Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo

Concepts of Conversion
Religion and Society

Edited by
Gustavo Benavides, Frank J. Korom, Karen Ruffle and
Kocku von Stuckrad

Volume 70
Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo

Concepts of Conversion

The Politics of Missionary Scriptural Translations

ISBN 978-3-11-049988-9
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-049791-5
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-049704-5
ISSN 1437-5370

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany

www.degruyter.com
“What is wrong with my beliefs? Why do I have to change them?”
Concluding speech by Tadodaho Sidney Hill of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy
at the conference ‘Listening to the Wampum in Dialog with the Jesuit Relations’,
Le Moyne College (Syracuse, NY, USA) November 15, 2013.
Acknowledgements
Søren Wichmann suggested that I should analyze the missionary linguistics of
SIL-translations of New Testaments into American indigenous languages. I
thank him for his invaluable encouragement and assistance over the years.
Søren was also instrumental – together with Torkel Brekke, Jan Terje Faarlund,
and Even Hovdhaugen – in order to obtain funding for the research of the
book. I am very grateful for their support.
Torkel and Vincent L. Wimbush made proposals to the title of the book. I
also thank Vincent for comments and the invitation to present the book project
at Institute for Signifying Scriptures (ISS), Claremont Graduate University.
I extend special appreciative thanks to the extensive backing and encourage-
ment of Davíd Carrasco and his invitation to become Research Associate and Ad-
visor at the Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project, Harvard Univer-
sity. This has been and is very significant for my research.
I thank Jürgen Renn for the invitation to become Research Partner at Max-
Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte (MPIWG), Berlin and Aud Valborg
Tønnessen for the invitation to become Visiting Scholar at Faculty of Theology,
University of Oslo.
I am grateful to the Research Council of Norway for the postdoctoral re-
search fellowship and to the Leiv Eriksson mobilitetsprogram for the funding
of the stay at the Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project, Harvard
University in 2009; Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning for a grant
in order to travel to stay as Visiting Scholar at Harvard University in 2008 and
to a Mesoamerican conference at Leiden University in 2009.
I am appreciative to Editorial Director Theology & Religion at Walter de
Gruyter, Albrecht Doehnert for his inspirational interest in the book and invita-
tion to submit the manuscript to the Series ‘Religion and Society’. I am also very
grateful to the contributions of Johannes Parche, John Whitley, Sophie Wa-
genhofer, and Alissa Jones Nelson at Walter de Gruyter.
I am indebted, for the important assistance of innumerable interlibrary
loans, to Senior Librarians Eli Sofie Barstad Fjeld and Britt Hilde Olsson at Uni-
versity of Oslo Library.
Katie Van Heest’s copyediting and two anonymous reviewers considerably
improved the manuscript.
I extend sincere thanks to peoples who have made different contributions to
the book:
Yásnaya Elena Aguilar Gil, Gary Urton, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Arnold,
Sandra Bigtree, Oren Lyons, Kjell Magne Yri, Kerry Hull, Joe R. Campbell, Karen
VIII Acknowledgements

Dakin, Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen, Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez, Michael Swanton,
Arthur Sand, Alan R. Sandstrom, Joe R. Campbell, Amund Bjørnsøs, Otto
Zwartjes, David Stoll, Dag T. Haug, Siri Nergaard, Jorunn Økland, Terje Stordalen,
Helge Wendt, Eric Ziolkowski, Verónica Coronel Sanchez, and Nuvi Coronel San-
chez.
The peoples of Naupan, Chalcatongo de Hidalgo, and Santiago de Yosondúa
received me with generosity and friendship. I thank the family in Santiago de Yo-
sondúa – in particular “las gemalas”.
I dedicate the book to my loving parents Ingeborg Kirkhusmo Pharo and Per
Pharo who have always stood by me.
And Eva!

Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo

Moses Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project, Harvard University
Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte (MPIWG)
Nord University
Contents
Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation 1

I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics 8

The politics of Christian missionary linguistics in Latin America 10
SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators 12
Protestant theology of SIL and WBT and indigenous philosophies/
religions 15
Comparative analyzis of two languages and religious systems in
Mexico 17
The source and target text (language) of the selected
New Testaments 20
Theoretical methodology: Analyzing interrelated theological concepts of
translation 22
Implications for a politics of missionary scriptural translation 32
Methodology and the sources of missionary linguistic politics 36

II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies 43

Conversion as transformation of concepts, categories, and codes of
language 44
Translation of conversion and repentance 51
Language and semiotic ideology 58
The politics of missionary language and semiotic ideology and
practice 60
Missionary linguistic translation strategies 62
Indigenous and colonial Catholic translation strategies 64
SIL’s theoretical linguistic strategy of translation:
Dynamic equivalence 71
Theoretical model of lingustic strategies for translating concepts of
conversion 76
Literal (fundamentalist) versus meaning-based translation practice 79
Loan words, calques, and neologisms 85
Codeswitching 88
The politics of translating indigenous theological synonyms 90
Omission of translated theological concepts 95
The SIL missionary-linguistic predicament of translating conversion 96
X Contents

III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies 102

Missionary linguistic acculturation of Indigenous language and religion/
philosophy 103
Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 107
Sociopolitics and theology of Protestant Christology 116
Sociopolitical institutions and religious traditions 118
Indigenous philosophy of local communitas and the natural world 121
Protestant theological exclusivism of sola scriptura as oppositional to oral
traditions 124
Saints and deities omitted in scripture 130
Virgin Mary marginalized in scripture 134
Indigenous assistant-informants and “language experts” of missionary
linguists 141
Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture: rejection;
appropriation; conversion 145
Translated multimedia and the semiotic rhetoric of conversion 161
Multilingualism and World Christianity 165
(Post)colonialism and missionary linguistic scriptural translation in a
globalized world 168

IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy 178

The politics of translating a soteriological religion 178
The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 179
The concept of salvation translated into nonsoteriological religion 194
Moral transgression in soteriological and nonsoteriological religious
systems 200
Mundane and transcendental punishment for moral failure 205
Confession and forgiveness of moral failure 210
Translating the anthropology, cosmology, and chronology of Christian
morality 215
Christian moral anthropology 216
The Christian moral-spatial system 222
The Christian moral-temporal system 230

V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology 234

Translation of Christology: The identity, person, and nature of Jesus
Christ 236
Trinity in scripture 236
Translations of the concept of God 239
The Holy Spirit /Ghost transferred 243
 Contents XI

The character of Jesus Christ translated 245

Translations of moral-eschatological Christology 254
Moral dualism: Christ versus the Devil 255
Moral dualism of good versus evil 260
Translation of Christ as savior 264

Conceptualization of missionary linguistic scriptural translations 271

Bibliography 276
Field Interviews 305

Index 306
Fundamental Importance of Language and
Translation
The book is an analyzis of social and political interactions and contexts of a par-
ticular form and structure of communication: translation of scriptures. In a crit-
ical analysis, in terms of historical and contemporary social-cultural and lan-
guage practices and power, it seeks to explicate the dynamic relations
between indigenous peoples and a particular category of missionaries; mission-
ary linguists. Partly scholar and partly missionary, the missionary linguists at-
tempt to impose and legitimise a definite ideological, religious, linguistic, polit-
ical and social-cultural regime.
The premise of the analyzis is in what way a terminological system of con-
cepts (nomenclature), representing principle ideas and knowledge, anticipate
and conceivably convert not only a language but also a cultural, philosophical,
religious, and sociopolitical structure. The explication concentrates upon the
transference of the major doctrines of Christian moral philosophy of soteriology
attempted to translate into indigenous American languages and accordingly re-
ligions and philosophies.
The book’s methodological orientation is comparative and multidisciplinary;
anthropological, historical, linguistic and philological. This approach analyzes
in a historical perspective the linguistic, sociocultural, religious, and political dy-
namics of contemporary North American Protestant missionary activities in Latin
America. Established upon an abundance of comparative historical and current
empirical evidence, the book simply advocates what Charles Darwin formulates
as “one long argument” (Darwin [1859]1985, 439). This means that I prescribe a
general theory and methodology where I make the following combined set of ar-
guments:

Conversion or transformation of meaning is recognized and defined through con-

ceptions, categories and codes of language practice. In order to give substance to
this hypothesis, I advocate a methodology of identifying and analyzing the ter-
minology of core and key concepts. This approach not only constitutes a method
of comprehension of semantic structures but also adjudicating the process of the
encounter between (and potential subsequent change of) different ideological,
theoretical, and epistemological (cultural) systems – whether political, econom-
ic, judicial, religious or scientific. I make a case that there is ultimate dissimilar-
ity between missionary-soteriological and non-missionary/non-soteriological
systems. Additionally, I argue that missionary linguistics represents not a salvage
but instead anticipate transformation (e. g. conversion) of (endangered) languag-

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-001
2 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation

es and cultures. Accordingly, missionary linguistic organizations and institutions

strategically enforce an (monopolistic) impact on indigenous and minorities’
philosophies, socio-politics, economies, laws, religions, languages, and litera-
cies.

Languages are conceived as systems (Boas 1982; Saussure [1916]1972; Whorf

1956; Sapir 1949), which makes transfer of meaning through apposite translation
between different cultures arduous (Hanks and Severi 2014, 3). The structural
methodology of the analysis is stimulated by “systems approach” and “systems
theory”. Systems are ubiquitous and apply to all phenomena (Bertalanffy 1973,
3). This signifies that a combined set of components, e. g. system of thinking, ex-
periencing, practices, organizations and institutions are interrelated and inter-
connected and therefore affect other components of the system itself (Werhane
2008, 467). The combination of a collection of interdependent and interactive lin-
guistic categories encompass semantic components or processes of an ideologi-
cal, philosophical, religious, political or scientific system and ought to be ap-
proached, analyzed and understood in this way (cf. Laszlo and Krippner 1998,
51). As semiotic systems, languages should – like institutions, organizations,
and processes – be examinated how they operate as a semantic structure involv-
ing a complex network of interrelationships (Wolf 1999). Applying system theory,
it is consequently required:
“to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problem
found in the organization and order unifying them, resulting from dynamic interaction of
parts, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within the
whole” (Bertalanffy 1973, 31).

A system has features or characteristics that can be transformed, disappear or

obscured, when the basic components are altered (Werhane 2008, 467). As social
and cultural constructions, languages are complex adaptive systems to changing
environments and influcences where in particular missionary linguistic transla-
tion have the objective to instigate transformation (conversion) of meaning.
I submit a methodology of conducting a semantic analysis of the principal
terminology, not grammar and phonology, of a meaning system translated
(transferred) by a specific language. The language and nomenclature of a reli-
gious, political, economical, judicial, scientific system or theory consists of cer-
tain related core and key concepts, which represent the main components of the
ideology, philosophy and epistemology. In many cases, these are original con-
cepts introduced for the first time by religious system, political ideology or sci-
entific theory in question. There is a particular vocabulary of a religious system
 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation 3

(Buddhism, Christianity etc.); political or economic ideologies (socialism, liber-

alism etc.); scientific theories (theory of evolution, theory of relativity etc.) etc.
Let us look at an example from science. How are we to make an elucidation
of evolutionary theory put forward in On the Origin of the Species (1859) by
Charles Darwin? This book consists of an overwhelming amount and detail of
empirical data in order to give evidence to his evolutionary model. An examina-
tion of the apparatus of innovative theoretical concepts introducted by the evo-
lutionary theory is, however, a productive strategy in order to comprehend the
hypothesis of Darwin. The interaction between relational core and key concepts
in this relatively simple foundational theory constitutes: Natural world; origin;
genealogy; struggle for existence; natural selection; transmutation; evolution;
preservation of environment; adapted variations. Defining these core and key
concepts and their interactions and relations is necessary in order to clarify
the principle of the evolutionary theory of Darwin: Natural selection of inherited
variations explain the development i. e. evolution of the lives of organisms and
species. This can clearly be conceived when On the Origin of the Species is to
be translated into languages that have not appropriated the basic categories of
evolutionary theory. Although there will continuously be different interpreta-
tions and receptions, analyzing and reflecting upon the process in tranferring
ideas and theories to a different epistemological and linguistic-ideological sys-
tem, translations can contribute not only to comprehend but as a method to ex-
plain the general arguments of theories, philsophies and ideas. An equivalent
methodology can be used explicating for instance Das Kommunistische Manifest
(The Communist Manifesto) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Relativitätstheor-
ie (Theory of Relativity) by Albert Einstein etc. – and as we shall see the New Tes-
tament.
Regarding Christanity, the terminology of concepts represents a “thesaurus
of Christian doctrine” i. e. semantics required in order to outline Christian theol-
ogy (Renck 1990, 99 – 100). Missionary linguistic translations of Christian scrip-
tures into languages of non-Christian cultures signify a transfer and encounter of
moral knowledge (cf. Pharo 2016b). In contrast to linguistic and anthropologic
theory and methodology, a conceptional approach is preeminent explicating
translations of religious scriptures as well as political, economic, judicial, scien-
tific, and philosophical texts. The strategy identifies from within the translated
cognitive system the indispensable interrelated concepts of the terminology of
the source language. Furthermore, there must also be equivalent consideration
of the non-European idea, knowledge and practice system of the target culture
in addition to an analysis of Begriffsgeschichte (history of concepts). The primary
methodology is accordingly a comparative analysis of the significance of con-
4 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation

cepts, their interrelation in the terminological system and the linguistic process
of their transference (e. g. translation).
Reception of translation and transference of a different religion or philoso-
phy in the vernacular can be classified with the following categories: conversion,
appropriation or rejection. Colonial and postcolonial missionary (Indo-Europe-
an) linguistics has a more than five-hundred-year history in the Americas due
to Roman Catholic missionary orders and US Protestant missionary institutions.
This case study tracks the attempt by the US global missionary linguist organi-
zation SIL, or Wycliffe Bible Translators, to convert Mixtec and Nahua of Central
Mexico through New Testament translation and attendant grammars and dic-
tionaries. This constitutes a long evolution of the encounter of ideas, knowledge,
practices, semiotics and languages. But judging from the contemporary mission-
ary (linguist) energetic activity only appropriation and rejection, not conversion,
is predominant in quite a few indigenous communities.
A missionary linguistic operation within a target or receptor culture suggests
incommensurability between different cognitive and linguistic systems. Al-
though there are major difference between the many cultures and languages of
indigenous peoples of the Americas, there is a structural equivalence, which sep-
arates them radically from Christianity. Quite a few Christian elements have al-
beit been (voluntarily) incorporated or adapted into the various, what I catego-
rize as “inclusive” (i. e. non-missionary), indigenous American religious
systems. I hypothesize, however, that there is a fundamental incompatibility be-
tween (American) Indigenous religions and (“exclusive”) Christianity. This is be-
cause “core” Christian dualistic concepts “salvation” and Jesus Christ as “Sav-
ior” as opposed to “damnation”/“perdition” does not exist in Indigenous
religious-philosophical nomenclature. In his analyzis of “the systemicity of the
global function system for religion”, Peter Beyer advocate that there is binary
code of salvation and damnation – although he prefers the dichotomy “blessed”
and “cursed” – which also categorize Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Juda-
ism – that classify Christianity as a religious system (Beyer 2006: 81– 90). As
will be substantiated with linguistic evidence, core concepts influence the signif-
icance of the interrelated key concepts of a language, which compose a cultural,
religious, philosophical or political system. For instance, the theological catego-
ry “sin” has different exegesis in Catholicism and Protestantism but it is in both
religions connected to salvation and perdition. It is exactly the latter principal
semantic element, which transforms the meaning of categories and introducing
a novel terminology of the language, which characterize ideological and episte-
mological colonialism.
I put forward the theory that imposing Christian doctrine, and not a rescue
and development of indigenous culture and language, through the vernacular is
 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation 5

the essential incentive of missionary linguistics. Although language extinction is

a major problem, often addressed by linguists and anthropologists, they greatly
underestimate the manipulation of marginalized (indigenous) minority languag-
es through translations and the production of dictionaries and grammars. When
people from an outside religion and culture, in most cases missionary linguists
but also, to a lesser degree, secular linguists and anthropologists, define (i. e.,
translate) concepts of an indigenous language, there are serious ethical and in-
tellectual challenges in play.
(Linguistic) anthropology (of Christianity/religion) is principally concerned
with the processes of receptions of mission by various (local) target cultures.
This research is valuable because it documents missionary linguists’ strategies
and different receptions by the target culture. I have undertaken field interviews
but it is important to emphasize that this book is not an (linguistic) anthropology
(of Christianity/Religion) analysis of local receptions of missionary linguistics in
a particular community. Nor is it about individual missionary work or individual
missionary linguistic translation, where there are indeed many different lan-
guage practices, semiotics and ideologies. Interviewing individual translators,
with their particular views and practices, are therefore not relatable to this ana-
lyzis. Likewise, the various manners that biblical translations have influenced in-
digenous communities or the problem of dialect variation in the translation of a
particular language are outside the subject of this book. It is correct that selec-
tion of dialect and orthography for creating a novel standard language or literacy
technology and practice is indeed a political question (Schieffelin 2000, 300), al-
though it is not restricted to missionary linguistic but also relevant to the enter-
prise of secular (anthropological) linguists and national governments end educa-
tion. Instead, I explicate the pivotal translation philosophy (and local practices)
and religious ideology of European and US Protestant missionary linguistics.
This is executed through the application of the already noted comparative ana-
lytic methodology in order to corroborate the above-mentioned general theory
that there is fundamental incommensurability between different systems of
ideas, epistemology and (symbolic) practices. The book therefore transcend
the local and intents to act as a guide to case studies of linguistics, history (of
ideas and religions) and anthropology but also of other disciplinary fields
which deals with (the encounter of) ideological and epistemological structures.
The carefully selected translations and communities from Central Mexico
represent comparative cases for the analytical model. The collected record of
data allows a comparative historical and explication of colonial Catholic and
postcolonial Protestant mission, which substantiates that missionary linguistics
attempt to impose a totalitarian ideology (theology) through the receptor cul-
tures language. The historical-linguist method and analyzis demonstrate, more-
6 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation

over, a process of difference and change of meaning between pre-European and

pre-Christian indigenous, colonial Catholic and postcolonial Protestant religions.
In order to give evidence to the binary incommensurability theory and explica-
tion of the dynamics of religious conversion, I make use of a methodological
model of the analytical categories: ‘acculturation’, ‘inculturation’ and ‘transcul-
turation’. The case for the hypothesis and incompatibility and subsequent con-
version is confirmed by the historical European (Norwegian) example where lan-
guage and religion were simultaneously converted. There is no compromise
between the Evangelical Protestant or to a more limited extent Catholic mission-
ary linguistics and indigenous and minority languages and cultures. Importantly,
the authority of dictionaries, grammars, translated scripture and textbooks codi-
fy language practice. Succinctly, this linguistic corpus constitutes the canon of
meaning for a cultural system, which missionary linguistics endeavors to mo-
nopolize. Consequently, missionary linguistic production of literacy (grammars,
dictionaries and translations) constitutes not what quite a few theologians (of
liberation) and missiologists argue as maintaining imperiled traditions through
the ideology of inculturation. Instead it results in absolute transformation (i. e.
conversion) and does not sustain or develop local culture, religion, philosophy,
sociopolitical institutions, and language.
Translation is not only about language but constitutes a transference or ex-
change of ideas, concepts and knowledge between different cultural and cogni-
tive systems. Accordingly, translation represent transference or communication
of language and a system of context transferred to another language and system
of context (Silverstein 2003, 81– 83). It is considered as a matter of both language
and cultural difference, which makes it relevant for anthropology, sociology, po-
litical science as well as philosophy, comparative literature, religious as well as
cultural studies. Particularly in investigating non-European cultures and philos-
ophies both the scholar and translator has to deal with the semantic-linguistic
difficulty of translation, from the emic to the etic¹, by taking words out of
their original context in order to give them a universal meaning in addition to
be later utilized as analytical concepts in a comparative terminology². That is

 It was the SIL-linguist Kenneth L. Pike who adapted and refined – “as Propp had used them
and as they had become used by formalists thereafter. Pike’s use really just renames the earlier
“esoteric/exoteric” or “s/x” factors that William Hugh Jansen had put forward” (– the concept-
s“emic” and “etic” derive from phonemic and phonetic. “Etic” refers to the transcultural or the
comparative, whereas “emic” alludes to the specific or indigenous (Pike 1954).
 For the issue of translation between different cultures and related development of compara-
tive analytical concepts in anthropology and history of religions cf. Rubel and Rosman (2003)
and Pharo (2007; 2011).
 Fundamental Importance of Language and Translation 7

why explicating translations of religion, law, economics, politics, philosophy and

science – research fields concerned with crucial epistemology for society – is es-
sential in an increasingly globalised world. The translative exchange may be en-
riching for both source and target culture, but may as well be invasive, or even
destructive, since there is always a tension of power relations involved. The
power difference involved when cultures meet define the nature of this meeting:
the mediation may consist in oppression as well as resistance, in intrusion as
well as synthesis, in assimilation as well as transgression, and may even repre-
sent a particularly efficient strategy of intervention. Translation is thus deeply
embedded in patterns of domination and yet permitting newness to exist, it
both separates and joins. Since the beginning of the age of European colonisa-
tion from the 15th century, oral and written judicial, economic, social, political,
scientific, religious and philosophical knowledge are translated from European
philosophies and languages. As the most widespread translated and wholesaled
script in the world, the Bible is in particular an exciting case for comparative and
interdisciplinary analysis of translation – even more so because it has besides
religious or theological also linguistic and literary but more important judicial,
political, economical, philosophical and even scientific significance and conno-
tations.³
As a present-day international phenomenon, missionary linguistics attempts
a radical alteration of cultures through scriptural translations, grammars and
lexicography. This book exhibits not only the linguistic and social dynamics of
these missionizing efforts but also the transformative power politics and frame-
work of Protestant North American translation organizations. Furthermore, the
investigation seeks to elucidate the complexity of the linguistic and social-polit-
ical power dynamics and effects of modern missionizing in the cultural world of
indigenous peoples of the Americas.
The book is accordingly a transdisciplinary and comparative analysis of cul-
tural practices related to language, religion, philosophy, social-cultural politics
and knowledge. But it is also an explication of a contemporary social-cultural
phenomenon with protracted and complex historical antecedents.

 From an unpublished entry by Siri Nergaard and Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo (2014).
I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics
In 1492, the year Christopher Columbus arrived at the continent later called
America, linguist Antonio de Nebrija presented his book Gramática de la lengua
castellana (“Grammar of the Castilian language”) to Queen Isabella of Spain,
who promptly asked, “What is it for?” The Bishop of Avila replied on his behalf:

Your Majesty, language is the perfect instrument of empire (Hanke 1959, 8).¹

Language associated with philosophy, ideology, belief, symbol, or (ritual) prac-

tice is indeed a particularly powerful tool when instigating conquest that is
not only religious but also cultural, economic, political, and social. The gram-
marian Nebrija and the Bishop of Avila manifest this combination of linguistics
and theology, respectively. In order to impose, for instance, a religion or a polit-
ical ideology upon another culture, the power of introducing a novel semantic
linguistic (cognitive) system through translation is undeniable. This imperialistic
linguistic acculturation introduces foreign ideas into the language of the culture
to be dominated, which, if the process is successful, appropriates the concepts as
its own. A linguistic, cognitive, and cultural conversion takes place.²
Commencing early in the sixteenth century, Catholic missionaries immedi-
ately followed the European military invasion of the Americas by initiating a
“spiritual campaign” against indigenous peoples. In the postcolonial period,
Protestant missionary evangelization from the United States represents a recur-
rence of this Catholic mission toward indigenous peoples in that it is character-
ized by a theology and politics of conversion.³ Now, however, the cultural, eco-
nomic, sociopolitical and religious values of US Protestantism are challenging
the Hispanic-Catholic religious empire of Latin America. Both Catholic and Prot-
estant missionaries employ translation of scriptures into indigenous languages

 This echoes what Nebrija had already written in the prologue to Grámatica (Hanke 1959,
127n31; Rafael 2001, 23): “Siempre la lengua fue compañera del imperio”, “always the language
was the companion of empire” is in fact an idea inspired by Lorenzo Valla’s Elegantiae contend-
ing Latin’s intimate connection to the empire of Rome. It was also advocated in Cicero’s De sen-
ectute and later in grammars in Portuguese (Padley 1988: 162n38; Asensio 1960).
 Roberto A. Valdeón provide a recent cultural historical, although lacking a linguistic analyzis,
overview (with bibliographic references) of translation and encounter in the Spanish Empire of
the colonial Americas (2014).
 The term “mission” derives from the Latin missio, “act of sending,” which itself derives from
mittere, “to send.”

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-002
 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics 9

as one of their principal missionary strategies,⁴ but North American Evangelical

Protestantism is characterized by a Bible-based theology. Only the Bible contains
the truth, and the embrace believer must read it because scripture is the final
authority (Deiros 1991, 150). Evangelizing the Christian gospel of the Bible is con-
sidered so essential that Ralph Winter of the US Centre for World Mission writes,
“The Bible is not the basis of missions; missions is the basis of the Bible.”⁵ Trans-
lations of the New Testament (and to a lesser degree Old Testaments) into indig-
enous languages have in some cases been fundamental in contemporary US
Protestant mission strategies aiming to convert indigenous peoples (Smalley
1991).
There exist an enormous cultural variety of indigenous languages, religions and
traditions in the Americas, but their fundamental religious principles are com-
pletely unrelated to Christian theology. Despite this study’s concentration on
cases studies of scriptural translations into only two indigenous languages of
Central Mexico, I contend that these are representative models because of a fun-
damental structural difference between indigenous American religions and
Christianity. Universal religions—in particular Buddhism, Christianity, and
Islam—that aim to convert people to salvation or enlightment are to be classified
as missionary and soteriological. The fundamental otherness between a mission-
ary-soteriological and a nonmissionary-nonsoteriological religious system has
an indelible impact upon the Christian missionary linguistic translation process.
Contemporary Protestant evangelizing through translations of the New Tes-
tament into indigenous languages constitutes a global endeavor. By employing a
language that is not a European lingua franca in a particular region but the
tongue of the people to be converted, missionary linguists communicate novel
ideology and practices to marginalized and dominated indigenous cultures.
Herein lies the fundamental symbolic cultural-linguistic impact of the mission-
ary translators because the indigenous language is intimately related to its
own worldview, philosophies, and traditions. The translated scriptures are in-
tended to transform interrelated, fundamental cultural components in the serv-
ice of a newly constructed identity and a new social, political, and cognitive re-
ality. Missionary linguistic translations of religious concepts have this effect
because language or the communication system (i. e., a web of interrelated con-
cepts) is intimately related to the religious or philosophical worldview of a cul-
ture. This worldview—manifested in the belief, symbol and practice system—or-

 Because various translations into many languages are available, the New Testament can be
considered one “massive parallel text (MPT)” (Cysouw and Wälchli 2007, 95).
 “New Tribes Bible Institute,” New Bible Mission, http://www.ntm.org/ntbi/.
10 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

ganizes sociopolitical institutions, which ultimately will be transformed if indig-

enous people embrace the US Protestant missionary language of translated
scriptures.

The politics of Christian missionary linguistics

in Latin America
According to the sociologist of religions Peter Berger, there are two global move-
ments of enormous vitality advancing: conservative Islam and conservative Prot-
estantism. Of the two phenomena, the growth of Evangelical Christian theology
—based on the authority and teachings of the Bible⁶—in Latin America is the
most dramatic (Martin 1990, vii). Until quite recently, the study of the history
of Christianity in Latin America has centered on the history of the Roman Cath-
olic Church and, for the latter part of the twentieth century, on liberation theol-
ogy. The explosive increase of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches since the
1960s, has, however, initiated scholarship on Protestant theology in Latin Amer-
ica in the last two decades.
Since the Spanish and Portuguese occupations beginning in the sixteenth
century, Catholic missions dominated in Latin America. In their evangelical en-
deavors, European missionaries confronted a major problem since indigenous
peoples did not understand Spanish but spoke a variety of languages.⁷ Therefore
the Primer Concilio Provencial de Lima (1551– 1552) and Tercer Concilio Proven-
cial de Lima (1582– 1583) in the Andean region of South America and Primer
Concilio Provencial de México (1555) in Mesoamerica decreed that the Spanish
priests where to give sermons and that catechisms should be translated in Indig-
enous languages (Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz 2016, 2). During the period between
about 1525 and 1700, ethnographer-missionaries and missionary linguists⁸ of
Catholic orders produced systematic descriptions of languages, religions, histor-
ies, and cultures of indigenous people in dictionaries, grammars, and ethno-

 Protestantism, a word devoid of doctrinal meaning, is employed to allude to Christian denomi-

nations and sects that do not form part of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox groups. David
Stoll (1990) has categorized Protestant movements in Latin America as Evangelicals, Pentecos-
tals, Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. For Evangelicals in Latin America cf.
McCleary (footnote, 2017).
 For instance, Franciscans did not learn the language in their mission of the Pueblo of the
Southwest of the United States in the seventeenth century (Spicer 1962).
 An ethnographer-missionary describes culture, religion, and history, whereas the missionary
linguist produces dictionaries and grammars outlining indigenous languages.
 The politics of Christian missionary linguistics in Latin America 11

graphic reports.⁹ Executing field research for linguistic analyzis of indigenous

languages with the purpose to translate scriptures, the colonial Catholic mission-
ary linguists produced grammars (arte), dictionaries and various religious texts
like catechisms, confessionals and sermons (catecismos, confesionarios, doctri-
nas, sermonarios). They translated from Latin or Spanish or made monolingual
or bilingual texts in the indigenous languages (Zwartjes 2014, 1). Their dictionar-
ies and grammars had to be meticulous so that the priests and friars could use
them in catechisms, to hear confessions, administer sacraments, and hold ser-
mons in native languages. This was a premeditated strategy for expedited conver-
sion of indigenous peoples from their so-called “pagan” conceptions and prac-
tices.¹⁰ As we might expect, there exists quite a large number of sixteenth-
through eighteenth-century accounts of indigenous culture, languages, and his-
tory produced by Catholic missionary linguists and ethnographer-missionaries.
Not many translations of old-world scriptures were, however, made. Catholic
missionary linguists did not translate the entire Old Testament or New Testa-
ment¹¹. Instead, they prepared Bible summaries, doctrines, catechisms and ser-
mons in indigenous languages. People without higher theological education, in
particular before the Second Vatican Council (1965 – 1968) but also today, are dis-
couraged from reading the Bible without instruction. Conversely, Protestant mis-
sionaries encourage individual reading of the Bible. As distinct from Catholic lib-
eration theologians, those who focus on the Bible in contemporary Latin
America are identified as Protestants (Smalley 1991, 30; Markowitz 1996, 68 –
69; Kray 2004, 98).
One would expect that several hundred years of Catholic evangelism in Latin
America would have transformed indigenous belief, symbol, and practice sys-
tems. But in quite a few places, the Roman Catholic Church has executed a rath-
er weak influence upon indigenous religions, and many traditions, beliefs, and
practices have been conserved. In order to simplify¹², today four competing reli-

 Buddhism and Christianity have made numerous translations of scriptures. But Christian de-
nominations are unrivaled in their production of grammars and dictionaries for analyzing for-
eign languages (Ostler 2004, 32).
 For influential works about colonial Catholic mission in Mexico in English, see Ricard (1966)
and Baudot (1995).
 Cf. Míguez and Bruno (2015) and Bruno and Míguez (2016) for the history of the Bible in
Latin America.
 In reality, the religious situation is far more complex within the different countries. For in-
stance, C. Mathews Samson operates with various categories of Catholicism in Guatemala: ortho-
dox, indigenous, charismatic and activist whereas there are more than three hundred evangel-
ical groups classified as evangelical, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal (Samson 2007, 17).
12 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

gious categories (ideal types) coexist within the surgent secularism in postcolo-
nial America:

1. Indigenous religions
2. SIL was founded
3. Influence from African religions
4. Catholicism
5. Protestantism (various denominations including Pentecostalism)

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church, indigenous re-
ligions, and secularism have been challenged by Protestant missionaries—in par-
ticular from the United States. This new mission employs grammars, dictionar-
ies, literacy campaigns, and translations of the New Testament in order to
convert believers of Catholicism or indigenous religions as well as nonbelievers.
Missionary activities confront not only local traditions and indigenous religions
and identities but also the ideological and political hegemony of the Catholic
Church. Evangelical Christian mission, then, effectively challenges the social, po-
litical, and ideological authority of the Catholic Church and indigenous religions.
In many aspects, contemporary postcolonial Protestant evangelism resembles
Catholic colonial mission. But little research has been dedicated to explicating
Protestant missionary linguist translations of scripture specifically. Let us now
turn to a brief presentation of the most active of the US Protestant organizations
responsible for scriptural translation, grammars, and dictionaries in a variety of
indigenous languages.

SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators

There are in particular two international Christian missionary linguistic organi-

zations, which translate scripture into indigenous languages: Ethnos360, estab-
lished in 1942 as New Tribes Mission (NTM), with its headquarters in Sanford,
Florida,¹³ and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which is today known as
SIL¹⁴ or Wycliffe Bible Translators (henceforth WBT) and centered in Dallas,
Texas, and Orlando, Florida. In cooperation with Liga Bíblica de México and
United Bible Societies, the North American Evangelical institutions SIL and

 https://ethnos360.org
 The designation SIL derives from the first Summer Institute of Linguistics in 1934 in Arkansas
(Olson 2009, 646n2).
 SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators 13

WBT¹⁵ have produced the most grammars, dictionaries, literacy campaigns, and
translations of the New Testament (to a lesser degree the Old Testament) into in-
digenous languages (cf. Hvalkof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982).¹⁶ A majority of the
missionary linguists of SIL are members of the partner organization WBT,
which raises funds and recruits people for SIL (Olson 2009, 650).
SIL¹⁷ was founded in 1934 and WBT ¹⁸ in 1942 by William Cameron Townsend
(1896 – 1982). It is today one of the largest evangelical missionary and scientific
enterprises in the world, offering medical assistance, education (literacy), lin-
guistic research, community development, and social aid (Epps and Ladley
2009).¹⁹ SIL has a staff of about 5,500 missionaries from more than sixty coun-
tries. SIL International educates two to three hundred linguists every year (Svel-
moe 2009, 629), and about 950 of the missionary linguists at SIL have advanced
degrees.²⁰ Its linguistic venture exceeds 2,550 languages spoken by more than 1.7
billion people from almost 100 countries.²¹ The organization’s genuine objective
is, however, to bring the Evangelical word to Bible-less people worldwide (Hval-
kof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982), and it recently completed its five-hundredth
translation of the New Testament (Svelmoe 2009, 635). In 1936, General Lázaro
Cárdenas, then president of Mexico, invited SIL to operate in Mexico as the In-

 WBT and SIL, serve, respectively, to represent mission for Conservative North Americans and
to present an image of disinterested scholarship to Latin American authorities (Stoll 1990, 17).
 For information about associated organizations cf. https://www.wycliffe.org/about/asso
ciated-organizations.
 “SIL International,” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/.
 “Wycliffe”, https://www.wycliffe.org.
 According to the organization’s website, translation in SIL focuses not only on scriptures but
on “research and development in translation theory and practice; academic training programs
related to translation; consultant and technical support for producing quality translations of
texts; building capacity within ethnolinguistic minority communities to be able to translate
the materials of particular interest to them. Materials that SIL helps to translate include
books and booklets for educational programs; stories related to culture and folklore, health
and community development resources and Scripture texts. SIL facilitates the translation of
scripture in contexts where such activity is within the scope of SIL’s working agreements and
where translation of Scripture texts has been identified as a needed resource for spiritual devel-
opment. The translation goals for each language are decided in close interaction with commun-
ities and partner agencies, thus Scripture translation is not always included in SIL’s language
development services” (“SIL International,” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/). For overview
of the operation of SIL field training programs with the purpose to give practical assistance in
local communities (cf. Kietzman 1977).
 For an outline of procedures, goals, cooperation and team roles in making the translation,
see the SIL webpage http://www.sil.org/translation/bibletrans.htm.
 There are about seven thousand languages spoken today, according to SIL reference work
called Ethnologue: Languages of the World (http://www.ethnologue.com/).
14 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

stituto Lingüístico de Verano (ILV). From the 1940s, Kenneth L. Pike (1912–
2000), the translator of the first Mixtec New Testament, became head of the de-
velopment of the linguistic mission. As of 2017, SIL had translated 146 New Testa-
ments (including a few Bibles) into the indigenous languages of Mexico.²²
SIL and WBT are interdenominational but their mandatory statement of doc-
trine ensures that they recruit from the conservative side of US Protestantism
(Hvalkof and Aaby 1981, 11; Stoll 1982, 237; Smalley 1991, 167). In addition to
the combat against Catholicism,²³ SIL and WBT have traditionally been suspi-
cious of Pentecostal charismata like visions, prophecy, faith healing, baptizing
in the Spirit and speaking in tongues either as glossolalia or as xenoglossi
(Stoll 1982, 269).²⁴ Like the founder, Townsend, the missionaries of SIL and
WBT emerged from a conservative Evangelical environment in the Midwest
and the South. SIL missionary linguists operating in the field are predominantly
Caucasian North Americans collaborating with selected (e. g. sometimes convert-
ed) indigenous informants and assistants (Hartch 2006, xiiii–xvii).
WBT and consequently SIL can be categorized as Evangelical Christian al-
though the SIL missionary linguist Kenneth S. Olson maintains that a minority
of his organization are fundamentalists (Olson 2009, 647; cf. also McCleary foot-
note 2, 2017). It is not pertinent for this analyzis to elaborate the concept of fun-
damentalism simply because SIL do not have a literal translation strategy (vid
infra chapter about ‘dynamic equivalence’), but it is apposite to the emblematic
definition of US Christian fundamentalism which encompasses evangelism and
expectation of the second coming of Christ, and the Bible as an absolute scrip-
tural (inerrant) authority (Ammerman 1991; Carpenter 1997, 6, 9 – 10; Hartch
2006, xiii-xiv). Certainly, WBT and SIL accentuate several of these theological fea-
tures as essential (vid infra concerning the concept of conversion). In the follow-
ing chapters it will, however, be established that SIL do not practice fundamen-
talism linguistically i. e. a verbatim Bible translation is not the method
employed.
Historians and (linguist) anthropologists (of religions/Christianity) has
mainly conducted studies on the enterprise and activites of SIL and WBT (Hval-

 “New Testaments in Mexican Languages,” Summer Institute of Linguistics, http://www.sil.

org/mexico/ilv/iNT.htm?Language=All.
 Townsend countering what he called “Christo-paganism” (i. e., indigenous “folk Catholi-
cism”): “Catholic witchery,” indigenous Catholic costumbre (customs associated with fiestas, co-
fradías, so-called “shamanism,” and rotation of civil-religious offices).
 There are, however, cases where members of SIL cooperate with missionaries of the Roman
Catholic Church, as for instance reported by the SIL missionary linguist Mildred L. Larson
(Smalley 1991, 167– 68).
 Protestant theology of SIL and WBT and indigenous philosophies/religions 15

kof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982; Colby 1995; Hartch 2006; Aldridge 2012). This is
the case despite the fact that there are quite a few of translated SIL scriptures,
and they often represent the only printed records of numerous indigenous and
minority languages. There is accordingly no systematic research, employing a
linguistic methodology, for a history-of-ideas and epistemologies explication of
translated missionary linguistic scripture and its impact upon religions, languag-
es, sociopolitical institutions, and cultures of American indigenous peoples. In
addition to taking into account the theological principles of SIL and WBT, it is
essential to examine the related intended cultural transformative effects of the
Bible translations upon the indigenous cognitive (religion and philosophy)
and linguistic system. The book’s unprecedented linguistic comparative histo-
ry-of-ideas and epistemology methodology complements a historical and so-
cial-scientific study of the phenomenon of US Evangelical mission.

Protestant theology of SIL and WBT and

indigenous philosophies/religions
Many contemporary indigenous peoples of Latin America religiously identify as
Catholic, although their brand of it is quite different from the Euro-Catholicism
of the majority mestizo population. Since the colonial period, Indigenous peo-
ples have incorporated Christian elements of Catholicism into their religious sys-
tems. From the encounter in the colonial period many did not conceive Christi-
anty and traditional religions as ‘mutually exclusive alternatives’ (Cervantes
1994: 46 – 73). Today this religious thinking and practices divergences with not
only (also by Catholics) but in particular the theology and evangelization of
Prostestant missionaries who regard such a conception as “idolatry”.
The present explication of the politics of translating scripture into indige-
nous languages rests upon three propositions, or premises.
The first premise is that it is the Protestant theology of SIL and WBT that the
missionary linguists endeavor to convey through their translations of the New
Testament. “The Wycliffe Statement of Doctrine,” which I examine in more detail
below, constitutes the presupposition of this analysis. It is my aim to exhibit how
SIL and WBT theologies, manifested through their scriptural translations, con-
flict with indigenous religions, philosophies, and practices. When I use the cat-
egories Christian or Protestant, I principally refer to SIL and WBT. But the theol-
ogy promoted by SIL and WBT Bible exegesis is not perfectly representative of
Christianity or Protestantism as a whole. Christianity is not homogeneous or a
universal entity but is mediated by various cultures and languages on different
continents throughout history. There is accordingly no exclusive New Testament
16 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

theology but a pluralism of theologies. Many Christian denominations, however,

emphasize concepts of conversion similar to those of SIL and WBT. For instance,
individual salvation by Christ was a widespread doctrine in Catholic colonial
Nahua literature and illustrations. Pedro Borges has observed that the Catholic
colonial missionaries’ most common argument for conversion was the concept
of salvation (Burkhart 1989, 47, 89), and these are important religious principles
in the Catholic Church according to the Catholic priests I spoke with in indige-
nous villages in the Mixteca Alta and northern Puebla.
The second proposition of this investigation is that the translated Mixtec and
Nahua New Testaments can act as case studies for a structural model that dis-
plays an indigenous religious philosophy fundamentally different from Europe-
an-American Christian theology. While there are indeed many dissimilar indige-
nous religious philosophies, US Protestant translational encroachment creates a
radical dichotomy of two cognitive systems, inviting linguistic and philosophical
disorder. Indigenous languages, reflective of indigenous philosophies, do not en-
compass European-Christian theological concepts. But this incommensurability
can be overcome because languages, as social constructions, can be adapted and
manipulated. Herein lies the linguistic forcefulness of missionary translations of
scripture upon indigenous languages and philosophies, and it leads not just to a
relationship of influence but also to European-Christian doctrine acting as a cul-
tural absolute.
The third premise is that indigenous philosophies and religions, as repre-
sented by Mixtec and Nahua, can only be superficially deliberated. To do proper
justice to these sophisticated cultures would take to much space when my aim is
to elucidate how these (and other indigenous) philosophies bascially differ from
the Protestant theology of SIL and WBT. There is not one Indigenous American
religion or philosophy, but instead many religions and philosophies. But, as
we shall see, there are principal ideological differences between these and Chris-
tianity. The chapter headings intimate core and key concepts of the theology of
the missionary linguists rather than of indigenous religions and philosophies.
While the SIL and WBT theological vocabulary adopted for translation of New
Testament concepts is not compatible with the religious domain of indigenous
languages, some justice is done by briefly outlining the beliefs, symbols, and
practices of selected indigenous religious systems.
 Comparative analyzis of two languages and religious systems in Mexico 17

Comparative analyzis of two languages and

religious systems in Mexico
SIL and WBT operate in various national, linguistic, political, religious, and cul-
tural contexts (cf. Hvalkof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982; Colby 1995) ,²⁵ where they
conduct missions toward two categories of cultural groups:

1. Isolated cultures with little or no contact with Western culture and Christian-
ity that have no literacy or written historical sources in existence.
2. Cultures in villages or reservations with long contact with Western culture
and Christianity that do have literacy and written historical sources²⁶.

I have chosen to restrict the analysis to cultures of Central Mexico’s Mixtec and
Nahua, which both belong to the second category.Because they do have literacy
and written sources, Mixtec and Nahua constitute excellent representative cases
in how translated scriptures challenge the religions, languages, traditions, and
sociopolitical institutions of indigenous peoples.
Explicating a single translated New Testaments within its religious and lin-
guistic context does not suffice, since a comparative investigation, the chosen
methodology, allows for some triangulation of the subject. On the other hand,
a study of too many translations is not desirable since it does would allow for
in-depth analysis. I have therefore decided to concentrate the research on the fol-
lowing two representative translated scriptures: the Nahuatl New Testament of
northern Puebla, Mexico (1979), and the Mixtec New Testament of Mixteca
Alta (1988). Mixtec and Nahua have retained many pre-Hispanic and pre-Chris-
tian religious beliefs, stories, sacred rhetoric, symbols, deities, ritual practices
(costumbres),²⁷ and sociopolitical and religious institutions about which there
is extensive historical and contemporary written linguistic and cultural materi-
al—this is not always the case with indigenous cultures. The analyzed New Testa-
ments were selected among several others because these modern-language var-
iants demonstrate continuity to the documented sources from the early colonial
period. I have accordingly examined diachronically and synchronically the

 “A Brief History of the SIL International,” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/sil/history.

htm, and “What Is SIL International?” http://www.sil.org/sil/.
 Indigenous peoples were forced into so-called “Indian zones” or settlements after Spanish
model (Sp. reducciones) in Latin America and reservations in North America.
 The religions of the indigenous peoples are known in many places as costumbres because of
their emphasis upon practice and traditions (Navarrete Linares 2008, 87).
18 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

meaning of translated concepts in the New Testament of the pre-Christian/pre-

Hispanic, colonial, and postcolonial periods.
Nahua (which means “intelligible,” “clear,” “audible”) refers to indigenous
people of Middle America speaking one of the related dialects of Nahuatl. Na-
huatl is an Uto-Aztecan polysynthetic or agglunative language. Many Nahua
call their language “Mexicano” and themselves “Mexicano” or “Mexicanero”
(meaning both a citizen of Mexico and a descendant of the Aztecs) and masehua-
li, “countryman” or “farmer” (Sandstrom 2010, 22). Northern Puebla Nahuatl is
intimately related to classical Nahuatl.²⁸ The language of the Aztec empire,²⁹ Na-
huatl was a lingua franca in the postclassic and early colonial periods in Meso-
america.³⁰ Because the Aztec empire had dominated a great part of Mesoamerica
before the Spaniards arrived at the beginning of the sixteenth century³¹, numer-
ous written recordings outline Nahua culture in central Mexico. Spanish civil and
religious officials used Nahuatl as an administrative language in the early colo-
nial period (Karttunen and Lockhart 1977; Hill and Hill 1986; Lockhart 1992).³²
About two million people of northern and central Mexico are Nahua, which is
more than any other family of indigenous languages in contemporary Mexico.
In addition, quite a few Nahua reside in the United States and Mexico City as mi-
grant workers (Sandstrom 2010, 23). The SIL New Testament analyzed in this
book was made in Tlaxpanaloya in Naupan, a commune in Huauchinango, Pue-

 “Classical Nahuatl” refers to the colonial Nahuatl dialect that is generally used in documents
from Central Mexico.
 The term Aztec derives from aztecatl, “person from Aztlán.” Aztlán, which can be para-
phrased as “the white place” or “the place of the herons” in Nahuatl, was the designation for
their mystic place of origin. The name Mexica was given to the Aztecs by their patron deity, Huit-
zilopochtli, during their migration from Aztlán. The Aztecs, or Mexica, were originally a Nahuatl-
speaking nomadic tribe. They founded the city of Tenochtitlan, today’s Mexico City, which be-
came the capital of their short-lived nation in the northern and central part of Mexico from
1345AD to 1521.
 Mesoamerica has been defined as a cultural-geographical region incorporating the north-
western, central, and southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and the western part of Honduras
and El Salvador. In this area, peoples like the Maya, Aztec, Olmec, Zapotec, Toltec, Tlapanec,
Teotihuacano, Tarascos, Otomí, Mixtec etc. lived in sophisticated urban civilizations c.
1000BC – 1521AD. (Kirchhoff 1943; Carrasco 2001, ix; xiii).
 The Spanish invaded the cultural geographic region later known as Mesoamerica where a
variety of representatives of Spanish monastic orders—the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and
the Augustinians—began early to evangelize the indigenous people. The Jesuits came in 1572.
 Nahuatl speakers reside in Federal District (Mexico City, D.F.), Durango, Guerrero, Michoa-
cán, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Jalisco, Nayarit, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Sonora, Sina-
loa, and Veracruz in Mexico, in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua (Sandstrom 2010, 23).
 Comparative analyzis of two languages and religious systems in Mexico 19

bla,³³ located about sixty miles southeast of Mexico City. The language area ex-
tends from northeast of Puebla’s Xicotepec de Juárez and includes the commune
of Acaxochitlán, Hidalgo, in the northwest (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 181n4;
Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, xi). Around 125, 000 individ-
uals speak Nahuatl in highland Puebla; the majority are pastoralists or peasant
agriculturalists (Gordon 2005; Báez 2004, 19).
The Mixtecs refer to themselves and their territory (“La Mixteca,” “people of
the cloud place” in Nahuatl) as Ñuu Savi, Ñuu Sau, or Ñuu Dzavui ³⁴—“people of
the rain” or “the people belonging to the rain god.”³⁵ The Mixteca was geo-polit-
ical fragmented, consisting of chiefdoms and city-states, with different dialects
from the pre-colonial period c. 900 AD (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 5).³⁶ Today Mixtecs
mainly reside, in more than sixty villages, in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Pue-
bla and Guerrero (the Mixteca homeland) but quite a few, like as is the case with
Nahua and other indigenous peoples of Mexico, have migrated to in particular
Mexico City and the US. The Mixteca comprise three geographic zones: Mixeca
Alta, Mixeca Baja and Mixteca de la Costa. The statistical data are not quite cer-
tain but several hundred thousand people speak Mixtec (Ñuù Sàu; Dzaha Dzavui,
“language of the rain”), a Otomangue tonal language (Caballero 2008, 391– 92).³⁷
I have selected a translated New Testament from the municipal center of Santia-
go de Yosondúa in the district of southern Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca, of the Mixteca Alta.
Various pre-Hispanic costumbres—agricultural rituals—are kept in the munici-
pio’s rancherías (ranches), which consist of farmers (campesinos), whereas the
centro, or pueblo, are merchants (commerciantes). The language of Santiago
de Yosondúa has close intelligibility with the center of Mixteca Alta, Chalcatongo
de Hidalgo, where SIL has not translated a New Testament. About seven thou-
sand people speak Yosondúa Mixtec according to Farris (E. Farris 1988 – 1992,
7– 8), SIL estimated in 2010 that there are 60 monolinguals.³⁸ In the center of

 Naupan, or Nayopa can be etymolgised as the four (nahui) roads (otli) or place of (pan) (Ve-
lásquez Galindo 2006, 143).
 About the various dialects of the Mixtec language, see Josserand (1983).
 The term Mixtec derives from Nahuatl Mixtecatl, “Cloud People.”
 Cf. Pérez Jiménez (2003, 5n1).
 The Mixtec New Testament do not indicate tone, but this does not necessarily create ambi-
guity since the people themselves do this in their own writing (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 131).
 “Mixtec, Yosondúa,” Ethnologue, http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=
mpm.
20 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

Santiago de Yosondúa³⁹ there are about seventeen hundred peoples whom speak
Mixtec.⁴⁰

The source and target text (language) of the selected

New Testaments
Since the SIL missionary linguists originate from the United States and operate
among bilingual indigenous people within a largely Spanish linguistic environ-
ment, I employ English and Spanish as the semantic metalanguage (ML) and
metatext (MT). The Greek New Testament text constitutes the so-called Textus
Receptus.⁴¹ In an analysis of a translated text, it is methodologically productive
to make a categorical distinction between the source language of a translation
(SL); the source text of a translation (ST); the target language, which is the lan-
guage into which the translation is executed (TL); and the target text, the text
resulting from a language (TT; Yri 1995). Mixtec and Nahuatl constitute the target
languages and texts corresponding to Greek, Spanish, and English source lan-
guages and texts. My concern is not the Greek concepts as understood in antiq-
uity or by various later Christian denominations but the evangelically translated
theology of SIL and WBT. The Greek New Testament concepts are included be-
cause SIL translation theory claims use of the original text.
The majority of indigenous peoples in America are bilingual. It is quite re-
markable that the different SIL translators published a monolingual Nahuatl
New Testament and the Mixtec New Testament as bilingual (Mixtec and Spanish)
respectively. This suggests that there are miscellaneous linguistic policies and
translation strategies practiced by the individual SIL missionary linguists in
the field. In the linguistic analyzis, I have employed a first edition of a New Tes-
tament into Nahuatl from northern of Puebla, Mexico, which has been translated
by anonymous translator(s) with the title In Yancuic Monotzalistli ica Totecohtzin
Jesucristo. El Nuevo Testamento de nuestro Señor Jesucristo: Náhuatl del norte de

 The meaning of Ñuu Yosondúa is “village above the plain” (Sp. sobre un llano, Mixtec: yoso-
n-dua; http://www.e-local.gob.mx/wb2/ELOCAL/EMM_oaxacaetymology). For etymological dis-
cussion, see Sánchez Sánchez (2004, 65 – 66).
 “Estado de Oaxaca,” E-Local, http://www.e-local.gob.mx/wb2/ELOCAL/EMM_oaxaca
 I have used the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament (2005) in combi-
nation with James Strong’s concordance, which contains Textus Receptus. If not indicated, the
quoted passages from the New Testament derive from the New Revised Standard Version.
 The source and target text (language) of the selected New Testaments 21

Puebla. ⁴² The translator has actually added linguistic information, which in-
cludes phonological information about the letters of the (SIL) Nahuatl alphabet
and their pronunciation. Despite the fact that the translated New Testament is
not bilingual (with no parallel text in Spanish, Greek, or English), the readers
are presumably Spanish speaking since the translator reassures the audience
that the majority of letters are pronounced in Spanish. The few exceptions are
explained with examples compared to Spanish phonology. In addition, the
table of contents of the various books of the New Testament is in Spanish
with the exception of the book of Acts (In Tlachiuten) and Revelation (In Tlanex-
tilistli). Every book in the translation is introduced by an added text in Nahuatl
with Spanish loanwords. Moreover, the New Testament contains various illustra-
tions depicting scenes from Palestine (as described in the text) with comments in
Nahuatl. At the back of the volume, there are two maps, one showing Palestine
and the other designed for studying Acts and indicating the travels of Paul. The
text and place names of the maps are rendered in Spanish, which suggests that
the monolingual Nahuatl New Testament addressed bilingual Nahuatl and Span-
ish speakers.
For the Mixtec linguistic analyzis, I have employed a first edition of Nuevo
Testamento en Mixteco de Yosondúa y en Español. ⁴³ The anonymous translator
—if there was indeed only one—has added linguistic information in Spanish
about characters and tone in the Mixtec language. The prologue in Spanish is
particularly interesting because it makes some theoretical statements about
the art of translation. The source text is, according to the prologue of the trans-
lated New Testament, from the Greek-printed Textus Receptus (1516), used by Ca-
siodoro Reina y Cipriano de Valera for translation into Spanish in 1559. The re-
signed friar Ciprano de Valera revised and re-edited the earlier translation of
the Bible into Spanish (1569) by the ex-monk and protestant convert Casidoro
de Reina. The Reina-Valera Spanish version of the Bibel (Biblia del oso) was pub-
lished in 1602. Since then, several revisions and re-editions have taken place. It
is the Latin American ‘offical’ version most widely used Bible by Evangelicals in
America in this regard comparative to the King James Version in English. For
Catholics The Bible for Latin America or Latin American Bible, pastoral version
(the first edition in 1972 with later revisions and re-editions) has been the most
influential on the continent. It does not follow conventional canonical direction

 A SIL publication published by Liga Biblica Mundial del Hogar, Las Sagradas Escrituras Para
Todos: La Biblioteca Mexicana del Hogar, 1979 (A.C. Hidalgo 166, Mexico City).
 The New Testament is published by the Liga Biblica Mundial del Hogar: Las Sagradas Escri-
turas Para Todos: La Biblioteca Mexicana del Hogar 1988 (Mexico City), which constitutes an SIL
publication.
22 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

and contain explicatory footnotes according to Catholic doctrine (Míguez and

Bruno 2015, 432 447; 452; Bruno and Míguez 2016; 836). Valera’s translation is in-
cluded as the parallel text in Spanish beside the Mixtec translation. As is the
case with the Nahuatl New Testament, the readers are supposed to be familiar
with Spanish. The table of contents of the books is in Spanish. Every book in
the translation is introduced by an added text in Mixtec with Spanish loanwords.
The New Testament contains several color and grayscale illustrations depicting
scenes from Palestine with comments in Mixtec. There are several maps: an over-
view of the world of the New Testament, Jerusalem and its surroundings, Pales-
tine at the time of Jesus Christ, and the missionary journeys of Paul. The text and
place names of the maps are only rendered in Spanish. The SIL multilingual lit-
eracy stratagem betrays that both these translated New Testaments assume a
majority-bilingual audience but do not exclude monolinguals.

Theoretical methodology: Analyzing interrelated theological

concepts of translation

This book differs radically from previous studies in fundamental respects. For in-
stance, the “evenemential translation” method of Courtney Handman (Handman
2015: 211– 214) and quite a few (linguist) anthropologists of (religion/Christiani-
ty), which in reality refers to traditional field work on the processes of transfor-
mations of local ritual and symbolic receptions of religion (Christianity), is not
effective in recognizing the principal differences between the missionary (lin-
guist) and the cognitive system of the target culture. Consequently, this approach
cannot explicate conversion (cf. discussion about this concept below), although
valuable in a parochial context, only display the various constantly changing ex-
periences of local rejections, receptions and appropriations. Explaining conver-
sion is only possible through the study of meaning of translated core and key
concepts, which represent fundamental terminology of incommensurable cogn-
tive and practice systems. The existing analysis accordingly is not concerned
with appropriations (adoptions), commensurability or analogies between indig-
enous American religions and Christianity, of which there are quite a few, but
instead generates a binary or dyadic theoretical model. Only by such a method
can linguistic-religious conversion be rationalized.
I focus upon contemporary translations of the postcolonial period but make
historical comparisons (analogies and disagreements) with translations under-
taken not long after the European (colonial) conquest. I argue that a methodol-
ogy of comparative (history of) ideas and epistemologies, which has a nonde-
nominational and nonnormative approach, is most effective in analyzing the
 Analyzing interrelated theological concepts in translation 23

semantics and the politics of missionary translations of scriptures—that is, how

language may function as conquest and as violation of indigenous linguistic and
philosophical systems. I construct a methodological model that can be employed
in analyzing Christian missionary translations of scripture (but incidentally also
other ideological and philosophical systems) into indigenous languages of the
Americas. Although there is great local variation among different indigenous
American cultures, religions and languages, this analysis builds upon the prem-
ise that there is a fundamental philosophical and accordingly linguistic differ-
ence between Christiantiy and indigenous religions. This proposition is based
upon a radical dichotomy of soteriological and missionary (Christian) religions,
on the one hand, and nonsoteriological and nonmissionary (indigenous) reli-
gions, on the other. Acknowledging this basic philosophical and linguistic divide
is indispensable for explicating how scriptural concepts and correspondingly
ideas, symbols and practices are converted into indigenous languages in service
of conversion.
Time, space, culture, literary style, rhetoric, linguistic structure, and reli-
gious exegesis represent fundamental problems in theological translations (Kro-
neman 2004, 397– 98). Among their various methodologies for analyzing a trans-
lation, linguistics scholars would, for example, look at the transference of the
grammatical form and structure of the language; those in the discipline of com-
parative literature might examine the use of a particular literary genre, style and
form; and rhetorical scholars might be concerned with the application of a cer-
tain narrative discourse.⁴⁴ For instance, in a comparative linguistic study of the
encounter between language practices and worldview or “forms of conscious-
ness” of Athabaskans in Alaska and northern Canada with Anglo-Canadian
and Anglo-American society, Ron and Suzanne. B.K. Scollon argues that partic-
ular discourse patterns, oral or written interaction (e. g. literacy), replicate values
and knowledge of a particular culture. Discourse patterns, i. e. how special lan-
guage behaviours are applied for communication, define and express collective
and individual identity. The transformation of these linguistic patterns entails
transformation of character of the cognitive system of a culture (Scollon and
Scollon 1981).

 Markowitz (1996) points out that besides the problem of linguistic plurality by a different
syntax and lexicon, metaphors and narrative represent a difficulty for the translator. Literal
translations of these cultural forms are meaningless to people of other traditions. For instance,
a verbatim translation of “Lamb of God” would not make any sense to people who do not have
any theological or cultural references to the significance of the concept “lamb” outside of a pas-
toral way of life. Instead, many Bible translators employ parallels within the religions of the peo-
ple (68).
24 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

…., the discourse system a speaker uses is learned very early in life….; probably much of it
is learned before the child speaks any words. This system is learned through a long and
highly involved process of socialization and communication with caregivers. It is uncon-
scious and affects all communication in language. This discourse system is closely tied
to an individual’s concept of identity. Any change in the discourse system is likely to be
felt as a change in personality and culture (Scollon and Scollon 1981, 12).

Transformation of grammar, literary forms, rhetoric and discourse only repre-

sent, however, a conversion of the form or structure of language not its content
i. e. meaning of a culture. One of the principal objectives of the book is to exhibit
that a systematic analysis of translation between two conceptional systems ex-
pressed in different languages reflects differences beween cognitive systems.
Ideas and knowledge are interpreted and understood through the vocabulary
of language where relevant core and key concepts plays a significant role. Ac-
cordingly, I maintain that these methods cannot illuminate how a cognitive
and epistemological system—a political ideology, philosophy, scientific theory,
or religious system—is intentionally transferred.
A structure or system of meaning and knowledge encompass an established
nomenclature where there is a certain technical implementation. Equivalent to
other idea and epistemological apparatus, a religion consists of interrelated ter-
minus technicus or core and key concepts.⁴⁵ In this way it is similar to a political
ideology, philosophical system, or scientific discipline etc. The challenge for the
scholar is to categorize the terminology of central (core and key) concepts (com-
ponents) of the cognitive (ideological and epistemological) corpus, which makes
it exceptional. This is crucial in order to understand missionary linguists endeav-
or and predicament of conversion through translation of scripture into the lan-
guage of the target culture. Mildred Larson’s Meaning based translation: A
guide to cross-language equivalence (1998) – which is introductory textbook of
SIL translation method, procedure and principles – emphasize the importance
of (core and) key words:

Almost any text which might wish to translate will have some key words. Key words are words
which are used over and over in the text and are crucial to the theme or topic … The translator
must identify the key word and as much as possible use a single receptor language lexical item
on each occurrence of the key word. Key words are most often words which represent an es-
sential or basic concept of the text” (Larson 1998, 195) …an adequate equivalent for a key word
will be more crucial to communication than an adequate equivalent for other words in the text.

 For instance, the concept of religion has to do with how various people in their proper lan-
guages classify and conceive (conceptionalize) of beings, places, and phenomena as belonging
to nonhuman categories set apart from the human sphere (cf. Pharo 2007).
 Analyzing interrelated theological concepts in translation 25

If the key words are not translated in such a way as to communicate the meaning clearly, the
point of the whole text may be lost” (Larson 1998, 196).

European-Christian and indigenous religions are to be conceived as integrated

systems of ideas, knowledge and (symbolic) practices. Essential philosophical
differences expressed through translated concepts should accordingly be ac-
knowledged in order to, in a comparative manner, explicate the essential fea-
tures of a missionary linguistic translation.
A translation requires a language analysis of morphology and grammar:
every morpheme has to be examined in order to test first the translatability of
the lexemes and then the syntax. Grammar, phonology, morphology, and syntax
may create particular difficulties for the nonnative translator, where in many
cases the source language belongs to a language family different than the target
language. Townsend advocate a pivotal importance of grammar in the transla-
tion of scripture:

You must be able to analyze these languages, master them, and make them bear God’s mes-
sage in an accurate way. Why, if you use the wrong verb form, the Indians say “Why, what is
wrong with God? He can’t talk our language right. He blunders” (Townsend 1960) “ (Epps
and Ladley 2009, 641, note 5).

