimes in place of kanji. Kirishitan Period (キリシタン時代)—Known also as the “Christian century”; the period, roughly from 1543 to 1640, during which the Catholic mission was transplanted in Japan, flourished, and was eradicated by the Tokugawa Bakufu. Kōgo (口語)—“Colloquial language”; in fact, modern written language, used in most Bible translations after WWII and a few partial earlier ones. Kojiki (古事記)—Record of ancient matters (711–712); the oldest extant historical-mythological chronicle of Japan (cf. Nihongi). Kokinshū (古今集)—Or more fully Kokin wakashū—Collection of ancient and contemporary Japanese poems; a highly influential anthology compiled in the early 10th century. It served as the model for 20 later anthologies compiled on imperial decrees. Kokugo (国語)—“National language”, i.e. Japanese as taught at schools and used in the media. Kun reading (訓読み)—The pronunciation of kanji characters which represents originally Japanese words (cf. On reading). Kundoku kanbun (訓読漢文)—A system used to facilitate the reading of kanbun texts as Japanese through the use of special marks added on both sides of the vertically written line (see also kunten). Kunten (訓点)—The marks (kana characters and punctuation marks) used in kundoku kanbun. Meiji Period (明治時代)—The period from 1868 to 1912, during the reign of Emperor Mutsuhito. It began with the “Meiji Restoration”, in which power was “restored” to the emperor, and his seat was removed from Kyoto to Edo, renamed as Tokyo. Meireikei (命令形)—Imperative form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Manyōshū (万葉集)—Collection of ten thousand leaves; the oldest collection of Japanese poetry, with over 4,000 poems. Compiled in the latter half of the 8th century, but containing poems from as early as the 4th century. Mizenkei (未然形)—Negative form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Mukyōkai (無教会)—“Non-church” tradition of Japanese Christianity, initiated by Uchimura Kanzō and his followers, who maintained deep individual faith and avoidance of establishment. Nihongi (日本紀)—Chronicles of Japan (720); also known as Nihon Shoki (日本書紀). The second oldest historical-mythological chronicle of Japan (cf. Kojiki). Norito (祝詞)—Shinto prayers, recited in Classical Japanese. Okurigana (送り仮名)—The kana characters which follow a kanji stem in verbs and adjectives, representing their inflected parts. On reading (音読み)—The pronunciation of kanji characters which represents Chinese loan words (cf. Kun reading). Perry Expedition (黒船来航)—In Japanese also “The arrival of the black ships”; the arrival in Tokyo Bay of the American Navy squadron commanded by Commodore Matthew C. Perry in 1853 and again in 1854, which had the effect of reopening Japan to contacts with the West after two and a half centuries of seclusion.



glossary

415

Rangaku (蘭学)­—“Dutch Studies”; the study of Western technology and medicine by Japanese scholars during the sakoku period, based on books and personal contacts with Dutch (and a few other) scholars in Nagasaki. Rentaikei (連体形)—Attributive form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Renyōkei (連用形)—Conjunctive form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Rōmaji (ローマ字)—The Latin alphabet as used in Japanese script. Sakoku (鎖国)­—“National isolation”; the policy of seclusion implemented by the Tokugawa Bakufu during the Edo Period, limiting contacts with the outside world, especially the West. Dutch merchants were allowed to stay on the tiny island of Dejima in Nagasaki harbor under firm restrictions; Chinese merchants enjoyed greater freedom of access. Japanese people were forbidden to leave Japan under penalty of death. Shangdi (上帝)—“The di on high” (Japanese: jōtei); the term for “God” in the “British” version of the Chinese Bible, known as the “Delegates’ Version”; rarely used in Japan. Shōwa Period (昭和時代)—The period from 1926 to 1989, during the reign of Emperor Hirohito. Shūshikei (終止形)—Final form in the conjugation of Japanese verbs. Sōrōbun (候文)—An offshoot of kanbun; an epistolary style used also in public notices until the early 20th century. Taishō Period (大正時代)—The period from 1912 to 1926, during the reign of Emperor Yoshihito. Tanka (短歌)—“Short poem”; also known as waka (和歌) or “Japanese poem”; the most common form of Japanese poetry since ancient times, consisting of 31 syllables in 5-75-7-7 units; cf. chōka. Tenshu (天主)—“The lord of heaven”; a term for “God”, sometimes used in the Kirishitan Period (see Deusu). Adopted by the Catholic Church since the 18th century for use in Chinese (tianzhu), and in the 19th century also in Japanese, but replaced by kami in the latter half of the 20th century. Tokugawa Bakufu (徳川幕府)—The feudal regime in Japan during the Edo Period (1603– 1868), headed by 15 consecutive members of the Tokugawa family in the position of Shogun, beginning with Ieasu (see Bakufu). Wabun (和文)—Classical Japanese style of writing (distinct from kanbun). Wago (和語)—Pure Japanese words (cf. Kango). Wakankonkōbun (和漢混交文)—See kanamajiribun.

Bibliography The Bible in the Original Languages and in Various Translations The Bible in Hebrew (MT), as well as Bibles in Greek, Latin and English, are quoted according to the versions in BibleWorks 6 software. Translations in Japanese See “List of Translations” below. Translations in Chinese 『旧約全書』1858 (A Shanghai printing of the Delegates’ Version). 『旧約全書』1864 (An offset edition of the original Bridgman-Culbertson Version, 1999). 『旧約全書』1883 (An offset edition of the original Meiji version with Japanese reading marks, 1996). Secondary Sources (See also “Abbreviations” above; books in Japanese are published in Tokyo unless otherwise indicated). Aejmelaeus, Anneli 1986 “Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew”, JBL 105/2, 193–209. Akiyama Shigeo 秋山繁雄 1982   『明治人物拾遺物語: キリスト教の一系譜』新教出版社. Alcock, Rutherford 1861 Elements of Japanese Grammar for use of Beginners. Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 2. Alter, Robert 1985 The Art of Biblical Poetry, BasicBooks. 2007 The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary, New York: W.W. Norton. 2010 Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2010a The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, A Translation with Commentary, New York: W.W. Norton. Altman, Albert 1966 “Guido Verbeck and the Iwakura Embassy”, Japan Quarterly, 13, 54–62. Anesaki Masaharu 1963 History of Japanese Religion, Ruthland: Tuttle [first edition 1930, London]. Arai et al. 1990 荒井献 Arai Sasagu et al. 「特集『聖書 新共同訳』—新約の場合」、 『日本 の神学』29, 214–252. Asano Junichi 浅野順一 1964  「口語訳聖書再改訳について」、 『日本の神学』3, 1–7.

418

bibliography

Asō Shingo 麻生信吾 1964  「口語訳聖書の問題について」、 『日本の神学』3, 110–113. Aston, W.G. 1872 A Grammar of the Japanese Written Language, with a Short Chrestomathy, Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 4. 1873 A Short Grammar of the Japanese Spoken Language, Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 4. Aurell, K.E. ケー、イー、アウレル 1926   『聖書和訳の歴史と聖書協会』米国聖書協会. Baker, Mona 2001 Ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge. Ballhatchet, Helen 1994 “British Missionaries in Meiji Japan”, in: Ian Nish, ed., Britain & Japan: Biographical Portraits, Richmond: Japan Library, 33–44. 2003 “The Modern Missionary Movement in Japan: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox”, in M.R. Mullins, ed., Handbook of Christianity in Japan, Leiden: Brill, 35–68. Barnstone, Willis 1993 The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Bassnett, Susan 2002 Translation Studies, Third Edition, London & New York: Routledge. Benjamin, Walter 1997 “The Translator’s Task”, translated by Steven Rendall, in TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 10, n. 2, 151–165. Berlin, Adele 2008 The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Revised and Expanded Edition, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Biographical Sketches 1909 M.N. Wyckoff et al., Biographical Sketches—Read at The Council of Missions [in Karuizawa], n.p. Blacker, Carmen 2000 “Three Great Japanologists: Chamberlain, Aston and Satow”, in: Collected Writings of Carmen Blacker, Richmond: Japan Library, 295–309. Bowring, Richard 1991 “An Amused Guest in All: Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–1935)”, in: Hugh Cortazzi and Gordon Daniels, eds., Britain and Japan 1859–1991: Themes and Personalities, London and New York: Routledge, 128–136. Boxer, C.R. 1967 The Christian Century in Japan 1549–1650, Berkeley: University of California. British and Foreign Bible Society 1911 “Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the Society. Vol. II. Polyglots and Languages other than English”, London: British and Foreign Bible Society [typewriter]. Breen, John 1998 “ ‘Ernest desires’: the Iwakura embassy and Meiji religious policy”, Japan Forum 10 (2), 151–165. Breen & Williams 1996 John Breen & Mark Williams, eds., Japan and Christianity: Impacts and Responses, London: Macmillan. Brenner & van Henten 2002 Athalya Brenner & Jan Willem van Henten, Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion, Sheffield ( Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 353, BTC 1).



bibliography

419

Broomhall, Marshall 1934 The Bible in China, London: The China Inland Mission. Brower, Reuben A. 1959 Ed., On Translation, Harvard University Press. Brown, S.R. 1863 Colloquial Japanese [. . .]. Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 2. Bruce, F.F. 1963 The English Bible, London: Methuen. Caldarola, Carlo 1979 Christianity: The Japanese Way, Leiden: Brill. Carroll, Robert P. 2002 “Between Lying and Blasphemy or On Translating A Four-Letter Word in the Hebrew Bible: Critical Reflections on Bible Translation”, in Brenner & van Henten, 53–64. Cary, Otis 1909 A History of Christianity in Japan: V. 1. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Missions; V. 2. Protestant Missions, Reprint, Two Voles. in One, Rutland: Tuttle, 1976 reprint. Chamberlain, Basil Hall 1877 “On the Use of ‘Pillow-Words’ and Plays upon Words in Japanese Poetry”, Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Vol. 5, Part 1, 79–88. 1889 A Handbook of Colloquial Japanese, Second Edition, London: Trubner Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 8. 1905 Things Japanese, London: John Murray, Fifth Edition. Chen Yiyi 2005 “A Brief Survey of the History of Chinese Translations of the Hebrew Bible”, SBL Forum, November 2005. Christian Poems 1977 『近代日本キリスト教文学全集 13. 詩集』教文館. Cieslik & Ōta 1999 H.チースリク(Hubert Cieslik) 監修,太田淑子編『キリシタン』日本史小 百科、東京堂出版. Claassen, W.T. 1983 “Speaker-Oriented Functions of KI in Biblical Hebrew”, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 11, 29–46. Cooper, Michael 1976 “Review: The Nippo Jisho”, Monumenta Nipponica, 31/4, 417–430. Corwin, Charles 1967 Biblical Encounter with Japanese Cultures, Tokyo: Christian Literature Crusade. Coulmas, Florian 1991 “Does the Notion of Digglosia Apply to Japanese? Some Thoughts and Some Documentation”, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10/1, 125–142. Cronin, Michael 2003 Translation and Globalization, London & New York: Routledge. Dahood, Mitchel 1966 The Anchor Bible: Psalms I, 1–50, Introduction, Translation and Notes, Garden City: Doubleday. Daniell, David 2003 The Bible in English: Its History and Influence, New Haven: Yale University Press. Denio, Francis B. 1927 “On the Use of the Word Jehovah in Translating the Old Testament,” JBL, 46, 146–149. Dhorme, E. 1967 A Commentary on the Book of Job, Translated by Harold Knight, London: Nelson.

