To what extent did the Bible translations into indigenous languages of Southern Africa produced since 1966 reflect the purpose of providing meaning-based translations?

Since the Bible was intended by die first authors to be understood by all believers, it is important to have an idea of the extent to which different translations succeeded in this respect. The author noticed that some of the latest Bible translations in Southern Africa are inconsistent with respect to the translation policies they followed, sometimes translating according to the meaning, and sometimes literally, distorting the meaning. He then selected a number of theologically important terms from the Bible for the purpose of comparing the way those were translated in the different translations. Contribution: It was found that some of these translations, particularly the 1983 Afrikaans translation, the Venḓa translation of 1998, and the Xhosa translation of 1996, consistently translated according to the meaning, and two of them, to wit the latest Southern Ndebele and Zulu translations, very literal, and the rest somewhere in between these methods, sometimes translating quite literally, and sometimes more meaningfully, but generally not consistent.

NdeS, one gets the impression that it was not intended to be meaning-based. I include it in this comparison for the sake of completeness.
Space and time leave us no opportunity to discuss the relative merits of these different approaches. The purpose of this paper is not to provide a summary of the merits or demerits of a 'dynamic equivalent' or 'functional equivalent' translation, but rather to limit ourselves to a comparison on the basis of the degree to which each translation reflects the principle of rendering the meaning of a text. My own viewpoint is that the Bible is revelation from God about his relations with humankind in the course of history, and as such was intended, unless clearly stated in the text itself, to be understood by all believers.

Types of distortion of the meaning in translation
Meaningless translation (zero meaning communicated)

Time, distance, content measures
Examples of this can be found in most of the older translations, and even in the new, 2020, isiZulu translation.
Examples of measures of distance (length, breadth etc.) are found in Genesis 6:15,16; 1 Samuel 17:4. Zulu20 transliterates 'cubits' as 'amakhubithi'. All other translations use measures of distance which are familiar to modern readers (metres or decimals of it). Stadia Luke 24:13; John 6:19; 11:18; Revelation 14:20; 21:16 Afrikaans uses kilometres everywhere. Xhosa has kilometres, with footnotes explaining what the original 'stadia' means in all cases. Swati has kilometres in the Gospels, but 'amastadiu' in Revelation, with no footnotes or explanation; probably because the distances in Revelation are obviously symbolic. Pedi has kilometres everywhere, in Revelation rendering the stadia in a more or less equal distance in kilometres, but in the process changing the symbolical distances to actual ones. Sotho did exactly the same as Pedi in the respective passages.
Ve98 rendered it 'kilometres' everywhere, not changing the numbers in Revelation, same as Afr83. Tsonga rendered it with km in the historical passages, and 300 km in Revelation 14:20, but with 'mpimo wa "tistadia" ta 12,000' ('distance of 12 000 stadia') in Revelation 21, with no explanation either in a footnote or in the Wordlist. NdeZ used kilometre in all cases, like Pedi and Sotho. NdeS has kilometres in Revelation 20, but miles in Revelation 14. Zulu20 transliterates all distances, never using terms meaningful to the average reader.
Summarising, it seems that apart from Ve98 and Afr83, the translations are rather inconsistent, and Zulu20 consistently meaningless.
In summary we can conclude that in rendering terms for weights and measures, all translations, except Zulu20, translated the measures in terms familiar to the readers. The latter consistently preferred renderings foreign to Zulu readers. Afr83 everywhere uses present day terms, as do all the others, with the exception of Zulu20, which consistently renders times of the day in such a way that the average reader cannot but misinterpret it. According to this version of Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 19, the crucifixion took place at 03:00 and the darkening of the sun from 06:00 to 09:00.

Factually incorrect translation
The gospels agree that the crucifixion of Jesus took place at 09:00, and darkness fell over the land from 12:00 to 15:00, when He expired. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured onto the disciples at 09:00.
A rather glaring example of a factually inaccurate translation, probably due to carelessness, is found in Tsonga, 1 John 5:14: 'loko hi kombela xilo xihi na xihi hi laha hi rhandzaka hakona' (if we ask anything whatever we want) -instead of 'if we ask anything which is according to Gods will'. http://www.indieskriflig.org.za Open Access

'Poor in spirit'
An interesting example of this kind of misleading translation can be found in the various versions of Matthew 5:3, the wellknown 'Blessed are the poor in spirit'. Very few readers understand the meaning of a literal translation of this verse. The most frequent interpretation among layman of 'poor in spirit' is mentally retarded'. I have heard it more than once, from my teacher in std 3, 81 years ago, and later found it in the versification of the Beatitudes by the celebrated theologian J.D. Du Toit (Totius), where it is interpreted as follows:

Misleading translation because of disregard of context
The referential (precise) meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it occurs. By way of illustration, let us have a look at the meanings of the term Hebrew bâsâr and Greek sarx, always translated 'flesh' in the King James Version, 'vlees' in the Afrikaans 1933/53 edition, and 'nama/ inyama' or the corresponding term for 'meat' in almost all the older versions in Bantu languages. The problem becomes more acute since in Bantu languages 'flesh' and 'meat' are the same term, nama, inyama and related terms, according to the language in question.