Foreign translators have made scores of grammatical errors because they do not
know the target languages well enough, which indeed has grave semantic impli-
cations. For instance, in translating the Bible into eastern Otomí (hñähü) of cen-
tral Mexico, the SIL missionary linguists did not consider the distinction between
exclusive and inclusive person forms. Unaware of this, the missionary linguists
translated a prayer as “God please forgive us [including God] because we [includ-
ing God] are all sinners” (Hartch 2006, 112). Some involuntarily humorous exam-
ples involve sexual connotations: missionary linguistic translations into early
colonial Yucatec rendered the “body of Christ” as ucucutil cristo, equating the
host with the savior’s membrum virile. In the Ave Maria, “the Lord is with
thee” was translated as Yumbil yan auokol, or “the Father is on top of you”
(Hanks 2010, 89 – 90). Depending the target language in question, there can be
many variants of grammatical and discursive miscommunication. A grammatical
analysis of similar errors or a discourse analysis would not be especially interest-
ing because neither take into account the radically different semantics of the
translated key or core concepts (religious, philosopical, scientific, or political)
that exist because of dissimilar cognitive systems. Simply stated, these errors
are not made if the missionary linguists are properly trained in their target lan-
guages and have competent indigenous linguistic assistants and informants.
26 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

The linguist and former SIL Bible translator of scripture into Ethiopan lan-
guages, Kjell Magne Yri claims that no particular religious syntax, morphology,
or phonology exists: there are only religious concepts (Yri 1995: 18),⁴⁶ and accord-
ingly there is no grammar or phonology of religious (Christian) conversion.⁴⁷
Phonological or grammatical analyzes of differences in orthography, dialectal
forms, inconsistency in lexical choices (codeswitching),⁴⁸ literary narrative
style,⁴⁹ genre or discourse structure are not useful strategies here;⁵⁰ rather it is
only productive to determine how ideas, knowledge and symbol systems, as
manifested through concepts, conflict through translations. Grammatical analy-
sis can, however, have religious or theological significance regarding the narra-
tive structure. In Nahuatl the preterite may be preceded by the augment o –,
which signifies that a completed action or event has later consequence particu-
larily when uttered. In fact “that this event can be spoken of can ultimately be
considered a consequence of it”. Preterite without augment o – refer to myth
or historical narrative whereas the augment o – is used in conversation (Launey
1992, 75 – 76). The SIL Nahuatl New Testament consistently apply the augment o
–, which may suggest a theological concern to emphazise authenticity and rele-
vance of the recounted incidents, originally outlined in an foreign language, that
took place in a distant region a long time ago. In this manner the missionary lin-
guist translator wanted to make it indubitable for the receptor that the related
proceedings not represent mythology or just history but have a present and fu-

 For analysis of missionary linguistic morphological problems in translating theological con-

cepts into Quechua, see Durston (2007).
 William A. Graham notes that translated scripture might impart a novel and major model for
the grammar. It creates scriptural vocabulary and (literary) rhetoric of a language. Previous ex-
amples are the Qur’ān for Arabic, the “Classics” for Chinese, the Authorized (“King James) trans-
lation of the Bible into English and the Lutherbibel for German (Graham 2005, 8203).
 For instance, Kerry Hull has noted quite a few examples of the translated SIL Maya Ch’orti’-
New Testament (Lubeck 1996) employing equivalent words from Ch’orti’ and Spanish (Hull 2006,
2).
 Hull give an example of how the Ch’orti’ quotative particle (che) are applied in the translated
New Testament even they do not exist in the English and Spanish translations (Hull 2006, 5).
 Apart from grammar, morphology, and phonology, translations studies investigates uses of
phrases, of synonyms or equivalences, polysemy, metaphors, metonymy, descriptions, compar-
isons, the invention of neologisms, change of meaning of a word either synchronically or dia-
chronically, symbolic language, simile, parable, loanwords, loan translation or calques, synec-
doche, hyponymi, homonymi, hyberbole, idiom, conceptual domain, connotations, denotations,
reference to related words, and hypercorrections (cf. Fawcett 1997; Larson 1998). Nevertheless,
the key and core concepts’ religious content or lack thereof and their context in the entries
are the central focus of this research. Only this semantic method can identify the implicit strat-
egies that missionary linguists employ in order to convert indigenous individuals.
 Analyzing interrelated theological concepts in translation 27

ture importance. The primary challenge not only of missionary scriptural trans-
lation but also of translating political, philosophical, and scientific knowledge
systems consists in cognitive transference from one cultural-linguistic, political,
and scientific framework to another, unrelated one. Nevertheless, since essential
interrelated concepts comprise an ideological or philosophical system a system-
atic analyzis of how these are translated constitute the furthermost productive
method in order to detect semantic transfer and incommensurability.
The much debated Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic determinism—“the
linguistic relativity principle”, that habitual thought is determined by the (gram-
matical) structural and semantic qualities of a specific language (Whorf 1956; cf.:
Lucy 1992; Levinson 2003; Hill and Mannheim 1992; Leavitt 2010; Enfield and
Levinson 2006; Enfield and Sidnell 2012; Hanks and Sevari 2014)—is not the sub-
ject of the present analyzis, which explicate missionary linguistics or any ideo-
logical transference through language. The former SIL missionary linguist, Dan-
iel L. Everett argument against Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity or
determinism as well as C.F. Hockett’s design features of human language and
Noam Chomsky’s proposed universal grammar (Everett 2005, 621; 623; 633) ex-
hibits that it is not productive for analyzing differences between cultural-linguis-
tic systems. Everett’s analyzis of the grammatical system of the Pirahã of the Am-
azon (Brazil) in South America (Everett 2005) ⁵¹ has indirect implications for the
methodology of translation studies.
The case of Pirahã grammar demonstrates that there is “no autonomous, bi-
ologically determined module of language…grammatical differences derive from
cultural values” (Everett 2005, 634). Everett argues that is is culture that has a
determining impact upon cognition and grammar of a language: “If culture is
causally implicated in grammatical forms, then one must learn ones culture to
learn ones grammar….”(Everett 2005, 633). Everett’s linguistic theory of the rela-
tion of culture, cognition and grammar corroborates my conceptional methodol-
ogy in the study of translation of ideas and epistemology. This signifies that con-

 ‘Pirahã culture constrains communication to nonabstract subjects which fall within the im-
mediate experience of interlocutors. This constraint explains a number of very surprising fea-
tures of Pirahã grammar and culture: the absence of numbers of any kind or a concept of count-
ing and of any terms for quantification, the absence of color terms, the absence of embedding,
the simplest pronoun inventory known, the absence of relative tenses, the simplest kinship sys-
tem yet documented, the absence of creation myths and fiction, the absence of any individual or
collective memory of more than two generations past, the absence of drawing or other art and
one of the simplest material cultures documented, and the fact that the Pirahã are monolingual
after more than 200 years of regular contact with Brazilians and the Tupi-Guarani-speaking Ka-
wahiv’ (Everett 2005, 621).
28 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

cepts, ideas and knowledge communicated in a certain language are determined

by culture and the encounter between different cultures. It is the ideological in-
fluence from an outside (source) religious and philosophical system, not abstract
thought (cognitive) of objects in the world, that affects the target language and
culture through translation. A language system—concepts, passages and dis-
course—accordingly reflects ideology (philosophy) and practice. Missionary lin-
guists’ translations demonstrate this clearly since a change in ideological, phil-
osophical, ritual, and symbol system is their aim. Every cognitive ideological and
philosophical system or theory—political, social, economic, scientific, or reli-
gious—incorporates particular core and key concepts that are interrelated. Reli-
gion, political ideology, philosophy, and science constitute specific epistemolog-
ical systems where scholars, whom it is required to possess expertise of, can
analyze processes of linguistic exchange – as is translation.
Let us look at an illustrating argument for a contextual-linguistic method as
superior to a purely linguistic (structural) analytical approach explicating trans-
lation of scripture. Missionaries not only translate (control) scriptures (written
texts) into a Christian theological framework. They also manipulate (adapt) rit-
uals or ceremonies (performances) of the target culture with the purpose to
make them suitable to Christian doctrine. This happened, for instance, with
the Sun Dance among the Sioux in the Dakotas during the 1870s. This important
ritual was transformed (translated) into “the annual convocation of the missions
on each reservation” (Deloria 1988, 107) in order to convert the people to Chris-
tianity.
A ‘concept’ (Latin conceptum ‘something conceived’) represents an (abstract)
idea or a general notion and accordingly knowledge expressed by a specific lan-
guage. Concepts constitute, moreover, an interrelated hierarchical set or catego-
ries of an ideological, philosophical or epistemological system. I advocate a the-
oretical methodology of systematically analyzing scriptural translation of
interrelated religious concepts of conversion, that is, (biblical) core and key
words (Kroneman 2004). The term interrelated concepts is fundamental when
it comes to defining and interpreting concepts. A fascinating anecdote told by
the Oglala Lakota scholar Vine Deloria illustrates this argument. He relates
that a missionary once inquired of a Navajo what the word for faithwas in his
language. He received the wanted term but was not satisfied and asked again
what the concept really signified. “‘Faith,’ said the Navajo smiling” (Deloria
1988, 116 – 17). There is no reason to distrust the translation of “faith” by the Nav-
ajo, but it is essential to understand that the word for faith was connected to
other central concepts of the Navajo religious system and therefore does not
have the same meaning as it does in Christian theology, which consists of entire-
ly different interconnected primary concepts.
 Analyzing interrelated theological concepts in translation 29

In his extensive historical and comparative study of the English verb believe,
Rodney Needham argues that meaning cannot be determined in any universal
way because of the cultural-linguistic relativity of concepts (Needham 1972,
224).⁵² This is exactly the principal theoretical case I want to make. Notions can-
not be understood in isolation or by studying (static) etymology but must always
be analyzed in proper (dynamic) context where they are practiced. The cultural-
linguistic context determines the meaning of a word; there is no innate seman-
tics that identifies religious—Christian, non-Christian or religiously neutral—and
nonreligious meaning corresponding to ideology and practice. The meaning of a
word is its use or practice in a language (Wittgenstein [1953] 1967, 20). Concepts
are therefore to be executed not in isolation but in context and as practices re-
lated to the ideological and epistemological system. This constitutes the method-
ology of a system of interrelation, or interconnected concepts, because a concept
can only be understood in its interaction with other concepts within a given cog-
nitive system. A core term occupies the center of the Grundbegriffe, or basic con-
cepts of a cognitive system (semantic field). In his analysis of Quechua mathe-
matics, the Andeanist Gary Urton exemplifies this with the verb to add, which,
as a core term, encompasses the key concepts “augment,” “increase,” “extend,”
“unite,” and so forth, where each moderately interconnects with add (Urton 1997,
143 – 44). In much the same way, the key Christian concept of sin cannot be com-
prehended without related theological concepts. In Christian theology salvation
is related to sin in thought and action but this is not the case in indigenous
moral philosophies. For instance, in Andean morality, there is condemnation
of practice of crimes like adultery, theft, murder and violations against social
rules, but there is no ethical concept of intended sin (Harrison 2014, 101; 123)
or ethics of conviction, which either leads to salvation or perdition. There are
words for individual shame, guilt, remorse etc. as well as linguistic dichotomies
for sickness/health, debt/repayment, pollution/purity, order/disorder etc. in
American Indigenous languages but they have a different meaning than in Chris-
tian missionary-soteriological systems – e. g. do not have semantic connotations
with Christian theology – and are therefore incommensurable.
Given the scarcity of pre-European indigenous American texts in particular
associated with religious phenomena how do we know that there were no ideol-
ogy of mission, conversion, and salvation in America before Christian mission?
First of all, we do have in fact access to quite an extensive corpus of Classic
Maya inscriptions, which evidently do not suggest an equivalent religious sys-
tem. Moreover, extensive historical and archeological (iconographic) explica-

 Cf. also de Certeau (1985).

30 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

tions of pre-European indigenous American sites have rather found indication of

quite different religious symbolism, ideology and rituals. Furthermore, there is,
as I shall elaborate in the following, linguistic evidence in the indigenous lan-
guage systems, which lack these meanings and thereby equivalent religious
thought and practices. Finally, historical and anthropological studies of com-
munities, which despite Christian influence for hundred of years, reveal that
many peoples do not have these conceptions. I made this concrete experience
in interviews with local Catholic priests as well as with indigenous collaborators
of SIL when doing field research in Mixteca Alta and Puebla.
In the analyzis, I argue that the core terms salvation (represented by the per-
sonal savior Christ) and eternal perdition (judgment or damnation) provide sin
and other key concepts with their precise meanings. This moral dichotomy is
principal in the theology of SIL and WBT as well as quite a few other Christian
denominations. Moreover, particularly Protestant theological ideas entail an em-
phasis upon the individual human being, which is in stark opposition to indig-
enous communitarian philosophy. Herein lies the fundamental disruptive moral-
ethical, sociopolitical, cultural, and cognitive transformative effect intended by
the missionary linguists’ strategic theology of conversion via New Testament
translation.
The anthropologist Birgit Meyer (1994; 1999) has analyzed Pietistic transla-
tions (or “transduction”) of the Bible into Ewe of Ghana. “Diabolization” of
local Ewe culture through ‘translation of the devil’ is the principal Protestant
strategy towards non-Christian religions according to Meyer (1994, 64). Meyer
concentrates her investigation on combined ideas and concepts already in the
target culture i. e. evil (spirits) and witchcraft. These were distorted by missionary
linguistic translation in order to introduce the Christian Devil in the Ewe lan-
guage (cf. Meyer 1999: xxiii; 77– 78; 83 – 96). Despite that I also analyze transla-
tions of religious concepts, the methodology and accordingly objective of this
book is entirely different from Meyer. I concentrate upon giving evidence for pri-
mary incommensurability between different languages, religious-philosophical
and cultural systems. This fundamental (moral) dichotomy consists in the impo-
sition of a (Christian) missionary and soteriological culture and language on a
(indigenous) non-missionary and non-soteriological culture and language. Be-
fore the arrival of Christianity conceptions of evil or ambivalent (spirits) were al-
ready present in the belief and practices systems in the Americas. The devil and a
perception of evil are important, although they constitute (secondary) key con-
cepts in Christian theology and doctrine. The (principal) core concepts or ideol-
ogy (theology) predominant in Christianity, i. e. the interrelated concepts of sal-
vation, perdition and Christology, do not exist in indigenous cultures of America.
These incompatible core concepts constitute indeed “idealized Christianity” and
 Analyzing interrelated theological concepts in translation 31

therefore serve as a paragon in the methodology of the present comparative ex-

plication. Yri acknowledge this by concentrating his analyzis on the translation
of the religious concepts ‘salvation’ and ‘perdition’ from the Old Testament and
the New Testament into Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Old Norse, Norwegian and Sidaa-
mu Afo (Etiophian) simply because these antonyms are pivotal “in the New Tes-
tament and contemporary Christianity” (Yri 1998: 37).
I maintain in the analysis that the three primary concepts of conversion have
to do with the words sin, repentance (conversion), and salvation as related to
moral-soteriological aspects of Christology. These translated concepts and
ideas together with other selected, interconnected translated words are examined
in selected passages of the translated New Testaments. The concepts are ana-
lyzed as parts of passages, but not in the way that discourse analysis might
treat passages or longer texts (chapters)—other than demonstrating examples
of translation strategies of either direct translations or as paraphrases (circum-
locution). Passages from missionary translations of the New Testament may be
hermeneutically interpreted in relation to the indigenous languages, philso-
phies, and different Christian theological traditions. But many of these Bible pas-
sages are incomprehensible because it is difficult to communicate their meaning.
It is therefore not particularly interesting to try to render the intended sense in
translations that are clearly just reformulations of the source text.
As the translated New Testament is left to the selected members of the com-
munity, there is no SIL/WBT ecclesiastical activity or preaching. Thus, no partic-
ular passages from New Testament can be recognized as particularly significant
for conversion. The concepts of sin, repentance (conversion), salvation, and
Christ as a personal savior are, however, emphasised by SIL/WBT doctrine:

We believe all people, being created in the image of God, have intrinsic value, but as a re-
sult of sin are alienated from God and each other, and therefore in need of reconciliation. …
We believe all who repent and trust in Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Saviour are, by the
grace of God, declared to be right with Him, receiving forgiveness and eternal life.⁵³

New Bibles with different meanings appear in translations and novel varieties of
Christianity materialize when a new culture is missionized to and integrated into
this kind of Evangelicalism. Basic assumptions about the Bible are therefore cen-
tral to the skopos (Gr. “purpose”), or the function, of translations (de Vries 2007,
149).⁵⁴ SIL and WBT accentuate an understanding of “the nature of Christ” with

 “About Us,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/DoctrinalStatement/

tabid/64/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 Hans Vermeer introduced the term skopos (de Vries 2007, 149).
32 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

“the Second Coming of Christ” (eschatology) and the concepts of sin, repentance
(conversion), and salvation in their missionary theology. The antonyms salvation
and sin constitute a moral dualism of good and evil. In SIL and WBT soteriology,
which is in this respect shared among quite few other denominations, salvation
is understood as liberation of evils or sin. A redemption or deliverance of sin will
result in eternal life with God. The idea of salvation rests upon there being some
sort of unsaved sinful state by moral corruption and transgression from which
the individual (and mankind) is to be redeemed by the savior Christ.
Conversion among Pentecostals of Latin America reflects a rites de passage,
a theoretical model originally developed by Arnold van Gennep (1909) and later
elaborated by Victor Turner (1967, 1969), according to Andrew Chesnut (Chesnut
1997, 51– 52). Inspired by his model—which focuses upon physical, social, and
supernatural illness, recovery, and health maintenance—I classify the concepts
of sin, repentance, and salvation in the following three stages: sin constitutes
the preliminary stage of preconversion, repentance constitutes the liminal
stage of conversion, and salvation constitutes the postliminary stage of postcon-
version. Sin, conversion, and salvation are intimately related to the notion of
Christ as personal savior and redeemer of sins, and these concepts reflect the
Christian moral system as it is translated into another cultural and religious sys-
tem. By analyzing these interrelated essential concepts of conversion within se-
lected Bible passages, a translated theological system can be reconstructed, and
we can identify how it relates to an indigenous non-Christian moral system, with
its ideology and practices. An analyzis of these and other central translated no-
tions in their original context is valuable because the examination of the theo-
retical framework of conversion offers knowledge not only about how cultural
and religious processes and change may come about but also the fundamental
difference between indigenous religions and Christianity. These and other theo-
logical ideas are reflected in the Wycliffe Statement of Doctrine.⁵⁵

Implications for a politics of missionary scriptural translation

Translation operates not merely “as a mechanical linguistic transposition or “lit-

erary art” but also as an ideological and political activity that has moral impli-
cations. There is an “instrumentality of translation” with an “ideological agenda”
where translation is not simply an intercultural transfer but has an accultura-

 “About Us,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/DoctrinalStatement/

tabid/64/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 Implications for a politics of missionary scriptural translation 33

tive⁵⁶ function. Anisomorphism, or asymmetry of language, and the inequity of

cultures display the translation process’s relation to power, which in colonial
and postcolonial cultures is particularly asymmetrical. Ideology is central in
postcolonial cultures where translation represents the instrumental (strategic),
oppressive discourse of the dominant group according to Maria Tymoczko (Ty-
moczko 2010).
Since arriving to the Americas, missionary linguists have vehemently appro-
priated concepts from the various indigenous languages in order to manipulate
and redefine their original meaning according to a politics of translation prose-
lytism. Translation of scripture affects not only literacy and oral traditions but
also the philosophy of marginalized minorities in the (post)colonial nation-state:

One of the major problems of the Indian people is the missionary. It has been said of mis-
sionaries that when they arrived they had only the Book and we had the land; now we have
the Book and they have the land. (Deloria 1988, 101)

Translation is a question not only of linguistics but also of how language reflects
the philosophy, worldview, symbols, and (ritual) practices of a cultural-religious
system as well as society. A worldview expressed through a linguistic system is,
however, always in process of transformation. To conduct analyze of translations
of principal texts constitutes a methodology for communicative practices and
recognize power relations in the transmission and transformation of epistemol-
ogy and ideology. The producers of translations accordingly have influence upon
various vicissitudes within a community. In the framework of this study, the
major issue is who instigates this change—the majority of the people of the cul-
ture in question or outsiders (foreigners). As a forceful, outsider, minority enter-
prise, SIL translations aim to manipulate the belief, symbol, and practice system
through the language of the indigenous (target) culture. An alien force attempt-
ing to achieve cognitive power over another culture in this way constitutes a pol-
itics of translation.
One of the strongest constituents of identity for culturally marginalized mi-
norities within a nation-state is the combination of religion and language. SIL,
WBT, and their advocates strongly maintain that their making of linguistic ma-
terial and translations of New Testaments entails revitalization and a rescue of
endangered indigenous languages and cultures. But the translation of scripture
and the production of related grammars and dictionaries are really executed in
order to propagate global Christianity. In order to transpose, or rather impose, a
new belief, symbol, and practice system—that is, a political ideology or religion

 Cf. below for discussion and defintion of the concept “acculturation”.

34 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

—an introduction of a novel semantic (linguistic) system is necessary. Manipulat-

ed language provokes a change of culture (way of life) and conversion of world-
view. Lexicography is fundamental in this process because SIL produces diction-
aries and grammars that give new theological meaning to religious and
nonreligious concepts alike (semantic substitution and semantic extension)
and in addition introduces constructed, novel Christian concepts (neologisms).
Translation constitutes a communication of concepts between multiple cog-
nitive systems. We must, however, distinguish between an exchange of concepts
(ideology) inside a common cultural-geographic region where people share more
or less the same worldview and the introduction of concepts from an outside, to-
tally unrelated cognitive system. The first category represents the process of
transculturation, which is a symmetrical interexchange of concepts. There exists
no concept for religious conversion in the nonmissionary indigenous American
religious languages. In the process of religious conversion, indigenous religions
are nonmissionary inclusive religions, as opposed to the exclusive universal soter-
iological⁵⁷ missionary religion of Christianity (López Austin 2004, 126). American
indigenous religions are accustomed to borrowing and incorporating religious
concepts and practices. Missionary religions target acculturation, which in this
example implies an asymmetrical introduction of Christian concepts with the
purpose of transforming indigenous religions. Accordingly, scriptural translation
constitutes the transference of a Christian missionary-soteriological religion, the
objective of which is a fundamental conversion of the indigenous linguistic, cul-
tural, and religious system.
Within an indigenous religious framework, the New Testament narration of
Christ coming to this world as a personal savior represents a translation of a so-
teriological religion in order to replace a nonsoteriological religion. An interfaith
dialogue is not possible. The liberal Protestant and Catholic stratagem for theo-
logical inculturation—which decontextualizes Christian religion from European-
American culture—only hides the violation of indigenous religious, linguistic,
and cultural systems. Moreover, the Protestant doctrine of only one scripture
(the Bible) as a sacred authority through the theological principle of sola scrip-
tura intends to substitute the indigenous religious traditions. An approbation of
concepts of conversion of sin and repentance, combined with a theology of a per-
sonal or individual “salvation” of the soul into an eternal existence postmortem
through Christ entails huge consequences in every aspect of the American indig-
enous sociopolitical and cultural system. The missionary-linguistic rationale is to
transform the worldview or cognitive (belief) and practice system of indigenous

 For more on universal-salvation religions, see Weber ([1920]1993).

 Implications for a politics of missionary scriptural translation 35

people by introducing radically different concepts of morality, the human body,

cosmology (space), time, tradition, civil-religious and sociopolitical institutions,
religious language, rhetoric, and visual culture.
Translation of the New Testament into indigenous language suggests that a
global religion—that is, a form of U.S. Protestant Christianity represented by SIL
and WBT—is localized. The imposition of U.S. Christian theology through trans-
lations of the New Testament into indigenous languages conveys “a semantics of
globalization” where a European-American cultural system and values is to gain
geopolitical supremacy. There is a sociology and politics of a globalization of
postcolonial scriptural translations where the missionary linguists aim to force
a novel religious identity, with its values and model of society, upon indigenous
peoples.
Despite this study’s first and foremost concern with a strategic Protestant
missionary politics of translating core and key Christian theological concepts
into indigenous languages, it simultaneously aspires to validate a need for his-
tory of ideas, epistemologies and religions and anthropology—disciplines that
work with non-Western cultural systems—to create an innovative analytic vo-
cabulary. Researching the ideas, beliefs, symbols, knowledge and practice of a
different culture implies translation. Employing Christian concepts like sin, re-
pentance, confession, devotion, grace, priest, and so forth distorts the analysis
of non-Christian or non-Western cultural and religious systems.⁵⁸ As the compa-
rative disciplines, social and cultural anthropology (Hanks and Severi 2014, 2;
6)⁵⁹ as well as history of religions analyze differences and similiarites between
cultures and religions expressed by extraneous linguistc categories. Methodolog-
ically these constitute ultimately translation studies. Reading anthropological
scholarship in particular, however, which in many cases applies these and
other Christian theological notions as translations, one is tempted to inquire
whether there is any difference between missionaries and secular scholars. In-
stead, these and other religious concepts should be carefully substituted—the
scholar should always include the original term from the language of the studied
culture—with translated words or rephrasings.⁶⁰

 Another problem is employing non-European concepts in a stereotypical manner (cf. Pharo

2011).
 According to Harold Conklin in his article “Ethnography” in Internatioal Encylopedia of the
Social Sciences, ’the problems of ethnography are in the largests sense those of translation’ (cited
in Hanks and Severi 2014, 6).
 For more on the methodology of analytical transcultural concepts, see Pharo (2007, 2011).
36 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

Methodology and the sources of missionary linguistic politics

Translation in order to convert people from a different ideological or religious

system requires a “cultural and philsophical translation.” Language is a social
phenomenon wherein a linguistic community shares an inventory of words.
The analysis of translations relies upon consultation of dictionaries and gram-
mars. I have systematically compared historical (Catholic colonial) and contem-
porary (Protestant postcolonial) missionary and non-missionary linguistic an-
thropologies of Mixtec and Nahuatl. This comparative diachronic and
synchronic method has been fundamental in the analyzis of the translated theo-
logical concepts.
Since translation’s target audience can be quite varied, the researcher must
distinguish between imagined audiences and the real audience (Kirk 2005: 92–
94). In addition, the interpretation of the outsider researcher is conveyed into a
chosen metalanguage. Where theology and biblical epistemology decide the ex-
egesis, it is therefore critical to make the distinction between individual and
community understanding. The status and function of a translation therefore
change in time and space (Kroneman 2004, 18n97). Moreover, a translated text
is understood differently by different receivers and by the same receiver at differ-
ent times. There are as many texts of one translation that there are receivers
(Nord 1992b, 91; Kroneman 2004, 212n531). These premises have methodological
implications.
I write from a comparative history of religions and history of ideas and epis-
temologies—not theological or missiological—perspective. This approach signi-
fies a language ideology where categories of a specific language are intimately
connected with cultural thought and practice. I am not concerned whether SIL
or other missionary linguist institutions transmit a supposedly genuine Christi-
anity into languages that are not Indo-European or Semitic and related to Chris-
tian theology. Let me therefore clarify that there is no exclusive doctrinal exact
translation of religious scripture only different (communal and individual) inter-
pretations and receptions – confirmed by innumerable revisions. Rather, my ob-
jective is to exhibit the principal incongruency between American indigenous
languages and religions and moral philosophies with core features of Christian-
ity. But, that does not signify that these languages and accordingly moral sys-
tems cannot be transformed (converted) to adapt to Christian doctrine, which
is exactly what the missionary linguists want to achieve.
It is important to note that in the analyzis, I occasionally make back-trans-
lations, either literal (which can appear quite awkward) or non-literal, of mis-
sionary linguistic translations. This translation-of-the-translation technique is
challenging since I am not an innate speaker and there are continuously alterna-
 Methodology and the sources of missionary linguistic politics 37

tive translations (interpretations) of words, sentences, and passages. Translation

reproduces understanding (readings) based upon the knowledge of the native
speaker of the target culture. It is accordingly an issue about reception(s). By
conducting back-translation as method, my objective is simply to establish
whether there is incommensurability or commensurability of meaning (not nec-
essarily a grammatical correct representation) between entirely different lan-
guages. When back-translating concepts and passages from scriptures, originally
translated by missionary linguists into indigenous languages, I employ diction-
aries and grammars mainly produced by Catholic and SIL missionary linguists.
These allow an explication accompanied with a comparative history of religions
knowledge of the fundamental incommensurability between American indige-
nous religions and Christianity: there is no missionary soteriological ideology
in the former cognitive systems. An unintelligible exegesis of a translated theol-
ogy unknown to the receptors language is accordingly the consequence.
A great majority of indigenous peoples in the Americas speak the regional
(national) lingua franca (Spanish in Mexico), which means that communication
is not an absolute barrier. I have interviewed Catholic priests, indigenous inform-
ants, and collaborators of SIL missionary-linguist translators. Working among
Nahua for many years, the anthropologist Alan Sandstrom has observed that
what people say in interviews does not necessarily correspond to what they do
or think. A philosophical exegesis of religious belief and practices is therefore
difficult (Sandstrom 1991, 236). I have accordingly not asked individual inform-
ants from Mixtec and Nahua communities about the various translated Christian
theological concepts. Definitions of translated religious concepts can be tested
linguistically only by taking into account the differences between the European
American Christian and indigenous religious systems.
An important premise of this investigation is that language is a not only so-
cial but also political or ideological construction. Accordingly, we must distin-
guish between data collected and systematized by the following three categories
of interested individuals: missionaries assisted by converted (i. e. acculturated)
but also not converted indigenous informants and assistants, foreign secular
(academic) researchers, and indigenous scholars. Another fundamental distinc-
tion is between Christian doctrinal and nondoctrinal sources. Doctrinal sources
constitute various types of instrumental information produced by missionaries
and their (converted) assistants and informants in order to evangelize. Nondoc-
trinal sources, even when made by missionaries, do not have this objective.
There are unfortunately not many nonreligious historical sources in indigenous
languages.
Catholic ethnographer-missionaries of the early colonial period composed a
quite large corpus of texts outlining the culture, geography, economy, belief sys-
38 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

tems, ritual practices, institutions, and history of indigenous peoples of the

Americas. Both converted and not converted indigenous peoples acted as inform-
ers and assistants⁶¹. The ethnographer-missionary varies in extent, thorough-
ness, and sympathy with the native peoples. It is deplorable that nearly all
such literature is written in Spanish instead of in the indigenous languages,
but one unique historical source on the religion and language of the Nahua
does provide a window onto translated concepts in the Nahuatl New Testament:
the Franciscan fray Bernardino de Sahagún’s (c. 1499 – 1589)⁶² bilingual (Nahuatl
and Spanish) encyclopedic Florentine Codex,⁶³ or Historia General de las Cosas de
Nueva España (A General History of the Things of New Spain), circa 1578 – 1580.
⁶⁴
Dominican ethnographer-missionaries worked among the Mixtecs of Oaxa-
ca, but none of their existing doctrinal material is written in the Mixtec language
(Burgoa [1934] 1989; García [1607] 1981; Herrera 1580; Jiménez Moreno 1962, 111).
The importance of dictionaries in particular cannot be underestimated when
analyzing the semantics of concepts because these reference works which define
concepts and thereby constitute the (normative) fundament for the interpretation
of texts or oral communication. Lexemes in the entries of missionary-linguist dic-
tionaries are in many cases manipulated where the original non-Christian mean-
ing of a concept is lost or marginalized (semantic substitution or semantic exten-
sion), whereas indigenous religious concepts may simply be left out or
substituted with loanwords and neologisms. We can categorize this phenomenon
as a “politics of lexicography.”
Both Nahuatl and Mixtec represent excellent examples of Catholic colonial
dictionaries where theological concepts can be compared to contemporary Prot-
estant-translated New Testaments and dictionaries. The earliest and most out-
standing such dictionary in existence is the Spanish-Nahuatl, Nahuatl-Spanish