420

bibliography

DJD XIV 1995 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIV: Qumran Cave 4 IX Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Eugene Ulrich et al., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dohi Akio 土肥昭夫 1987    『日本プロテスタント・キリスト教史』新教出版社. Doshisha 2003 同志社山脈編集委員会『同志社山脈—113 人のプロフィール』晃洋房 Drummond, Richard H. 1971 A History of Christianity in Japan, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Eber Irene 1999 The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S.I.J. Schereschewsky (1831–1906), Leiden: Brill. Eber et al. 1999 Irene Eber, Sze-Kar Wan, Knut Walf, eds., Bible in Modern China: The Literary and Intellectual Impact, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XLIII. Ebisawa Arimichi 海老澤有道 1947 『日本の讃美歌』香柏書房. 1953 「聖書和訳史全滴」『基督教史学』(基督教史学会)5, 64–75. 1960 Christianity in Japan: A Bibliography of Japanese and Chinese Sources, Part 1 (1543–1858), Committee on Asian Cultural Studies, ICU. 1981 『日本の聖書—聖書和訳の歴史』日本基督教団. 1982 “Problems in the History of Japanese Bible Translation: A Focus on the Translation for God”, Translated by James L. Wiese, JCQ 48/2, 79–82. 1988 「聖書の翻訳」、 『日本キリスト教歴史大事典』(日本キリスト教歴史大 事典編集委員会) 教文館. Ebisawa et al. 1970 海老沢有道、H.チースリク、土井忠生、大塚光信『キリシタン書 ; 排 耶書』(日本思想大系 25) 岩波書店. 1993 海老沢有道、井手勝美、岸野久編著『キリシタン教理書』(キリシタ ン研究第 30 輯) 教文館. Elison, George 1973 Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Erans, Lane R. 1997 “A Miner in the Deep and Drak Places: Guido Verbeck in Nagasaki, 1859–1869”, Crossroads 5, 87 ff. Even-Zohar, Itamar 1990 “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”, in his: Polysystem Studies (= Poetics Today 11:1), 45–51; reprinted in Venuti 2004, 199– 204. Fenn, Eric 1963 “The Bible and the Missionary”, in: S.L. Greenslade, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, Cambridge University Press, 383–407. Ferguson, Charles A. 1971 “Diglossia”, Language Structure and Language Use: Essays by Charles A. Ferguson, Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1–26 (First published in Word, 15, 325–340, 1959). 1991 “Diglossia Revisited”, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10/1, 214–234. Fox, Michael V. 2000 The Anchor Bible: Proverbs 1–9, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday. 2009 The Anchor Bible: Proverbs 10–31, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday.



bibliography

421

Fujiwara Fujio 藤原藤男 1974 『聖書の和訳と文体論』キリスト新聞社. 1988 「新共同訳聖書について」、 『キリスト新聞』2.13, 4; 2.20, 3; 2.27,3; 3.5, 3; 3.12,3. Fyson, Philip Kemball 1901 “Is it Desirable to Have an Early Revision of the Japanese Version of the Scriptures Now in General Use?”, in: Proceedings of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries in Japan, Held in Tokyo, October 24–31, 1900, With Extensive Supplements, Methodist Publishing House, Tokyo, 503–521. Gentzler, Edwin 2001 Contemporary Translation Theories, Second Revised Edition, Topics in Translation 21, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Goodspeed & Smith 1933 Edgar J. Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith, The Short Bible: An American Translation, The Modern Library, New York: Random House (Copyright by The University of Chicago). Greene, Evarts Boutell 1927 A New-Englander in Japan: Daniel Crosby Greene, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Griffis, William Elliot 1900 Verbeck of Japan: A Citizen of No Country: A Life Story of Foundation Work Inaugurated by Guido Fridolin Verbeck, New York: Fleming H. Revell. 1902 A Maker of the New Orient: Samuel Robbins Brown, Pioneer Educator in China, America, and Japan. The Story of his Life and Work, New York: Fleming H. Revell 1913 Hepburn of Japan: and His Wife and Helpmates: A Life Story of Toil for Christ, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 2003   『新訳考証日本のフルベッキ:  無国籍の宣教師フルベッキの生涯』W.E. グリフィス著; 村瀬寿代訳編(佐賀: 洋学堂書店). Habein, Yaeko Sato 1984 The History of the Japanese Written Language, University of Tokyo Press. Harushovski-Harshav, Benjamin 2007 “Prosody, Hebrew”, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Vol. 16, 595–623. Hashimoto Shinkichi 橋本進吉 1983    『1592年天草版ドチリイナキリシタン: 原本寫眞複製』岩波書店. Hayashi Ōki 林巨樹 1974 「日本語の性質、中でも敬語について」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 9, 3–9. Heco, Joseph 1895 The Narrative of a Japanese: What he has seen and the people he has met in the course of the last forty years, Edited by James Murdoch, Vol. 1 & 2, Tokyo [year of publication not certain]. Heiser, Michael S. 2001 “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God”, Bibliotheca Sacra 629, 52–74. Hepburn, James C. 1883 “Principles of Translation into Japanese; Discussion”, in Proceedings of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries in Japan, Held at Osaka, Japan, April, 1883, Edited by the Publishing Committee, Yokohama, 410–420. 1955 The Letters of Dr. J.C. Hepburn, Collected and Edited with Notes by Takaya Michio, Tokyo: Toshin Shobo. 2009 『ヘボン在日書簡全集』[ヘボン著]; 岡部一興編; 高谷道男, 有地美子 教 文館 Heuman, Fred S. 1977 The Uses of Hebraisms in Recent Bible Translations, New York: Philosophical Library. Higashibaba Ikuo 2001 Christianity in Early Modern Japan: Kirishitan Belief and Practice, Leiden: Brill.

422

bibliography

Hills, Margaret T. 1952 “The Progress of Bible Translation in Japan”, The Bible Translator, 3, 75–79. Hinds et al. 1987 John Hinds et al., Eds., Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of the Japanese Wa, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hishimoto Takeo 菱本丈夫 1978   「箕作阮甫と聖書」、蘭学資料研究会編『箕作阮甫の研究』359–377. Hōjō Fumio 北條文緒 2004   『翻訳と異文化: 原作との「ずれ」が語るもの』みすず書房. Hotta Yūkō 堀田雄康 1976 「「共同訳聖書」と最近の聖書翻訳」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 12, 11–26. Hudson, Alan 1991 “Toward the Systematic Study of Diglossia”, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10/1, 1–22. ICU 1965   『日本キリスト教文献目録―明治期―Part II (1859–1912)』アジア文化研 究委員会、国際基督教大学 (International Christian University). Ikado & McGovern 1966 Fujio Ikado & James R. McGovern, A Bibliography of Christianity in Japan: Protestantism in English Sources (1859–1959), The Committee on Asian Cultural Studies, ICU. Ikeda Tadashi 1980 Classical Japanese Grammar Illustrated with Texts, Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai. Ion, Hamish 2009 American Missionaries, Christian Oyatoi, and Japan, 1859–73, Vancouver: UBC Press. Iwanami 2005 旧約聖書翻訳委員会『聖書を読む—旧約篇』岩波書店. Jakobson, Roman 1959 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”, in: R.A. Brower, ed., On Translation, Harvard University Press. Jansen, Marius B. 2000 The Making of Modern Japan, Harvard University Press. Japan Harvest 1956 “Is the Colloquial Bible Trustworthy? [symposium]”, Japan Harvest (the Evangelical Missionary Association of Japan), July, p. 7. JBS 日本聖書協会 1954 『口語新約聖書について』. 1955 『口語旧約聖書について』. 1975 『日本聖書協会百年史』. 1994 『日本聖書協会 125 年史』. 1994a 『日本聖書協会聖書図書館、日本語聖書蔵書目録、1990 年末現在』. Jennes, Joseph 1973 A History of the Catholic Church in Japan: from its Beginnings to the Early Meiji Era (1549–1873), revised, enlarged edition, Tokyo: Oriens Institute for Religious Research. Kaiser, Stefan 1995 Ed., The Western Rediscovery of the Japanese Language, Vols. 1–8, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon press. 1996 “Translations of Christian Terminology into Japanese, 16th–19th Centuries: Problems and Solutions”, in: Breen & Williams, 8–29. Kamei Shunsuke 亀井俊介 1994 編 『近代日本の翻訳文化』叢書比較文学比較文化: 3 中央公論社.



bibliography

423

Kanō Takayo 加納孝代 1994 「翻訳文学としての聖書－旧約聖書「雅歌」第二章にみられる相 聞」、 『近代日本の翻訳文化』叢書比較文学比較文化: 3 中央公論社, 53–77. Kawashima Daijirō 川島第二郎 1988 『ジョナサン・ゴーブル研究』新教出版社. 1989 『摩太福音書 / ジョナサン・ゴーブ訳』明石書店. 1993 「初期の日本語聖書と中国語聖書」、『しにか』 4/11, 78–83. 2008 『ネイサン・ブラウンと「志無也久世無志與」』新教出版. Keene, Donald 1984 Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature of the Modern Era—Fiction, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kida Kenichi 木田献一 1968 「関根正雄訳『十二小預言書　上』」、 『日本の神学』7, 9–17. 1991 「『聖書　新共同訳』発行 2 周年にあたって「旧約聖書」を中心とす る検討過程と今 後の課題」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 25, 6–15. 2001  「新共同訳聖書」、木田献一など編『聖書の世界・総解説』自由国民社 455–460. 2006 「『フランシスコ会聖書研究所訳注聖書』と『聖書　新共同訳』との 比較－エレミヤ書を中心に」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 30, 47–56. Kida et al. 1987 木田献一、石川康輔、川島貞雄、ペトロ・ネメシェギ「特集『聖書 新共同訳』 をめぐて座談会」『聖書と教会』1987/12 (no. 261), 2–18. 2001 木田献一, 山内眞, 土岐健治編『聖書の世界・総解説』　自由国民社 Kishino Hisashi 岸野久 1998 『ザビエルと日本: キリシタン開教期の研究』 吉川弘文館. Koizumi Tatsuhito 小泉達人 1970 「UBSの聖書翻訳の指針」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 1, 46–56. Kojima & Kamei 1979 小島幸枝, 亀井孝解説 『どちりいなきりしたん: バチカン本』 勉誠社. Kondo & Wakabayashi 2001 Masaomi Kondo & Judy Wakabayashi, “Japanese Tradition”, in: M. Baker, ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge, 485–493. Kugel, James L. 1981 The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History, New Haven: Yale. Kumazawa & Swain 1991 Kumazawa Yoshinobu & David L. Swain, Eds., Christianity in Japan, 1971–1990: Successor to The Japan Christian Yearbook, Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan. Hirata & Kishi 平田三郎、岸先年 1980 『共同訳聖書の固有名詞の日本語表記—旧約聖書』共同訳聖書実行委 員会. Laures, Johannes 1957 Kirishitan Bunko: A Manual of Books and Documents on the Early Christian Mission in Japan [. . .], Third, Revised and Enlarged, Edition, Tokyo: Sophia University. Lee, Archie C.C. 2004 “Naming God in Asia: Cross-Textual Reading in Multi-Cultural Context”, in: Quest 3/1, 21–42. Long, Lynne 2001 Translating the Bible: From the 7th to the 17th Century, Ashgate. Lurie, David B. 2011 Realms of Literacy: Early Japan and the History of Writing, Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London: Harvard University Press.

424

bibliography

MacCauley, Clay 1896 An Introductory Course in Japanese, Yokohama: Kelly and Walsh. Machinist, Peter 2005 “Once More: Monotheism in Biblical Israel”, Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions—JISMOR 1 Special Issue, 25–39. Matsudaira Marimitsu 1980 “The Concept of Tamashii in Japan”, Richard M. Sorson, ed., Studies in Japanese Folklore, New York: Arno Press, 181–197. Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004 Anna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki, Eds., Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McIlwaine, W.A. 1954 “Translation of the Future Tense into Colloquial Japanese”, The Bible Translator, 5/3, 112–117. McVety, Kenneth 1965 “Bible Translation and Revision as Techniques of Communication in Japan”, JCQ 31/2, 68–73. Medhurst, W.H. 1830 An English and Japanese and Japanese and English vocabulary. Compiled from native works. Reprinted in: Kaiser 1995, V. 1. 1837 China: Its State and Prospects, with Especial Reference to the Spread of the Gospel, London: John Snow. Meiji 1967 『明治文化全集―第 19 巻　宗教論』明治文化研究会. Memorials 1867 Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese: Giving a List of their Publications, and Obituary Notices of the Deceased. With Copious Indexes, Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press. Meyer, Esias E. 2001 “The Particle ‫כי‬, A Mere Conjunction or Something More?”, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27/1, 39–62. Mikami Akira 三上章 1960 『象は鼻が長い』くろしお出版. Miller, Roy Andrew 1982 Japan’s Modern Myth: The Language and Beyond, New York & Tokyo: Weatherhill. Mirsky, Nilly 1978 “ ‘The Third Territory’: Non-academic thoughts on problems in the translating of literature”, Siman K’ria 8, 306–311 [in Hebrew]. Missionaries 1883 Proceedings of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries in Japan, Held at Osaka, Japan, April, 1883, Edited by the Publishing Committee, Yokohama. 1901 Proceedings of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries in Japan, Held in Tokyo, October 24–31, 1900, With Extensive Supplements, Methodist Publishing House, Tokyo. Miyakoda Tsunetarō 都田恒太郎 1974 『ロバート・モリソンとその周辺: 中国語聖書翻訳史』教文館. 1978 『ギュツラフとその周辺』教文館. Miyazaki Kentarō 2003 “Roman Catholic Mission in Pre-Modern Japan”, in Mullins 2003, 1–18. Mizoguchi Yasuo 溝口靖夫編著 1969 松山高吉』西宮: 松山高吉記念刊行会. Mochizuki Yōko 望月洋子 1987  『ヘボンの生涯と日本語』新潮社.