Bâsâr/sarks
Looking through the concordance, I was surprised to note that the Hebrew or Greek term is used to refer to altogether 15 different concepts or nuances of concepts in different contexts.
Having checked the Hebrew concordance of Wigram (1980), I also consulted the Greek concordance of Westcott and Hort as revised by Moulton and Geden (1963). Here follows the list of different referential meanings of bâsâr/sarx: In Isaiah 9:19 the Hebrew may be vowelised in different ways (GNB 'They eat the flesh of their own children', vowelising zar'o) but also possible is Afr20 'verteer hulle eie krag', (vowelising z e ro'o, 'the flesh of his own right arm'). All the African languages which accept the last-mentioned interpretation will obviously here use the term for 'meat'. Most translations opted for the first option, not following the massoretic vocalisation. Then 'human flesh' would be the acceptable interpretation.
Meat for consumption (Gn 9:4; Ezech 11:3): In all cases of a similar context the choice for a literal translation (nama, inyama etc) is so obvious that there is no need for a comparison.
Unity of spouses: Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5 (quoting Gn 2:24) GNB: 'they become one'; Afr83: 'hulle twee sal een wees'; NdeS: 'bese babe nyamanye' (they will then be one flesh); Xhosa (Genesis): 'baze babe mntu munye' (they will then become one person), Matthew: 'baze bamanyane' (they will then be united); Swati: 'bese babe nyamanye' (they will then be one flesh); Pedi: 'bobedi bja bona ya ba mmele o tee' (they will both be one body; idiom seems to be influenced by English, especially when compared with the Sotho: 'babedi bao ba tla fetoha ntho e le nngwe' -those two will change into one); Ve98: Genesis: 'vha vha ṋama nthihi'; Matthew: 'vhuvhili havho vha vha ṋama nthihi' (the two of them will be one flesh; the same objection as in Pedi, but note Ve98, Eph 5:31); Tsonga: 'vha endla nyama yin'we' (and make one flesh), and in Matthew 19: 'va ta va nyama yin'we ntsena' (they will be only one flesh -not consistent); NdeZ: 'bazakuba nyamanye' (they will be one flesh -same in Matthew); Zulu20: 'bayakuba nyamanye' (they will be one flesh). It still seems to me that 'one body' (The Jerusalem Bible) is a better rendering than 'one flesh'. Joel 2:28: (GNB 'I will pour out my Spirit on everyone'). None could imagine the Holy Spirit being poured onto meat. This is laudable, but why translate according to the meaning here, and elsewhere so literally? It is an indication of the quality of translations, that Zulu20 is the only version that has the Holy Spirit poured onto meat in Acts 2:17, where this verse is quoted. One must admit that in a footnote the possibility is mentioned that he might be poured onto people.
Physical: Romans 2:28 (hê… en sarki peritomê). NdeS, Xhosa, Sotho and Zulu20 translated 'flesh', most of the rest opted for the more idiomatic 'body'. It is interesting to note that Pedi (Northern Sotho) usually shows more awareness of natural idiom than its close relative (Southern) Sotho.
Human motivation/perspective/norm: 2 Corinthians 11:18 GNB: 'for merely human reasons'. Here too, Zulu20 is the only version which comes up with 'meat/flesh'. Here Zulu20 is the only literal translation.
It is clear that even those translations which often produce a meaning-based rather than a literal meaning, are often inconsistent.
Sinful human nature, hostile to God: Paul, more than anyone else, uses the term in this sense, eg. in.
Romans 7:5, 18, 25: GNB translates 'human nature' in all three verses, NdeS renders literally, and, uncharacteristically, also Pedi. NdeZ has 'flesh' only in versus 18, and Zulu20 only in versus 5, elsewhere translating sarks as 'body'. However, translating sarks as 'body' in this context, is not acceptable, since it expresses the unbiblical, gnostic view that sin is primarily or exclusively a matter of the body. Male reproductive organ: Genesis 17:11 (GNB 'every male … must be circumcised', Afr83 'julle moet besny word aan die voorhuid'). The majority of translations do not deem it necessary to make explicit the foreskin, since it is implied in the verb. It does not really make any difference to the meaning. This seems to be one of the very few cases where even the most literal translations do not translate the noun with 'flesh'or 'meat'.
A tender (obedient) heart, not stubborn: Ezech 11:19 KJV 'take away the stony heart and give them a heart of flesh'. In this context, where the heart of stone is compared with a heart of flesh, translating 'flesh' seems acceptable, although a rendering like that of NdeS (a soft heart) or 'an obedient heart' may be acceptable.