 Cf. the survey of lexicography in New Spain (1492– 1611) by Thomas Smith-Stark (2009).
 Cf. Nicholson (2001).
 The Florentine Codex is named after the manuscript’s present residence at Biblioteca Medi-
cea Laurenziana in Florence, Italy (ms. 218 – 20, Col. Palatina).
 An earlier work than The Florentine Codex, Primeros Memoriales (a name given to it by Fran-
cisco Paso y Troncoso) is written by Sahagún and his four trilingual Nahua assistants – whom
Sahagún names in The Florentine Codex as Antonio Valeriano from Aztcapotzaloc, Alonso Veger-
ano from Cuahuahtitlan, Pedro de San Buenaventura from Cuahuahtitlan and Martín Jacobita
from Tlatelolco (Sahagún [1565]1950 – 1982, I, 55) – of Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco. Pri-
meros Memoriales is based upon interviews with native old aristocrats from Tepepolco, a city
about 600 kilometres northwest of Mexico City, during two years (1558 – 1560) (Sahagún
[1560] 1997: 3 – 4). This manuscript incorporates chapters about the rituals and gods, the heaven
and the underworld, government and human affairs.
 Methodology and the sources of missionary linguistic politics 39

Vocabulario en la lengua Castellana y Mexicana, y Mexicana y Castellana by the

Franciscan fray Alonso de Molina, O.F.M. (1514– 1585) published in 1555 and 1571.
The architect of the Franscisan ethnographic and linguisic work in Mexico, fray
Andrés de Olmos’s (1480?–1568) brief dictionary in his grammar Arte de la len-
gua mexicana y vocabulario [1547] 1985) is quite useful but not as comprehensive
as Molina’s (Baudot 1995, 121– 245).
The Dominican fray Francisco de Alvarado’s (1558 – 1603) collected and pre-
pared the Spanish-Mixtec dictionary Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca was pub-
lished in 1593, and the distinguished Mexican scholar Alfonso Caso has recon-
structed from a grammar (Arte en lengua Mixtec published in 1593 by the
Dominican missionary fray Antonio de los Reyes, ?—1603) a short word list
where Mixtec entries are translated into Spanish (Jiménez Moreno 1962, 34–
40). The first example of Mixtec-language alphabetic writing is the Doctrina
Cristiana en lengua Misteca by the Dominican fray Benito Hernandez in 1567
or 1568 (Terraciano 2008, 7). The grammar and vocabulary of Reyes and Alvara-
do refer to the Doctrina by Hernandez (Terraciano 2001, 69 – 70; Jansen and Pérez
Jiménez 2003, 2; Terraciano 2008, 22, 69 – 70; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a,
150 – 51). As opposed to Molina’s and other colonial dictionaries, the Mixtec col-
onial dictionary contains not one-to-one translations of words but various long
paraphrases, which creates inadequate conceptional translations. Alvarado’s lex-
icographic strategy suggests that he conceived Spanish lexemes as untranslable
into Mixtec. They therefore required an explanation through not only one but
various paraphrases. Contemporary SIL dictionaries do not apply circumlocu-
tions but use word-to-word translation in their entries. Terraciano argues that
the Catholic colonial dictionaries pursued a Latin and Spanish lexicographic
model where the indigenous peoples recorded many literal translations of Span-
ish concepts (calques, or loanwords) in the entries. For instance there are multi-
ple Mixtec entries for Spanish words, which prompts the scholar to inquire, what
is the primary equivalent? (Terraciano 2001, 70, 76). Moreover, Molina and Alvar-
ado combined theological concepts of sin, repentance, or conversion and salva-
tion with many other words—the language actually shifts, which is not what we
see in the entries of the later, Protestant dictionaries.
As is the case with Nahuatl of northern Puebla, the Mixtec language has
transformed and developed but is basically stable. Pronunciation varies in cor-
respondence with the various dialects and loaning from Spanish. But a more
or less constant vocabulary and grammatical structure still exists (Pérez Jiménez
2003, 7). The contemporary SIL Protestant missionary linguists have in many
cases prepared dictionaries and grammars before they translate the New Testa-
ment. After working on language data from 1953 through 1979 under the auspices
of SIL, Earl Brockway and Trudy Hershey de Brockway joined Leodegario Santos
40 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

Valdés and published the Diccionario Náhuatl del norte del estado de puebla
through SIL (Instituto Lingüístico de Verano) in 2000 (Brockway, Hershey de
Brockway, and Valdés 2000, xi; León-Portilla 2000, vii). This Nahuatl-Spanish,
Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary is written in the same indigenous dialect as the
translated New Testament. In fact, they have collaborated with several named
native speakers from the region. The dictionary’s bibliography indicates which
literature was applied in order to make the dictionary and the translated New
Testament, and both grammars and dictionaries of classic Nahuatl have been
used. In particular, Miguel León-Portilla’s classic study La filosofía náhuatl estu-
diada en sus fuentes (1966) in the bibliography suggests that the authors contem-
plated the classic Nahua(tl) philosophical tradition in the translation process.
After the Mixtec New Testament, a Mixtec-Spanish, Spanish-Mixtec diction-
ary in Mixteco de Yosondúa appeared: Kathryn Beaty de Farris’s Diccionario Bá-
sico del Mixteco de Yosondúa, was published in Tlaxiaco of Oaxaca through SIL
in 2002. Farris has collaborated with various named Mixtecs informants and as-
sistants (2002, vii). The bibliography includes Alvarado’s Vocabulario, which sug-
gests the continuity of the Mixtec language.
Besides Molina (1555 and 1571) and Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés (2000), Alvarado (1593), Reyes ([1593] 1976), and K. Farris (2002), various
present-day dictionaries display the theological lexemes in the translated New
Testaments alongside the various definitions. From a politics-of-lexicography
perspective, it is possible to classify four categories of missionary-linguist and
nonmissionary-linguist dictionaries: Catholic dictionaries from the colonial peri-
od and contemporary postcolonial Protestant dictionaries tend to be missionary
linguist; dictionaries by indigenous scholars are clearly nonmissionary linguist;
and nonindigenous scholars have also contributed works that are not missionary
in nature.
The dictionaries play a fundamental part in the translation process, influ-
encing the interpretation of the text (and the oral rhetorical practices) because
they comport themselves as final authorities “objectively” conveying the lex-
emes’ connotations. The power of defining concepts allows the dictionaries to in-
fluence the semantic understanding of the words for the speakers of the lan-
guage (Yri 1995, 163 – 66). They introduce new connotations and modify
current ones; they also create new foreign concepts (neologisms), which are
later modified and adopted by the target audience. Moreover, dictionaries
made by missionaries contain certain Christian theological concepts that are
not found in the language of the target culture. Simultaneously, in many cases
 Methodology and the sources of missionary linguistic politics 41

the missionary linguists do not include as translated entries the central philo-
sophical concepts of the target culture.⁶⁵
As the New Testament consists of a collection of Greek texts incorporating
Semitic words and concepts, and has (just like other texts from antiquity) a com-
plex history of textual transmission, there is, accordingly, no definitive source
text of the New Testament that forms the basis for all translation (de Vries
2007, 151– 52). There is no linguistic indication that the SIL New Testaments
translated into Nahuatl and Mixtec are based upon the Greek (source) text.
This corresponds well with the information I obtained during field research in
the Mixteca Alta and in northern Puebla. English is typically used as the source
text in the linguistic and philological analysis because it is the US missionary
linguists’ native language for theological exegesis of the Bible.⁶⁶ The New Re-
vised Standard Version (NRSV), and to a lesser degree King James’s standard ver-
sion of the Bible, is the source text. English will for that reason function as the
semantic metalanguage, but Spanish is important because many indigenous
people are bilingual, living under Hispanic authority and also because of the
long history of the Spanish Catholic mission. I will, however, examine the con-
cepts of the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the Spanish translation by Reina
Valera that appears in the Mixtec New Testament has been translated. Meaning,
interpretation, and translatability of the concepts of conversion in the translated
New Testaments are then explored, considering multilingualism and (cultural-re-
ligious) translations of the following languages: the Greek (Textus Receptus) of
the original (source) text; English (metalanguage and global lingua franca);
Spanish (lingua franca of Latin America); Nahuatl and Mixtec (target languages).
Based on this model, a methodological procedure has been executed in the
lexicographic analysis of the politics of missionary scriptural translations. The
following aspects are considered: metalanguage—the concept in English or
Spanish, the concept as defined by usage in the Greek New Testament, the con-
cept as defined in Protestant dictionaries (SIL), the concept defined in Catholic
colonial dictionaries, the concept defined in nonmissionary-linguist dictionaries,
and the concept defined in indigenous-linguist dictionaries. By this methodolo-
gy, the missionary-linguistic strategies of the SIL translators are analyzed, and
we can get at how representatives of contemporary US Protestantism endeavor
to convert indigenous American languages and religions that are intimately as-

 SIL has published various instruction books about how to make bilingual dictionaries for
field workers (see Robinson 1969; Bartholomew and Schoenhals 1983).
 John Wycliffe (1330?–1384), from whom WBT takes its name, made the first full English
translation of the Bible. English might therefore be perceived by the US-based missionary trans-
lators to be a language of reference.
42 I Theology and Politics of Missionary Linguistics

sociated to their own philosophical, cultural, and sociopolitical traditional sys-

tems.
II Conversion in Language and
Semiotic Ideologies
Lewis R. Rambo defines religious conversion as a change or transformation from
affiliation of one faith system to another faith system and thereby a “personal
orientation toward life” (1993, 2– 3). Converts from Catholicism or indigenous re-
ligions to Protestantism can be classified by this category of conversion, which
Rambo denotes as “tradition transition,” signifying the transformation of world-
view, ritual practices, and symbol system (14). The missionary enterprise consti-
tutes dissemination of a universal transcendent or metaphysical-moral message
(the “truth) of salvation or enlightening. The principal purpose is the cognitive
transformation or conversion of the individual and collective mind—religious
symbols, beliefs, and practice—and as a consequence, the cultural, economic,
and sociopolitical system (Stackhouse 2005, 6068 – 71).
But when can it be established that an individual or collective conversion
has taken place?¹ I theorize that it is the practice of language that exhibits
whether a person or a culture has converted to another philosophy, religion,
or (political) ideology. The methodology of analyzing translation of concepts
in text (scripture) in order to explain and categorize conversion has, however, re-
ceived critique from the anthropologist Courtney Handman. She writes:

The potential for transformation lies neither in a single text nor in the semanticized subjectiv-
ities of the readers. Instead, the experience of transformation takes place through the experi-
ence of intertextuality in rituals of translation and conversion, from weekly sermons to annual
commemoration events to unique events that fundamentally transform history not only by
their happening but also in their intertextual afterlife” (Handman 2010, 586).

But it is the key and core theological concepts of translated scripture, which con-
stitute the indispensible background of the so-called “intertextual” extra-biblical
and cultural activities. It is language and literacy, produced and controlled by
missionary linguists, which have the ultimate potential in converting the rit-
ual-symbolic meaning system of the receptor culture. Albeit the practice of con-
version by members of the target culture are to be anthropologically observed in
cultural and religious events and rituals, as mentioned by Handman, these field
observations or participations cannot operate as evidence to expound religious,
ideological, linguistic and cultural transformation. With no general theory of

 Although with qualifications, J. Jorge Klor de Alva has constructed a model containing differ-
ent categories of conversion (Klor de Alva 1982, 351– 52).

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-003
44 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

what institute an ideological (theological) and epistemological system and its

conversion, linguistic (anthropology) of (religion/Christianity) have mainly con-
tributed in providing (valuable) descriptive case studies of the processes of reli-
gious encounters and receptions.
Only an analyzis of the primary categories of language (and literacy), related
to a historical and religious-philosophical process, could contribute a required
methodology and theory – and accordingly identification and comprehension
of what generate and establish conversion. What the present study aims to
show is that when an individual, a community, or a cultural group has appropri-
ated missionaries’ translated interrelated core and key concepts from scripture—
manipulating the existing vocabulary and incorporating calques, neologisms or
loanwords—into their own language, they have converted from their previous be-
lief, symbol, and practice system. This cognitive-linguistic process reflects an ab-
solute transformation in worldview and way of life.

Conversion as transformation of concepts, categories, and

codes of language
Translation depends on a structural transposition of equivalent meanings but
with recurrent lack of referential precision. Pivotal for missionary linguistic evan-
gelization and definitive conversion is the endeavor of identifying “mutual intel-
ligibility and translatability” (Orta 2004, 111). Tzvetan Todorov accounts that
Christopher Colombus was not interested in what meaning the words represent-
ed in the indigenous language but the equivalent Spanish category. Spanish was
the natural (only) language according to Colombus (Todorov 1982: 35 – 36). This
notion represents a somewhat comparable missionary linguist principle. When
producing grammars, dictionaries and scriptural translations, the missionary lin-
guists are, with the ultimate purpose to convert, mainly interested in recognize
and construct a Christian significance of indigenous concepts.
In the history of religions before the arrival of Christian missionaries in the
Americas, there were political and military conquests accompanied with ideolog-
ical and symbolic transmissions from the conquerer to the conquered although
no absolute conversion. The ultimate indigenous empires of Latin America, the
Aztec and Inka, dissipated and even imposed their state ideology (religion)
and language (making Nahuatl and Quechua lingua francae), however, there
was no missionary model of religious exclusiveness (unconditional conversion),
which signifies conversion by monotheistic religious systems. This is because
Aztec and Inka, as other cultures of the Americas, had polytheistic (monolatery)
religions. Rather, there was also a religious inclusiveness after the military and
 Conversion as transformation of concepts, categories, and codes of language 45

political occupation. For instance, Xipe Totec was a deity worshipped in the Mix-
teca-Puebla zone (Oaxaca/Guerrero) probably originated among the Tlapanec in
the coastal territory of Guerrero. After subjugation of this region c.1430, the god
became incorporated in Aztec pantheon and religious practices (Nicholson 1971,
422; 424). Patron deities of defeated cities could be conquered and their “idols”
brought to the triumphant city, in a few cases accompanied with its own dedicat-
ed religious specialist, which kept the victorious gods (Umberger 2015: 84– 87;
98 – 108). But this does not signify that they not necessarily no longer existed
in the people’s minds or the victor erased their existence. The Inka consolidated
the conquest and the Andean empire of new territory by dispatching settlers pro-
moting and imposing the state language and religion. But the Inka also invited
visits of and kidnapped local “idols” (huacas) to the empirical capital Cuzco. The
Inka accordingly worshipped and allowed worship of regional Andean deities. In
this manner, the Spanish missionaries substituted a colonial authority where
likewise both the official religion and local religion continued to be practiced.
But the difference is that the new imperial religion, Spanish Christianity, de-
manded complete exclusiveness (Prieto 2011, 21; MacCormack 1991, 103 – 104;
148 – 149; Ramírez 2005, 60 – 65). In a comparative essay, Guilhem Olivier and
Roberto Martínez demonstrates not only that the polytheistic (monolatry) reli-
gions of Mesoamerica amended and implemented alien deities into their own
pantheons (this is documented in the primary written sources of the Maya before
the European invasion) but in addition acknowledged “equivalence” between
the attributes of their own deities and of other cultures i. e. applied “intercultural
translatability” (cf. Oliver and Martínez 2015). A certain intelligibility and there-
fore acceptance incommensurable with the concept of conversion exist therefore
in various polytheistic system. “We can see that the search for divine homo-
logues on the part of Mesoamerican peoples implies, beyond cultural homogene-
ity, an ongoing exchange of information, and recognition of the religion of the
“other” based on equal standing, which tends to be a characteristic of polythe-
istic people in general” (Oliver and Martínez 2015: 347). The religious processes
of amendation, implementation and acknowledgement of deities and other reli-
gious qualities according to regional worldview took place also with arrival of
international Christianity and are in continuation among American indigenous
cultures today.
The various impacts of Christian doctrine and translations by missionary lin-
guists epitomize historical processes exclusive to the respective community
(Handman 2009, 639). The extensive history of several hundred of years of Chris-
tian mission in the Americas present abundant evidence of various receptions of
Christian theology, symbols, and practices by indigenous and other minority cul-
tures. The different receptions of an external ideological or epistemological sys-
46 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

tem, as in this case of the European or US Christianity missionary linguistics ex-

ertion in indigenous or minority cultures, can simply be categorized and ana-
lyzed as: conversion, appropriation or rejection.
By which method can these quite different encounters and responses be
documented and acknowledged? I hypothesize that it is transformation of lan-
guage practice – its associate concepts, categories, and codes – which give sub-
stance to whether a culture and/or individual have converted into, appropriated
elements from or rejected an unfamiliar ideology, philosophy or knowledge sys-
tem. Conversion signifies that the receptor culture have incorporated and accept-
ed core and key concepts whereas appropriation implies only accepting and re-
formulating key concepts of the foreign linguistic code. Rejection is keeping with
the traditional cognitive and linguistic system where there is no introduction of
foreign ideology, symbols, and practices. Conversion is consequently defined by
the practice and semantics of language. In the context of the analyzis of this
book, conversion indicates that meaning of language is to be transformed in
order to adapt to the ideology or theology of Christian missionary linguistics.
Conversion, although only moderately through appropriation by the target, sug-
gests then a change of the moral guide, a transformation of mentality and
thought.
Language and associated meaning are social and cultural constructions.
Translation has the potential to change the value of concepts and thereby ideol-
ogy, philosophy, and epistemology. Absolute conversion is the ultimate objective
of the missionary linguistic organizations and institutions. A comprehensive se-
mantic transformation of a cognitive or philsophical system can only take place
through a systematic linguistic methodology and strategy: monopolization of lit-
eracy, grammars, and dictionaries produced by the missionary linguists and
their collaborators. This is how individuals and/or groups of individuals (i. e. cul-
tures or communities) finally are converted.
How can the theory of conversion, determined by language transference, be
substantiated through empirical evidence? We can examine comparative histor-
ical examples where conversion has taken place after an extended, (missionary
linguistic) period. Employing a historical and comparative methodology means
making an analogy or identifying resemblants of precedents in order to elucidate
processes of similar linguistic and ideological (religious and philosophical) phe-
nomena. Through studying the history of the religions, ideologies, and languages
of a culture, the missionary linguistic epistemological, ideological, and semiotic
(definitive) conquest – which signifies conversion – can accordingly be verified.
Let me give an example where the indispensable concurrent religious and lin-
guistic conversion has taken place.
 Conversion as transformation of concepts, categories, and codes of language 47

After the introduction of Christianity in Europe, the semantics (i. e. meaning)

of European languages transformed and became completely immersed with
Christian terminology. The European historical example is expedient as a compa-
rative approach to the ongoing process of ideological, literacy, and language in-
fluence and change through missionary linguistic mission in countries of the
Americas, Africa, and Asia. In order to simplify – because an equivalent devel-
opment of religious and linguistic conversation has ensued in other European
countries – let us briefly look at the religious and linguistic history of the
home country of the author of this book, namely Norway.²
Like the other Scandinavian countries, Norway³ has undergone interrelated
religious and linguistic conversion twice. From at least about 700AD Christianity
has been known in Norway through the Vikings encounter with peoples on the
British Isles. 995AD mark the year of Christianizing in Norway by the first suc-
cessful missionary, the Viking chief Olav Trygvasson (Rindal 1996; Sanmark
2004). Commencing from c. 995AD, there was intially a quite long process of con-
version from the (non-Christian) ancient Norse religion into Catholicism. Subse-
quently, the Reformation of 1536AD created an extensive evolution of Catholi-
cism into Protestantism. This signified a gradual, although profound
revolution of menality and ideology through language change. Since the Refor-
mation, Norway has been Evangelical-Lutheran, a state church according to §2
of the Norwegian Constitution of 1814. But after 2008 it has become “the peoples
church of Norway” (“Norges Folkekirke”), supported by the government, accord-
ing to §16 of the Norwegian Constitution. It is important to mention that Norway
was colonized by Denmark (1380 – 1814) and later Sweden (1814– 1905).

 Scholars have analyzed the Christian influence on the semantic change of concepts in Greek
and Latin and on Germanic language and cultures (Renck 1990, 1; note 5, 189; 100). Cf. Bartelink,
Gerhard J.M. Umdeutung heidnischer Termini im christlichen Sprachgebrauch. Kirchengeschichte
als Missionsgeschichte I. 397– 418. 1974; Eggers, Hans. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte I: Das Althoch-
deutsche Reinbek: Rowohlt 1963; Eggers, Hans. Die Annahme des Christentums in Spiegel der
deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Kirchengeschichte als Missionsgeschichte II/1: 466 – 504. München:
Chr. Kaiser Verlag 1978; Raumer, Rudolf von. Die Einwirkung des Christentums auf die althoch-
deutsche Sprache. Berlin. Gustav Schlawitz. 1851; Schmidt, Kurt-Dietrich. Das Christentum und
die althochdeutsche Sprache. Germanischer Glaube und Christentum: 85 – 112. 1948; Wiens, Ger-
hard Leberecht, Die frühchristlichen Gottesbezeichnungen im Germanisch-Altdeutschen. Berlin:
Junker und Dünnhaupt Verlag. 1935.
 Indigenous cultures of Norway and Scandinavia, the Samí, have undergone religious and lin-
guistic conversion. But the case I want to make is that an equivalent absolute conversion has
historically also taken place among quite a few non-Indigenous civilizations, i. e. a dominant
culture of a nation-state, corroborrating the “linguistic conversion theory”.
48 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

In particular Danish have influenced Norwegian literacy and language. The

religious conversion to Evangelical-Lutheranism during and after the Reforma-
tion did not bring an extensive linguistic transformation as from the Old Norse
religious system to Christianity simply because there is a much greater difference
between Old Norse religion and Catholicism than between Catholicism and Prot-
estantism. I will therefore only consider the linguistic-religious transformation
from Old Norse to Christianity because, as we shall see, it is structural compara-
tive to the subject of this book.
The conversion from Old Norse religion into Catholicism signified a gradual,
although radical transformation, of mentality, ideology and language. The Old
Norse religious system had a quite different cosmogony and cosmology. It was
polytheistic and non-soteriological, although with a concept of an afterlife,
but not entirely different from the mundane world. The ancient Norwegians
were mainly non-individualistic emphasizing the communal (kinship) corre-
spondlingly lacking a concept of personal sin, salvation or perdition. Moreover,
there were no linguistic moral-dualistic categories of God vs. Devil and good vs.
evil (Steinsland 2004; Sanmark 2004).
An explication of Christian core and key concepts into contemporary Norwe-
gian exhibit that either did they not exist in the Non-Christian Old Norse lan-
guage but encompass loan words (“sin”, “perdition”) introduced with the arrival
of Christianity or appropriated surviving words (“God”, “salvation”, “grace”/
“mercy”), which were given a new significance, e. g. semantic substitution or se-
mantic extension, after the Christian conversion.⁴ The pre-existing Norwegian
words for “salvation” and “grace”/“mercy” did not belong to the ancient Norwe-
gian religious domain. On the other hand, the Norwegian word for “God” did ad-
here to the pre-Christian religious domain but had an entirely different meaning,
whicht it later received in the later Christian Norwegian culture.
Salvation is rendered with the Norwegian word “frels” (norr. frjáls), which
means to be “free, unhindered, safe” (Bjorvand and Lindeman 2007, 304–
305). The meaning today of being saved (“redning”) or Old Norse frelsan (frjâl-
san) derive from the verb frelsa (frjâlsa) “make free, liberate, save” (Falk and
Torp 1991 [1903 – 1906], 196; Yri 1998, 84– 85). It refers to the concept of freedom
in pre-Christian Old Norse. The concept “frelse” have lost its previous connota-
tion of freedom, liberation and escape and instead obtained an almost monop-
olized Christian meaning in contemporary Norwegian (Yri 1998, 85 – 93; 130).⁵

 Reidar Astås give a survey over primary sources and the research literature of the translation
of Christian scripture into Old Norse c. 1150 – c. 1370 (Astås 1989, 11– 16).
 Kjell Magne Yri has studied translations of “salvation” into Old Norse Bible material (1998,
80 – 84; 189 – 190).
 Conversion as transformation of concepts, categories, and codes of language 49

God is translated as “Gud” (norr. gðo/guð) in Norwegian. In many cases in the

pre-Christian period this term categorized the Old Norse deities in plural oppos-
ing Christian monotheism. Additionally, it had a neutral gender, i. e. referred to
deities of both gender. When later used of the Christian God⁶, it became mascu-
line and can be categorized as a supernatural being, whom have the power over
human beings and nature (Bjorvand and Lindeman 2007, 395 – 397).⁷ Grace or
mercy, which is translated as “nåde” in Norwegian, indicates the Christian
meaning of the love and good will of God. The Old Norse word náð has, however,
quite a few rather different connotations not exclusively associated with religion:
“peace, rest, calmness, pleasure, happiness, help, protection”. Furthermore, it
was originally primarily used in plural (norr. náðir). This word is also frequently
negated (norr. unáðir) with negative meanings referring to non-peace, non-hap-
piness, unfortunate etc. (Bjorvand and Lindeman 2007, 821– 822).⁸
The antonym to salvation, perdition, is the Norwegian “fortapelse, (gå) for-
tapt”, which did not exist in Old Norse. It was probably introduced from Danish
after the Reformation in order to supplement Christian terminology. As noted,
Norway was colonized by Denmark (1380 – 1814) and heavily infected by the
Danish language. “Fortapelse” almost exclusively belongs to the Christian do-
main and not the domain of everyday practice in contemporary Norwegian (cf.
Yri 1998, 122– 130; 199 – 201). Sin or “synd” in Norwegian (norr. synd) embodies
an action or thought, which opposes the will of the Christian God. “Synd” is a
Germanic loan word, which came to Norway with early Christianity. It does
not appear in ancient Nordic religion. “Synd” refer to a confirmation of truth
i. e. admitting guilt (nor. skyld). Sin is therefore to be guilty when the committed
crime is established. The Old Norse *sunja or guilty received the meaning “sin”
after the arrival of Christianity (Bjorvand and Lindeman 2007, 1099 – 1100; Falk
and Torp 1991 [1903 – 1906], 751; 876 – 877).⁹
These are only a few examples of how translated Christian core and key con-
cepts were given a novel meaning or introduced by the missionary linguists into
the terminology thereby converting Norwegian language, religion, and culture.
Abandonment of the ancient Norwegian religion and conversion into Christianity

 Cf. Astås for analyzis of the concept in the literature of translation of Christian scripture into
Old Norse c. 1150 – c. 1370 (Astås 1989, 41– 45).
 Old Norse religion also employed “ås” (pl. “æser”) or norr. áss/óss (pl. æsir) whom refer to the
most prestigous Nordic deties (Bjorvand and Lindeman 2007, 1386 – 1387) and “vaner”.
 Cf. Astås for analyzis of the concept in the literature of translation of Christian scripture into
Old Norse c. 1150 – c. 1370 (Astås 1989, 97– 100).
 Cf. Astås for analyzis of the concept in the literature of translation of Christian scripture into
Old Norse c. 1150 – c. 1370 (Astås 1989, 86 – 91).
50 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

was completed when these novel words and/or semantic extensions were appro-
priated in the language practice of the Norwegians. In order for Christian conver-
sion to take place in indigenous and other minority cultures, the same linguistic
process have to take place.
The category ‘Christian conversion’ encompasses an absolute accepting and
integrating of the core concepts e. g. the antonyms salvation and perdition (dam-
nation) as well as interconnected theological key concepts whereas appropria-
tion signify an acceptance and inclusion, even reformulation, of (some) key con-
cepts, categories, and codes of the receptor language. Rejection perpetuates
traditionalist religion and language and accordingly represents an unreserved re-
fusal of outside novel meanings. Moreover, in this frame of reference it is impor-
tant to make clear that (protestant) missionaries (linguists) evangelizing in com-
munities, which have not converted by acquiring fundamental Christian
characteristics and accordingly denounced traditional religion, do not classify
the local culture and its peoples as ‘Christian’. This is despite the fact that the
latter has appropriated certain Christian key concepts, symbols, and practices.
It is important to accentuate, that in the colonial period “semantic patterns
and values” of indigenous languages underwent transformations as is shown
by the linguistic anthropological studies undertaken by William F. Hanks
(Hanks 2000, 14; 103 – 127). This development of a Christian linguistic incorpora-
tion causing a ‘heterogenity of language’ (Hanks 2000, 127) has continued into
the postcolonial period as additional indigenous peoples and communities
has come into contact with and been influenced by various Christian denomina-
tions and missionary linguists. Still, the colonial ‘change of discourse’ (Hanks
2000, 281– 283) does not leave indigenous languages to be ‘ambivalent’ when
translations of both European (Christian) key and core concepts are examined.
This methodology establishes that an indigenous interrelated religious/philo-
sophical and language system subsist in the postcolonial beyond the influence
and impositions of European missionary linguistic conventions.
Catholicism practiced in quite a few indigenous communities in America
today encompasses inclusiveness and acceptance of both Christianity and indig-
enous religions. This constitutes an extensive historical religious tradition in
America. Documented only a few decades after the arrival of the Spanish mis-
sionaries, indigenous peoples commenced incorporating selected elements of
Christianity although without denouncing their customary religion. The Domini-
can fray Diego Durán admonished an indigenous man for “idolatry”.

He replied: ‘Father, you should not be alarmed that we are still nepantla’…, which means ‘to
be in the middle’…. Since, they were not yet firmly rooted in the faith, I should not be
alarmed, for they were still neutral and held on neither to one law nor to the other; or,
 Translation of conversion and repentance 51

in other words, that they believed in God but at the same time they reverted to their old
customs and rites of the devil (Durán 1967 [1581]: ii, 3; Cited in Cervantes 1994, 57).

Also in the Coloquios (‘conversations’) in Nahuatl recorded by Sahagún from the

first half of 1560s, indigenous religious specialists recognised not only the Chris-
tian god but also their own deities. Despite that the Franciscan missionaries con-
demned their gods as ‘devils’ (Cervantes 1994, 57; Sahagún 1986 [1564], 146 – 155;
cf. also Duverger 1987).
Although many cultures have not been converted, the inclusive American in-
digenous cultures have continuously, also before the European invasion, inte-
grated features of faith, symbols, and rituals from (each) other religions. The cat-
egory of “indigenous Christianity” would therefore seem challenging, as this
taxonomy of Christianity is not accepted by missionary organizations like SIL.
That does not of course imply that indigenous peoples are mistaken when
some choose to employ the category “Christian” about themselves, as we shall
see quite a few do. But it is significant to be aware of the religious and linguistic
incongruity between (protestant) missionaries (linguists) and indigenous and
other minority cultures despite this self-designation. For the former it does not
mean ‘(acceptable’) conversion and has lead to a sustained missionary (linguist)
operation in the Americas.