bibliography

425

Moran, J.F. 1993 The Japanese and the Jesuits: Alessandro Valignano in sixteenth-century Japan, London and New York: Routledge. Morioka Kenji 森岡健二 1974  「聖書の翻訳と現代語の表現」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 No. 8, 3–7. 1991 『改訂近代語の成立―語彙編』明治書院. Morris, Ivan 1966 Dictionary of Selected Forms in Classical Japanese Literature, New York: Columbia University Press. Motoda Sakunoshin 元田作之進 1914 『老監督ウイリアムス』大阪: 京都地方部故ウイリアムス監督紀念実行 委員事務所. Mullins, Mark R. 1998 Christianity Made in Japan: A Study of Indigenous Movements, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 2003 Ed., Handbook of Christianity in Japan, Leiden: Brill. 2006 “Japanese Christianity”, Paul L. Swanson and Clark Chilson, eds., Nanzan Guide to Japanese Religions, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 115–128. 2011 “Religion in Contemporary Japanese Lives”, Victoria Lyon Bestor and Theodore C. Bestor, with Akiko Yamagata, Eds., Routledge Handbook of Japanese Culture and Society, London and New York: Routledge, 63–74. 2011a “Between Inculturation and Globalization: The Situation of Catholicism in Contemporary Japanese Society”, Kevin M./ Doak, ed., Xavier’s Legacies: Catholicism in Modern Japanese Culture, 169–192. Murphy, R.T.A. 2003 “Jehovah”, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, V. 7, 750–751. Nakai Junko 2007 Junko Nakai Hirai Murayama, “The Japanese Bible: A Historical and Analytical Study of its Development with Particular Focus on the Period 1837–1888”, PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester. Nakata Minoru, History 中田実「日本語訳聖書物語－聖書和訳の歴史」『聖書の講解』. (7) 「聖書の日本語訳と英和辞書」第 49 号、1969 年 2 月、7–11. (17) 「C.M.ウイリアムス訳十誡問答」第 66 号、1970 年 8 月、7–11. (18) 「パ－ム訳編『偶像非神論』(明治八年)」第 67 号、1970 年 2 月、7–11. (38) 「正教会と聖書の和訳－ニコライとその和訳聖書」第 100 号、 1973 年 12 月、8–11. Nakazawa Kōki 中沢洽樹 1960 「口語聖書翻訳の諸問題」、 『立教大学研究報告』第 9 巻、87–118. 1968 『日本の聖書学』山本書店. 1971 「聖書翻訳の諸問題」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 3, 33–45. 1973 「翻訳論文献紹介」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 6, 41–45. Namiki et al. 1991 並木浩一Namiki Kōichi et al.「特集『聖書　新共同訳』—旧約の場 合」、『日本の神学』30, 171–213. Nao Kōsaku 名尾耕作 1970 「旧約聖書の訳語の問題点」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 1, 25–37. Naudé, J.A. 2002 “An Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implication for Bible Translation”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 2, 44–69. New Style Poems 2001 『新日本古典文学大系、明治編 12. 新体詩、聖書、讃美歌集』岩波書店 刊行.

426

bibliography

Nida, Eugene A. 1947 Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages, New York: American Bible Society. 1964 Toward a Science of Translating: with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating, Leiden: Brill. 2003 Fascinated by Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nida & Taber 1969 Eugene A. Nida & Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: Brill [in Japanese:『翻訳―理論と実際』研究社 1973]. Nish, Ian 1998 Ed., The Iwakura Mission in America and Europe: A New Assessment, Richmond, Surrey: Japan Library (Curzon Press). Noorda, Sijbolt 2002 “New and Familiar: The Dynamics of Bible Translation”, in Brenner & van Henten, 8–16. Nord, Christiane 1997 “A Functional Typology of Translations”, Anna Trosborg, ed., Text Typology and Translation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–66. Obara Saruto 尾原悟 1999    『イエズス会日本コレジヨの講義要綱III』(キリシタン研究第 36 輯) 教文館. Ōe Mitsuru 大江満 2000 『宣教師ウィリアムズの伝道と生涯』刀水書房. Ogata Hiroyasu 尾形裕康 1961 「近代日本建設の父フルベッキ博士」、 『社會科學討究』XVIII (7:1), 1–40. Olson, George L. 1982 “Fresh Insights Fermenting at JBS: An interview with Okada Hiroyoshi, General Secretary, Japan Bible Society”, JCQ 48/2, 67–8. Ota Yuzo 1998 Basil Hall Chamberlain: Portrait of a Japanologist, Richmond: Japan Library. Oyama Reiji 尾山令仁 1989 『聖書翻訳の歴史と現代訳』暁書房. Ozawa Saburō 小澤三郎 1973 『幕末明治耶蘇教史研究』日本基督教団出版局. Parker, F. Calvin 2001 Jonathan Goble of Japan: Marine, Missionary, Maverick, Second Edition, Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural. Partridge, A.C. 1973 English Biblical Translation, London: Andre Deutsch. Phillips, James M. 1981 From the Rising of the Sun: Christians and Society in Contemporary Japan, Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Records 1985 “Records of the Committee for the translation of the Bible into the Japanese Langugae [NT, 1874–1880]”, 『聖書翻訳研究』 No. 23, 7–68. Rhodes, Errol F. 1960 “Notes on the Colloquial New Testament Version of 1954”, 『キリスト教学』2, 21–32. 1966 “Evangelism and Bible Translations”, The Japan Christian Year Book, 218–231. 1967 “Japanese Bible Translations”, The Bible Translator, 18, 61–70 [reprint of 1966]. Richie, Donald 2001 A Hundred Years of Japanese Films: A Concise History, Tokyo: Kodansha. Rikkyō 1999 『聖書と日本文化』立教大学/ The Bible and the Japanese Culture—Exhibition in Celebration of Rikkyo Gakuin’s 125th Anniversary, Rikkyo University.



bibliography

427

Ritter, H. 1898 A History of Protestant Missions in Japan, trans. by George E. Albrecht, revised and brought up to date by D.C. Greene [. . .], Tokyo: The Methodist Publishing House. Robertson, James C.F. 1953 The Bible in Japan, London: British and Foreign Bible Society. Rogerson, John 2002 “Can a Translation of the Bible Be Authoritative?”, in Brenner & van Henten, 17–35. Rosenau, William 1903 Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible, Baltimore: Friedenwald; Folcroft Library Editions. Ross, Andrew C. 1994 A Vision Betrayed: The Jesuits in Japan and China 1542–1742, Edinburgh: Edinburg University. Saito Takeshi 齋藤勇 1967    「邦訳聖書の文体」、『日本学士院紀要』第二十五巻　第二号 51–66. Sakon Kiyoshi 左近淑 1973  「聖書翻訳に関す邦語文献」、『聖書翻訳研究』 7, 40–47. Sakon Yoshishige 左近義慈 1964  「左近義弼とその時代－日本の旧約学の歴史の一断面」、 『神学』27, 74–89. 1967  「和訳聖書の一、二の問題」、 『神学』30, 1–38. 1973  「新改訳聖書－旧約聖書－の翻訳について」、 『神学』34/35, 61–110. Salevsky, Heidemarie 1991 “Theory of Bible Translation and General Theory of Translation”, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 42, 101–114. Sanneh, Lamin, 2009 Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture, Second Edition: Revised and Expanded, Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Sansom, George 1928 An Historical Grammar of Japanese, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968 reprint. Sarna, Nahum M. 1989 The JPS Torah Commentary—Genesis, Philadelphia: JPS. 1991 The JPS Torah Commentary—Exodus, Philadelphia: JPS. Sato, Ernest Mason 1888 The Jesuit Mission Press in Japan, 1591–1610, Privately Printed. Sawa Wataru 佐波亘 1938 編纂『植村正久と其の時代』(教文館)Vol. 4. Schneider, Bernardin OFM B. シュナイダ 1965 “Catholic Japanese Bible Translation in Modern Times (1895–1964)”, JCQ 31/2, 79–86. 1976 “Problems of Discrimination in Bible Translation”, JCQ 42/3, 143–7. 1976a “The Problem of Transcribing Bible Names in Japanese”, The Bible Translator 27/4, 413–17. 1978  「共同訳聖書について」、『聖書翻訳研究』 15, 20–29. 1979 “The Japanese Common Bible Translation”, 『日本の神学』18, 19–40. 1982 “Japan’s Encounter with the Bible”, JCQ 48/2, 69–78. 1992 “Efforts in Japanese Bible Translation Since 1965”, The Japan Christian Review 58, 85–101. 2003 “Bible Translations”, in: Mark R. Mullins, ed., Handbook of Christianity in Japan, Leiden: Brill, 205–225. Schoors, A. 1981 “The Particle ‫”כי‬, Remembering all the Way . . . Oudtestamentische Studiën Vol. 21, Leiden: Brill, 240–276.

428

bibliography

Schurhammer, Georg 1928 Das kirchliche Sprachproblem in der japanischen Jesuitenmission des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: ein Stück Ritenfrage in Japan, Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur-u. Völkerkunde Ostasiens. Sekine Bunnosuke 関根文之助 1982 『聖書のことばと日本語』福永書店. Sekine Masao 関根正雄 1969 「書評: 中沢洽樹・前田護郎共著 「世界の名著」 ( ) 聖書、旧約の部」、『聖書と 教会』4, 48–50. 1980  「聖書翻訳の理論と課題」『文学』48/12, 144–155. 1982 “The Japanese and the Bible”, translated by Lloyd Neve, JCQ 48/2, 82–5. Sekiya Sadao 関谷定夫 1965  「バルバロ訳「口語旧約聖書」批判」、 『西南学院大学文理論集』6:2, 191–212. Seow Choon-Leong 1997 The Anchor Bible - Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday. Shinkai 1974 新改訳聖書刊行会(偏)『新改訳聖書の特色』. 2004 新改訳聖書刊行会(偏)『聖書翻訳を考える―「新改訳聖書」第三版の 出版に際して』いのちのことば社. Shinmi Hiroshi 新見宏 1969  「最近の聖書翻訳について 旧約および旧約外典」、『日本の神学』8, 9–19. 1983 “Bible, Translations of ”, KEJ, 1, 150–151. Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997 Mark Shuttleworth & Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome. Smith, Mark S. 1990 The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, New York: Harper & Row. 2001 The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press. Snell-Hornby, Mary 1988 Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John ­Benjamins. Speiser, E.A. 1960 “ ‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel”, JBL, 79, 157–163. 1964 The Anchor Bible: Genesis, Introduction, Translation and Notes, Garden City: Doubleday. Spelman, Douglas G. 1969 “Christianity in Chinese: The Protestant Term Question”, Papers on China: from seminars at Harvard University, 22A, 25–52. Standaert, Nicolas 1999 “The Bible in Early Seventeenth-Century China”, in: Irene Eber, Sze-Kar Wan, Knut Walf, eds., Bible in Modern China: The Literary and Intellectual Impact, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XLIII, 31–54. Stories 1878 『旧約聖書の話』米国遣伝教使事務局. 1882 『旧約聖書の話 第二』米国遣伝教使事務局. Strauss, Mark L. 2005 “Form, function, and the ‘literal meaning’ fallacy in English Bible translation”, The Bible Translator, 56:3, 153–168.



bibliography

429

Suzuki Jirō 鈴木二郎 1974 「敬語をめぐって」、 『聖書翻訳研究』8, 25–28. Suzuki Norihisa 鈴木範久 2000 鈴木範久など『聖書と日本人』大明堂. 2001 “On the Translation of God (Part One)”, Japanese Religions, 26/2, 131–146. 2002 “On the Translation of God (Part Two)”, Japanese Religions, 27/2, 133–158. 2006 『聖書の日本語―翻訳の歴史』岩波書店. Suzuki Satoko 1993 “Topic and Presupposition in Japanese”, a PhD thesis, University of Minnesota. Takadera Ichiro 1965 「カトリック聖書翻訳年表」、 『カトリック生活』430, 22, 27–29. Takahashi Masashi 高橋虔 1959 “The Colloquial Japanese Bible of 1955, With a Short History of Bible Translations in Japan”, The Bible Translator, 10, 101–106. 1963 “Use of Honorific in Japanese, in the Colloquial Translation of 1955”, The Bible Translator, Vol. 14, 174–177. 1965 “A Short History of Bible Translations in Japan”, JCQ 31/2, 74–8. 1966   「関根正雄訳『イザヤ書』」、 『日本の神学』5, 7–15. 1970    「聖書新訳の諸問題」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 1, 4–23. Takahashi Shigeyuki 高橋重幸 1972 「ヘブライ詩における音の要素とそのーひとつの試論」、 『聖書翻訳研 究』 5, 3–17. Takahashi Yasuyuki 高橋保行 2000 『聖ニコライ大主教—日本正教会の礎』府主教庁. Takaya Michio 高谷道男 1961 『ヘボン』吉川弘分館 (reprinted 1986). 1965 『S.R.ブラウン書簡集』日本基督教団出版部. 1976 『ヘボンの手紙』有隣堂. 1978 『フルベッキ書簡集』新教出版社. Tezuka Giichirō 手塚儀一郎充 1964 「聖書の日本訳の問題について」、『日本の神学』3, 107–110. Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996 The JPS Torah Commentary—Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: JPS. Tobita Shigeo 1971 “Levels of Style in Japanese”, The Bible Translator, 22, 49–58. Toki Kenji 土岐健治 1993 「邦訳聖書の源流としての漢訳聖書」、 『しにか』 4/9, 66–71. Toki & Kawashima 1988 土岐健治、川島第二郎著「聖書翻訳史における元訳・口語訳・新共同 訳－旧約聖書特に創世記を中心として」、 『一橋大学研究年報.人文科 学研究』 27, 53–149. 2001 土岐健治、川島第二郎著「初期日本語訳聖書と中国語訳聖書」、木田 献一など編 『聖書の世界・総解説』自由国民社 440–454. Tokita et al. 1971 Tokita Mitsuhiko 時田光彦, Hayakawa K. 早川貢右, Shinmi Hiroshi新見宏, Koizumi Tatsuhito 小泉達人, Morita Mitsuhiro 森田光博, Sekine Masao 関根 正雄「『聖書の世界』旧約I–V巻」、 『日本の神学』10, 37–56. Tokushige Asakichi 徳重淺吉 1935 『維新政治宗教史研究』目黒書店. Tomasi, Massimiliano 1999 “Quest for a New Written Language: Western Rhetoric and the Genbun Itchi Movement”, Monumenta Nipponica, 54, 333–360. Toury, Gideon 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