Literal translation, sometimes motivated (as in Hosea 4:6) by the (secular) interests of the speakers or theological prejudice, tradition or ignorance
4.1 A poignant example of this is the way the Hebrew term yada'/da'at or the Greek gignooskoo/gnoosis/prognoosis (know, knowledge, foreknowledge) is translated. The Greek in the New Testament usually expresses not the classical Greek meaning of the term, but rather the meaning of the Hebrew yada'/da'at. In Hebrew, the verb indeed sometimes expresses no more than cognitive knowledge, as in Genesis 48:29, where Jacob answers Joseph, 'I know, my son, I know' (i.e. that Manasseh is the elder son). However, more often, particularly when a person or God is the object of the verb, it implies not a mere cognitive knowledge, but an intimate relationship between the subject and the object of the verb. To know God is to be in a right relationship with him, with characteristics of love, trust, respect, and open communication (see parallels to faithfulness and steadfast love in Hs 4:1, 6:6; believing in Is 43:10). God himself is the focus, in a personal relationship growing out of a living encounter with God.
A few examples: • Galatians 4:9: GNB: 'But now that you know God -or, I should say, now that God knows you -how is it that you want to turn back to those weak and pitiful ruling spirits?' • John 17:3: GNB: 'And eternal life means knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent'.
1 Peter 1:2 (prognosis, foreknowledge, which actually means 'election'), 1:20 (proegnoosen) GNB: 'You were chosen according to the purpose of God the Father… He (Christ) had been chosen by God before the creation of the world'. In verse 2 only the NdeS, NdeZ and Zulu20 translated with a term meaning 'knowledge', the rest translated according to the context, showing theological and exegetical awareness. In verse 20 Zulu20 is the only version which produced a literal translation.
Hosea 4:6: GNB: 'My people are doomed because they do not acknowledge me'; Afr83: 'My volk gaan onder omdat hulle nie aan My toegewy is nie' (My people perish because they are not devoted to me). NdeS, Sotho, NdeZ and Zulu20 translated literally ('My people perish for lack of knowledge'). Swati and Tsonga, which usually show more exegetical awareness, also failed to grasp the true meaning of da'at in this case.
The considerations about and implications of this translation need some more discussion.
When Hosea 4:6 was discussed at the meeting of the Review Committee of Zulu20, they had before them a translation which reflected the meaning of da'ath as 'intimate fellowship with God', much richer that mere cognitive knowledge. However, in all the older translations of which we know, it had been translated lack of knowledge', which anyone not familiar with the context would interpret as 'lack of cognitive knowledge'. The chairman said: 'This is a well-known text, and we should leave it the way it used to be'. This was accepted without further discussion. I am quite sure that one of the reasons this text is well-known, is precisely the widespread secular interpretation of it: 'We should have more and better schools and teachers, more funds and bursaries for university students, because our people perish for lack of knowledge'. This perception was confirmed by an experience I had a few months after that Review Committee meeting. I was attending a lecture about Pedi folklore at the University of the North. At a discussion of a publication about Pedi folktales, a student observed: 'Somewhere in the Bible it is said that "my people perish for lack of knowledge", and that is true; our people do not know these cultural treasures anymore'. That perception is the reason why it is particularly important to translate this verse -as we should when translating any portion of Scripture -with a thorough exegetical background, otherwise translators distort the Word of God in their labours. The meaning of Hosea 4:6 is that those who have no personal relationship with God, shall perish. It does not refer to the volume of knowledge one has, whether secular or spiritual. It is interesting to note that so few, if any, of the literal translations accommodate the definite article in hadda'at.
Amos 3:2 is another example of the same term with the same meaning: 'You alone I chose from among all the nations of the earth'.
In the Gospels the meaning focuses on doing God's will since God's will is the norm for what is right. 'Joseph was a righteous man' (Mt 1:19) means that he was a person who wanted to do right. Obviously, the right thing was doing God's will, usually as expressed in the Law of Moses.
Paul, brilliant student of rabbi Gamaliel that he was, often employs this family of terms to express the Hebrew idea of judging in someone's favour (see Kittel, Friedrich & Bromiley [1964]

Conclusion
Here is the approximate statistic of the passages studied. Afrikaans produced no literal translation, Xhosa and Venḓa 3 each. Pedi 5, Tsonga 8, Sotho 12, the two Ndebele translations 17 each, and Zulu 20 in these passages produced 37 literal translations which distorted the meaning.
We may further conclude that academic excellence, knowledge of the target language and of Hebrew and Greek, do not guarantee a meaningful translation of the original. An essential requirement for a translator is thorough training in and understanding of Semantics and of the Science of Translation. According to my own experience, the South African Bible Society provides far too little training in the basics of these subjects to translators in its service. The result is that translators trained and employed by SIL, The Seed Company and The Word for the World, who usually have much less skill in theology and the biblical languages, still often come up with notably better and more understandable translations than the South African Bible Society with its academically excellent translators. That is my own experience while doing consulting work in at least 18 indigenous languages in Ethiopia, The Republic of the Kongo and Mozambique.
I would also recommend that all officials of the Bible Society who are in any way involved in planning and executing translation work, including all leaders who have to guide translations or have to make decisions about them, should have sufficient understanding of the principles of translation and requirements for translators. A Secretary for Translations should have expert knowledge of the Science of Translation, and one with little understanding of the subject, is likely to do more harm than good.