Translation of conversion and repentance

There is no concept for individual and interiorized conversion in the Piro lan-
guage (Gow 2006: 218 – 219). This comes as no surprise since non-misssionary
and non-soterologial systems do not encompass an ideological principle of a
personal religious conversion. In indigenous languages some words more or
less correspond to a religious repentance toward deities, spirits, the sacred
order, and so forth, but not to a religious conversion per se. That is probably
why SIL missionary linguists translate repentance but not conversion. These no-
tions can be understood both separately and as intertwined within Christian re-
ligion. In Christian theology, repentance (Sp. arrepentimiento) expresses sincere
regret or remorse about wrongdoings. It constitutes a perception or thought of an
action or its omission. The acknowledgment of misconduct toward the sacred or
divine order appears also in indigenous religions, but there is not an inevitable
emphasis upon the individual, and there are other moral implications for the
transgressor. For the Tagalog sin, guilt, debt and repentance as intentionality
did not originate in the individual beings “soul” (Rafael 2001, 123 – 129). The
same observation can be made about indigenous American moral philosophy.
52 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

The main difference is, however, that in Christian religion the guilty individual
may atone for sin with the purpose of achieving a transcendental or metaphys-
ical redemption or salvation.
The notion of conversion represents a changing of one’s religion or beliefs,
or the achievement of persuading someone else to change theirs. Religious con-
version implies rhetoric of persuasion in order to change religious faith and prac-
tices (Burke 1961, 104). Conversion therefore refers to the process where people
reject their religious convictions in order to appropriate a novel religious belief
system. Acts 9:3 – 19 narrates the story about the conversion of Paul on the
road to Damascus. There is a fundamental transformation of identity in that
he changes his ideas about salvation and also his own name, from Saul to
Paul. Instigating change in beliefs, transference is exactly what the missionary
enterprise is about. The term conversion derives from Latin convertere, “to re-
volve, turn around” or “head in a different direction.” The same meaning attends
strepho and epistrepho in New Testament Greek. Moreover, there are two Greek
terms associated with conversion and repentance, respectively. Metamelomai
(“to be anxious, regretful”) “describes the subject undergoing a conversion expe-
rience whereas metanoia (‘change of mind’) outline the positive state or attitude
of one who has undergone a conversion” (Flinn 1999: 51– 52).
Christian conversion implicates a departure from sin through repentance, so
the terms repentance and conversion represent interrelated notions. In Christian
theology there are accordingly three semantic combinations of conversion and re-
pentance not found in indigenous religions:

1. Conversion refers to a change of religion or worldview.

2. Repentance refers to a regret of sin.
3. Conversion refers to the process of repenting of sin.

When a sinful human being regrets his or her transgressions toward the divine
order, conversion from sin occurs. Repenting from an old, “sinful” religion is part
of the conversion process. But this Christian theological principle is not synon-
ymous with concepts selected by SIL translators from Nahuatl and Mixtec. This
discrepancy between Christian and indigenous religious systems carries a huge
impact for the hermeneutics and the exegesis of the translations of New Testa-
ments into indigenous languages. After absorbing these necessarily brief intro-
ductory remarks about the semantics of conversion and repentance, let us look
at how SIL attempts to translate these notions into Nahuatl and Mixtec.
The missionary doctrine of conversion (Sp. conversión) is stated several pla-
ces in the New Testament. After the resurrection Christ ordered his disciples in
Galilee to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt. 28:19). The early Christian com-
 Translation of conversion and repentance 53

munity wanted to establish churches among unreached people as described in

Acts. In Rom 15:20, Paul expresses his desire to disseminate the gospel. On
the whole, passages in the New Testament describing the idea of converting peo-
ple into a new faith are daunting to translate, but the concepts of conversion and
repentance as proclaimed in scripture represent the primary difficulty for the
translators because they simply do not exist in indigenous languages. The
great variation of indigenous religions of the Americas must not be understated.
But they have in common a local character where people are born into the belief,
symbol, and practice system. An aggressive cosmopolitan (global) spiritual im-
perialism of missionary religions is foreign to indigenous nonproselytizing phi-
losophy, and its concepts of conversion are therefore lacking in the vernaculars.
At the banquet in his honor in the house of the tax collector Levi, Christ an-
swers the Pharisees’ and their scribes’ criticism that he is fraternizing with sin-
ners: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke
5:32). SIL missionaries use moyolcuepacan for repentance in the Nahuatl New
Testament. The word can be translated as a “change of one’s heart or mind”
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 74, 126; Karttunen 1992,
69 – 70, 340 – 42).The entry moyolcuepa is rendered as “to repent” (Sp. arrepen-
tirse) in the SIL Nahuatl dictionary of Northern Puebla (Brockway, Hershey de
Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 99), whereas the entries for quicuepa and cuepani
are respectively translated as verbs for “convert” (Sp. convertir) (126). Identical
terms exist in other Nahuatl dialects from de la Sierra de Puebla and from Tetel-
cingo, Morelos. These lexical entries do not make an unambiguous distinction
between “conversion” and “repentance,” which also affects the translation of
various passages where there is a fundamental difference in the source text be-
tween sections admonishing the individual human being to repent of sin and
those exhorting conversion to Christianity. The lack of conceptual multiplicity ex-
hibits the elementary philosophical differentiation between missionary Christian
evangelical doctrine and nonproselytizing indigenous religious systems appa-
rently acknowledged by SIL translators.
An acknowledgement was not, however, made by the Catholic colonial mis-
sionary linguists. Terms similar to moyolcuepa can be found in dictionaries from
the colonial period, where Molina records various compound words (Molina
[1555 and 1571] 1977: 58r–59v). Although for penance, the Catholic colonial mis-
sionaries also used the word tlamacehualiztli, “the meriting of things,” (vid infra
about this moral concept in Nahua thought) which derives from the verb ma-
chua, “to observe or deserve what is desired” (Burkhart 1989, 142). As opposed
to contemporary SIL lexicographers, the Catholic colonial dictionary by Molina
makes a distinction between conversion and repentance by employing the con-
cepts tlaneltoquitia (“to convince someone”) or tenemilizcuepaliztli (“change of
54 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

life”) for conversion (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977: 30r). Tlaneltoquitia is particu-
larly remarkable because it derives from the verb neltoca, which means “to be-
lieve” or “to have faith” (Karttunen 1992, 165, 284). It implies Christian faith. Be-
lief (Sp. creencia or fe is translated as tlaneltoquiliztli and neltoconi (Molina [1555
and 1571] 1977: 31v). But neltoca (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 66r; Olmos [1547]
1985, 200) and tlaneltoquiliztli (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 128r) are not inevita-
bly associated with religion. Neither in these entries nor in many others does this
concept connote a particular religious meaning (31v). But the literal meaning of
these expressions is interesting because they can be rendered as something like
“follow the truth” (Thomas Smith-Stark, 2008), which may suggest a religious
connotation. That is to say tlaneltoquiliztli contains the Nahuatl root for the con-
cept truth, nelli. ¹⁰ The Nahuatl word for belief is combined with “our Lord Jesus
Christ” in the entry for belief (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 62v). The added Chris-
tian connotation give prominence to the fact that context in many cases decides
the ideological, religious or philosophical meaning of a concept.
In the SIL-translated Mixtec New Testament, the word nacani ini is applied
for conveying the idea of repentance (Sp. arrepentimiento) (K. Farris 2002, 62).
Nacani ini has, however, many connotations with no relevance to repentance:
it is also a word for the action of reflecting and thinking (Alexander 1981, 236;
Pensinger 1974, 17; Caballero Morales 2008, 260; Macaulay 1996, 212). In Chalca-
tongo of Mixteca Alta, the village neighboring Santiago de Yosondúa where the
SIL New Testament in question was produced, nacani ini can be translated as
“worry” (Macaulay 1996, 220). Nacani can in addition be interpreted as “to ele-
vate” or “to lift” (Caballero Morales 2008, 260). Nacani ini can accordingly be
translated as “to lift your heart or spirit.” Pérez Jiménez and colleagues (2009)
record nakana as lifting the “heart” or “spirit” in a non-Christian purifying ritual
conducted in Chalcatongo (Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 66).
Various SIL dictionaries assign the Mixtec word nduu, or “convertize” to the
verb to convert. (K. Farris 2002, 62; Pensinger 1974, 26; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 29).
Nduu refers to a transformation into an animal or a natural phenomenon or sim-
ply “to change” (Caballero Morales 2008, 351; Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 90; 2009,
93). The corresponding word in Nahuatl is, as we saw, mocuepa, which also is
applied to render the sense of repentance. But nduu is not employed by SIL mis-
sionaries to translate the idea of religious conversion in the Mixtec New Testa-
ment. As in Nahuatl, there is no particular word in Mixtec for a religious conver-
sion.

 Nel-li, something true, certain (Karttunen 1992: 164).

 Translation of conversion and repentance 55

The Mixtec Catholic colonial missionary lexical sources also shares with Na-
huatl the distinction between the concepts of conversion and repentance. In the
Catholic colonial dictionary of Alvarado, “repentance” is translated with the
Spanish-Mixtec paraphrase mudando parecer, yondico cavua inindi (Alvarado
[1593] 1962, 26) or “appear to change a bitter/stone heart,” whereas the verb
“convert” (Sp. convertir) is recorded as: yondico cavua inindi nana stoho Dios
(53), “return or come back from a bitter/stone heart in the face of the lord
God.” Furthermore, this verb is also translated as yosanda inindi quachi (Alvar-
ado [1593] 1962, 53) or “give up sin in heart.” Moreover, a passage from colonial
literature encompasses nacuanini for the noun “repentance” and nicoocoho ynita
(“bounce or ricochet his/her heart”) for the noun conversion respectively (Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 201– 3).
Unlike the postcolonial Protestant SIL missionary linguists, the Catholic col-
onial missionary linguists make a conceptual distinction between conversion
and repentance in Nahuatl and Mixtec by constructing paraphrases (Mixtec) or
giving new meaning to existing words (Nahuatl). It would be a stretch to
claim that this reflects any theological difference between Catholicism and Prot-
estantism; it merely stands as evidence of various translators’ independent stra-
tegic choices.
Peter admonishes the Israelites to repent and to convert from Judaism in
Acts 3:19 by saying, “repent therefore, and turn to God.” The Greek New Testa-
ment makes a conceptual theological distinction between the notions of repent-
ance and conversion by using the terms metanoeo and epistrephō, respectively
(BDAG 2000, 382, 640 – 42). In Nahuatl and Mixtec the theological concepts of
repentance and conversionare, however, only rendered with moyolcuepacan
and nacani ini. ¹¹
A nonreligious (non-Christian) usage of moyolcuepa in Nahuatl is recorded
by SIL lexicographers as “I repent because I sold my land” (Neh yonimoyolcuep
quen onicnemacac notlal) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000,
99). For nacani ini in Mixtec of Yosondúa, we see this nonreligious usage:
“The mother repented to have left her child alone in the house” (Ni nakani ini
nana suchi un ja ni xndoo ña i ve’e) (K. Farris 2002, 50). There can accordingly
be Christian, indigenous religious, and nonreligious (secular) meanings for
these and other concepts. As was and is the case in Greek, Spanish, English,
and other languages, words do not receive religious connotations unless they
are positioned within their proper theological framework—where they are ex-

 The root word of moyolcuepacan and nacani ini is “heart” or “spirit”—yol(li) in Nahuatl and
ini or inindi in Mixtec.
56 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

pected by the missionary translators to obtain Christian significance. This lin-

guistic-theological strategy constitutes a politics of imputing different meanings
to indigenous words by manipulating them and thereby transforming the world-
view of the target culture.
In conclusion, there exist neither a concept for religious “conversion” nor a
feeling of regret (repentance) of committed personal sin in a Christian sense—
which is authoritative in Protestant moral-soteriological doctrine—in Nahuatl,
Mixtec, or any American indigenous language. Consequently, the words taken
from Nahuatl (moyolcuepacan) and Mixtec (nacani ini) vocabulary intentionally
acquire this novel semantic value when seen in the framework of translated
scripture (New Testament).
Let us now look into passages from the translated New Testaments that ex-
emplify the employment of the Christian theological concept of religious conver-
sion in combination with associated concepts: “Gentile”/“heathen” (Gr. ethnos;
BDAG 2000, 276 – 77), “infidel” (Gr. apistos; 103), and “unbeliever.” These no-
tions categorize people who do not adhere to Christianity and, according to
Christian missiological principles, need to be converted.
2 Corinthians 4:4 outlines the term unbelievers, which in the Nahuatl and
Mixtec translations is expressed by a negation (ahmo or tu, respectively) of be-
lievers or belief (quineltocahque and candixia in that order), thus non-believers.
Belief, or faith (Gr. pistis; BDAG 2000, 818 – 20), is translated with the afore-men-
tioned tlaneltocalistli in Nahuatl. It can be literally transmitted as tla-nel-toca,
“to follow something which is certain and true.” Candixia has the meaning of
“believe” but also “persuade” in Mixtec (K. Farris 2002, 26; Macaulay 1996,
216). In the colonial Catholic Mixtec dictionary, faith appears as yosino ndisa in-
indi, “go without doubt or be certain in my heart” (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 57v–
57r). The concepts of belief (faith) and unbelief are accordingly not difficult to
communicate by translation. It is more complex to convey, however, the word
for Gentile in an indigenous language.
Conversion is combined in Acts 15:3 with Gentiles and believers in the
phrase: “they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to
all the believers.” In the Nahuatl translation, the believers (tlaneltocanimen)
from the sacred congregation (tetiotlayehualoltzin) in Antioch are contrasted
with the Gentiles, who are classified with the Nahuatl-Spanish neologism “not
Jews” (ahmo judeahtecos) since there does not exist a word for Gentile (or
Jew) in Nahuatl. The concept of Gentile corresponds to non-Jewish people in
the New Testament. But this meaning represents an anachronism and does
not apply to Christianity, which of course is a non-Jewish religion today. More-
over, conversion is paraphrased as “a long time ago they permitted their belief
to follow God” (yoquicauque in yihuehcau intlaneltoquilis ic tecuitlapanuisque
 Translation of conversion and repentance 57

in Dios). Not surprisingly, there are also no Mixtec words for conversion or Gen-
tiles. The SIL translation of Acts 15:3 attempt therefore to express these ideas
with a long sentence: “they stroke this type of lie people believed, now people
of other nations began purified their customs and they believe in Jesus” (ni ca
jani cuentu nuu yɨvɨ ca candixia un ja ni ca quejaha yɨvɨ ɨnga nación ca sndoo i
costumbre i ti ca candixia i Jesús).
The ritual of conversion as an initiation into another faith system—in Chris-
tianity, baptism—is absent in traditional indigenous religious practice. The New
Testament tells of John the Baptist going to the region around the Jordan in order
to convert people, “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of
sins” (Luke 3:3). The Nahuatl New Testament translates baptism with name-
chcuatequis (“I will sprinkle water on your head”) (Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 211; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 229; Key and Key 1953, 209).
A contemporary nonmissionary dictionary uses majkuilis for this purpose, which
is expressed through an optative and translates as “may take water” (Pury Toumi
1984). The Catholic colonial dictionary records the same meaning as appears in
the SIL dictionaries (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, r19, r69; Olmos [1547] 1985, 194).
The non-Christian meaning of the supposed word for baptism in Nahuatl, how-
ever, is disclosed by another definition of quicuatequiya: “to be godfather or god-
parent” or “to be patron to, to support” (Sp. apadrinar) (Brockway, Hershey de
Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 125). The missionary linguists therefore appropriat-
ed a concept from the Nahua social and religious system in order to enforce a
Christian meaning.
Baptism is expressed in the Mixtec New Testament as cuanducha, which is a
compound word with the meaning “to give water,” quite similar to the Nahuatl
adjective used (K. Farris 2002, 76; Campbell et al. 1986, 75; Dyk and Stoudt 1973,
38; Macaulay 1996, 218; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 104). Alvarado applies various
idioms, but all have similar relationships to an initiatory ceremonial cleansing
act of using water: sa sadzo nduta means “sacred water,” and sa nihi nduta
means “receive (costumbre) water” (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 34v). Other Mixtec
words constructed by the missionary linguists from the early colonial period in-
clude sadzonadua ñaha, “to sprinkle water on someone,” and tai ninihinduat,
“one who received water,” for a baptized person (Terraciano 2001, 302– 3).
That missionary linguists employed words associated with water for ‘bap-
tism’ in Nahuatl, Mixtec and other Mesoamerican languages is not surprising
since sources indicates that the Nahua (and the Maya) before the European ap-
pearance undertook ceremonial bathing of infants and children (cf. Burkhart
1989, 112– 115; Christensen 2013, 126 – 127). Identifying a seemingly religious or
ideological equivalence is often conceived as an effective translation method.
58 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

The entry baptizo in the Greek New Testament lexicon is defined as “wash
ceremonially for purpose of purification, to use water in a rite for purpose of re-
newing or establishing a relationship with God” (BDAG 2000, 164– 65). This, as
conversion, is an idea alien to indigenous ceremony and therefore difficult to ex-
press through translation except by referring to the water applied in baptism rit-
uals. Pre-Christian Nahua baptism cleansed with water the filth of the parents’
intercourse and the tonalli (Burkhart 1989, 113 – 14), but Christ demanded the rit-
ual of an immersion into water, confession, and repentance of sin in order to de-
clare faith in God. The converted is being born again by the Holy Spirit into a new
existence where he or she becomes a member of the church’s fellowship accord-
ing to Protestant theology. The translated words for baptism does not indicate
the specific religious meaning of the action but only (adjectivally) describes its
undertaking. This is illustrated with an interesting contemporaneous example
from a Mixtec community. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between
blessings of pouring water on a child’s head and at other events, but many
Nuyootecos (Mixtecs from the village of Santiago Nuyoo) do not. Both occasions
are called jia nute: “Thus people frequently say that they ‘baptize’ their children
to protect them from illness, that they ‘baptize’ their animals, and that they even
‘baptize’ the trucks owned by the different hamlets” (Monaghan 1995, 52n2).
Mission constitutes intercultural contact but not a symmetrical linguistic
dialogue. The aim is to proselytize with the purpose of achieving a transforma-
tion of philosophy and practices of the target culture. Herein lies the political di-
mension of the missionary enterprise of conversion. The metaconcept of “conver-
sion” does not exist in nonmissionary indigenous philosophies as a religious
idea, so SIL missionaries, as opposed to their Catholic predecessors, avoid
using it. Conversely, translated words for repentance, faith, belief, and baptism
may be present in non-Christian indigenous religious vocabularies but do not
correspond to Christian theology. We shall in the next section see that the
same applies to the notion of the term sin as it is translated in the SIL Mixtec
and Nahuatl New Testaments.

Language and semiotic ideology

Judith T. Irvine has formulated a quite useful definition of language ideology: “a

cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships together with
their loading of moral and political interests” (Irvine 1989, 255). Moreover,
Paul Kroskrity makes this addition of the politics of language ideology: “lan-
guage ideologies represent the perception of language and discourse that is con-
structed in the interest of a specific social or cultural group” (Kroskrity 2000, 8).
 Language and semiotic ideology 59

Language conveys ideas, knowledge and cultural codes for both social and per-
sonal experience. Consequently, language ideologies “… link language to identity,
power, aesthetics, morality and epistemology in terms of cultural and historical spe-
cificities” (Makihara and Schieffelin 2007, 14).¹² Webb Keane expands on this by in-
troducing the category “semiotic ideology”. Semiotic ideology involves practices
where there is interdependence between words and objects within a “representa-
tional economy”. A transformation in one domain has implications for others.
“For example, changing theological views can alter the nature of moral claims,
ideas about agency and responsibility, … “(Keane 2007, 20). Moreover, “…, since
the power effects of language (and of semiotic form more generally) are not fully
determinate – the “same” forms can … have quite different implications in different
contexts – ideological mediation is a necessary component of any political conse-
quences that might follow from form” (Keane 2007, 17).
Language and semiotic ideologies comprise not only cultural assumptions or
beliefs native speakers have about their language and its related world-view but
also to languages and world-views of peoples of other civilizations (cf. Hardman
2009; Woolard 1998).
There are accordingly several theoretical positions of conceiving language
and semiotic ideologies interrelated with missionary linguistic practices towards
indigenous and other minority linguistic cultures: the conception missionary lin-
guists have about the source language i. e. their own (also scriptural) language
tradition and the so-called target, i. e. indigenous or minority, languages; the
conception indigenous and other minority peoples have about their languages
and the language of the foreign missionary linguist, which refers to the complex
relation between language, semiotics and culture. This represents a huge topic
where in particular the contemporary language and semiotic ideologies of indig-
enous and minority peoples merits far more research. What concerns us, howev-
er, in the present context is how and by which strategies the language and semi-
otic ideology of evangelical protestants represented by SIL and Wycliffe Bible
Translators endeavor to transform (convert), through translation and the related
production of grammars and dictionaries, not only the linguistic but also the cul-
tural, religious and the social and political systems of indigenous peoples. Indig-
enous meaning is not projected to coexist with Christian doctrine according to
language ideology of SIL as well as other (Protestant) missionary linguists. De-
spite missionary linguistic search for analogies and univocally with indigenous

 There can be a cultural hegemony of a dominant language ideology. But language ideologies
are also multiple based upon the various experiences and the multiplicity divisions of and with-
in sociocultural groups. Likewise, there are different degrees of consciousness of local language
ideology by the individual member (Kroskrity 2000, 12– 13; 18 – 19).
60 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

concepts and terms, selected indigenous words and expressions receive different
definitions or are replaced with loan words, calques or neologisms in the gram-
mars and dictionaries produced by the missionary linguists. If the receptor ac-
cepts the encompassing soteriological dogma conveyed in his/her language,
which is the ultimate missionary objective, it is not possible to retain the princi-
pal core of American indigenous philosophies/religions. This is simply because
these systems emphazise quite different moral conceptions of the natural world
and of an afterlife.

The politics of missionary language and

semiotic ideology and practice
Due to its complex organizational and institutional composition, the extensive
geographic activity and the variability of its employees and members, there
are several language and semiotic ideologies of SIL (Handman 2009, 636). More-
over, Handman points out that there are differences between SIL International,
which has more a role of providing advice and guidance, and its national
branches. Even within the national branches it self, the missionary linguists
have to adapt to local cultures, languages, religions and socio-politics in the
field, there are divisions of opinion regarding language ideology (Handman
2007, 168).
In accordance with my analyzis and hypothesis, a succinctly rationalization
of a general SIL language ideology has been formulated by the French academic
(secular) linguist Jon Landabaru. He maintains that the formal language ideolo-
gy of SIL follows a religious model adapted to missionary practice. It does not
take into account a conceptualizing of indigenous mentality and experiences
and is therefore problematic when comes to grammar and semantics of indige-
nous linguistic systems. The SIL language ideology follows the precept: “The in-
digenous peoples delivers the form, the missionary gives the content. The mis-
sionary has the (gospel) truth; the indigenous cultures provide the form of
expression. What the language exposes is that the indigenous philosophy and
religion constitute unqualified falsehood and ignorance: The missionary there-
fore tells the natives: “Give us the form so that we can take care of the content”
(cited in Stoll 1982, 251– 252).
Furthermore, agreeing with Landabaru, the academic (secular) linguists Lisa
Dobrin and Jeff Good (2009) and Patrice Epps and Herb Ladley (2009) substan-
tiate that according to the language and semiotic ideology SIL are not genuinely
interested in the preservation of endangered minority languages and cultures be-
cause their principal objective is to evangelize the gospel. This has also conse-
 The politics of missionary language and semiotic ideology and practice 61

quences for the quality of the linguistic analysis and work of the SIL missionary
linguists. “SIL’s mission agenda has led the organization to devote only limited
attention to the most endangered language varieties, SIL’s emphasis on the pro-
duction of written texts leads it to deemphasize important issues of variation and
nontextual modalities, as reflected in gaps in the development effort expended
on such kinds of data” (Dobrin and Good 2009: 626 – 627).
It is correspondingly a fundamental difference between the institutional and
scientific values of (secular) academic linguists and missionary linguists. Aca-
demic linguists attempt to comprehend “what languages are: how they are con-
stituted, how they function, what they reveal about the past and present worlds
of their speakers, what they reveal about human cognition”. SIL finds languages
obligatory because they provide access to converting the native speakers. Mis-
sionary linguist organizations like SIL undertake Bible translation, scientific lin-
guistic surveys and analysis, language and literacy education, production and
distribution of software in the service of evangelizing the Gospel (Dobrin and
Good 2009: 623; Epps and Ladley 2009, 641). Due to the scientific background
of training programs of linguistic theory and learning languages quite a few
SIL missionary linguists do not perceive themselves as traditional missionaries.
Moreover, members of SIL conceive missionary linguistics as “empowerment”
and “emancipation” of “minority cultures” because it gives them linguistic
and “spiritual tools” and is consequently “anti-colonial” (Handman 2015, 61;
80). But in reality, SIL and missionary linguists are not rescuing endangered lan-
guages and cultures as Sanneh and other inculturation theologians and missio-
nares claim. This has not only to do with their endeavor to transform indigenous
languages through controlling and influencing literarcy through grammars, dic-
tionaries and translated scripture in order to proselytize. This has also to do with
the strategic prioritization of resources. Dobrin and Good advocate that SIL di-
minish the:

… deployment of missionary linguists to those languages that are least vital, and so least in
need of vernacular-language religious materials. …Projects are only started where they ‘are
likely to remain viable to the end’. As a result, the languages that are most endangered are
least likely to receive SIL’s close attention…most nationals are under the aegis of these sis-
ter organizations producing religious materials in practical orthographies, and sometimes
local literacy materials, typically for languages that are closely related to those already
being worked on by SIL linguists. They are not producing the kind of extensive language
documentation that is most useful for cultural preservation and informative to linguistic
science. The attention now being given in documentary linguistics to the creation and pres-
ervation of primary data (i. e. archiving original audio and video recordings, field notes, and
texts) has no counterpart in SIL (Dobrin and Good 2009: 623 – 624).
62 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

Epps and Ladly assert that documentation of moribund languages is not given
importance by SIL. “Its ‘Vision 2025’ (‘to see Bible translation begun by 2025
in every remaining language community that needs it’) promotes urgency, “po-
tentially at the price of thoroughness, in training, documentation, and analysis
(cf. Guthrie 2005). The goal of rapidly translating key nonnative texts also neces-
sarily limits the time fieldworkers have to spend on language materials of native
content—the backbone of language documentation” (Epps and Ladley 2009,
641).
Through various linguistic and translation adaptations, SIL makes the Bible
accessible to non-Christian peoples. But at the same time it endorses cultural
and language change. Linguistic codes and genres of verbal art related to tradi-
tional symbols, belief and practices are undermined, as are bilingualism and the
status of different languages, idioms or dialects (Epps and Ladley 2009, 644).
Linguistic conversion entails not adding but repudiation, transposition or alter-
ation of the beliefs and practices that precede it (Schieffelin 2002, Smith 1981:
126). The linguistic-religious transformation among members of a community
may have severe consquences because it can lead to disturbance and factional-
ism and simlutaneously demoralizing social and cultural effects: “such as atti-
tudes toward work and leisure, male-female relationships, use of alcohol and to-
bacco (whether for ritual and recreation), personal modesty, economic
transactions etc. (cf. Calvet 1987, Smith 1981, Stoll 1982)” (Epps and Ladley
2009, 644). I will later elaborate this important aspect and potential consequen-
ces of the missionary linguist enterprise.

Missionary linguistic translation strategies

It is significant to realize the deceptive supposition of a universal human reality,

which creates a ‘translation fallacy’. There is fundamental constrains based upon
sociocultural values referring to experience (Everett 2005, 626): “The mistake of
concluding that language X shares a category with language Y if the categories
overlap in reference” (Everett 2005, 623 note 4). Meaning therefore has to be
worked out by correlating cultural context with language “to develop incipient
intuitions that guide further testing and reasoning” (Everett 2005, 627). Not
only the missionary linguist but also the ideological (theological) disinterested
anthropologist, linguist or historian of religions or ideas suffer this linguistic pre-
dicament of translation. Everett’s warning that‘…much of Pirahã is largely in-
commensurate with English and therefore translation is simply a poor approxi-
mation of Pirahã intentions and meaning,…” (Everett 2005, 624 note 5) is a
 Missionary linguistic translation strategies 63

remainder of the cognitive difference between European and non-European lan-

guages.¹³
In the extensive literature of cognitive linguistics and translation theory
(translatology) a plethora of theoretical models of translation exist. For instance,
Mojola and Wendland¹⁴ have categorized seven fundamental approaches to
Bible translation, whereas Kroneman has made a taxonomy of six methods (Kro-
neman 2004, 235). What makes up the strategic model of translation used by
SIL?¹⁵ Do the individual SIL translators rigorously practice a methodology recom-
meded by the organization? More importantly for the present analyzis is the
issue of missionary linguistic politics—how does translating core and key reli-
gious concepts into indigenous languages for the purpose of evangelizing signify
power and meaning? The fundamental religious-linguistic disparity between Eu-
ropean-American Christianity and indigenous cultures of the Americas brings us
to the issue where missionary linguistic translation strategies are connected with
politics and accordingly with the power promoting colonialism and cultural im-
perialism, which is well formulated by Gentzler and Tymoczko:

….. translation is a metonymic process as well as a metaphoric one. Translations are inevi-
tably partial; meaning in a text is always overdetermined, and the information in a source
text is therefore always more extensive than a translation can convey. Conversely, the recep-
tor language and culture entail obligatory features that shape the possible interpretations
of the translation, as well as extending the meanings of the translation in directions other
than those inherent in the source text…. As a result, translators must make choices, select-
ing aspects or parts of a text to transpose and emphasize. Such choices in turn serve to cre-
ate representations of their source text, representations that are also partial. This partiality
is not to be considered a defect, a lack, or an absence in a translation; it is a necessary con-
dition of the act. It is also an aspect that makes the act of translation partisan: engaged and
committed, either implicitly or explicitly. Indeed partiality is what differentiates transla-
tions, enabling them to participate in the dialectic of power, the ongoing process of political
discourse, and strategies for social change (Gentzler and Tymoczko 2002, xvii-xviii).

I intend to explicate lexical data in order to define SIL’s missionary linguistic

strategies of conversion. But first let us look at indigenous and early colonial
Catholic translation strategies.

 There are concepts and passages that simply cannot be translated but they can be replaced
with ideal types (cf. Pharo 2007; 2011).
 See Mojola and Wendlan’s article in Wilt (2003, 25).
 For a recent overview of the theories and methods in the history of Bible translation, cf. Kro-
neman (2004, 214– 45). For theoretical publications about Bible translation as missiology, cf.
Kroneman (2004, 216 – 17).
64 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

Indigenous and colonial Catholic translation strategies

The analyzis of the book is about missionary linguistics of postcolonial US Prot-

estantism but where I, by a method of historical linguistic (translation) analogy,
systematically compare with colonial Catholic samples in order to demonstrate
an overall religious and philosophical incommensurability between Christianity
and indigenous religions as expressed by language. As will be exhibited in later
chapters there is linguistic and therefore translation continuity between the Col-
onial Spanish Catholic and Postcolonial US Protestant missionary linguists as
the latter employ the grammars (artes) and dictionaries of the former. Differen-
ces regarding theologies within the missionary organizations and between the
missionary linguists of SIL and for instance Franciscan, Dominican¹⁶ and Jesuit
Orders as well as indigenous collaborators cannot, however, on this general level
be reviewed.¹⁷ In order to establish which semiotic and language ideology ac-
cording to theology the individual (missionary) translator and/or institution ad-
here to would require a particular and quite extensive study (i. e. monograph) by
itself.
The English verb translate and the Spanish verb traducir both derive from the
Latin transferre, “to carry across,” and traducere, “to lead across,” which implies
a transference of meaning. Translation signifies a process where oral and written
words, ideas, and concepts are transmitted from a source language into a target
language. But this is not only what takes place. Founded upon meticulous lin-
guistic anthropological studies of translations of Catholic dogma into colonial
Yucatec Maya, Hanks (cf. 2010) advocates: “the target language is altered in
the process of translation…. Historical examples of languages changing through
intertranslation abound in (post)colonial contexts in which authoritative texts in
a dominant language are translated into a subordinated language. This process
inevitably alters the semantics and pragmatics of the subordinate language”
(Hanks and Severi 2014, 7; 9). Missionary linguistic translations are instrumen-
tal—in other words, they advance a rhetoric the objective of which is to convert
a target audience through transformation of the vernacular language system.