430

bibliography

Tov, Emanuel 2012 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Toyoda Minoru 豊田実 1956 “A Short History of the Japanese Translation of the Bible”, in『英文学研究: 齋 藤勇博士古稀祝賀論文集』83–99. Tsukimoto Akio 月本昭男 1989 「『聖書　新共同訳』について(1)」、 『聖書ヘブライ語』8, 172–176. 1990 「『聖書　新共同訳』について(2)」、 『聖書ヘブライ語』9, 111–123. 2000 「旧約聖書の日本語訳」、 『聖書と日本人』大明堂　15–35. Tucker, Beverley D. 1999 B.D. たっか—、赤井勝哉訳『日本聖公会の創設者—C.M. ウィリアム ズ主教小 伝』聖公会出版. Tucker, Henry St. George 1938 The History of the Episcopal Church in Japan, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Turnbull, Stephen 1996 “Acculturation among the Kakure Kirishitan: Some Conclusions from the Tenchi Hajimari no Koto”, in: Breen & Williams, 63–74. 1998 The Kakure Kirishitan of Japan: A Study of Their Development, Beliefs and Rituals to the Present day, Richmond: Japan Library. Twine, Nanette 1978 “The Genbunitchi Movement: Its Origin, Development, and Conclusion”, Monumenta Nipponica, 33, 333–356. 1983 “Toward Simplicity: Script Reform Movement in the Meiji Period”, Monumenta Nipponica, 38, 115–132. 1988 “Standardizing Written Japanese: A Factor in Modernization”, Monumenta Nipponica, 43, 429–454. 1991 Language and the Modern State: The Reform of Written Japanese, London: Routledge. Ushimaru Yasuo 牛丸康夫 1965  「日本正教会に於ける聖書和訳と聖典翻訳の歴史」、 『神学の声』第 12 巻、第 1 号、6, 25–9. 1969 『明治文化とニコライ』教文館. 1978 『日本正教史』府主教庁. Venuti, Lawrence 1998 The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethic of Difference, New York & London: Routledge. 2004 Ed., The Translation Studies Reader, Second Edition, New York & London: Routledge. Verbeck, Guido F. 1883 “History of Protestant Missions in Japan”, in Proceedings of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries in Japan, Held at Osaka, Japan, April, 1883, Edited by the Publishing Committee, Yokohama, 23–186*. Vermeer, Hans J. 1996 A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against), Heidelberg: Reihe Wissenschaft. Wada Mikio 和田幹男 2002 「日本語訳聖書の歴史」http://mikio.wada.catholic.ne.jp/JAP_BIBL.html (read 02.05.2006). 2006 「新共同訳とフランシスコ会訳－イザヤ書を中心に」、 『聖書翻訳研 究』 30, 33–46. Walkenhorst, K. 1980 K. ワ－ケンホ－スト「「主」か「ヤーウェ」か　－パウロの神学と 第二イザヤおよび祭司伝承におけるYHWHの名について」、 『聖書翻訳 研究』17, 3–19.



bibliography

431

Washiyama Teisaburō 鷲山弟三郎 1927 『明治学院五十年史』明治学院蔵版. Weissbrod, Rachel 2007 Not by Word Alone: Fundamental Issues in Translation [in Hebrew], Ra’anana: The Open University. Whelan, Christal 1996 The Beginning of Heaven and Earth: The Sacred Book of Japan’s Hidden Christians, Translated and Annotated, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. 1996a “Written and Unwritten Texts of the Kakure Kirishitan”, in: Breen & Williams, 122–137. Williams, Channing Moore 2000   『ウィリアムズ主教書簡集 / 立教学院百二十五年史編纂委員会編』 / The Bishop Williams letters collection I & II/ A History of Rikkyo (St. Paul’s) University and Schools, Historical Documents Vols. 4 & 5, edited by Gene S. Lehman and Beverley D. Tucker, Rikkyo Gakuin. Williams, Mark 1996 “From Out of the Depth: The Japanese Literary Response to Christianity”, in: Breen & Williams, 156–174. Wilt, Timothy 2003 Ed., Bible Translation: Frames of References, Manchester: St. Jerome. Yamamoto Shichihei 山本七平 1977  『対談・日本人と聖書』TBS ブリタニカ. Yanabu Akira 柳父章 1976  『翻訳とはなにか―日本語と翻訳文化』法政大学出版局. 1978  『翻訳文化を考える』法政大学出版局. 1986  『ゴッドと上帝―歴史のなかの翻訳者』筑摩書房. 1998  『翻訳語を読む: 異文化コミュニケーションの明暗』光芒社. 2003  『翻訳語の論理: 言語にみる日本文化の構造』法政大学出版局. 2004  『近代日本語の思想―翻訳文体成立事情』法政大学出版局. Yanagita Tomonobu 1958 Japan Christian Literature Review: a comprehensive subject listing of Protestant and Catholic books with over 600 analytical reviews, Sendai: Seisho tosho Kankokai. Yazaki Kenichi 矢崎健一 1960  「朝晩禱分附リタニーの研究」、 『立教大学研究報告』第 9 巻、49–85. 1962–64 聖公会禱分」『立教大学研究報告』第11巻、66–102 (I);第12巻、60–96 (II); 第 14 巻、50–104 (III); 第 16 巻、40–88 (IV). 1965  「C.M.ウィリアムズの翻訳と著書」、『キリスト教史学』第 15 巻 55–58. 1972   「中国語聖書翻訳小史」、 『聖書翻訳研究』 4, 27–39. 1988   『チャニング・ムーアーウィリアムズ』 聖公会出版. Yi Hwan-Jin 2008 “James Legge, the Chinese Delegates’ Version of the Bible, and Korean Translations of the Bible”, Sinhak Gwa Saige: Theology and The World, 5, 9–35. Yoda Tomiko 2000 “The Rise and Fall of Maternal Society: Gender, Labor and Capital in Contemporary Japan”, The South Atlantic Quarterly, 99:4, 865–902. Yoshimoto & Ogawa 吉本隆明, 小川国夫 1988 吉本隆明 Yoshimoto Takaaki, 小川国夫 Ogawa Kunio「新共同訳『聖 書』を読む」、 『新潮』no. 997, February, 186–203. Yoshimura Akira 2004 Storm Rider, Translated from the Japanese by Philip Gabriel, Harcourt. Zetzsche, Jost 1999 “Why the Union Version Took Nearly Three Decades to Complete”, in: Irene Eber, Sze-Kar Wan, Knut Walf, eds., Bible in Modern China: The Literary and Intellectual Impact, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XLIII, 77–99.

432

bibliography Some Important Periodicals and Magazines

The Bible Translator (By the United Bible Societies) (1950–) Chinese Repository (1832–1851) The Japan Christian Quarterly (1926–1991) The Japan Christian Review (1992–1998) 『聲』 (1891–2002) 『カトリック』(『カトリック研究』from 1939) (1920–1945) 『聖書思想』 (1933–1939) 『キリシタン研究』 (1942–) 『聖書翻訳研究』 (By the Japan Bible Society) (1970–2006) 『聖書ヘブライ語』 (1984–1990) 『聖書と教会』 (1966–1993) 『日本の神学』 (1962–) 『神学』(1949–) 『キリスト新聞』 (1946–)

List of Japanese OT Translations, with Quotations Index Each item is followed by the numbers of pages on which it is first described, and on which verses from it are quoted (only the actual quote, excluding the discussions). A. Full translations A-1 『旧約聖書』—文語訳/明治元訳 (日本聖書協会) 1887 (1999 printing) Old Testament—Classical Language Translation/Meiji Translation Described: 51–66 Quoted: 149, 192, 194, 211, 254, 275, 321, 336, 346–347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 355–356, 360, 362, 364, 366–379, 392 A-2 『旧約聖書 (口語訳)』(日本聖書協会) 1955 (1960 printing) Old Testament—Colloquial Translation Described: 66–73 Quoted: 160, 192, 194, 221–222, 275, 339, 362, 366–377, 392 A-3

『旧約聖書―ブルガタ全訳』(光明社、札幌) 1954–1959 Biblia Sacra—Veteris Testamenti/Catholic “moderate classical style” Translation/The Sapporo Translation Described: 73–75 Quoted: 162, 195, 230, 232 A-4 『旧約聖書―関根正雄訳』(教文館) 1956 (first volume); 1993–95 (full version in 4 volumes); 1997 (one volume) Old Testament—The Sekine Translation Described: 75–77 Quoted: 164, 192, 196, 239–240, 275, 362, 366–377 A-5

『聖書―原文校訂による口語訳、フランシスコ会聖書研究所訳注』(中央 出版社) (サンパウ ロ宣教推進部) 1958–2002, the OT in 26 volumes; 2011, one volume Bible—Colloquial translation according to the revised original texts Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Described: 77–79 Quoted: 166, 192, 196, 236–237, 275

A-6 『口語訳旧約新約聖書』(ドン・ボスコ社) 1958–1964 Sacra Biblia Japonice, Versio: Barbaro-Del Col/Barbaro I Described: 79–80 Quoted: 168, 196, 234 A-6a 『聖書―旧約新約』(講談社) 1980 Revisio et nova versio Veteris et Novi Testamenti/Barbaro II Described: 80–81 Quoted: 169, 197, 235, 275

434 list of japanese ot translations, with quotations index A-7 『聖書―新改訳』(いのちのことば社、日本聖書刊行会) 1968–1970; 1987; 2003 Bible—New Revised Translation/New Japanese Bible Described: 81–83 Quoted: 170, 197, 241, 275, 366, 367, 370–372, 378 A-8 『リビング バイブル—Paraphrased 』(いのちのことば社) 1978; 1993 The Living Bible—Paraphrased Described: 83–84 Quoted: 171, 198, 242, 368n19 A-9 『聖書―新世界訳』(Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania) 1985 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—Japanese Described: 84–85 Quoted: 171, 192, 198, 243 A-10 『聖書―現代訳』(現代訳聖書刊行会) 1983; 1988 Modern Japanese Bible/Oyama Reiji Described: 85–87 Quoted: 172, 198, 245, 368n19, 375n A-11 『旧約聖書―新共同訳』(日本聖書協会) 1987 The Bible—New Interconfessional Translation Described: 87–91 Quoted: 173, 192, 198, 246, 266, 275, 340, 354, 362, 367–377 A-12 『旧約聖書—旧約聖書翻訳委員会訳』(岩波書店) 1997–2004 Old Testament—Iwanami Shoten Translation Described: 91–93 Quoted: 175, 192, 199, 248, 275, 340, 362, 367–377 B. Partial translations in book form B-1 『聖詠経—日本正教会翻訳』1885 (1901 reprint) The Holy Psalms—The Japan Orthodox Church Translation Described: 93–95 Quoted: 213 B-2 『詩篇—全』(日本聖公会出版社) 1899 The Psalms—Full/Japan Anglican-Episcopal Church revision Described: 95–96 Quoted: 215 B-3 a. 左近義弼 『詩篇』(聖書改訳社) 1909/Sakon Yoshisuke, Psalms b. 左近義弼『創世記』(聖書改訳社) 1911/Idem, Genesis Described: 96–99 Quoted: a. 216; b. 337 B-4 a. 湯浅半月『ヨブ記』(アルパ社書店) 1936/Yuasa Hangetsu, Job b. 湯浅半月『箴言』(アルパ社書店) 1936/Idem, Proverbs c. 湯浅半月『詩篇』(アルパ社書店) 1937/Idem, Psalms d. 湯浅半月『傳道之書、雅歌』(アルパ社書店) 1937/Idem, Ecclesiastes e. 湯浅半月『イザヤ書』(教文館) 1939/Idem, Isaiah f. 湯浅半月『第二イザヤ』(教文館) 1939/Idem, Second Isaiah Described: 99–100 Quoted: b. 347, 348, 353; c. 218



list of japanese ot translations, with quotations index 435

B-5 a. 渋谷治『創世記』(カトリック聖書刊行協会) 1941/Shibutani Osamu, Genesis b. 渋谷治『聖詩篇 (上巻』(中央出版社) 1950–54/Idem, Psalms 1–50 Described: 100–102 Quoted: a. 195, 338; b. 227–228 B-6

a. 寺田博『隠れたる現実と隠れたる現実人—恩寵学道アモス書』(新教 出版社) 1946/Terada Hiroshi, Amos b. 寺田博『創世記―私訳と講解 (1) 危急と約束とのなかに立てるノア第 一章 ―第1 1 章』(新教出版社) 1951/Idem, Genesis 1–11 Described: 102–103 Quoted: b. 339

B-7 魚返善雄『ソロモン—萬人の聖書』(生治社) 1947 Ogaeri Yoshio, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes Described: 103–105 Quoted: 349, 350, 353 B-8 萩原晃『旧約聖書抄』(中央出版社) 1947 Hagiwara Akira, Selections from the Old Testament Described: 105–106 Quoted: 229 B-9 旧約聖書 (文語訳) 改訳 (部分) －『詩篇―改訳第一巻』『詩篇―改訳』 『ヨブ記―改訳』(日本聖書協会) 1948; 1951; 1950 Revised Classical-Style Old Testament (Partial: Psalms, Job) Described: 106–107 Quoted: 220 B-10 片山哲『ショート・バイブル 旧約篇』(巖松堂書店) 1954 Katayama Tetsu, The Short Bible Described: 107–109 Quoted: 224 B-11 『詩篇―日常の祈祷書として』(エンデルレ書店) 1956 Julius Abri, Psalms: A book of daily prayer Described: 109–110 Quoted: 233 B-12

a. 松田明三郎『ヨブ記注解』(日本基督教団出版部) 1954/Matsuda Akemirō, Job b. 松田明三郎『箴言―私訳と注解』(日本基督教団出版部) 1967/Idem, Proverbs Described: 110–111 Quoted: a. 358 ; b. 351, 354 B-13

a. 中沢洽樹『世界の名著、12、聖書』責任編集 前田護郎 (中央公論者) 1968 Nakazawa Kōki, Great books of the world (Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, all partial); 2004—separate edition b. 中沢洽樹『ヨブ記―新訳と略注』(新教出版社) 1991/Idem, Job c. 中沢洽樹『イザヤ書―新訳と略注』(新教出版社) 1990/Idem, Isaiah Described: 111–112 Quoted: a. 340, 342–343; b. 362

436 list of japanese ot translations, with quotations index B-14 『聖書の世界』(講談社)/World of the Bible series a. 木田献一、西村俊昭『聖書の世界　第 1 巻・旧約I』1970 Kida Kenichi & Nishimura Toshiaki, Vol. 1: Genesis (except for chap. 36); Exodus, 1–24, 33–34; Numbers, 10–33; Deuteronomy, 31–32, 34 b. 並木浩一、村岡崇光、小野寺幸也、高橋正男、西村俊昭『聖書の世 界 第2巻・旧約II』1970 Namiki Kōichi, Muraoka Takemitsu, Onodera Yukiya, Takahashi Masao, Nishimura Toshiaki, Vol. 2: Joshua; Judges; I Samuel (except for chap. 19:18–24); II Samuel (except for chaps. 21–24); I Kings, 1–2 c. 関根正雄、村岡崇光『聖書の世界　第 3 巻・旧約III』1970 Sekine Masao, Muraoka Takamitsu, Vol. 3: I Kings, 3–22; II Kings; Ezra; Nehemiah; 1 Maccabees d. 後藤光一郎、新見宏『聖書の世界　第 4 巻・旧約IV』1970 Gotō Kōichirō, Shinmi Hiroshi, Vol. 4: Psalms (selection); Lamentations; Job (except for chaps. 32–37); Song of Songs; Ruth; Jonah; Esther; Daniel, 1–7; Judith, Tobit, I Esdras 3–4, Sirach, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon. e. 関根正雄、新見宏『知恵と黙示　聖書の世界　別巻1・旧約I』1974 Sekine Masao, Shinmi Hiroshi, Supplement series, Vol. 1: Proverbs; Daniel, 8–12; Wisdom of Solomon, IV Esdras, 3–14; Enoch f. 並木浩一、左近淑『預言書 聖書の世界 別巻2・旧約II』1974 Namiki Kōichi, Sakon Kiyoshi, Supplement series, Vol. 2: Amos; Isaiah, 40–66 Described: 112–114 Quoted: a. 344, 345; d. 359, 360, 361 B-15 『詩篇―ともに祈り、ともに歌うー現代語訳』(あかし書房) 1972 Psalms: prayed together, sung together—modern language translation Described: 114 Quoted: 238 B-16 a. 佐々木二郎『イザヤフー』(ホーリネス教会) 1972/Sasaki Jirō, Isaiah b. 佐々木二郎『エレミヤ記』(ホーリネス教会) 1976/Idem, Jeremiah Described: 115 C. Fragmentary translations, early digests and partial translations in magazines C-1

浜田彦蔵「開闢のあらまし」『ジョセフ彦海外新聞』早稲田大学図書 館資料叢刊2 1977 (originally 1866)/Hamada Hikozō, Digest of Creation Described: 116–118 Quoted: 335 C-2 石川彝『西洋夜話』(養愚堂) 1871–73 Ishikawa Tsune, Western Night Stories Described: 118 C-3 永田方正『西洋教草一名愛敬篇』(大阪書肆) 1873 Nagata Hōsei, Western Doctrines, or the Book of Love and Respect Described: 118–119 Quoted: 346 C-4

a.『十誡問答』1873 (?) C. M. Williams, The Ten Commandments—Questions and Answers



list of japanese ot translations, with quotations index 437

b. 『朝晩禱分、附リタニー』before 1878 Morning and evening prayers, additional litany c. 『聖公会禱分』1879 The Common Book of Prayer of the Seikōkai (Anglican-Episcopal Church) Described: 120–123 Quoted: b. 318 C-5 押川方義『偶像非神論』1876 (?) Theobald A. Palm, with Oshikawa Masayoshi, A discourse on idols as false gods Described: 123–124 C-6 小野成籌・ペートル『旧約聖史略』1876 Ono Seichū-Peter, Old Testament Holy History Digest Described: 124–125 C-7 小嶋準治『旧新両約聖書伝』(龍章堂) 1879–80 Kojima Junji, The Tradition of Both Old and New Testaments Described: 125–126 C-8

Basil Hall Chamberlain, “Suggestions for a Japanese Rendering of the Psalms”, Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Vol. 8 (1880), 285–312 Described: 126–131 Quoted: 207, 210 C-9 a. 高田畊安『正言一斑』南湖院、1913–/Takada Kōan, Seigen Ippan b. 高田畊安『御父様』南湖院、1933/Idem, Otōsama Described: 131–132

C-10 藤井武「私訳ヨブ記」、 『旧約と新約』no. 35, 121–124; no. 36, 154–156 (1923) Fujii Takeshi, An Individual Translation of Job Described: 132 Quoted: 355–356 C-11

a. マックス・クナップシュタイン、井上郁二「ルート記－ヘブライ語 より譯出」『カトリッ ク』Vol. 13, no. 10; no. 11, 445–458, 503–509 (1933) Max Knappstein SJ and Inoue Ikuji, Ruth b. 戸塚文卿「口譯－イザヤ書－試譯」『カトリック』Vol. 16, no. 8, 357– 363; no. 9, 432–439 (1936);『聲』(1937) Totsuka Bunkei, Isaiah 1–12 c. フーゴー・ラッサル、永島寛一「ヨナ－共譯」『カトリック』Vol. 13, no. 12, 541–545; Vol. 14, no. 1, 29–36 (1933–34) Hugo Lasalle SJ and Nagashima Kanichi, Jonah d. 井手口三代一、渋谷治「詩篇註解」『聖書思想』1933–1939 Ideguchi Miyoichi and Shibutani Osamu, Psalms 1–100 e. マックス・クナップシュタイン、チバ・イチジュ「創世記」『カトリッ ク』Vol. 14, no. 6, 241–251; no. 8, 337–345 (1934) Max Knappstein SJ and Chiba Ichiju, Genesis 1–2 f. 田園調布 聖フランシスコ修道院「創世記」『カトリック』Vol. 16–17 (1936–37)

438 list of japanese ot translations, with quotations index The Franciscan monastery of Den-en-chōfu, Genesis Described: 132–138 Quoted: d. 226; e. 337; f. 338 C-12 脇屋義人「略註創世記」『新興基督教』(Shinkō Kirisutokyō), no. 124–128, 1941 Wakiya Yoshito, Genesis 1–5 Described: 138–139 Quoted: 338 C-13 藤崎英義『ヨブ記私訳 (未完)』c.2000 Fujisaki Hideyoshi, Job 1–10 Described: 139 Quoted: 363 D. Some further editions of the Bible, using previous translations D-1 加藤直士『短縮聖書　ショーター・バイブル 旧約聖書』(創元社) 1937 Katō Naoshi, The Shorter Bible Described: 140 D-2 『聖書―世界古典文学全集5』関根正雄、木下順治編 (筑摩書房) 1965 Sekine Masao and Kinoshita Junji, The Bible—Collected Classical World Literature, Vol. 5 Described: 140–141 D-3 『聖書―キリスト教教育宝典1』(玉川大学出版部) 1968 The Bible—Treasures of Christian Education, Vol. 1 Described: 141 D-4 『聖書集―近代日本キリスト教文学全集14』笹淵友一編 (教文館) 1982 A Bible Collection—Collected Modern Christian Japanese Literature, Vol. 14 Described: 141–142 D-5 『ヘブライ語聖書対訳シリーズ』(ミルトス) 1990– The Interlinear Hebrew and Japanese Bible Described: 142 D-6 『聖書 (Study Bible)』(永遠の福音) 1999 Described: 142–143

Personal Names Index In general, names of scholars, when mentioned as a reference to their publications, are not included in the index, but their names are indexed when appearing in the text itself. Abri, Julius 109, 226, 233–234, 281, 297, 410 Alexander, Joseph A. 331 Alter, Robert 202, 281n, 311, 352n, 353n, 361n, 365, 377n25 Amerman, James Lansing 129 Anesaki Masaharu 270 Anjirō 19–20, 119 Ara Masato 80 Arai Hakuseki 24 Asano Junichi 141 Baba Kaichi 66 Ballagh, James H. 37 Barbaro, Federico 40, 49, 51, 79–81, 143, 168–169, 191, 197, 200, 226, 234–235, 264, 280, 281, 282, 288, 292, 293, 298, 313, 351, 377, 382, 401, 410 Barnstone, Willis 383, 399 Barreto, Manuel 20, 20n6 Barreto, Melchior Nuñez see Nuñez Basset, Jean 28 Bassnett, Susan 399 Baul, Henry 116 Benjamin, Walter 388–389, 395 Bettelheim, Bernard Jean 32, 401, 408 Blanchet, Clement T. 130, 318 Boone, William Jones 29n27, 182n43 Borges, Jorge Luis 389 Breitung, Eusebius 73 Bridgman, Elijah Coleman 29 Broomhall, Marshall 30n29 Brown, Elizabeth 34 Brown, Nathan 39, 398, 403n2, 409 Brown, Samuel Robins 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 35n47, 36–38, 60, 150, 184n48, 185n49, 403n2, 408–409 Caldarola, Carlo 11 Carroll, Robert P. 395 Cary, Otis 11 Chamberlain, Basil Hall 5, 126–131, 159, 201, 206–210, 211, 250, 253, 260, 272, 280, 285, 288, 291–292, 300, 301, 312, 318–319, 363, 383, 401, 409

Chiba Ichiju 101, 137, 334, 337–338 Cocharn, George 52 Confucius 104 Cousine, Jules-Alphonse 125 Crampon, Augustin 135, 138 Culberston, Michael Simpson 29 Darby, John Nelson 181 Davidson, Robert Young 53 Davis, Jerome Dean 44–45 Deguire, Jean Joseph 137 Del Col, Aloysius 49, 79–80, 168, 169, 197, 200, 234, 410 Delitzsch, Franz 59, 60n19, 331, 391 Dening, Walter 30n28, 52, 404–405 Dohi Akio 11 Doi Takeo 386n9 Drummond, Richard 11 Ebisawa Arimichi 11, 14, 21, 121, 123 Endō Toshio 66 Enomiya Makibi see Lasalle, Hugo Faulds, Henry 129n, 130 Ferguson, Charles A. 43 Fernandez, Juan 20 Flavius, Josephus 93 Fox, Michael V. 351–352, 354 Frois, Luis 20 Frost, Robert 203 Fujii Takeshi 132, 355–358, 401, 409 Fujisaki Hideyoshi 139, 355, 363, 411 Fujiwara Fujio 71, 91, 201n, 209n, 217n, 220n, 233n, 268, 310 Fukuzawa Yukichi 96 Furstenberg, Maximilian de 78 Fyson, Philip Kemball 46n72, 53, 59, 403n1, 405–407 Goble, Eliza 33 Goble, Jonathan 33, 45, 408 Goddard, Josiah 29 Goete, Johann Wolfgang von 388 Gomez, Pedro 23 Goodrich, Samuel G. see Parley, Peter