 For an argument of the existence of various semiotic and language (translation) ideologies
respectively corresponding to different theologies between colonial Fransciscan (nominalist)
and Dominican (Thomists) missionary linguists of Maya languages in highland Guatemala cf.
Sparks (2011; 2014; Sauchse 2016, 95 – 96; García Ruíz 1992).
 Not always congruent with the missionary objective of their order the colonial missionary
linguists took anterior doctrinal texts, grammars and dictionaries of their colleagues as model
for their own work (cf. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz 2016, 9 – 10).
 Indigenous and colonial Catholic translation strategies 65

The metaword translation, or rather its corresponding concept, has intrigu-

ing connotations in Nahuatl.¹⁸ The notion of translation was rendered by the col-
onial catholic missionary linguists as tlatolcuepaliztli (“turning of words”) or cue-
pan tlatolli, “to translate a language into another” (Molina [1555, 1571] 1977, 114v;
Karttunen 1992, 266 – 67). This suggests not a conveyance of meaning but “a turn-
ing about, a response, or a change,” which is a less restricted and perhaps fun-
damentalist, interpretative practice of modification or adaption of the original
(allegedly authentic) message (Burkhart 1996, 101). Tlahtōlcuep(a) can also sig-
nify “to contradict oneself; to contradict someone or to change the words” (Kart-
tunen 1992, 266; Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 141r)—or to deny or withdraw, to
deny to another person, to say that what he was saying is not true (141r). People
born under the unfortunate (amo cualli) day-sign Ce Cuāuhtli, “One Eagle,” of
the Nahua’s 260-day calendar were denominated tlatlatolcuepa: “he denied
his own words” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, IV:108).¹⁹
Terraciano has outlined indigenous translation strategies in Mixtec and Na-
huatl in the early colonial period. Indigenous peoples applied concepts from the
pre-European/pre-Christian period in particular when they are writing for other
indigenous people. A few Spanish-influenced words were invented by either
loanwords or literal translations “which meaning was extended by metaphor
or identification” (Terraciano 2008, 19 – 20). James Lockhart has constructed a
three-stage language-contact model for Nahuatl in the colonial period, and it
corresponds with the sociocultural transformation observed during that era. In
stage 1 (1530 – 1540) the European missionary linguists mainly constructed Na-
huatl neologisms. In stage 2 (1540 – 1640) Spanish loanwords and expressions
were introduced into Nahuatl. In stage 3 (1640–present) Spanish has a semantic
(loanwords), phonological, and syntactic influence on Nahuatl (Terraciano 2001,
81; Lockhart 1992, 261– 325; Tavárez 2011, 29). Terraciano has found that these
three stages of language-contact phenomena for the adoption of Spanish by Na-
huatl-speakers are equivalent for the Mixteca, “although the timing was more
gradual and the extent of change less pervasive” (Terraciano 2001, 92; 2008, 22).
In the early colonial period, Central Mexico’s ecclesiastical texts continued
to include archaic terms and not many loanwords after they were no longer prac-
ticed (Terraciano 2001, 88). Georges Baudot claims that despite the inclination of
the early missionary linguists (like Olmos in the the sixteenth century) to employ

 In early colonial Mixtec, the missionary lexicographer registers the lexeme “to translate”
with extensive paraphrases (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 197r).
 Two examples of words for translation in contemporary Nahuatl are as follows: quīcuepa,
“return it, stop or catch it, come back to it, translate it, turn it” (Brewer and Brewer 1971,
183), and Ixtontli, “explanation, translation” (Kimball 1980, 38).
66 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

Spanish terms for certain Christian theological concepts in order to avoid influ-
ence from Nahua religion, they were at risk (felt an anxiety) of conveying Chris-
tianity as a foreign (European) religion only for Spanish or Hispanicized people
(Baudot 1995, 99). Olmos’s Nahuatl translation of Saint Vincent Ferrer’s Latin ser-
mon De Luxuriae Speciebus, signis damnis et remediis, part of the treatise of the
Sermones de Peccatis capitalibus, is quite a literal one. ²⁰ He made several addi-
tions and omissions in order to make the text comprehensible to the Nahua au-
dience. In folio 346v of his Arte, he added a passage from the Aztec collection
huehuetlatolli: “Don’t follow anyone, don’t frequent the market, don’t linger in
the bath or on the streets, because it is there, there it lives, the lie, the great
evil, the owl-man, that devours the skirt the blouse etc . . . “ Omissions were
also made; in the narration of the biblical episodes, Olmos did not include prop-
er names or specific references to Christian culture unknown to the Nahua. More-
over, he made the Nahuatl translation “active, practical, and, one might say, op-
erational.” Olmos added to the prayers of the original text, encouraging the
Nahua to participate in a liturgical ceremony by evoking a ritual celebration ac-
cordingly adapted to non-European/non-Christian religion. He also made rhetor-
ical use of difrasismo (two-word metaphor) where evil is rendered as axixtli cui-
tlatl (“urine”; “garbage”). Olmos even employed the vigesimal Mesoamerican
numerical system in describing the outcome of divine punishment in the
Bible. For instance, he counted the dead by oxiquipilli ypan caxtoltzontli
omone ypan matlacpoalli or 2 x 8000 + 17 x 400 + 200 (23,000). In addition,
Olmos saw the need to explain concepts of Christian doctrine. Mictlan, for exam-
ple, is explained and described as the terrible Christian hell (Baudot 1995, 238 –
40).²¹ In folio 52v of the pictorical manuscript (with comments in Spanish) Codex
Magliabecchinanus from the mid-sixteenth century, the authors endeavor to ex-
plain that mictlan, the Nahuatl word used by early Catholic missionaries and
today by Protestant missionaries for “hell,” is not a correct translation. A catego-
rical distinction between mictlan tecutli and ichan tlacatecolotl is also made (Nut-
tall [1903] 1983, fol. 52v; Baudot 1995, 211). On the other hand, in Tradado de he-

 Olmos wrote Siete sermones principales sobre los siete pecados mortales (“Seven Major Ser-
mons on the Seven Deadly Sins”) in 1551– 1552. This was a Nahuatl translation of the treatise
Sermones de peccatis capitalbus pro ut septem petitionibus orationis Dominicae opponuntur by
Vicente Ferrer and was intended to adapt to the way of thinking, traditions, and language of
the Nahua. In this book Olmos constructed words in Nahuatl to clarify the nuances and partic-
ularities of the Catholic Christian seven deadly sins (Baudot 1995, 234– 37).
 Cf. translation by Baudot (Fray Andrés de Olmso y su Tratado de los Pecados Mortales en
lengua náhuatl, Estudios de Culture Náhuatl [1976] 12:33 – 59; fols. 341v–347r of De Peccato Lux-
urie).
 Indigenous and colonial Catholic translation strategies 67

chicerías y sortilegios, Olmos mostly used the Spanish loanword diablo for devil.
Sometimes he applied yn tlacatecolotl, representing pre-European/pre-Christian
religion (Baudot 1995, 244).
Burkhart’s study shows that translations of the early colonial missionaries
were performed by modifying and adapting European Christian and Nahuatl
concepts (Burkhart 1989). It is nevertheless quite intriguing that nouns, but
not verbs, were at first not translated into Spanish. Religious conceptionaliza-
tion, but not religious actions, accordingly had unfamiliar names in the mission-
aries’ written work (Burkhart 1989, 23). The many predicaments of translating
Christian scripture are well reflected in their early work, where there is a combi-
nation of Christian and indigenous terminology. Quite a few Christian theologi-
cal concepts were created from “synonyms” in indigenous languages. The mis-
sionaries could apply the indigenous terms, not corresponding to Catholic
orthodoxy, as long as they were assured that these notions were exempt from
“idolatry.” They preferred simple words instead of poetic metaphors and a com-
plicated rhetoric that could conceal non-Christian content. It was a pedagogical
aspiration to write in an unsophisticated and straightforward manner. Neverthe-
less, indigneous metaphors were still used as an effective tool in the sermons.
Even directly conducted translations of scriptures included Mesoamerican deno-
tations and connotations foreign to the Christian European notions that they
were supposed to render. It was therefore impossible to avoid “heathen” ideas.
The clerical missionaries warn against this danger in their books (Burkhart
1989, 27).
Cultural and religious preconceived translations of alien theological con-
cepts were always a possibility. Some scriptures, like the Mixtec Doctrina (Herna-
dez), explain new meanings of words. Doctrina en lengua contains a discourse on
the theological concepts of morality and sin (Terraciano 2001, 294). If the colo-
nial Spanish Catholic missionaries in the Andes could not identify suitable trans-
lations, they would simply keep the key concept in the original and teach the
Christian theological meaning through “analogy, metaphor, and other tropes
and rhetorical strategies in the language of instruction” (Urton 2009, 818).²²
Ethnographic accounts of missionaries were influenced by the objective of
evangelization, where many aspects of the indigenous culture were ignored
and misinterpreted. European cultural categories were often applied uncritically
to indigenous concepts. Features of the indigenous culture were also modified to

 Cf. Durston 2007; Mannheim 1991; and also J. C. Estenssoro Fuchs, Del paganismo a la san-
tidad: La incorporación de los indios del Peru al catolicismo, 1532 – 1750 (Lima: Instituto Francés
de Estudios Andinos and Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2003).
68 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

appear acceptable. On the other hand, the indigenous assistants of the mission-
aries recorded words and expressions without changing the contents. As Bur-
khart accentuates, it is significant that the translated catechists’ Nahuatl texts
were a result of collaboration between the friars (missionary linguists) and
their Nahua assistants, students, and informants. Although under close supervi-
sion and scrutiny by the Spanish missionaries, the Nahua interpreters and
scribes were responsible for a great part of the formulations of the evangelical
Nahuatl texts. Consequently, many of these scriptures are indeed of a Nahua
character (Burkhart 1989, 24– 25).
There are various categories of doctrinal (ecclesiastic) texts suggesting a “di-
versification of Mesoamerican Catholicism” in the colonial period according to
Mark Z. Christensen (2013). This pertains also to the adoption of Christian com-
ponents into indigenous Mesoamerican religions. Missionaries and/or the indig-
enous collaborators made translated ecclesiastical official texts often based
upon European manuals. After editorial and doctrinal supervision, these were
published for indigenous adolescence in schools and colleges, for the use of
priests and indigenous ecclesial agents in local parishes, in addition to cleric
readers. Furthermore, there were ecclesial texts not to be published written by
missionaries and/or indigenous collaborators for local use and for parochial re-
ligious authorities. Both these categories of Mesoamerican (doctrinal) ecclesias-
tical texts contain exegesis and receptions that indicate a diversified Catholi-
cism. The latter could contain unorthodox theology and some were
unauthorized creations. The third category encompasses unofficial religious
texts like doctrinal, local tracts, sermons, accounts, and treaties that were not
published i. e. restricted or overseen by editors. This non-orthodox Catholic
texts were produced by Indigenous peoples instructed in theology, with no or al-
most none ecclesiastic control, for local communities (Christensen 2013: 53 – 89).
The Books of the Chilam Balam (c. 1600AD – c. 1700) – written in Yucatec with
some Latin terms by descendants of the Indigenous nobility educated in mission
schools – represents an example of the latter category of religious doctrinal texts
(Hanks 2010: 338 – 364). A fascinating, although not systematically studied, doc-
trinal source is the extensive Theologica Indorum (“Theology of/for the Indians”)
written in Guatemala 1545 – 1555 in K’iche’ by the Dominican fray Domingo de
Vico. A summa, or systematic theological summary never translated into either
Latin or Spanish but later translated into other Maya languages (Kaqchikel, Tz’u-
tujil, Q’eqchi’) is considered to be the “first Christian Theology to be written in an
indigenous language of the Americas.” In order to establish analogies between
Maya religion and Catholicism, Vico appropriated names and religious lexemes
from K’iche’ stories, ritual discourse, and rhetoric and transposed them into
Christian theology according to Garry Sparks (Sparks 2011; 2014; 2016, 216 –
 Indigenous and colonial Catholic translation strategies 69

219; Sauchse 2016, 96; 105). Consequently, at an initial stage indigenous Mesoa-
mericans adapted biblical scripture theologically to their ancient religious struc-
ture contributing to Mesoamerican Catholicisms and/or indigenous religions
(costumbres).
Despite taking advantage of certain loanwords, missionary linguists and eth-
nographer-missionaries of the early colonial period prefered equivalents to Mix-
tec concepts (Terraciano 2001, 293). The early Catholic missionary linguists want-
ed a reference of Christian theological concepts so that the indigenous people
would understand, and they accomplished this through neologisms and lexical
inventions of compound words. Another method was what David Tavárez calls
recruitment: words could also be given new meaning by modifications, meta-
phors, and by metonymy (Burkhart 1989). Some untranslable words were re-
placed by Spanish or Latin concepts. Spanish words were applied when the in-
digenous language was apparently insufficient for conveying the proper
connotation with respect to the indigenous notion at issue (Burkhart 1989, 33;
Tavárez 2000, 24). Carlos U. Robles (1964) has collected twenty-five Catholic con-
cepts translated from Spanish into Nahuatl, Tarahumara (Rarámuri), Otomí
(ñahñu), Tarasco, Zapotec, Yucatec, and Tzeltal in dictionaries from the colonial
period.²³ These are typical Christian notions like God, devil, hell, sin, forgive-
ness, immortality, punishment, eternity, soul, faith, mercy, and resurrection.²⁴
Robles has observed that a Christian idea is frequently described with two
terms, a loanword from Spanish and a word from the indigenous language.
Some terms could be formulated through a paraphrase since indigenous lan-
guages like Maya and Nahuatl can quite easily construct abstract concepts
through the addition of a suffix here or there. They could also do this by the
use of kennings (“difrasismos”), which was a customary applied literary techni-
que at the time (Robles 1964, 628 – 29).²⁵
Olmos’s Tratado de Hechiceriás y Sortilegios ([1553] 1990) contains nearly all
the concepts of conversion from the New Testament that I have analyzed in the
Nahuatl SIL New Testament. Beginning his career in Europe, Olmos was an ex-
pert on demonology and witchcraft. Tratado de Hechiceriás y Sortilegios follows

 Robles have made a survey of fifteen words in modern Tzeltal (Maya) expressing Christian
concepts (Robles 1964, 629 – 31).
 Cf. “religious” loanwords from Spanish into Tzotzil (Maya) (Laughlin and Haviland 1988,
571– 73).
 I have ascertained that an emic Mesoamerican concept of religion is not found in the extant
written primary sources (i. e., outlined in the Mesoamerican writing systems). Nor can lexemes
composed and written down in dictionaries by the Spanish missionary linguists be said to have
held this meaning (Pharo 2007).
70 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

quite closly the Fransciscan fray Martín de Castañega’s Spanish work Tratado de
las supersticiones y hechicerías from 1527, which was meant for a European audi-
ence (Baudot 1990, x). In the prologue, while referring to the religious concepts
of the non-Christian culture, Olmos outlines not only traditions and practices
(costumbres) but “a corrupt language filled with poision and pestilence”
(Olmos [1553] 1990, 5, 389v). Olmos is not only using Nahuatl synonyms; he
also explains Spanish-Christian theological concepts. The translated SIL New
Testaments do not engage in the same theological exegesis after introducing a
concept—for instance, describing in detail how terrible the devil and hell is.
As noted, Olmos makes use of the Spanish word Diablos and, to lesser degree,
Tlacatecolotl for the devil. This he does to introduce the Christian notion of
the devil to the Nahua. Moreover, Olmos applies ynotimoquaatequi for the verb
baptize but follows it with the Spanish baptismo sancto for “sacred baptism”
(Olmos [1553] 1990, 6 – 7, 390r). He also adds, “Un espiritu, no tiene cuerpo, Spi-
ritu yn amonacayo” (Olmos [1553] 1990, 74– 75, 407r). This approach can be un-
dertaken easily in the translated religious doctrinal or cathecist literature but
not to the same degree in the translation of the Bible, which is “fixed” scripture.
The use of as few roots as possible with the purpose of conveying various
Christian doctrinal concepts was a colonial missionary lingustic strategy for
translating into Maya because it made appropriating the constructed theological
concepts easier for the missionaries and catechumens. Colonial missionary lin-
guists applied the verb oc, “enter,” to express various Christian religious
terms: baptism was oc haa, “enter water”; conversion was oc-sic ba ti, “to
cause oneself to enter into” or ocçah ba, “cause oneself to enter”; belief was
ocol ol, “enter heart”; translations were oc-sci ti than, “cause to enter language”;
transfiguration was ocol ti uinicil, “enter into humanity”; and incarnation was oci
ti ui[ni]cil ca yumil til Dios, “our Lord God became human” (Hanks 2010, xv; 129,
131, 188 – 96).
In South America, however, Franciscans in particular opposed the use of indig-
enous Andean vernacular languages during the colonial period. In a letter to King
Philip II, the sixteenth-century priest Antonio de Zúñiga warned that ecclesiastical
practice of indigenous Andean languages only further upheld their religion simply
because their religious concepts were thereby “codified” and because the indige-
nous vocabulary did not contain abstract concepts corresponding to Christian the-
ology. The Jesuit friar José de Acosta argued: “Native Andean languages were gen-
erally weak on philosophy and theology.” The indigenous groups did not
understand the complexity of the Trinity or knew what belief was. The historian
Inka-Spanish Garcilaso de la Vega claimed that the Andeans’ lack of Christian vo-
cabulary was no problem: the missionaries should just endeavor to destroy the in-
digenous religious vocabulary (Pagden 1982, 157, 180 – 87; Mannheim 1991, 69 – 70).
 SIL’s theoretical linguistic strategy of translation: Dynamic equivalence 71

SIL’s theoretical linguistic strategy of translation:

Dynamic equivalence
It is noticable that individual translators of the SIL New Testaments are not
named, which upholds – to borrow (but not intended meaning) a title of a
book by Lawrence Venuti (1995) – the “invisibility of the translator” and creates
the impression that the Word of God is transmitted into indigenous languages
with no mediators, thereby conveying an aesthetics of divine authencity.
A novel linguistic concept of theoretical translation practices called “dynam-
ic equivalence” was delevoped by SIL missionary linguists Eugene Nida and
Charles Taber (Nida 1964; Nida and Taber 1969), later replaced by the category
“functional equivalence” (Waard and Nida 1986)²⁶—also known as “idiomatic
translation” or “meaning-based translation” (Beekman and Callow 1974; Larson
1984), which opposes the approach of formal correspondence (literalism). The
principle of dynamic equivalence implies that a translation shall communicate
with attention to the response of the receptor who belongs not only to a different
language family and culture but also to a totally alien religious system. Its pri-
mary concern is whether the audience of an extraneous culture or religion has
understood the translated message as intented by the translator (Kirk 2005:
91; Nida and Taber 1969, 1). The style of the original text is not considered
vital because it is the communication that is emphasized (Kirk 2005, 92).
Nida and Taber (1969, 12) maintain that “translating consists in reproducing
in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language
message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style,” but this ne-
glects accuracy, which is related to the historical context of the source text (Kirk
2005, 92). A contextualized approach through the linguistic method “dynamic or
functional equivalence” involves word-for-word (literal) translation, but this ap-
proach violates auctoritas and the so-called authenticity of scripture according to
critical theologians. By supplanting a novel cultural and religious identity, it
challenges orthodoxy, authority, established traditions, and doctrines of the
source text (Long 2005, 4, 6). This method of translation consequently confronts
what is notoriously known as fundamentalism—the literal reading and interpre-
tation (exegesis) of the Bible.

 Eugene Nida gave up missionary linguist work among the Tarahumaras (Rarámuris) because
of physical and psychological hardship (Hartch 2006, 100 – 102).
72 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

Nida and Taber’s theory and method of dynamic equivalence (1969) has of-
ficially been adopted as SIL translation policy. ²⁷ This “meaning-based transla-
tion” constitutes at present the philosophy and translation principles of the or-
ganization (Kroneman 2004, 216 – 17), but in a way it is remarkable that
“dynamic equivalence” has become the prevailing method there, especially
with indigenous languages (Kirk 2005, 90 – 91).²⁸ The translation theorist Law-
rence Venuti categorize Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence as a domesticating
practice “…. , an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to receiving cultural
values bringing the author back home …”. This conceals differences and “mas-
queades as a true semantic equivalence” and therby represent “a violence of
translation” (Venuti 1995, 15 – 16). Certainly this translation strategy has to do
with the rigid linguistic-philosophical dichotomy between European-American
Christian theology and indigenous religious systems. SIL has focused on the se-
mantic framework,²⁹ grammatical and lexical description of vernacular languag-
es, and a development of exegetical tools (Semantic Structure Analyzes, Transla-
tor’s Notes and Exegetical Summaries) and has in contrast to United Bible Society
not been interested in new linguistic theories about pragmatics, form, and style,

 Demonstrated by Beekman and Callow’s textbook Translating the Word of God (1974), fol-
lowed by companion volumes Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God (1974)
by Kathleen Callow and A Manual for Problem Solving in Translating the Word of God (1975)
by Mildred Larsson. Katharine Barnwell, Introduction to Semantics and Translation (1974) and
Mildred Larsson Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence (1991) are
other important books for SIL missionarly linguists. SIL’s contributions also include Deibler’s
unpublished Index of Implicit Information, Carlton’s Translator’s Reference Tool, and the now-ter-
minated Notes on Translation. Computer software like Translator’s Workplace has been devel-
oped by SIL (Kroneman 2004, 218 – 19)
 “Translation Theory and Practice,” an SIL webpage, recommends “Of interest to all profes-
sional translators: Callow, Kathleen, l999, Man and Message; Gutt, Ernst-August, l992, Relevance
Theory; Larson, Mildred L., Meaning-based Translation. Of special interest to Bible Translators:
Barnwell, Katharine, l986, Bible Translation; Larson, Mildred L., with Ellis E. Deibler and Mar-
jorie Crofts, l998, Meaning-Based Translation Workbook: Biblical Exercises; Larson, Mildred L.,
editor. 1991. Translation: theory and practice, tension and interdependence. American Translators
Association scholarly monographs, 5. Binghampton, NY: State University of New York; Larson,
Mildred L. 1998. Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America and Summer Institute of Linguistics. X” (http://www.sil.org/
translation/TrTheory.htm)
 For example, see John Beekman, John C. Callow, and M. Kopesec, The Semantic Structure of
Written Communication (Dallas: Summer Institute of Lingustics, 1981) and Kathrine Callow, Man
and Message: A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis (Lanham, NY: University Press of America,
1998).
 SIL’s theoretical linguistic strategy of translation: Dynamic equivalence 73

as later put forward by de Waard and Nida (1986)(Kroneman 2004, 218n561; note
563).
SIL “Translation Theory and Practice” is stated on their extensive official
website, and the same goals are affirmed by the equally ambitious WBT’s “Min-
istry Bible Translation Principles” page.³⁰ In this extensive manifesto of a theo-
logical-theoretical approach to translation, SIL attempts to combine the de-
mands for accuracy to the original text with a simultaneous emphasis on
transferring the theological message adapted to the target language:

The ideal translation will be accurate as to meaning and natural as to the receptor language
forms used. An intended audience who is unfamiliar with the source text will readily under-
stand it. The success of a translation is measured by how closely it measures up to these
ideals. The ideal translation should be…:
Accurate: reproducing as exactly as possible the meaning of the source text.
Natural: using natural forms of the receptor language in a way that is appropriate to the
kind of text being translated.
Communicative: expressing all aspects of the meaning in a way that is readily understand-
able to the intended audience.
Translation … consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, communication sit-
uation, and cultural context of the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine
its meaning, and then reconstructing this same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical
structure which are appropriate in the receptor language and its cultural context (Larson
l984, 3).³¹

Regarding translation from the Greek New Testament source, WBT Ministry Bible
Translation states on its official website that it prizes the original language of
scripture because it is the “primary authority” but allows that “reliable Bible
translations in other languages may be used as intermediary source texts.” ³²
Considering the demands of learning a complicated indigenous American lan-
guage unfamiliar to Indo-European speakers—and composing a grammar and
a dictionary beforehand—it is doubtful that many SIL translators employ the
Greek source text when translating the New Testament. I have established that
this is not the case with the New Testaments in Mixtec and Nahuatl.³³

 “Latest Prayer Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/Ministry/Bible

TranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 “The Role of Translation Theory,” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/translation/TrTheory.
htm.
 “Latest Prayer Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/Ministry/Bible
TranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 Scripture is also translated by European missionary linguists from, not an Indo-European,
but an American Indigenous language into another American Indigenous language. For in-
74 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

Aided by bilingual indigenous cotranslators, SIL employs the New Testa-

ment translated into the Spanish, not the original Greek, as the source text.
But according to some linguists from Naupan municipio, the translation of the
Nahuatl New Testament is not correct. An informant told me that he thinks it
is because of the pronunciation (phonology). The translation also has several or-
thographic mistakes and does not correspond to the original text of the New Tes-
tament. Although tlahtlacolli for “sin” is a “correct translation, some words in
Nahuatl cannot be translated literally like ‘airplane’ (Sp. ‘avion’) where the met-
aphor of the bird is used” (pers. comm. 2010).
SIL translators of the New Testament into Nahuatl of northern Puebla does
not explain their translation strategy, whereas the SIL translators of the New Tes-
tament into Mixtec of Yosondúa explicitly express in their introduction that they
have had two main objectives corresponding to the SIL translation manifesto
above. These consist of staying with the original Greek source text and later
Bible commentaries as naturally as possible while at the same conveying the
message adapted to the Mixtec language.³⁴ This ambitious task has been execut-
ed in close collaboration with (unamed) indigenous Mixtec speakers of the re-
gion.³⁵ The translators admit that some Greek words have complex meanings
that cannot be rendered by single Mixtec terms. They have therefore considered
it necessary to employ two or three Mixtec words or larger descriptive phrases in
order to better express the exact meanings of the original text. Moreover, the
grammar, syntax, rhetorical figures, expressions, and style follow not Greek or
Spanish but Mixtec because the considerable language differences make a literal
translation impossible—doing so would risk the target audience not understand-
ing the content. A natural translation into Mixtec has therefore been sought.
With the purpose of communicating to the Mixtec speakers the same message
as the original Greek text gave its readers in antiquity, the translators have in
some cases decided to explain in detail the content of the Greek manuscript.
The Mixtec translation contains references that may slightly vary from the Span-
ish translation. The purpose is to aid those who have just began to study the New

stance, this applies to Doctrina Cristina en lengua Mixteca by fray Benito Hernández, which was
translated from Mixtec into Chocholeco (Ngiwa) in the colonial period (cf. Doesburg and Swan-
ton 2008).
 “1) tratar de comprender a fondo el significado que el original expresa, y para esto, se refir-
ieron al manuscrito griego y a varios comentarios de la Biblia; y 2) tratar de comunicar este sig-
nificado lo más natural y clarament posible en el idioma mixteco (Nuevo Testamento en Mixteco
de Yosondúa y en Español 1988).”
 For translating the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament into Chol, Evelyn Woodward Aulie
and Henry Wilbur Aulie prefer various translations to the original text (Aulie 1979, 120 – 21).
 SIL’s theoretical linguistic strategy of translation: Dynamic equivalence 75

Testament (Anonymous translators 1988). Whether the accent of the translation

is “literal” and strictly follows the original source text or “dynamic equivalent”
and communicates meaning adapted to the target language and culture depends
on the individual translators. For instance, Evelyn Woodward Aulie and Henry
Wilbur Aulie preferred a more “exegetic” translation of the New Testament
into Chol-Maya because their purpose was to explain theological doctrine
(Aulie 1979, 121– 22).
Since the 1970s and 1980s, Bible translations have began to be undertaken
by native translators. Various instruction manuals have been developed—for in-
stance, Allan and Barnwells training guidebook for mother-tongue translators
(1986). Training programs, workshops, and seminars provide formal and infor-
mal education and mentoring of national or indigenous translators. These trans-
lations are supervised by expatriate and national or indigenous consultants. SIL
prepares native translators, but in many cases the expatriate translators are in
charge of the translation (Kroneman 2004, 219). ³⁶
SIL translations of the New Testament are anonymous, but what I have
learned from field research in Mixeca Alta and in northern Puebla is that
these New Testaments were directed by SIL missionary linguists from the United
States in intimate cooperation with local, converted Mixtecs and Nahua who also
collaborated in the making of the preparatory grammar and dictionary.³⁷ This
method of using local indigenous assistants and informants was also employed
by the early colonial Catholic missionary linguists and ethnographer-missionar-
ies. The strategy of working in the field and with local people demonstrates an
emphasis upon taking into account not only the linguistic but also the cultural
and religious contexts.
There are huge differences between the translations of the New Testament
for Mixtec Yosondúa and the Nahuatl from northern Puebla. Let us first note
that there are many examples of different uses of concepts of conversion in
SIL Nahuatl and Mixtec New Testaments, which demonstrates that there is no
consistent translation practice. Matthew 9:10 of the Mixtec New Testament

 Cf. bilingual dictionaries for missionary linguists in the field (Bartholomew and Schoenhals
1983; Bartholomew 2001).
 The official webpage states the WBT Ministry Bible Translation Principles in the following
way: “recognize that the transfer into the receptor language should be done by trained and com-
petent translators who are translating into their mother tongue. Where this is not possible, moth-
er-tongue speakers should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the translation process…
give high priority to training mother-tongue speakers of the receptor language in translation
principles and practice and to providing appropriate professional support” (http://www.wy
cliffe.net/Ministry/BibleTranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx).
76 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

does not operate with a translation for sinners, whereas the Nahuatl New Testa-
ment uses tlahtlacolyohque. Conversely, the Mixtec New Testament applies kuachi
in Mt. 9:13, but this noun (tlatlacolli) does not appear in the Nahuatl New Testa-
ment. In Luke 7:37, the term sinner is not translated in either the Mixtec nor the
Nahuatl translation. But there are of course also examples of disparities in var-
ious English and Spanish (and other) translations of the New Testament.³⁸

Theoretical model of lingustic strategies for translating

concepts of conversion
The principal challenge for the Bible translator is to convey theology from the
source text into the translated text without altering the meaning (Yri 1998:
177– 79). The level of accuracy to the original may vary from the source text to
the translation. The translator adopts either the strategy of indirect translation,
aimed at communicating an understanding for the receptor, or direct translation,
which prizes the authencity of the original text and authorship—this is also
known as “communicative accurary” (Kirk 2005, 97, 99 – 101). It is also a choice
between “foreignizing” translations, which uphold the uniqueness of the source
text, and “domesticating” translations, which endeavor to reduce this alienness
by employing the target culture’s ideology, imagery, and practices (Kroneman
2004, 22).
A literal translation of the source text runs the risk of not being understood,
whereas in meaning-based translation the intended message maybe distorted.
There is a significant difference between the SIL-translated Mixtec and Nahuatl
New Testaments characterized by whether the translator stays close to the syn-
tactic form of the original text, preserving the word order where possible, or, con-
versely, takes a contextual approach by selecting the aspect of meaning based on
the source and thereby promote naturalness. In general, colonial missionary lin-
guists applied European grammar, seeking equivalence with Nahuatl (Burkhart
1989, 23). Indo-European grammatical categories are imposed particularly on
the SIL Nahuatl translation but don’t characterize the Mixtec New Testament.
Essential epistemological problems surface in translating theological no-
tions into the language of a different religious culture. The essential difficulty

 For example, Rom 3:19, “and all the world may become guilty before God” (KJV). But in an-
other English translation is conveyed: “the whole world may be held accountable to God”
(NRSV). We see that guilt is opposed to accountable. De Valera has “todo el mundo quede
bajo el jucio de Dios” (“the whole world is under the judgment of God”). Tlatlacolli is employed
in the Nahuatl and cancuachi in the Mixtec New Testaments.
 Theoretical model of lingustic strategies for translating concepts of conversion 77

confronting the missionary-linguist has to do not with analyzing the grammar,

morphology, and phonology but with semantics in particular. A significant prob-
lem for evangelism is the translation of Christian concepts into native languages
in a manner that will resonate with indigenous peoples. The nonnative translator
faces several conceptual predicaments when translating cognitive categories of
religious texts and therefore has to modify many Christian theological concepts.
Consequently, Bible translations offer intriguing examples of exegetical and con-
ceptual problems encountered by the missionaries. New Bibles with different
meanings appear with the translations at the same time as novel varieties of
Christianity materialize in the new cultural context. Conceptual dilemmas
occur when biblical concepts are absent and have no place in the philsophy
and religious practice of a community, thereby creating the problem in translat-
ability and of the adaptability of languages (de Vries pers. comm. 2003).
I have established that there are principal semantic (philosophical) differen-
ces between European and indigenous American languages—not because of the
radically different grammar of various language families but because key theo-
logical concepts of European Christianity do not correspond to indigenous Amer-
ican philosophical and religious practices. In this regard, L. J. de Vries make the
interesting observation that one might think that the linguistic problem of trans-
lating scriptures into indigenous languages primarily resides in what these lan-
guages do not have, but the most confounding problems frequently turn out to
result from what these languages do have (de Vries pers. comm. 2003).
The translated pivotal concepts of conversion, in this case related to Chris-
tian Protestant theology, are instrumental in transforming the language and
thereby the cognitive (philosophical and practical) system of the target culture.
To explicate a semantics of translated concepts, I have made the following ana-
lytical categorizations, which also characterize various methodologies and theo-
ries of missionary linguistic translations. I operate with six categories of strategic
techniques in translating with the purpose of achieving linguistic and thereby
theological or philosophical equivalence:³⁹

1. Omission of translated “synonym” theological terms entail a nonliteral

translation where supposedly corresponding concepts are not used but in-
tstead the idea is paraphrased.
2. Lexical borrowing by using loanwords or calques from the translators’
(source) language.