440

personal names index

Goodspeed, Edgar J. 108 Gotō Kōichirō 116, 355, 359–361, 362, 387 Gotō Makoto 88 Greene, Daniel Crosby 30n28, 37–38, 53, 62, 403n2, 405, 407 Griffis, William Elliot 35n47 Gützlaff, Karl Friedrich August 29, 31, 34, 142, 401, 408 Hagiwara Akira 105–106, 225, 229–230, 281, 382, 410 Hamada Hikozō 34n46, 116–118, 151n8, 335–336, 346, 401, 408 Harada Shōzō 32 Harris, Townsend  32 Harushovsky-Harshav, Benjamin 202, 311 Heco, Joseph see Hamada Hikozō Hepburn, Clara 34 Hepburn, James Curtis 4n1, 4n2, 26, 30, 33–34, 35n47, 36–39, 51–56, 59–64, 123, 131n139, 154, 184, 212, 254, 257, 271, 293, 316, 317, 325, 332, 364, 371, 391, 392, 401, 403–405, 407, 408–409 Hepburn, Slator 35n47, 325 Heuman, Fred S. 364 Higashi Kanichi 116 Higashibaba Ikuo 11 Hirata Atsutane 24 Hirata Saburō 88 Hiratsuka Takeshi 109 Ibuka Kajinosuke 38, 46n70, 53 Ideguchi Miyoichi ( Joachim) 136–137, 226–227, 228, 230, 281, 401 Ikeda Yutaka 92, 93n78, 371–372 Imaizumi Masaki 68, 69 Inoue Ikuji 133 Ion, Hamish 11 Ishikawa Tsune 118, 383, 409 Iwakuma Naoshi 144 Jakobson, Roman 387 Jerome, Saint 157n14, 180, 398n22 Jippensha Ikku 43 Johnson, Samuel 360n14 Kadowaki Kiyoshi 14 Kagawa Toyohiko 143–144, 410 Kangaki Robun 291n38 Kasatkin, Ioann Demirovich see Nikolai (Archbishop) Katayama Tetsu 108–109, 410 Katō Naoshi 140 Katsumura Hiroya 92

Kawabata Yasunari 386 Kawakatsu Tetsuya 39 Kawanami Shigeo 73 Kawashima Daijirō 14, 390–393 Kent, Charles Foster 140n146 Kida Kenichi 89, 90, 113, 335, 343–345 Kinoshita Junji 141 Kishi Chitose 88, 91 Kishida Ginkō 34, 117 Knappstein, Max 133, 137, 334, 337–338 Kohata Fujiko 92 Kojima Junji 125–126, 409 Koseki Sanei 24 Lasalle, Hugo 135 Lassar, Joannes 28 Laures, Johannes 21, 22n10 Laureyro, João 21 Legge, James 29n27 Lord, E.C. 29 Lowrie, Walter 61 Lowrie, Walter Macon 26n19, 29n27, 183–184 Loyola, Ignatius of 19 Maclay, Robert Samuel 37, 60, 403n1 Maeda Gorō 111–112, 144n150, 411 Maejima Kyōji 27 Makioka Tetsuya 95–96 Marshman, Joshua 28 Matsuda Akemirō 110–111, 346, 348, 349, 350–352, 354, 355, 358–359, 383, 410 Matsuda Isaku 92, 281, 293, 297, 308, 313 Matsuda Kiichi 21 Matsuo Takeshi 82 Matsuyama Takayoshi 38, 53, 54, 60n19, 154, 213, 322–324, 332, 401, 403n1 McIlwaine, W.A. 65n28, 72n42 Medhurst, Walter Henry 29, 31, 182n43, 257 Mikasa (Prince) 67 Miller, Edward Rothersay 407 Milne, William 28, 29n27 Milne, William C. 29n27 Mirsky, Nilly 388 Mitsukuri Genba 24 Mori Ōgai 386 Morioka Kenji 14, 62, 65, 336, 393 Morrison, John Robert 29 Morrison, Robert 28–29, 29n25, 182, 183, 408 Motoda Sakunoshin 326 Mounicou, Pierre 39 Mullins, Mark R. 11



personal names index

Murakami Haruki 255n24 Muraoka Takamitsu 92, 113 Murasaki Shikibu 42, 413 Murdoch, James 116n108 Mutō Tomio 144n149

Petitjean, Bernard T. 39 Pfizmaier, August 32 Pierson, George Peck 58 Piper, John 52, 122n, 125, 409 Pius XII 74

Nagai Kafū 257 Nagai Naoji 47n, 409 Nagashima Kanichi 135 Nagata Hōsei 119, 142, 345, 346–347, 348, 401, 409 Nakagawa Tōshirō 95–96 Nakai Junko 15, 328, 332 Nakai Tsugumaro (Paul) 95 Nakata Minoru 14, 121 Nakazawa Kōki 71, 108, 111–112, 185, 190n58, 224n, 317, 335, 340–345, 355, 361–362, 383, 387, 389, 391, 394, 395, 398, 401, 411 Namiki Kōichi 92, 113–114 Nao Kōsaku 81–82 Nida, Eugene A. 67n35, 90, 314n45, 315–316, 404 Niijima Jō 45n Nikolai (Archbishop) 40, 94–95, 125, 401 Nishimura Toshiaki 113 Nomoto Shinya 90n72 Noorda, Sijbolt 395 Nuñez, Barreto Melchior  20n6, 271n34

Raguet, Emile 40, 73, 143, 144, 409 Rosenau, William 364, 366

Obara Saruto 23 Ochiai Kichinosuke 97n89 Ogaeri Yoshio 103–105, 346, 349–350, 354, 383, 401, 410 Ogata Sue 79–80 Ogawa Kunio 91, 399–400 Ōkuma Shigenobu 36 Okuno Masatsuna 37, 403n1 Oltmans, Albert 324 Ono Seichū (Peter) 124–125, 401, 409 Onodera Yukiya 113 Ōshiba Kō 14 Oshikawa Masayoshi 123 Ōtsuki Takashi 345 Oyama Reiji 48, 85–87, 172–173, 198, 239, 245, 411 Palm, Theobald Adrian 123–124, 409 Parley, Peter 118 Paul de Santa Fe, see Anjirō Paz, Octavio 381 Péri, Noël 40 Perry, Matthew C. 9, 30, 32, 33, 116, 408, 414

441

Saito Takeshi 72 Sakon Kiyoshi 114 Sakon Yoshishige 72, 79n, 97n87–89 Sakon Yoshisuke 96–99, 138, 142, 186, 216–217, 218, 219, 273, 281, 297, 334, 337, 344, 382, 401, 409 Sanneh, Lamin 3 Santa Fe, Paul de see Anjirō Saris, John 21 Sasabuchi Tomoichi 142 Sasaki Jirō 115, 410 Satow, Ernest Mason 22n10, 130 Schereschewsky, Samuel Isaac Joseph 30n30, 120n117, 390 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 388 Schneider, Bernardin 15, 52, 73, 76, 77–78, 82, 87–90, 91n75, 99n91, 101, 102, 105, 107, 119, 137, 166, 186, 191, 296, 401 Schütte, Joseph 20, 21 Sekine Bunnosuke 66, 68n, 190n58, 392 Sekine Masao 48, 65, 75–77, 83, 92n77, 113, 141, 143, 164–166, 173, 174, 186, 192, 196, 239–241, 264, 274, 275, 277, 280–281, 285, 300, 312, 357, 371, 373, 382, 400, 401, 410 Sekine Seizō 92, 112 Shibutani Osamu ( Joseph) 47, 100–102, 109, 136, 142, 186, 195–196, 225, 227–229, 230, 231, 281, 285, 289, 291, 334, 338, 382, 387, 401, 410 Shimasaki Katsuomi 398n Shinmi Hiroshi 113 Shinotō Yoshito 144n150, 411 Shinsui (priest) 121 Sidotti, Giovanni Battista 24 Smiles, Samuel 254 Smith, J.M. Powis 108 Sōma Nobuo 88 Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor 176, 179, 341–342, 344 Steichen, Michael A. 40 Suzuki Norihisa 14, 26, 365–366 Suzuki Yoshihide 92, 188, 199

442

personal names index

Takada Kōan 131–132, 409 Takahashi Gorō 38, 40, 54, 60n19, 154, 401, 403n1 Takahashi Masao 113 Takahashi Masashi 67, 87, 88, 189 Takahashi Shigeyuki 114, 314n Takaya Michio 325 Takayanagi Isaburō 141 Tanizaki Junichirō 386 Taylor, Kenneth 83 Terada Hiroshi 102–103, 334, 339, 410 Teranishi Hideo 114 Terazawa Hisakichi 95–96 Tezuka Giichirō 66 Thompson, David 37, 39, 52, 326, 409 Tigay, Jeffery H. 187, 188 Tobita Shigeo 108–109, 190n58, 225 Toki Kenji 14, 390–393 Tokugawa Ieasu 9, 408, 415 Torres, Cosme de 19 Totsuka Bunkei (Vincent de Paul)  134–135 Toury, Gideon 384 Tsubouchi Shōyō 386 Tsuchiya Yoshimasa 114 Tsukamoto Toraji 76, 143–144, 357, 410 Tsukimoto Akio 92, 199, 340, 400–401 Tsuru Senji 46, 66, 106–107, 221, 401 Tyndale, William 19, 180 Uchida Roan 386 Uchimura Kanzō 76, 132, 357, 414 Ueda Bin 65n27 Uemura Masahisa 53, 56, 213, 322, 324, 332, 401 Valignano, Alessandro 8n8, 21 Verbeck, Guido Herman Fridolin 10, 16, 35–36, 53, 59–60, 202, 213, 322–333, 391, 401, 403n2, 408 Vermeer, Hans 388n11

Waddell, Hugh 52, 405 Wakiya Yoshito 138–139, 334, 338–339, 410 Warren, C.F. 122n125 Washiyama Teisaburō 324 Watase Shuichirō 144n149 Webster, Noah 181 White, Ellen G. 142 Williams, Channing Moore 16, 35, 60, 60n17, 120–122, 202, 213, 318, 320, 322, 324–333, 401, 406n, 408–409 Williams, Samuel Wells 31–32, 33 Wyckoff, Martin Nevis 59n16, 332n Wycliffe, John 19n2, 180 Xavier, Francisco de 7, 19, 20, 408 Xu Jiyu 57n Yagyū Naoyuki 144n150, 411 Yamada Jō 88 Yamaga Tetsuo 92 Yamamura Shōhei 24 Yanabu Akira 151n8 Yanagita Tomonobu 73, 74 Yazaki Kenichi 326 Yin Guangren 57n Yin Hauxing 57n Yoshiga Yūnosuke 121n124 Yoshimoto Takaaki 91, 399 Yoshimura Akira 116n108 Yoshino Sakuzō 123 Young, Robert 181 Yuasa Hangetsu (Kichirō) 99–100, 104, 142, 218–220, 228, 273, 281, 297, 312, 346, 347–349, 350, 353, 355, 382, 401, 409

Biblical Verses Index Including only biblical verses quoted fully or partially in Japanese translation (excluding verses mentioned in passing). Genesis 1:1–3 1:2 1:11–12 2:4 2:16 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:8 3:9 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:19 4:1 4:2 4:8 14:18 16:2 27:6–8 29:7 29:19 44:4–5 49:11

117, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344 85 266 344 192 342 192 192 392 343, 345 192 343 192 366–367 367 254 194–199 156, 166 378 343, 345 266 343, 345 200n 378

Exodus 15:8 20:2–5 20:7

378 22 368

Numbers 24:16 27:17

156, 166, 173 369

Deuteronomy 31:7 151 31:13 152 32:2 152, 266 32:8–9 149, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175 Judges 3:24 15:8

370 370

1 Samuel 2:12 17:32 25:22 25:34

379 379 371 371

2 Samuel 15:6 16:11 22:3 22:14 23:4

372 373 374 156, 166, 173 266

1 Kings 14:10 16:11 21:21

371 371 371

2 Kings 9:8

371

Isaiah 1:12 13:20 14:14 40:5

379 264 156, 166, 174 379

Jeremiah 11:21 21:7 33:12 49:19 51:23

374 374 264 253 253

Ezekiel 16:7 34:15

266 264

Jonah 2:4

379

Malachi 1:1

375

Psalms 9:3 13:2

156, 166, 173 285

444 21:8 23:1–6

27:4 31:4 35:4 38:13 54:5 100:1–5 Proverbs 1:1–6 1:8 1:22 6:20 11:22 30:1 30:17 31:1–2

biblical verses index 156, 173 207, 210, 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221–222, 224, 226, 227–228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236–237, 238, 239–240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248 308 275 374 374 374 318, 321 346 347 349 348 348 351, 375 350 352, 353, 354, 375