 I am inspired by Durston (2007, 206 – 7) but have developed a more extensive model.
78 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

3. Introducing neologisms (compound words) in the target language, which

act as constructed glosses from the source language. The strategy intends
to integrate new concepts by producing new words.
4. Adapting or manipulating semantically nonreligious concepts of the vo-
cabulary from the target language.
5. Adapting or manipulating semantically religious and philosophical con-
cepts of the vocabulary from the target language.
6. Codeswitching, or inconsistency in lexical choices.

These categories can contain various literary-symbolic and rhetorical strategems,

such as connotations, denotations, metaphors, metonyms, and synonyms. Trans-
lating everyday (secular) indigenous words into religious language and vocabu-
lary and moving indigenous religious concepts into a Christian context make up
a standard missionary linguistic technique. On the other hand, an introduction
of Indo-European words alongside the construction of neologisms and para-
phrases in the translation demonstrates that the missionary linguist has capitu-
lated in identifying supposedly indigenous synonyms.
By employing the above-mentioned strategic techniques in translation, mis-
sionary linguists make compromises and modifications of both Christian theol-
ogy and indigenous concepts, which risks reducing an indigenous appropriaton
of the European-American theological content. In various ways, not only the
theological concepts but also the meaning of a Bible passage may be completely
transformed. Cultural differences cause “cultural interference,” or misunder-
standing, between the original audience who produced the text and the target
audience (Kroneman 2004, 22). Furthermore, the substitution or employment
of connotative or denotative words or their supposed synonyms from either
the source or target language imply a manipulation of indigenous concepts
and accordingly their philosophy. Herein lies also the politics of translation of
religious concepts. Hanks characterizes this as a “linguistic conversion” where
the outcome is a “translanguage” that is neither indigenous nor European Chris-
tian but a new (hybrid or intersemiotic) semantic synthesis (Hanks 2010, 15 – 16).
I have analyzed the following selection of translated theological concepts of
conversion from English, Spanish, and New Testament Greek:

Sin (guilt); conversion; repentance; salvation; savior; redemption; confession; justification/

righteousness; atonement/expiation/reconciliation; belief/faith; faithful; baptism; punish-
ment/penance; eternal; hell/underworld; heaven/paradise; soul; damnation/judgment/
perdition; temptation; purification; devotion; piety; compassion; grace; glory; truth;
mercy; forgiveness; Gentile/heathen/infidel; blasphemy; Jesus Christ Messiah; Virgin
Mary; God; Holy Ghost/spirit; spirit; Lord; Logos; anoint; transfiguration; resurrection; an-
tichrist; devil/Satan/demon; evil; good; blessed; saint.
 Literal (fundamentalist) versus meaning-based translation practice 79

With the purpose of translating these fundamental Christian concepts with con-
verted indigenous assistants and informants, SIL missionary linguists make use
of the various strategies from the theoretical model given above. Let us first look
at cases where concepts are omitted—not simply translated or replaced with syn-
onyms but instead exchanged for paraphrases.

Literal (fundamentalist) versus meaning-based translation

practice
Exchanging abstract theological concepts with loan words, using calque, rede-
fining words (semantic extension) or constructing new words (neologisms)
from the target language constitute linguistic strategies with the purpose to ach-
ieve an utmost literal translation as possible. But there are cases where this can-
not be done where for instance codeswitching is used. The missionary linguist
translator may, moreover, judge it more suitable replacing a grammatical catego-
ry with another by for instance interchanging a noun with a verb and thereby
rephrasing a sentence. This is commonly executed for the core noun “salvation”
in the Mixtec New Testament, which is supplanted with the verb for “save”,
nama. On the conceptional level this reflects a meaning-based translation prac-
tice.
In the two next chapters, I give some examples of the uses of loan words,
calques, neologisms and codeswitching in the SIL Mixtec and Nahuatl New Tes-
taments. As we shall also see in the interrelated case in translating passages nei-
ther the Mixtec or Nahuatl New Testaments are strictly literal translations but the
Mixtec is clearly much more meaning-based.
Furthermore, for the missionary linguists, making concepts and divine be-
ings identical (literal) to the target culture presents a dilemma: “idolatry” pollut-
ing scripture is a menace to translation. Quite a few passages in the source New
Testament display “culturally-shaded terminology” and therefore cannot be
translated literally (Hull 2006, 4). In the Ch’orti’ (Maya) translation of Php 2:12,
“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” is omitted by the Protes-
tant missionary translators because it does not correspond with their evangelical
doctrine (Hull 2006, 5). The manner in which the SIL translators choose to use
loanwords, calques, neologisms (usually compound words), and concepts
taken from the indigenous languages says much about the Christian theology
that they are conveying.
For the missionary linguist there is also the predicament whether to strictly
apply the syntax of the source language(s) of Christian scripture or adapt it in the
translation to the non Indo-European language in question. Omitting New Testa-
80 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

ment material and paraphrasing it with dissimilar language makes a translation

essentially nonliteral. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that SIL
translation strategy and practice concern not only isolated theological concepts
but also entire Bible verses, where the missionary linguist translator may employ
poetic (metaphorical) or rhetorical paraphrases. Literary techniques, mainly
from the European-American Christian tradition, are employed when essential
theological concepts are lacking in the vocabulary of the target culture.
Skopos (Greek for “goal”; “purpose”) is a functional theory of translation or-
ignally proposed by Vermeer and Nord and later developed by De Vries that
keeps in mind the purpose of an adaptation and seeks to reach the intended au-
dience with familiar ideas and words (Kroneman 2004, 14, 17, 209 – 14, 228 – 32;
de Vries nd). Dick Kroneman distinguishes between missionary-contextualising
skopos (cultural adaption); missionary-explicative skopos, where foreign infor-
mation is explained in “a literal (analytical) language”; and a missionary-persua-
sive skopos, where elements of persuasion not in the source text are added or
existing elements are amplified (Kroneman 2004, 18).
The dichotomy between a literal (fundamentalist) and meaning-based trans-
lation ideology and practices has theological implications in conveying Christian
doctrine. Inspired by Roman Catholic missionaries, Protestant missionary lin-
guist organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators began to contextualize religion
denominated as “ethnotheology” (Stoll 1990, 88 – 89), which can be categorized
as “inculturation” (cf. below about this term). Todd Hartch claim, however, that
SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators endorse a fundamentalist theology (Hartch
2006, xiiii – xvii). A cultural-hermeneutic missionary (linguist) method disturbs,
however, in particular fundamentalists according to Stoll. To fundamentalists
and presumably numerous Evangelicals, inculturation implies an abandonment
of the Bible as a verbatim divine authority. Ambiguity and variation do not apply
as exegesis of scripture. There is simply not different ways in interpreting the
Bible. The missionary method of “Christianizing indigenous religion” is accord-
ingly not an acceptable approach to fundamentalism: “When native churches
were allowed to interpret the gospel in terms of their own worldviews … some
of the results did not appear “biblical” to many missionaries and their home
supporters” (Stoll 1990, 89).
It is therefore interesting that SIL have developed and endorse a “scientific”
translation ideology and practice of scripture that is not literal (e. g. fundamen-
talist). SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators cannot be classified as language and
theological fundamentalists. They do not produce literal translations (formal cor-
respondence), but follow instead the method of dynamic equivalence – although
Indo-European grammatical form and narrative structure are unavoidable (Stoll
 Literal (fundamentalist) versus meaning-based translation practice 81

1982, 258).⁴⁰ According to its offical webpage, SIL maintains a pragmatic prefer-
ence for “idiomatic translations concerned with communicating the meaning of
the source text using the natural grammatical and lexical items of the receptor
language” to literal translations that “follow very closely the grammatical and
lexical forms of the source text language.”⁴¹ WBT Ministry Bible Translation Prin-
ciples echo this concern.⁴² Kroneman holds that a literal translation may create a
ritual form of communication instead of the information that sparks conversion.
In general, SIL New Testaments are self-explanatory, meaning-based translations
—without footnotes and in many cases without introduction. Kroneman makes
sense of this by pointing out that SIL does not evangelize and because its lin-
guists work in regions of high (indigenous) illiteracy, where there are restrictions
on mission and where there is little or no knowledge of the Bible. Translated
scripture is intended to be used as an evangelical object for meditation and per-
sonal study. While the use of the translated New Testament in liturgy and within
the Church is acknowledged, that is not the primary motivation for making the

 A linguistic support, although not influential, of literal translation may come from Noam
Chomsky’s theory of transformation-generative approach maintains that there are universals
in language which opposes the language relativity of behavioral linguistics promoted by SIL in-
fluential linguist Kenneth Pike. In “An Anatomy of Speech Notion” (1976), the SIL linguist Robert
E. Longacre argue theory of universal grammar saying that language is a divine creation (Stoll
1982, 258 – 259).
 “Translations that add to the source text or change certain information for a specific affect
are called unduly free. SIL members are trained for, and committed to, the production of idio-
matic translations. However, since the projects they are involved in are found in a wide variety of
communication situations, and with team members with different training and skills, the results
may vary. There are various aspects of the communication situation that may determine the
choice of type of translation produced. One of the goals of the translation team is to produce
a translation that will be acceptable to the receptor language audience. The actual receptor lan-
guage forms (grammar and lexicon) are chosen with the educational level of the audience in
mind, as well as their previous knowledge of the subject matter. A newly literate audience
will find it hard to read a translation intended for a highly literate readership. The ideal of ac-
curate, natural, and communicative is still the goal. But, in practice, this goal may be carried out
with differing result by different translation teams” (“Styles of Translation,” SIL International,
http://www.sil.org/translation/trtypes.htm).
 “Recognize that it is often necessary to restructure the form of a text in order to achieve ac-
curacy and maximal comprehension. Since grammatical categories and syntactic structures
often do not correspond between different languages, it is often impossible or misleading to
maintain the same form as the source text. Changes of form will also often be necessary
when translating figurative language. A translation will employ as many or as few terms as
are required to communicate the original meaning as accurately as possible” (“Latest Prayer
Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/Ministry/BibleTranslationPrinciples/
tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx)
82 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

translation—even where SIL cooperates with churches for the purpose of en-
hancing ritual with scripture in indigenous languages (Kroneman 2004, 385 –
86n912).
Despite a supposed common translation policy by SIL there is evidently a
difference between the works of the various missionary linguists, even working
in the same cultural region. This is manifested in the various language practices
of the missionary linguist production of grammars, dictionaries and translations
of scriptures. I have established that this is the case in Central Mexico where SIL
Mixtec and Nahua translations of the New Testament reflect quite different trans-
lation ideologies and practices. More than the Nahuatl New Testament, the Mix-
tec Yosondúa New Testament regularly avoids translation of key and core con-
cepts replacing them with paraphrases and loan words. Moreover, the
transferred Bible verse is recurrently longer than the source text, which is dis-
played conspicuous by the added Spanish text. It therefore represents an indeed
liberal or free translation.
With quite a few extensive explicative translations—that is, adjustable para-
phrases—the Mixtec SIL New Testament in particular reflects a skopos, or mean-
ing-based, approach. Paraphrased passages appear often, but equivalent con-
cepts may appear in foregoing or following material; because the Mixtec New
Testament contains the Spanish parallel (source) text, this is remarkably confus-
ing for bilingual readers. Furthermore, this theological strategy can be revealing:
the SIL translators emphasize the importance of Christ and God by quite fre-
quently adding cachi Jesús or cachi Ya/Yandios, “said Jesus” or “said God,” in
the translation where they do not appear in the source text. For instance, in
Mat. 28:20 the word of God, and not Matthew who is a (human) apostel, is em-
phasized: jaha cuu jnuhun Yandios ni chaa Mateo. The translators want to high-
light the New Testament as sacred scripture by characterizing it as the Word from
God and Christ as often as possible. Conversely the Nahuatl New Testament,
which does not have a Spanish parallel (source) text, follows a moderately liter-
al, although not fundamental translation practice. This is because a majority of
the key and core concepts are translated into Nahuatl or replaced with Spanish
loan words.
As we shall see, however, the missionary linguist translators of the Nahuatl
New Testament similarly practice meaning-based translation. Let me exemplify
with back translations of a couple of translated Bible verses into Mixtec and Na-
huatl respectively. “She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he
 Literal (fundamentalist) versus meaning-based translation practice 83

will save his people from their sins” (Mat. 1:21)⁴³ is paraphrased or rephrased
with a more expansive section in the Mixtec New Testament.⁴⁴ It can be back
translated as: “And when she will give birth to this little son and you shall
call him Jesus. Because this little son named he can save/rescue the sister, broth-
er, friend and relative (i. e. people), whom have sin/crime – God’s angel say this
to you”. There is added that the angel of God convey the sacred prognostication
to the future morther of Jesus. On the other hand, the identical Nahuatl New Tes-
tament Bible verse⁴⁵ clearily state that it is Maria who is the mother of Jesus:
“María will give light to her son and you will name him Jesus because for He
will emerge them from dependency (escape/save) at the home of our people
against your something damaged (sin)”. Apart from this additional knowledge,
the Mixtec and Nahuatl translations are as literal as they can possible be of lan-
guages not belonging to the Indo-European language family.
But there are translations that are far less literal and accordingly meaning-
based. We observe this in the translations of: “For this is my blood of the cove-
nant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mat. 26:28). Con-
venant refer to the new pact or New Testament (King James).⁴⁶ The translation in
the Mixtec New Testament⁴⁷ is supplementary and consequently not literal. It
can be back translated as: “For this is part of my blood. And blood I now
turn, moreover I father God made a new pact. And there it can be absolutely
judged in order to save kinship (people). For this I accept we pay with blood
to Him in order to spill it. And kinship people are related to God. And they be
great inside because it now take away sin from themselves”. Apart from the
added explanation where God elucidate his new pact of blood, the concept cuan-
cahnu ini, “to be great inside” rephrase and add novel meaning – ostensibly the

 Y dará a luz un hijo, y llamarás su nombre JESUS, porque él salvará a su pueblo de sus pe-
cados (Reina-Valera 1960).
 Ti nu na cacu suchi lulu un, ti sconani ra i Jesús. Siahan conani suchi lulu un chi maa i cuu
ja nama sɨqɨ cuaha ñanijnahan i, yɨvɨ ca iyo cuachi –ni cachi ángel Yandios un.
 In María quiitas se iconeu, huan tictocahhuis Jesús, tleca Yehhuatzin quinmaquixtilos in te-
chantlacahuan ica intlahtlacol.
 “Porque esto es mi sangre del nuevo pacto, que por muchos es derramada para remisión de
los pecados” (Reina-Valera 1960).
 Chi jaha cuu cuenta nɨñɨ ri ja soco ri. Ti nɨñɨ ri un stuu ja, ja ni saha Tata ri Yandios ɨɨn tratu
jaa. Ti yucan cuu ja cahan ndaa cuɨtɨ ja nama ri sɨquɨ cuaha xaan yɨvɨ. Chi ja chunaa ri nuu i jiin
nɨñɨ ri ja catɨ ri quihin un. Ti jiin yucan nanitahu cuaha xaan yɨvɨ nuu Yandios. Ti cuancahnu ini
ya nuu i, chi ja quenchaa cuachi i naa i.
84 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

effect of forgiveness – in the passage. The Nahuatl translation⁴⁸ is also longer

than the source text: “For this my blood this which I recite to incur a penalty
under the law of your new discussion/conversation/talk/consultation/ (New Tes-
tament) which come about by my Father the revered God. He pardon the some-
thing damaged (sin) of everyone otherwise I will die”. Besides making clear that
if one is not forgiven sin by God the sinner will die, the neologism nanquil-nami-
quisque ⁴⁹, “respond-to incur a penalty under the law” is one of the novel ele-
ments added to the meaning of the section.
Let us look at a last example where, as opposed to the Mixtec, the Nahuatl
translation is almost literal.”I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to
repentance” (Luke. 5:32).⁵⁰ The Nahuatl translation⁵¹: “I came not for the good
(ones), if not for the someone damaged (sinners) but let it be that your heart
change (repent)”. Following a meaning-based translation practice, it is back
translated into Mixtec⁵² as: “Now I have not come to judge you the people
thought clean of sin by the word of God. On the other hand, I judge by the
word of God people recognised as sinners in order that we repent to God –
say Jesus”. The added explanatory phrases “judge people” and “word of
God” – and the fact that the protagonist is Jesus unmistakably who is behind
this speech is made abundantly clear by the SIL translators.
Meaning-based or idiomatic translation, not formal or literal translation, is
promoted in the influential SIL introductory textbook Meaning based translation:
A guide to cross-language equivalence (1998) by Mildred Larson. Here is SIL trans-
lation method, procedure and principles outlined: … “Meaning-based transla-
tions make every effort to communicate the meaning of the source language
text in the natural forms of the receptor language” (Larson 1998, 17). SIL advo-
cates a translation theory of “…linguistic equality (cross-language equivalence)
and the semantic-referential dimension of linguistic practice at the expense of
other aspects troubling translation, such as the indexicality of syntax or prag-

 tleca yeh in noyes, ica tlen nanquilnamiquisque ica in yancuic mononotzalistli tlen mochi-
hua Notahtzin Dios ica nochin aquin tehuaxca. Yehhuatzin quintlapohpoluilos intlahtlacol tleca
impampa nimiquis.
 Nanquilia, to respond to someone, to answer someone; to recite the responses in a ceremony
such as the Mass (Karttunen 1992, 159). Namiqu(i), to go to meet someone or find something, to
have a confrontation or to incur a penalty under the law (Karttunen 1992: 159).
 No ne venido a llamar a justos, sino a pecadores al arrepentimiento (Reina-Valeara 1960).
 Ahmo onihuala ica inon cualten, tlahmo ica in tlahtlacolyohque, huan ijcon mamoyolcue-
pacan.
 Ja yucan cuu ja ruhu tu vaji ri ja cahan ri jnuhun Yandios nuu yɨvɨ ca ndoho ini ja iyo ndoo
jiin cuachi. Chi suhva ni nchaa ri ja cahan ri jnuhun Yandios nuu yɨvɨ ca nacuni nuu cuachi I
nava nacani ini I nuu Yandios – cachi Jesús.
 Loan words, calques, and neologisms 85

matics…, the goal of translation is to “discover the meaning” in a “source lan-

guage” and to “re-express the meaning” in a “receptor language” (Samuels
2006, 540 – 542). But “the “unduly free” translation, as we saw is the case for
the Mixtec Yosondúa New Testament translation, represents an exacting difficul-
ty according to Larson: “Translations are unduly free if they add extraneous in-
formation not in the source text, if they change the meaning of the source lan-
guage, or if they distort the facts of the historical and cultural setting of the
source language text” (Larson 1998,19).
For the influential SIL missionary linguist theoretician Eugene Nida the rela-
tion between word-form and content is arbitrary. Despite adapting to other cul-
tural and linguistic systems the modification of an original divine universalistic
message has to be a little as possible according to the missionary linguist trans-
lators. The danger for transmitting Christian theology of the original word-form
through translation is that the semantic content can be misrepresented by the
receptors language and culture (Meyer 1994, 60 – 61).
There are, however, complications with both literal and semantic translation
strategies, if exegeses by members of the receptor culture are not under control
of priests or missionary (linguists). This is why the Roman Catholic Church has
traditional been careful in conducting translation and accordingly making scrip-
ture available to lay peoples, in particular of a different culture and religion. The
only way to avoid an, for the Church or mission, undesirable interpretation of
scripture is converting non-Christian target peoples into their meaning, symbol
and practice system, which can only be implemented through active evangeliza-
tion of the gospel in the local community.

Loan words, calques, and neologisms

It is common for words to be introduced from a source language into a target lan-
guage. Loans of descriptive lexemes have the purpose of conveying phenomena
and ideas that are alien to the target culture. Less common are calques, or trans-
linguistic loans, in translations of Christian theological concepts. Substitution
and the addition of novel words that do not exist in the target language are
more widespread. Antagonism toward European linguistic imposition has creat-
ed a principled linguistic purism among indigenous peoples, prompting fewer
borrowings from European languages. As noted by Dozier (1956; 1958) the Pueblo
communities Tewa and Tao of the Southwest United States are reluctant to incor-
porate Spanish loanwords; instead, they construct new words or extend the
meaning of existing words in their own languages (Mithun 1999, 311).
86 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

A significant incentive for SIL and its translation methodology – even to

translate the New Testament into languages, idioms and local dialects of only
a few speakers – is not only making the sacred text intelligible but to transfer
it into to the mother tongue or “heart language”. Operating the heart language,
God communicates directly to the individual’s soul (Handman 2007, 171; 173 –
174). Consequently, “A speaker’s first, native language holds a special place in
Christian translation literature, as the language in which the Scriptures and
other materials can best be understood by receptor communities” (Hardman
2009, 637). This should be a substantial theologic-linguistic argument for not em-
ploying loan words in translations of especially important doctrinal concepts.
There are, however, quite a few examples of Spanish loanwords in the Mixtec
and Nahuatl New Testaments. Jesus Christ is unsurprisingly transferred with
Jeso Cristo in Nahuatl and Mixtec. God is translated as Dios in Nahuatl, whereas
the Holy Spirit is translated as Espíritu Santo in Mixtec. Hell takes the Spanish
Infiernu in the Mixtec New Testament despite Mixtec entries for “underworld,
hell”—Indayá, Anyaya, Andyaya—appearing in SIL-dictionaries. Spanish words
are used where the indigenous language does not contain the appropriate equiv-
alent notion because that was the native language of the first Catholic mission-
aries in the colonial period and because it has become the lingua franca in the
majority of the countries of Latin America.
The colonial Mixtec Doctrina introduced Spanish and (some) Latin loan-
words in the early colonial period (Terraciano 2001, 303).⁵³ In the colonial peri-
od, concepts like demonios (“demons”) and anima (“soul”; “spirit”) appear as
loanwords in the literature (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 246). Due to the
proximity of regions where Spanish is spoken, the loanwords in the vocabulary
of Nahuatl near twenty percent in some places (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway,
and Valdés 2000, xi). Without the influence of Protestant Bible translation in the
village Atla of northern Puebla, religious loanwords from Spanish—like virgen,
dios, santo, cristiano, cristo, cura, and so forth—are frequently used by bilingual
Nahuatl speakers (Montoya Briones 2008, 191– 92). Moreover, Christian Spanish
loanwords in contemporary but traditional Nahua invocations have been record-
ed by anthropologists: Ica nehon nitahtani favor (Sp. Por eso te solicito el favor);
Amo teh nicfaltarohtoc (Sp. no estoy cometieno ninguna falta); and Pues xinech-
perdonarocan! (Sp.¡Pues, perdoname!) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 210 – 11, 252–
53, 258 – 59).
It is difficult to distinguish between neologisms and (compound) words orig-
inating from the target languages. Adding to the complexity, SIL Protestant dic-

 Cf. examples in Terraciano (2001, 303).

 Loan words, calques, and neologisms 87

tionaries register some Christian theological concepts that are not used in the
translated New Testament. The early Mixtec and Nahuatl colonal dictionaries
of Alvarado and Molina, respectively, contain various translated entries of lex-
emes, which have the impression of neologisms or constructed words. This ap-
plies in particular to Alvarado, where a single concept is translated with senten-
ces or phrases. In quite a few examples, particularly in the Mixtec case, Catholic
colonial and Protestant postcolonial missionary linguists come up with different
translations.
Compound words are common in Mixtec (Pérez Jiménez 1988, 137– 38). This
is also the case in polysynthetic/agglutinative Nahuatl, where the use of noun
and verb compounds is extensive (Brockway 1979, 155 – 56). The latter language
comprises complex words consisting of several morphemes or combination of
word elements in order to express composite ideas. Missionary linguists there-
fore create compound-word neologisms. For instance, some of the colonial-dic-
tionary entries for the European-American concept of religion appear to be para-
phrased compound words (cf. Pharo 2007). In colonial Mixtec, “religion,” or
“belief,” was described as lo que se siente como verdad, or sa sini ndisa (Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 212), and religious devotion was translated as tniño
ndoo tniño nina (Sp. cosa pura, cosa limpia), outlined as brilla, alumbra y resplan-
dece (Mixtec: yotnuu, yoyaye, yondiy). Even if the concepts were from Christian
theology, the translators kept Mesoamerican literary style (Jansen and Pérez Ji-
ménez 2009a, 221). Compound words in Maya are construced as neologisms in
order to supplant Spanish words in the Bible. Óoksi óol, “enter the soul,” is ap-
plied to render belief and is also used in colonial writings. Maya speakers do not,
however, relate to this term but respond to the Spanish verb creer (“believe”)
(Kray 2004, 116, 125n6).
There seems to be several examples of neologisms in the Mixtec and Nahuatl
New Testaments. But as aforementioned, in some instances we cannot be certain
whether there is an actual neologism because pre-European/pre-Christian sour-
ces are lacking. With a quite different meaning, the ostensible neologism (e. g.
compound word) may have existed before the arrival of the missionary linguists.
This is not the case where unequivocal Christian theological notions are translat-
ed. In SIL New Testaments the Holy Ghost is translated with Nahuatl-Spanish In
Itiotonaltzin Dios (“your sacred revered spirit God”), whereas devil, or Satan, is
rendered as Nahuatl Ahmo cual tlacatl (“not-good human being”). The Mixtec-
Spanish compound neologism Yandios (“He-God”) is meant to translate the
Christian “God” in Mixtec. Moreover, there are various constructions of Christian
theological concepts combined with the noun or preposition ini (“heart”, “in-
88 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

side”).⁵⁴ The concept cuancahnu ini, “to be great inside” seem to indicate forgive-
ness in the Mixtec New Testament – where the first element of the compound,
kuan (“be”), represent an equvivalent construction with kuanducha, “to be bap-
tized” (“be water)”. We have previously seen that conversion and repentance are
conveyed with the neologism nakani ini, “to elevate or lift the inside, spirit/
soul”— alternatively, this is “to reflect or mediate or worry” in Mixtec. Further-
more, soteriology have in Nahuatl have been linguistically transferred with prob-
able Christian neologisms or calques. Salvation has become temaquixtilistli
whereas savior is temaquixtiyani or temaquixtihqui (cf. morpheme analysis
above).
The fact that SIL missionary linguists are not able or prefer not to translate
many Christian terms with seemingly equivalent indigenous words but instead
substitute them with phrases, Indo-European loanwords, calques, constructed
(compound) words or neologisms exhibit that despite more than five hundred
years with Christian evangelization, Nahuatl and Mixtec (as with many other
American indigenous languages) lack fundamental Christian theological con-
cepts in their nomenclature. Additionally, by applying Spanish loanwords and
calques, and neologisms the SIL missionary linguist translators stimulate the in-
creasing Indo-European (Spanish) linguistic acculturation of American indige-
nous cultures.

Codeswitching

Inconsistencies in the lexical choices—or codeswitching between the source con-

cepts and target language—is not uncommon among missionary linguist transla-
tors. Hull has observered numerous examples of codeswitching in the SIL Ch’or-
ti’ (Maya) New Testament. A Ch’orti’ word may be employed in one verse and
substituted by a Spanish equivalent in another verse according (Hull 2006, 2).
The examples that Hull presents only apply, however, to nontheological concepts
and therefore do not figure significantly when analyzing missionary-translated
scripture. I have not noticed a similar multilingual (Spanish/indigenous) codes-
witching of translated theological concepts in Mixtec and Nahua New Testa-
ments. Thus there is no reason to conclude that the missionary-linguist transla-
tors conceive multilingual codeswitching as a means for conveying Christian

 The SIL Mixtec de Xochapa, Guerrero dictionary catalogue many Mixtec compound words
with ini (Shark et al. 1999, 133 – 135).
 Codeswitching 89

theology through indigenous languages. But there are other types of codeswitch-
ing.
Particularly in the Mixtec New Testament, paraphrases replace translated
theological concepts—clearly this is codeswitching. But also applies on the con-
ceptual level. We have seen that the concept of forgiveness is regularly translated
with cahnu ini in the Mixtec New Testament. But we have also established that in
Mat. 26:28 (“For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many
for the forgiveness of sins”), the concept cuancahnu ini, “to be great inside” con-
notes the idea of forgiveness. This is evidently an example of codeswitching. Fur-
thermore, the SIL linguists’ almost bizarrely incoherent translation strategies are
on display in the total rephrasing of Rev. 16:14. The concept of confession, or a
cognate word, does not appear in that source text,⁵⁵ and the SIL translators in-
explixably choose to use a Nahuatl word other than the one they apply in
other verses to translate the idea of confession: quinixcomacalos, “will confess.”
This compound term can be literally rendered as “to tell or give evidence to an-
other person his faults to his face” (Karttunen 1992: 112). Mocuitiya and quiyolcui-
tiya—but not quinixcomacalos—appear as entries for confession in SIL dictionar-
ies and other places in the New Testament.
We have already seen examples (conversion in Mixtec) of codeswitching
using various words from the indigenous language with the purpose of express-
ing Christian theological concepts. The translation of blasphemy (Gr. blasphēmia
; BDAG 2000, 178) of the Christian divine order is outlined in the Gospel accord-
ing to Mark: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never for-
giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (3:29). Aquin quicamanaliluis
(“he who will speak ill of)” is rendered in Nahuatl (Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 122, 152), whereas in the paraphrased Mixtec translation
“break or destroy His work” (tahu ya jniñu) attempts to cover the idea of blas-
phemy. There are, however, various words for blasphemy registered in Nahuatl
and Mixtec colonial and postcolonial missionary-linguist dictionaries. ⁵⁶ In addi-
tion, it is quite fascinating that the translation of the word for hell is not con-
stantly translated in the Mixtec New Testament. The translators use the Spanish
loanword infiernu despite the fact that appearently a Mixtec lexeme for hell exists
in Catholic colonial and contemporary SIL dictionaries, although not in the dic-
tionary from Santiago de Yosondúa. Sometimes the New Testament translation

 “These are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world,
to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev 16:14).
 In Nahuatl, see Brewer and Brewer 1971, 124; Key and Key 1953, 195 – 96; Molina [1555 and
1571] 1977, 20r, 157r; Karttunen 1992, 50. In Mixtec, see Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 69; Alvarado
[1593] 1962, 36v.
90 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

either does not contain a concept from the relevant SIL dictionary or there are
recorded lexemes from other SIL dictionaries or from nonmissionary dictionar-
ies. Occasionally, concepts in the translated New Testament and dictionary differ
from those appearing in other SIL dictionaries and nonmissionary dictionaries.
This lexical inconsistency demonstrates the difficulty of translating between
two linguistic systems’ entirely divergent philosophies.