Job 1:1 1:5 1:7 1:21 2:9 3:3 3:4 3:3–8 9:1–3 19:20 28:12–14 3:25–26

359 360 362 364 361 358 361 355–356 363 376 358 362

Song of Songs 1:7 264 Lamentations 3:35 156, 174 Ecclesiastes 1:2 376 9:4 377

General Index Page numbers in italics indicate a principal discussion of the relevant item. Ainu 119 Amakusa 20 American (people) 9, 26, 29, 32, 37, 39, 52, 116–117, 331, 346, 407n American Bible Society 4n1, 30, 34n43, 37, 46, 55, 58, 61, 62, 67, 69 American Episcopalian Church 35, 120–122 Amoy (Xiamen) 34 Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan 47, 90, 95–96, 120, 210, 215, 318, 326n59, 327–328, 406n Aoyama Gakuin 97, 344 Apocrypha 47, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83, 88–89, 105, 108, 113, 126 Arabic 3, 118, 353 Aramaic (see also Syriac) 3, 84, 106, 390 Aramaic Targum 197 Arima 45 Armenian (people) 28 Asiatic Society of Japan 127, 129 Auburn Theological Seminary 35 Augustine Order 8 Babylonian (texts) 110, 340n, 341–342 Bakufu 9, 18, 24, 32, 35, 408, 413, 415 Bakumatsu Period 32, 41, 115, 401, 408, 413 Baltimore 116 Baptist, Baptists 28, 29, 33, 39, 398, 409 Barreto Manuscript 20 Batavia (Jakarta) 29, 31, 257 Belgium 40 benshi 386 Bible as culture 5, 6, 7, 17, 143, 349, 383 Bible sales in Japan  5–7, 86, 405 Bible societies (see also under specific ones) 28, 53n4, 55, 67, 69, 174, 397, 398 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 69, 75, 92n77, 101, 109, 142, 174n33, 341n Biblical Hebrew (selective entries; see also Masoretic Text) 13, 16, 54, 55, 59, 60n19, 70, 79n, 84, 92, 96–98, 99–100, 103–104, 105, 107, 133, 142, 161, 202–204, 215, 217, 219, 249, 250, 259, 261, 310, 314, 322–333 Concise nature of 203, 282, 354

Construct state 261, 265, 266, 267, 276, 278, 308, 352 Hendiadys 286, 300 Honorifics 189 Imperfect form 258, 303–304 Ki and gam ki conjunctions 186–188, 278–279, 283–285, 327–328, 378 Parataxis 203, 311–313 Perfect form 298, 303 Prepositions 276–277, 283, 293, 306, 368 Syntax 16, 203, 249, 258, 293, 313, 341 Biblical Poetry 16, 69, 147, 154, 158–160, 167, 201–204, 261, 310–314, 353, 358, 361–362 Alliteration 158, 203, 283, 311, 314, 337, 342 Metonymy 290–292, 371 Metaphor and simile 158 Parallelism 158–160, 202, 311, 313 Quantitative measure 202, 313, 353 Rhyming 158, 203, 311, 314 Rhythm 65, 158, 202–203, 311–314, 358 Biblical text, in translation Additions 167, 175, 227, 228, 231, 243, 245, 251–252, 263, 265, 267, 272–273, 285, 302, 339, 346–347, 353, 357, 359–361, 385 Anglicisims 365, 380 Calque 379 Conjunctions 186–188, 278–279, 283–285, 300–302 Consistency & inconsistency 17, 71, 178n37, 211, 212, 257, 264, 265–266, 275–276, 317, 340, 348, 371, 374, 380, 389, 394, 406 Definite article 352, 361n, 368 Dialogue 190, 192, 342–343, 345, 361–362, 387 Emendation of  16, 70, 71, 76, 85, 102, 147, 164–166, 166–167, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 191, 193–198, 287, 306–308, 359, 376, 382, 384, 391 Euphemism 360, 366, 370, 380 Expansion of length 204, 227, 228, 231, 233, 248, 249, 261, 263, 313–314 Harmonistic approach 164, 167, 170, 383

446

general index

Hebraisms 17, 334, 364–380 Metaphorical expressions 208, 261, 366, 370, 374, 378–380, 394 Objects of realia 243, 286–289, 298–300, 315, 384, 387 Omissions 243, 245, 250–251, 281, 285, 350, 385, 406 Personal names in transliteration 70, 72n41, 76, 89, 95, 117, 126, 133, 195, 251 Poetic function 71, 152, 154, 161, 162, 163, 173, 176, 179, 219, 261, 283, 310, 311–314, 316 Puns 362 Qere and ketib 321, 330–331, 333 Synonyms  172–179 Theologized 162, 172, 188, 193, 195, 217, 219–220, 225, 239, 245, 267, 272–273, 277–278, 302 Tiqqun soferim 360–361 Types of translation 381–383 Variety in translation 16, 250–251, 267, 272, 274–275, 276, 302–303, 305–306, 309–310, 316–317, 372 Word order 157–158, 161, 172, 340, 348–349 YHWH see under God, names of in translation Book of Common Prayer, The 122, 317, 319–320, 324, 326, 330–331, 333 Britain 9, 117 British and Foreign Bible Society 29, 32, 46, 52, 55, 58, 67 British Loo-Choo Naval Mission 32 British Museum 28 Buddhism 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 135, 369, 375 Calcutta 28 Cambridge University 59 Canadian (people) 137 Canton 28, 182, 183n45 Catechism 3, 18, 20–23, 39, 121 Catholic Church 8, 11, 1927, 32n38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 90, 100, 106, 109, 114, 133, 134, 229, 247, 415 Chaldaic 105–106 Chicago 32, 100 Chigasaki 131 China 8, 9n10, 15, 26, 31, 41, 52, 64, 101, 120, 184, 254 China, Christian missionaries in 8n8, 26–30, 33–34, 57, 60, 120, 182, 184, 401 Chinese (language) 15, 24, 27, 28–30, 41–42, 45, 54, 57, 63, 64, 71, 119, 123, 126,

131, 183, 184, 185, 203, 208, 212, 218, 255, 320, 404, 415 Chinese translations of the Bible 13, 15, 16, 18, 26, 27–30, 31, 34, 38, 52, 55, 57, 60–65, 77, 94n80, 103–104, 119, 124, 130, 153, 155–157, 158, 182–184, 194, 210, 213, 216, 253, 268, 271, 280, 291, 302, 320–322, 323, 333, 335–336, 337, 339, 346, 353, 389–393, 404–406, 408, 413, 415 Bridgman-Culberston Version 29–30, 57, 62–63, 155–157, 182, 253, 336 (quoted), 390–392, 404, 408, 413 Delegate’s Version 29–30, 52, 57, 63, 155–157, 182, 291, 365, 377n26, 390, 404–405, 408, 415 Japanese kanbun editions 63, 320, 326, 345 Mandarin Version 30, 120n117, 390–391, 405 Christian Century see Kirishitan Period Conferences of Protestant Missionaries Osaka 1883 36, 61, 64, 101, 403–405, 409 Tokyo 1900 403n1, 405–407, 409 Yokohama 1872 37, 403n1, 409 Counter-Reformation 8 Danish (colony) 34 Dead Sea Scrolls 93, 147, 164, 167, 195n65, 341n, 392 Decalogue see Ten Commandments Dictionarivm Latino Lvsitanicvm ac Iaponicvm 256, 270, 408 Dochiriina Kirishitan 18, 20–21, 22–23, 413 Dominican Order 8, 46 Doshisha (school, later university) 45n, 53, 88, 99–100, 121, 123n128, 131, 140 Dutch (language) 24 Dutch (people) 9n10, 24, 36 Dutch Bible Society 182 Dutch Studies 24, 415 Dutch translations of the Bible 182 Edinburgh 123 Edo see Tokyo Edo Period 408, 413 Emory University 110 English (language) 13, 15, 16, 19, 35, 38, 54, 104, 108, 118, 119, 122, 125, 126, 128, 158, 159, 177, 180, 203, 231n, 255, 280, 329, 331, 332, 364, 368, 378, 404 English (people) 28, 29, 32, 52, 53, 123, 130, 209



general index

English translations of the Bible 60, 85, 96n85, 103, 109, 119, 123, 129, 142, 154, 162, 180–181, 182, 191, 204, 210, 215, 217, 258, 268, 272, 281, 290, 301, 306, 316–317, 335, 346, 359, 360, 364, 390–391, 393, 395 American Standard Version (ASV)  81n, 181, 182, 184, 194 Anchor Bible, The 341, 342, 352  Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh  ( JPS) 176, 187, 268, 273, 274, 301, 370 Quoted 148, 205, 266, 353, 368, 373, 374, 377, 379 King James (Authorized) Version (KJV) 17, 51, 52, 60, 65, 154–155, 158, 176, 181, 187, 194, 200n, 204, 216, 265, 273, 274, 280, 281n, 301–302, 306, 320, 330, 334, 337, 345n, 347, 349–353, 357, 359, 360, 364–366, 380, 384, 389, 390, 391, 394, 398 Quoted 148, 194, 205, 319, 337, 351, 359, 362, 366–379 Living Bible, The 83, 87, 172–173 New American Standard Bible (NASU) 81–82, 194, 197, 370, 379 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 176, 177, 181, 187, 205, 273, 274, 301, 359, 370 Quoted 148, 205, 368, 374, 376, 377, 379 New World Bible 49, 84–85, 171, 185, 239, 243–244 (quoted), 268, 280 Revised English Version (RV) 51, 54–55, 60, 181, 391 Revised Standard Version (RSV) 69, 71, 72, 82, 154, 181, 185, 194, 195, 200n, 321, 340, 359, 370, 371, 379, 390–392 Short Bible: An American Translation, The 108, 224–225, 280 Shorter Bible, The 140n146 Tyndale’s translation 180n41 (quoted) Enuma ’eliš 341–342 Eskimo (language) 315 Evangelical (churches, missionaries) 72, 73, 81, 382 Evora 21 France 9, 117 French (language) 13, 79n, 126 French (people) 32, 40, 125 French translations of the Bible 104, 109, 135, 138, 268, 390 Franciscan Order 8, 46, 73, 77  Monastery of Den-en-chōfu 137, 334, 338  Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 48,  77–78, 166, 236–237, 410

447

Fukuoka 88 German (language) 13, 62n23, 151n8, 231n, 271n34, 341n, 342 German (people) 29, 60n19, 331 German translations of the Bible 60n17, 87, 109, 390 Germany 62, 135 Gideons 6n5 Gloria 94 Goa 19 God, names of in translation 13, 15, 25–27, 29–30, 85, 98, 109–110, 114, 124, 126, 134, 135, 137, 138, 170, 171, 172, 182–183, 253, 338, 339, 397, 413 Term Question 26, 182–183 Tetragrammaton (YHWH, ehoba) 16, 70, 76, 79, 82, 85, 95, 96, 98, 107, 114, 134, 135, 137, 138, 147–148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 166–167, 172, 173, 180–186, 216, 221, 228, 235, 237, 253, 320, 363, 382, 397 Greek (language) 3, 19, 35, 38, 59, 60n19, 69, 79n, 84, 94n81, 96–97, 105–106, 144, 147n2, 388n11, 390 Greek Orthodox rite 94n81 Hakodate 40, 52, 406n Hankow 101 Harima 116 Hebrew (language) see Biblical Hebrew Hebrew, missionaries’ command of 35, 59–60, 322–333 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 359, 400 Heian Period 42–43, 129, 150, 363, 413 Heisei Period 411, 413 Hepburn Romanization system 34, 207, 209 Hidden Christians see Kakure Kirishitan Higo 121 Hirado 20 Hiroshima 105–106, 135 Hokkaido 119 Holiness Church 115 Hong Kong 29, 32, 33, 77, 137, 408 Hungarian (people) 32 India 28, 41 Indigenization of Christianity 11–12 Insbruck 101 Institute Pasteur 134 Irish (people) 52 Israel, Israelites (ancient times) 22, 80, 83, 99, 125, 126, 139, 147–148, 164, 167, 169–173, 175, 187–188, 238, 346

448

general index

Israel (modern state) 6 Italian (language) 79n, 158, 203 Italy 32 Iwakura Mission 36, 413 Japan Bible Society (JBS) 5, 6, 46, 48, 66–67, 71, 76, 82n, 87n67, 88–89, 91, 106, 139, 144, 160–161, 173, 185, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 220, 221, 247, 339, 340, 346, 397–398, 410 Japan Bible Society Library 55n9, 58n11, 125n, 139 Japan Orthodox Church, The 40, 93–94, 213, 409 Japanese and English Dictionary (Hepburn) 34, 154, 184, 193, 254–255, 257, 271, 408 Japanese assistant translators 4, 17, 53–54, 61–62, 73, 94–95, 109, 123, 154–155, 159, 202, 212, 213, 292, 321, 322–323, 332–333, 365, 393 Japanese language Adjective, adjectival 41, 64, 156, 166, 209, 214, 259–260, 267, 280, 341–342, 344n, 377 Auxiliary verbs 153, 161n19, 162, 163, 190–192, 208, 214, 222, 223, 272, 304, 308 Conjecture (see also Potential form) 303–304 Conjunctions 41, 187–188, 227, 301–302, 338 Diglossia 43–44 Future, indication of 72, 82, 224, 242n, 259, 303–305, 308 ga particle 150–152, 167, 174, 191, 210, 214, 253, 260, 357 Gender 343, 384, 387 Honorifics 13, 16, 70, 81, 82, 95, 108, 135, 138, 153, 163, 167, 168, 169, 189–193, 208, 214–215, 217, 219, 225, 227, 228, 230, 232, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 247, 249, 270, 273, 277, 284–285, 298, 302, 308, 336, 339, 340–342, 344, 357, 358, 361, 382–383, 387, 404, 406 Humble form 133 kango 280, 337, 348 kanji compounds or combinations (in translations) 154, 156, 161, 179, 184, 210, 212n, 214, 221, 228, 253, 267, 321, 406 koto & mono 260 kun and on readings 41, 154, 155, 161, 172 kun in place of on reading 154, 155, 161, 212, 214, 406

Lexicography 153–154, 155–156, 177–179, 253–257, 265, 269–272, 287–289, 291 292, 297, 299–300, 365–366, 367, 372–373, 377 Neologisms 255, 289, 300 ni particle 191, 268, 292 no particle 152, 161, 214, 267 o particle 263, 372 Particles 149–152, 165, 167, 208, 210, 214, 236, 260, 320, 336, 357, 363 Particles, omission of 150–152, 165, 167, 223, 314, 336, 357 Passive form 174, 189–191, 285 Plural 155n10, 161, 177–179, 265, 276, 294–295 Polite form (desu-masu) 133, 135, 223, 225, 241, 243, 244, 247, 304, 308 Possessive clause 267 Potential form 72, 82–83, 241, 242, 308 Prefixes 70, 163, 167, 168, 179, 190, 225, 249, 277, 285 Pronouns 151, 152, 165–166, 176, 189–190, 192–193, 208, 210, 211, 215, 219, 223–224, 227, 229, 232, 236–239, 242, 244, 249, 258, 261, 263, 277, 283, 284, 293, 295, 310, 314, 348, 357, 358, 363, 387 Reforms of 68, 107, 163, 184n48, 212, 232 Respect form 354 Subordination 203, 311–313 Syntax 157–158, 172, 203, 214, 236, 249, 293, 298, 310, 311, 313–314, 342, 366n, 387–388, 404 Topicalization 151, 161, 165, 167, 253 Verb conjugation and tenses 41, 64, 70, 189–191, 208, 223, 238, 244, 258–259, 260, 263–264, 298, 303–305 wa particle 150–152, 159–160, 161, 165, 167, 191, 210, 211–212, 214, 216, 253, 260, 261, 283, 314, 320–321, 336, 357, 363 wago 62, 82, 337 Word order 157–158, 161, 172 yo particle 350 zo particle 227, 261 Japanese language writing styles 41–45, 63–64, 127–130, 406–407  bungo/Classical style 45, 64, 149–154, 162–163, 165, 168, 179, 209, 210, 211, 214, 217, 221, 223, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 261, 283, 284, 285, 304, 334, 336, 348, 363, 413 Genbun Itchi Movement 44, 129n, 413 gikobun 43, 413 kanamajiribun 43, 414



general index

kanbun 42–45, 62, 64, 128–130, 161, 414 kōgo/Colloquial style 44–45, 66–73, 75, 79, 105, 107, 110, 114, 128–130, 132, 133–135, 138, 143, 150, 161, 165, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 221, 223, 224, 235, 237, 283, 285, 288, 334–335, 336, 339, 340, 349, 355, 357, 358, 414 kundoku kanbun 42, 414 sōrōbun 42, 44, 128, 327 wabun 42–45, 64, 128, 149,154, 161, 415 Japanese poetry 65, 99, 127–129, 159, 201, 203, 206–209, 218–219, 261, 312–314 chōka 129, 207, 300, 312, 413 haiku 312 kireji 312 makura kotoba (pillow-words) 127, 209 Rhythm 65, 207, 218–219, 312–313, 347 tanka 129, 158, 203, 250, 415 Japanese society 3, 8, 10, 41, 44, 386–387 Maternal society 386n9 Jehovah’s Witnesses 48, 84–85, 198, 239 Jesuit, Jesuits 7, 8, 19–22, 105, 256, 271, 408 Jewish (people), Jews 32, 76, 104, 120n117, 125, 136, 180, 183, 194n, 201, 204, 399–401 Jewish Bible (Tanakh) 75, 76, 92, 142 Jewish translations of the Bible 3 Judaism 6, 399–400 kagemusha 136 Kagoshima 19 Kakure Kirishitan 9, 23–24, 39, 125, 413 Kanagawa 4n1, 32, 33, 117, 131, 134, 408 Keio University 96 Kirishitan Period 7–9, 14, 15, 18–24, 119, 270, 408, 414 New Testament Translations 19–21 Old Testament translations 21–23 Kobe 323 Kōchi 125 Kojiki 128–129, 414 Kokinshū 153, 414 Korea 9n10, 32n38, 142 Korean translations of the Bible 30n31, 142 Kwansei Gakuin 110 Kyoto 21, 53, 88, 100, 131, 326n59, 327–328, 406n, 414 Kyushu 7, 23, 39, 121, 125 Latin 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 59, 69, 74, 79n, 109, 180, 187, 231n, 256, 270, 281, 390, 404 Leningrad Codex 75 Lockman Foundation 48, 81–82 London University 140

449

Louisville, Kentucky 78 Luxemburg 40 Macao 22n10, 28, 31, 33, 116 Malacca 19, 28 Manila 22n10 Manyōshu 128–129, 153, 414 Masoretic Text (MT) 16, 51, 66, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 91, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 122, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 147, 148, 156n, 158, 162–170, 174n, 175, 176, 185, 192–195, 197, 202, 204, 214–215, 217, 221, 227–232, 234, 236, 238, 244, 247, 251, 258, 264, 274, 277–281, 287, 295n, 301, 306–308, 310, 320–321, 330, 336–337, 340, 347–349, 352, 359–360, 365, 373–374, 376, 379, 380, 384, 389, 390, 392, 393 Meiji Constitution 10, 151n8 Meiji Gakuin 59n16, 324 Meiji Government 36 Meiji Period 34, 41, 97n89, 99, 115, 118, 125, 150, 151n8, 165, 184, 209, 254n20, 255n24, 408–409, 414 Midrash 147n2, 197 Mission, missionaries 3, 9–11, 115, 119, 127, 130, 150, 154–155, 159, 202, 208, 213, 253, 255, 312, 320–321, 324, 332–333, 335, 346, 400, 401 Catholic 3, 7, 9, 18–23, 25–26, 28, 32, 39–40, 46–47, 117, 270 Committee for translating the NT 37–38, 40, 51, 54, 403n1, 407, 409 Committee for translating the OT 39, 52–56, 120, 206, 213, 292, 322, 324, 325, 407 Orthodox 7, 9, 40, 41 Protestant 4, 7, 9, 26–27, 28–39, 46, 51–53, 60–61, 72, 117, 123, 181–184, 271, 319, 398 Morrison (ship) 31n35, 408 Mukyōkai movement 66n30, 75–76, 87n66, 132, 143, 357, 414 Nagano 102 Nagasaki 20, 21, 34, 35, 36, 39, 52, 101, 117, 120,121, 137, 256, 324, 408, 415 Nagoya 88, 109 Nanking 29 Nara Period 193 National Bible Society of Scotland 51, 52, 55, 58 Nestorians 8

450

general index

Netherlands 19, 35, 324 New Testament, translations of In Kirishitan period 19–21 In 19th century 4, 31–40, 53–54, 65, 257, 403 In 20th century 4, 45–48, 66–68, 76, 78, 79–80, 81–82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88–90, 91–92, 97, 108, 112, 113, 119, 123–124, 126, 140, 141, 142, 143–144, 189, 341, 406–407 New York 33, 34, 84, 96, 111, 343 Nihongi  7, 414 Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 254, 256–257, 270n, 288, 291n, 367, 368n, 372–373, 375, 377 Nihon Kyūyaku Gakkai 76 Nihon Seisho Kankōkai 81 Nihon Shingakko 102 Niigata 36, 52 Nikkoku see Nihon Kokugo Daijiten Ningpo 30, 182 Nippon Seikōkai see Anglican-Episcopal Church of Japan Norito 128, 414 Northwestern University 110 Oberlin College 99 Okayama 101 Okinawa 32, 142, 408 Osaka 119, 125, 134 Orthodox Bible 95 Paris 134, 135, 137 Peking (Beijing) 77 Pentecostalists 396 Persian 118 Philippines 8 Portugal 8, 21 Portuguese (language) 8, 22, 25, 256, 270, 367 Portuguese (people) 8n8, 19, 21, 408 Presbyterian Church 34 Princeton University 59 Reformed (Dutch) Church Mission 33, 35 Rikkyō University 111, 328, 344 Rikuzen 125 Rome 19, 22n10, 79, 101 Russia 9 Russian (language) 95, 124, 214 Russian (people) 40 Russian translations of the Bible 124, 214 Russian Orthodox Church 40, 94, 124–125, 144, 211, 213–215, 318n47

Samaritan Pentateuch 169, 175, 194, 196 Samurai 10, 99, 119, 288, 343, 378 San Francisco 116 Sapporo 48, 73, 81, 143, 162, 195, 225, 257, 410 Scottish (people) 29n27, 52, 53 Seisho Kirisuto Kyōkai 86 Seisho Shisō 101, 136, 226 Séminaire Saint-Sulpice 137 Semitic languages 99, 139, 237, 278 Septuagint 76, 93, 95, 100, 102, 114, 135, 147, 164, 169, 175, 180, 183, 194, 195, 196n, 199, 200n, 214, 249, 278, 306, 308, 321, 341n, 351, 359, 370, 379 Serampore 28 Seventh-Day Adventist Church 142–143 Shanghai 29, 30, 34, 36, 63n24, 120 Shinto 10, 27 Shōwa Period 409–411, 415 Singapore 31, 34 Société des Missions-Etrangères de Paris 32n38, 40 Source criticism 99, 337, 344 Spain 8 Spanish (people) 8, 9 Spanish translations of the Bible  142 Syriac or Peshitta Bible 69, 169, 341n Taiping rebellion 30n32 Taishō Period 97n89, 409, 415 Taketori monogatari 193 Takushima 20 Tale of Genji, The 42, 44, 373, 413 Tamagawa University 141 Tenchi hajimari no koto 23–24 Ten Commandments (Decalogue) 22–23, 41, 120–121, 124 Tokyo 33, 36, 37n54, 40, 50, 51, 52, 78, 86, 88, 101, 116, 117, 119, 125, 131, 137, 184, 322, 323, 344, 414 Tokyo Union Theological Seminary 110, 115 Tokyo University 108, 111, 127, 134, 343, 359 Translation, study of 12–13, 16, 17 Adequacy & acceptability 316, 384–385, 387–388 Comparative analysis 14, 16–17, 147, 201, 334, 381, 389–394 Descriptive analysis 14 Dynamic equivalence 81n, 86, 89, 90, 173, 315–316, 384, 405 Faithfulness 16, 17, 189, 193n61, 292, 315–316, 343, 383–389 Formal equivalence 86, 315–316, 384–385



general index Functional equivalence 315 Influence of earlier translations (selective entries)  13, 17, 30n31, 62–63, 154–155, 159–162, 178, 217, 219, 221, 222–223, 233, 240, 242, 249, 260, 264, 265, 292–293, 297, 316, 337, 367, 371, 389–393, 394 Norms 16, 149, 384–386 Poetry, ways of translating 158–160, 203–204, 218–219, 310–314, 394 Polysystem theory 17, 384–386 Purpose 17, 164, 213, 251, 343n6, 382–383, 388n11 Shifts 16, 157–158, 161 Skopos theory 388n11 Subtitles 385 Synonyms 176–179 Tradition (adoption of or departure from) 70, 223, 247–248, 278, 281, 292, 297, 316, 330, 395–396 Universals 149 Voids, semantic or cultural 253–255, 287–289, 290–292, 297–298, 299–300, 385

Union Theological Seminary (New York) 97, 111, 343 University of Chicago 108 University of Manchester 15

451

University of Münster 359 USA 9, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 59, 60n17, 61, 83, 96–97, 99–100, 110, 117, 120, 132, 139, 143, 328n62 Vatican 20, 27 Vatican II 87, 91 Venice 79 Vienna 32 Vocabvlario da Lingua de Iapam 256–257, 270–271, 408 Vulgate 13, 19, 40, 47, 73–74, 77, 79, 89, 100, 102, 105, 110, 114, 133, 135, 136, 138, 155n10, 163, 168, 169, 180, 187, 195, 196n67, 197, 226, 230, 231, 232, 257–258, 264, 278, 302, 306, 321, 351, 379, 384, 389, 398n23 Quoted 163n24, 180n39, 195n66, 257, 280, 295n39, 370, 377 World War II 3, 10, 15, 44, 47, 48–49, 73, 101, 102–103, 105, 107, 212, 220, 225, 232, 251, 349, 383, 401, 410 Yale University 99 Yamagata 105 Yokohama 33, 36, 37–38, 39, 51, 54, 58, 107, 117, 118, 121, 335, 408