The politics of translating indigenous theological synonyms

Due to colonialism, Indo-European languages have influenced indigenous Amer-

ican languages and accordingly religious systems, but the effects vary greatly.⁵⁷
Introducing an alien religious system is equivalent to transforming the meaning
of many fundamental concepts and words in the target culture. Every word has
the potiential to become religious through the process of defamiliarization and
reconceptualization. Concepts from the religious domain can be employed with-
in the everyday (secular) domain and vice versa. In Christianity, quite a few re-
ligious notions are abstract metaphors derived from the visible human experi-
ence with the purpose of describing the invisible (i. e., the transcendent or
metaphysical) domain (Yri 1995, 3, 11, 13, 31, 147).
Religious metaphors are able to represent the otherworldly (religious) do-
main through associations with the worldly domain because various associated
metonymous elements advance those connections (Fernandez 1977, 126 – 27). SIL
missionary linguists apply metaphorical form of heart in the translations of a
range of Christian theological concepts. Añu signifies “heart” in Mixec and cor-
responds to the Nahuatl animistic entity yolli. As in Nahuatl, missionary linguists
use a paraphrase for soul that is associated with the heart (Terraciano 2001, 304).
In Mesoamerican thought, the heart is a vital inner substance. Mixtec verbs with
ini can convey emotion or rational thinking (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 108) but have
the connotations of “inside,” “stomach,” “heart,” “anima” (soul) and “spirit” (K.
Farris 2002, 10; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 15; Alexander 1986, 235; Caballero Morales
2008, 74; Macaulay 1996, 211). The SIL missionary linguist Sharon (Sara) Stark
comments that ini certainly names a part of the body, but it is difficult to
know with any certainty which part it is. Some Mixtec informants say that the
word derives from “head,” xīní, but others say that it refers to the heart or anoth-

 The government of Mexico introduced Spanish for teaching Christian religion in schools of
indigenous communities from the mid-eighteenth century onward (Taylor 1999, 334, 706; Tavárez
2011, 252).
 The politics of translating indigenous theological synonyms 91

er nonphysical part like the soul (Stark et al. 2005, 133). In pre-Christian/pre-Eu-
ropean Mixtec manuscripts, the heart is represented as the center for religious
emotion and creativity. For instance, on page 48 of Códice Yuta Tnoho (Códice
Vindobonensis), Lord 8 Wind Quetzalcoatl is named “he whose heart produces
songs” and “he who carries Ñuhu (deity) in his heart” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez
2009a, 225n12). Davíd Carrasco argues that the symbolic-religious importance of
the heart in Aztec (i. e., pre-Christian) philosophy is represented by its ritual ex-
traction in human sacrifices (1999, 3, 12 – 14). Moreover, one Nahua salutation is
tlen quiijtoa moyoloj? or “what does your heart say?” By inquiring this, “a person
is asked about the other person’s state of being and about his or her divine spark
as well” (Sandstrom 1991, 257– 58).
Christian theological concepts are “terms of art,” concepts endowed with
specialized meaning. Religious, political, and scientific concepts are all particu-
lar ‘terms of art’. Kenneth Burke make a distinction between theology (the reli-
gious domain), “words about God,” and logology (the secular domain), “words-
about-words” (Burke 1961, 1). Religious nomenclature refers to both empirical
and supernatural reality, and many everyday, experiential concepts have been
developed into theological terminology, but religious concepts have also been
secularized (Burke 1961, 7). Burke operates with a model of four categories of
words: The first three belong to the empirical realm—everyday experience or ob-
jects literally expressed—whereas the fourth has to do with the supernatural
sphere. They are (1) the natural, which means material or physical things and op-
erations, such as “tree,” “hunger,” and “change”; (2) the sociopolitical, which
involve laws, social relations, and so forth, such as “justice,” “American,” and
“moral obligations”; (3) words about words or verbal (the symbolical in general,
which means symbol-systems of the arts and scientific nomenclature) includes
dictionaries, grammars, philology, rhetoric, and logology; and (4) words for
the supernatural or the “ineffable.” By analogy, these words are borrowed
from the three empirical realms (Burke 1961, 14– 15). Every (religious) word with-
in a language has a history, having originated in the religious realm or been ap-
propriated into it. When the term acquires a religious meaning it becomes mark-
edly different from other words in the language of a community (Yri 1995, 145).
Terminology from both the nonreligious (secular) and the religious domains
of indigenous languages are employed by missionary linguists in translating the
New Testament. Christian scripture accordingly makes use of and transforms
(converts) not only neutral words (colloquialisms) but also concepts that origi-
nally have entirely different religious meanings. As demonstrated in the Floren-
tine Codex, Sahagún adopted neyolcuitiliztli/neyolmelahualiztli (“confession”)
and tlamacehualiztli (“penance”) from Nahua religious practice and thereby im-
posed a Christian theological meaning (Klaus 1999, 93, 140).
92 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

We need to make some distinctions between the various categories of con-

cepts used in the translation of religion. Concepts such as belief, sacred, divine,
story, ritual, ceremony, festival, and custom (tradition) are neutral constituent
concepts describing a given religious system. This means that they are not nec-
essarily associated with a particular religion as are, for instance, typical Christi-
an notions like devil, hell, sin, forgiveness, immortality, punishment, mercy, and
resurrection (Pharo 2009). In order to distinguish religious concepts from the
nonreligious, a definition of religion is needed: religion constitutes as an ideal
type (Weber 1969), an analytical perspective in order to examine human experi-
ences and practices, ways of life, and worldviews. A linguistic polarization be-
tween the human as opposed to the nonhuman is a reasonable semantic point
of departure for a definition of religion and will be applied in this analysis. Non-
human elements or phenonomena belong to the religious domain according to
this definition. The religious domain influences the lives of people and deter-
mines their worldviews (philosophies) and experiences—in stories; in actions,
symbols, or ritual practices; in the organization of society or the community in
sociopolitical institutions; in the economy and judicial system; in structures, pla-
ces, space, and concepts of time. Each of these incorporates a system that can
qualify as religious (Pharo 2007).
Apart from loanwords, there are four categories of concepts employed in
missionary-linguistic translations of Christian scripture: they belong to the non-
religious domain, the neutral religious domain, the religious domain of the in-
digenous language, and the Christian domain. There is accoringly a need to dis-
tinguish between religious—Christian versus indigenous—neutral religious, and
nonreligious concepts.
The following analytical model is a history-of-religions (linguistic), syn-
chronic (comparative), or diachronical (historical) methodology used to theorize
translated scripture:

1. Nonreligious concepts: Words or combinations of words (sentences, pas-

sages): blood, regret, and so forth. This type of concepts does not constitute
a translation problem, but the metaphorical meanings can contribute to cre-
ate a new religious symbolic language.
2. Neutral religious concepts: Words or combinations of words (sentences,
passages) existing in both source and target languages but with having reli-
gious/philosophical connonations: heaven, deity, spirit, and so forth.
3. Indigenous religious concepts: These are in some cases translated or intro-
duced into European languages by missionaries, ethnographers, explorers,
and the like: nagual, taboo, totem, mana, shaman, and so on.
 The politics of translating indigenous theological synonyms 93

4. Christian theological concepts: Words or combinations of words (senten-

ces, passages) that do not exist in indigenous languages: hell, grace,
mercy, salvation, and so forth.

The colonial missionary linguists applied a method that Tavárez calls “recruit-
ment,” where a preexisting root or word express a novel concept. The Nahuatl
word for sin, tlahtlacolli (nominal root -[i]htlaco¯a, which originally meant “to
spoil or damage”), was “recruited” in 1548 (Tavárez 2000, 24). But did this con-
cept have a particular religious or philosophical meaning for the Nahua? It is dif-
ficult to know because words can be lingustically practiced in various social con-
texts that have nothing to do with religion. Most words are deictic or indexical,
operating both religiously and not, depending upon the particular linguistic cir-
cumstances. It is important to establish whether missionary linguists appropriate
not only the everyday (secular) but also the sacred concepts—related to institu-
tions, ritual practices, symbols, and stories—of indigenous languages with the
purpose of arrogating them into translated Christian scripture. The objective
would not be ecumenical but intended to adapt the indigenous traditional reli-
gious language and cognitive system to Christian theology.
There is reason to assume that there are quite few words straightforwardly
acquired from indigenous religious nomenclature. A majority of theological con-
cepts reconstructed in a new context (e. g., translated in passages of the Bible)
are taken from the daily (colloquial) or secular language of the target culture.
On the other hand, it is interesting that “soul” (tonali and añu), “spirit” (yehye-
catl, yehyeltilistli, and anú), and “devil” (xolopihtli and ja’u’u, kui’na, chaa xaan)
are translated with Nahuatl and Mixtec terms. This also applies to the word for
hell/underworld—mictlan in Nahuatl. In the phrase yodzocondi si nana stoho
dzehendo, “le ofrezco a Nuestra Señora,” where the verb yo-dzoco means to sac-
rifice or dedicate and also appear in the sentence yodzocondi nuu ñuhu, (Sp.
ofrecer a Dios), which Alvarado renders as “bendecir lo que comían los indios
antiguamente” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 236). This indicates that the
Catholic colonial missionaries took phrases from the Mixtec religious languages
and them transferrred into Christian language. The same applies to the word teo-
chihua, which meant “to pray” in Nahuatl (Launey 1992, 164). Olmos records this
word with bendecir y absolver (Olmos [1547] 1985, 194, 264v., 250r.).
Converting indigenous religious terminology into Christian theological con-
cepts has a particular effect. When traditional indigenous religious concepts not
only lose their meaning but are transformed into exclusively Christian theologi-
cal context, the traditional religious system is definitely undermined. The Nahua
conclusion of the first stage of the rites de passage of a human being is the
“washing of hands” (moma’tequilo), which for in Naupan constitutes the last
94 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

of the symbolic actions after a child is born. The “washing of hands” by the god-
fathers (Sp. Padrinos) on the behalf of the midwife is a public act of gratitude
that can be executed years after the child is born. It is the first public participa-
tion of the infant that includes a big, celebratory fiesta (Báez Cubero 2008, 235 –
45). SIL uses moma’tequilo to translate Mt. 27:24 into Nahuatl: “So when Pilate
saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took
some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of
this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’” This intentional misassignment clearly
undercuts their religious ritual practices—Pilate is no hero in the Passion Narra-
tive. In his analysis of the SIL-translated Ch’orti’ (Maya) New Testament, Hull has
identified what he calls a “Christian bias affecing translation.” In the King James
Version, Acts 8:9 reads, “But there was a certain man, called Simon, which be-
foretime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giv-
ing out that himself was some great one”; a back-translation of the translated
passage is: “…knew how to divine with the calf (k’ini), he knew how to heal
(niro), and he knew how to do sorcery (b’a’xon).” Two words from traditional
Ch’orti’ religious divination and medicine are thereby associated with sorcery
and witchcraft, showing Protestant biases against traditional religious practices
when the Ch’orti’ word for sorcery would be quite sufficient (Hull 2006, 4). A pre-
vious traditonal ceremonial undertaking (costumbre) has accordingly gained
novel theological significance.
Quite a few words with no exclusively religious meaning have been taken
from the indigenous lexicon and given Christian theological connotation by in-
troducing them in the translations of the New Testament. Such linkages include
“Lord” (referring to Christ and God) as Tecutli (Nahuatl) and Jito’o (Mixtec);
“good” as cuali (Nahuatl) and va’a (Mixtec); “evil” as ahmo cuali and kue’e;
and “heaven” (which has also been converted to signify paradise) as neluicac
(Nahutal) and andɨvɨ (Mixtec).
There are methodogical problems in identifying religious indigenous words be-
cause the earliest written testimonies are only recorded by European missionary lin-
guists. We know, however, that notions in translated Christian scripture—for exam-
ple, “blasphemy” (istlacati in Nahuatl) and “conversion” or “repentance” as
moyolcuepacan (Nahuatl) and nacani ini (Mixtec)—are not religious words pertain-
ing to indigenous religion simply because they are alien to indigenous philosopy.
But what about, for instance, translated words for forgiveness, or quitlapohpoluiya
(Nahuatl) and kuanka’nu…ini or saka’nu…ini (Mixtec)? Are these and similar con-
cepts missionary (compound) neologisms, redefinitions of existing words, or did
they simply mean “forgiveness”? Contemporary Mixtec and Nahua may well use
them as religious words today, but it is difficult to know whether they had religious
significance in pre-European/pre-Christian languages.
 Omission of translated theological concepts 95

Omission of translated theological concepts

Unicity or monovalence describes cases where a single concept is being consis-

tently replaced with a synonym in an attempt to create a literal translation. Omis-
sions of central theological, philosophical, or political concepts are significant
because they effectively mean abandoning a literal or authentic translation pol-
icy. Not translating central concepts can also act as a technical linguistic-strategy
(Durston 2007, 312) for the missionary linguist translators in order to control the
theological meaning. Tymoczko comments that:

What is not translated in a particular context is often as revealing as what is translated.

Thus silences and gaps in specific translated texts—like the non-translation (or zero trans-
lation) of entire texts—are fundamental in revealing the politics of translation in a partic-
ular cultural context (Tymoczko 2010, 6).

Sometimes this appears as inexplicable choices as when the SIL translators don’t
employ, nduu (“convert,” “change,” “transform”) in the Mixtec New Testament,
which, however, does merit an entry in the SIL dictionary. Moreover, there are
quite a few Christian theological concepts in the New Testament that SIL missionary
linguists simply do not translate with corresponding concepts, neologisms from Mix-
tec or Nahuatl, calques or loanwords.⁵⁸ This lack of “literalism” in the SIL Mixtec
and Nahuatl translations of the New Testament arise simply because there are ap-
parently no analogous theological synonyms for certain Christian notions.
For example, the term salvation is associated with the concept of the “gospel
of truth” brought by Christ. In Eph. 1:13, Paul writes to the congregation in Ephe-
sus, “when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” The
concept “gospel of salvation” is not translated in neither the SIL New Testament
in Mixtec or Nahuatl. Furthermore, we have seen that the same is the case with
grace. Let us look at Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing sal-
vation to all.” The long Mixtec translation is a circuitous rephrasing that avoids
the ideas of grace and salvation. Instead, the passage threatens the perishment
(naa) and destruction (tahu) associated with sin, which becomes the focus. But
interestingly the translators have added the idea of God’s (Yandios) compassion
(cundahu ini), demonstrated by sending his son Jesus Christ to the world (ñuyɨvɨ)

 Redemption, justification/righteousness, Logos, anoint, transfiguration, resurrection, Anti-

christ, blessed, saint, devotion, piety, gentile/heathen/infidel, and faithful are not translated
with Mixtec or Nahuatl concepts. Savior/salvation, atonement/expiation/reconciliation, tempta-
tion, purification, compassion, grace, glory, mercy, and blasphemy are not translated with Mix-
tec concepts. Damnation, judgment, and perdition are not translated with Nahuatl concepts.
96 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

to fight to remove our sin (quencha ya cuachi yo). In the Nahuatl version of Titus
2:11, SIL translators also avoid the use of the concept of grace, employing instead
oquinuelitaloc in Dios, “God was able.” Moreover, in Titus 1:4, the concepts of
“Grace, mercy and peace” (Sp. gracia, misercordia y paz) can be back-translated
from the SIL Nahuatl translation as: “I wish may you make sacred (benediction)
God our great revered father and our revered lord Jesus Christ our revered savior
to be with compassion and alleviate heart” (Nicnequi mamitztiochihualo Dios To-
hueyitahtzin huan Totecohtzin Jesucristo in Totemaquixticahtzin ica tlocoyalistli
huan yolsehuilistli). In the Mixtec New Testament, the SIL translators simply
use the rephrasing cundahu ini ya, “He will have compassion.”
SIL dictionaries record several words used for “soul.” Perhaps realizing the
cognitive (religious and philsophical) and accordingly linguistic difficulties of
translating indigenous anthropology into acceptable Christian theology, the
New Testament translators do not consistently employ any indigenous word
that could correspond to the meaning of “soul.” For instance, the Mixtec trans-
lation of 1 Pet 1:9 avoids soul and salvation, rendering the verse as “for you are
receiving the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” The passage is
instead rather confusingly advises a way escaping perdition through belief. In
the same verse from the Nahuatl New Testament, the word for soul is handled
quite differently: surprisingly, it is replaced with cah, “being” (Brockway, Her-
shey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 10).
Furthermore, the missionary linguists seem to emphasize the body’s physical
decline in lieu of describing the soul threatened to perish in hell. In the transla-
tion of Acts 2:27, “you will not abandon my soul to Hades,” the Nahuatl New Tes-
tament employs the expression “my life” (nonemilis) in place of “my soul.” The
Mixtec New Testament likewise sidesteps “my soul” in that verse. To describe the
physical deterioration of the body as metaphor for moral distortion that appears
in the second half of Acts 2:27, the Nahuatl employs the clause “nor will I let my
body rot” (niyan ahmo nechmocahuilis mapalani notlacayo); in Mixtec, it reads,
“he will rot body” (yɨquɨcuñu ya tehyu). When Christian theological concepts
or even similar ideas simply do not exist in indigenous American religions,
the missionary linguists replace those important elements of the source text
with paraphrases.

The SIL missionary-linguistic predicament

of translating conversion
Translating Christian scripture in the colonial period, missionary linguists had to
take into account that indigenous peoples did not master an Indo-European lan-
 The SIL missionary-linguistic predicament of translating conversion 97

guage or have knowledge of Christian theology. This linguistic and religious con-
dition has radically changed in the postcolonial nation-state, where the great
majority of native speakers are multilingual. Moreover, European grammatical
and lexical elements incorporated in nonindigenous languages (Spanish and
Portuguese in Latin America, English and French in North America) are com-
mon. One also has to consider the quite long period of Christian evangalization
that has taken place after the arrival of the first missionaries at the beginning of
the sixteenth century. Despite of this influence, indigenous religious languages
are in existence in many places of the Americas. Contemporary indigenous reli-
gious specialists may make use of a combination of traditional words, neolo-
gisms, calques, and loanwords in religious practices.⁵⁹ The fundamental problem
for the missionary linguists is that in most cases corresponding religious con-
cepts simply do not exist. This is demonstrated by the SIL translators’ use of a
perplexing combination of loanwords and, to a lesser degree, neologisms rather
than supposed synonyms (e. g. semantic extension or semantic substitution)
from the indigenous lexicon.
That there are far fewer Spanish loanwords in the Nahuatl New Testament
than in the Mixtec version may have a linguistic explanation. In contrast to
tonal Mixtec, agglutinative and polysynthetic Nahuatl can easily form new lex-
emes from different morphemes. Mixtec word meanings change depending on
voice tone: high, medium, or low. In the colonial dictionaries, tone is not marked
by separate entries, which gives Mixtec lexemes real semantic ambiguity. Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez provide an example from colonial literature where the trans-
lation says that the demons are going to attack or fill (cuidzo) the body. This act
can also be understood as boiling, puncturing, or punching a hole in, as well has
having sexual connotations such as “to force a woman” (Jansen and Pérez Jimé-
nez 2009a, 148). Tone is not registered in the alphabetic writing system used in
the SIL Mixtec New Testament and may therefore create confusion in grammar
(especially verb tenses) and meaning of words. Linguistically this makes appro-
priation difficult.
Furthermore, in order to make a “Unified Nahuatl” translation of the Roman
Catholic Mass the discussion between Nahuatl speaking priests at the 7th Pastor-
al Workshop on Nahuatl Language and Culture in 2014 in Tehuipango, in the Si-

 For instance, among contemporary Nahua: Queyeh nitahyohuihtoc? (“¿Por qué esoy sufrien-
do?”) and Queyeh nican nicastigado nyetoc? (“¿Por qué aquí estoy castigado”) (Signorini and
Lupo 1989, 266 – 67). Tehuatzin xitatiochihua (“¡Tú bendice!”) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 256 –
57). Ica namotatiochihualiz (“con vuestra bendición”) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 270 – 71). Ica mo-
milagro (“con tu milagro”), ica motatiochihualiz (“con tu bendición”) (Signorini and Lupo 1989,
258 – 59).
98 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

erra de Zongolica in Central Veracruz, Mexico display various conflicting issues

of grammar due to the diverse language practices of various dialects (cf. Pharao
Hansen 2014). This translator predicament applies to quite a few languages and
is a fascinating study in itself. But the main difficulty of literally translating pas-
sages from the New Testament is not merely grammatical i. e. related to morphol-
ogy, phonology or syntax. Simply put, Christian theology conflicts with indige-
nous religions and philosophies expressed in semantic systems of interrelated
key and core concepts.
For instance, representing an, to American indigenous thinking and practi-
ces, extraordinary metaphysical and soteriological system, Christ is the eschato-
logical prophet coming to the world in order to save humanity, according to the
New Testament: “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). The Mixtec SIL New Testament translation
states: “Moses extended the seated law of God” (snaca Moisés ni snucoo ley Yan-
dios). Observe that the Spanish loanword ley is used for “law.” More significantly,
concepts for compassion (cundahu ini) and for word or advice (jnuhun) are em-
ployed instead of the religious terms for grace and truth. The Nahuatl SIL trans-
lation says: “Moses helped the Noticer God” (in tetlanahuatil in Dios otechpanolti
in Moisés). The principal Christian conception of grace is avoided; instead, the
translation into Nahuatl of John 1:17 reads, “the revered word will in truth pardon
you bringing you Jesus Christ” (in tetlahtoltzin tlen melahuac techtlahtlapoluis
otechualiquilo in Jesucristo).
However, not translating the grammatical categories: noun, agentive noun,
verb, and adjective have as consequence serious implications for conceptional
(theological) meaning. For instance, the agentive noun savior and the noun sal-
vation are not recorded in the Mixtec New Testament. The entry for the adjective
sinful does not appear in Nahuatl, whereas nchacuachi (literally “to be sin”) is
used in the Mixtec New Testament (Luke 5:8). But nchakuachi is a neologism
and not recorded in the dictionaries. The verb to sin is rendered with tlahtlaco-
lana in the SIL Nahuatl New Testament but with the noun cuachi in the SIL Mix-
tec version of 1 Cor 8:12: “But when you thus sin against members of your family
and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.” The verb
here, tlahtlacolana, is generally used in the past tense for “to have sinned” in
the New Testament, but it connotes “to take or to steal” (Brockway, Hershey
de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 216), literally rendered as “to take or have some-
thing damaged or corrupted.” During my field research in Mixteca Alta, I asked
one of the principal Mixtec assistant-informants to a SIL Mixtec-Spanish diction-
ary and a translated New Testament into Mixtec—a Protestant preacher using
both Spanish and Mixtec in Christian services conducted regularly in his home
—about the linguistic predicament of not being able to trace corresponding theo-
 The SIL missionary-linguistic predicament of translating conversion 99

logical synonyms. He admitted that there are quite a few Christian theological
concepts from scripture that are difficult to translate into Mixtec. He commented
that kuachi is something very big and very heavy. You can only be rid of it
through God—that is why they chose this Mixtec word for sin (pers. comm. 2011).
Translation is indeed a “metonymic process” because the translator has to
make painful choices:

Translators cannot transpose everything in a source text to the receptor language and text
because of anisomorphisms of language and asymmetries of culture…, which has ideolog-
ical implications (Tymoczko 2010, 8).

In the case of missionary-linguistic translations, the asymmetry is between reli-

gions rather than, as Tymoczko says, cultures, but in addition the translators are
consciously making maneuvers. Religious concepts represent fundamental
ideas, symbols, institutions, rituals, and practices. Through dictionaries, gram-
mars, and translated scripture, missionary linguistics deliberately manipulates
semantics by giving indigenous words theological correspondence. Accordingly,
a politics attends the conversion of concepts (their transference) into the target
language and the introduction of new theological terms.⁶⁰ Some indigenous
terms may even have unknown meaning for the missionary linguist, but are
“loaned” to render Christian meanings. In the conversion of philosophy, religion
and practices, the missionary linguist applies a strategy of meaning change or
“semantic purification” and constructs central concepts. Certain notions in indig-
enous American languages are constructions made by Evangelical missionary
lexicographers in order to appeal to local mentalities and traditions. But this
can represent a problem and a source of conflict. Lynne Long asserts that “the
holy resists translation, since the space it needs in the target culture is often al-
ready occupied; available vocabulary is already culturally loaded with indige-
nous referents” (Long 2005, 1, 5).
In Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide
(1993, 34), George Tinker employs linguist Noam Chomsky’s dichotomy of
“deep” and “surface” structures in language. He claims that “any new surface
structure language or behavior must somehow find meaning in terms of the
old deep structures… that give meaning to language or behavior. The old deep
structures of meaning and cognition must continue to inform the new surface
structures and give way only slowly to innovative transformation” (Siems 1998,
166; Tinker 1993, 121– 22; Chomsky 1957, 1965). Chomsky’s analyzis concerns syn-
tax, but his theory applies to the study of “conceptual semantics”. Siems main-

 For examples from Quechua and Sanskrit, cf. Durston (2007, 145 – 46).
100 II Conversion in Language and Semiotic Ideologies

tains that the missionaries working among the Dakota in the United States com-
mitted a fundamental error by maintaining a nonexistent “similarity in reference
between Dakota and English terms.” There are no similar conceptual referents,
which is why the missionary linguists did not understand “the conceptual uni-
verse, or ‘deep structure’—a totally different religious system from Christianity
—underlying the Dakota language.” Still, many missionary linguists believe
they have succeded in converting the Dakota (Siems 1998, 163, 168 – 69). Their
unfounded optimism obtains across the board in terms of their work with indig-
enous cultures: the primary underlying problem is translating soteriological-met-
aphysical theology (the surface structure) into natural philosopies (the deep
structure).
Catherine Albanese has made a theoretical conceptual distinction between
religions with a worldview of correspondence and those that operate on causal-
ity. In the system of correspondence, there is no radical separation between the
transcendent and human cosmos because they both partake in the same “charts
of existence.” The analysis of indigenous religion and philosophy presented here
certainly supports Albanese’s depiction of correspondence worldviews. Con-
versely, the casuality system of Christian theology denotes a radical separation
between the trancendent and the human world where a distant creator (deus oti-
osus) is related to the phenomena of human existence (Albanese 1977, 4, 8; Siems
1998, 176). We see here the insurmountable problem of translating Christian so-
teriological-metaphysical categories into indigenous languages whose cognitive
and epistemological system relate to the natural world and phenomena. Without
constant theological explanation of the concepts by a religious instructor (priest
or catechist) the individual reading and exegesis of the translated scripture into
the vernacular creates a novel (indigenous) religion that does not correspond to
the desired theology of the missionary linguist.
Translation is an ongoing process that constantly calls for revision. SIL and
WBT practice a great deal of self-critcism and self-reflection. Hartch relates that
an Eastern Otomí man (hñähü) who belonged to a family of religious specialists
“misinterpreted” a phrase from the Gospel of John: “born by spirit and by
water.” The man thought that it meant “to be a worshiper of the water deity” be-
cause one of the traditional deities was a water spirit. In order to avoid this in-
deed non-Christian exegesis, the SIL missionary linguists changed the transla-
tion (Hartch 2006, 116 – 17). Certainly, the WBT Ministry Bible Translation
Principles stated on the organization’s official web page “encourage the periodic
 The SIL missionary-linguistic predicament of translating conversion 101

review of translations to ascertain when revision or a new translation is need-

ed.”⁶¹
To revise and publish an extensive scripture like the New Testament re-
quires, however, a considerable amount of work. Hard copies are also expensive
to produce and distribute, so SIL publishes PDF files of translated New Testa-
ments—without illustrations—online, where they are easy to access. ⁶² One of
the principal Mixtec translators (the above-mentioned pastor) told me that he
has been involved in a minor revision of the Mixtec (Yosondúa) New Testament
(1997– 1999) (pers. comm. 2011). This new edition has fewer Spanish loanwords—
a welcome development because the previously published New Testament was
not one-hundred-percent Mixtec. In addition to substituting Mixtec for Spanish
loanwords, the revision follows the source text more closely.
For instance, the Spanish word gracía (“grace”) is replaced with a Mixtec
paraphrase. But the changes appear, however, to be only orthographic and not
substantial regarding to translation. In an e-mail, the translator and compiler
of the Yosondúa New Testament and dictionary, Kathryn Beaty de Farris of
SIL, told me that around 1997 she updated the orthograpy of the printed edition
of the New Testament in order to comply with the system that the Mixtec Acad-
emy approved after the translated New Testament was published. In addition,
some corrections were made and posted on the Internet. But this is not a new
translation. Incidentally, she is currently preparing a summary of a Mixtec Yo-
sondúa Old Testament to be published electronically by the SIL shortly (pers.
comm. August 6, 2011). As we shall see in the section concluding this chapter,
revisions and new translations of scripture—with dictionaries and grammars—
are simple and inexpensive to publish online, making such documentation a
centerpiece of the novel missionary-linguistic multimedia strategy.

 “Latest Prayer Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/Ministry/Bible

TranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 The latest revision of published translated SIL New Testaments is available at http://Scrip
tureEarth.org and http://VirtualStorehouse.org.
III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies
Missionary literacy and linguistics have had a significant socio-political and cul-
tural impact upon the Kauli in Papua New Guinea. Transforming as well as fac-
tionalizing society “missionization not only changed the social organization and
material possessions of some families; it also changed the ways individuals
talked about and imagined themselves” (Schieffelin 2000, 309).
Protestant missionary linguistics came to 19th Latin America simultaneously
with modernization – literacy, technology, transportation, and communication –
of national governments opposing the power and influence of the Roman Cath-
olic Church (Samson 2007, 15). The (sometimes joined) activity of foreign (i. e. US)
evangelical missionary linguistic and national governments reflect great inequity
and injustice, regarding the distribution of resources as for instance literacy
technologies and materials, compared to indigenous cultures. Bambi B. Schieffe-
lin has made the following succinct observation about this universal process of
the contemporary era:

… Colonial and missionary intrusions are premised on the principle of asymmetry: domi-
nation, control, and conversion to a particular point of view are shared goals of both enter-
prises… Particular communication technologies, such as literacy, while not transformative
in the simple, deterministic sense, do take on power by virtue of those who control those
resources and set participant structure (Schieffelin 2000, 321).

In its endeavor to convert local cultures, North American Evangelicals impose

not only a linguistic and religious but also a political and economic influence
in Latin America (Martin 1993; Stoll 1990). Reflecting the US doctrine of manifest
destiny of the middle and latter part of the 19th century, Virginia Garrard-Burnett
categorize the initial Protestant mission from North America as “spiritual mani-
fest destiny” (Garrard-Burnett 1990). Manifest destiny was conceived as an ideol-
ogy of “divine sanction” legitimizing that the US expanded its territory in North
America in order to extend and enhance its political, social, cultural, and eco-
nomic and eventually linguistc influence. Applying principles of the Doctrine
of (Christian) Discovery this led to the process of dispossession of territories
and self-determination of the indigenous peoples of North America (Miller
2008; cf. also Pharo 2016).
I concentrate on the power—or the politics—of missionary linguistic transla-
tions not only in converting a religious-linguistic system but also in making Eu-
ropean and US Christianity global. Moreover, I consider the reception of translat-
ed scripture and the role of the converted indigenous assistants and informants
(e. g. collaborators) of SIL. The ideology of Protestant cultural exclusivism and

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-004
 Missionary linguistic acculturation 103

the theology of sola scriptura are fundamental for understanding the envisioned
transformation of indigenous languages, traditions, and philosophies. The Cath-
olic doctrine extra eccesiam nulla salus, “no salvation outside the church” and
the Protestant sola scriptura have in common that both oppose (condemn)
non-Christian cultures, although in different ways corresponding to theological
argument and tradition of the churches. The importance of translating religion
and language—in particular, when related to Protestant scripture-centric ideolo-
gy that excludes other sacred beings, ritual traditions, symbols, institutions, sto-
ries and scriptures—manifest this theological-linguistic policy of conversion. To a
certain extent the scriptura sola theology of Protestantism i. e. the exclusiveness
of the Bible for religious exegesis and interpretation of culture and language ex-
hibit why Protestant missionary linguistics differs from Catholic missionary lin-
guistics. Although in opposition, the latter has shown to be more accepting of
Indigenous cultural traditions, symbols and languages. But, this recognition cul-
minates when translating missionary-soteriological concepts. In this respect
there is no difference between the doctrines of US Protestant and Roman Cath-
olic (Latin American) missionary linguistics.
Missionary institutions are building an innovative and extensive multimedia
strategy of translated scripture being transferred into video and audio conveyed
through the Internet. I shall reflect on the anticipated impact that US missionary
linguistic scriptural translations will have on indigenous cultures as a result of
(visual and oral) rhetoric and symbolic and semiotic systems.
First, I will deliberate and advocate definitions of three recurrently employed
analytical theoretical concepts: transculturation, acculturation, and inculturation.

Missionary linguistic acculturation of Indigenous language

and religion/philosophy
Homi K. Bhabha uses the term evangelical colonialism whereas Even-Zohar em-
ploys the notion of “cultural interference” in order to categorize the aggressive
transference of ideas and practices by an outside culture (Long 2005, 1). Beyond
these and other postcolonial theoretical categories, missionary linguistic transla-
tions can quite simply be conceived as a process involving inculturation, transcul-
turation or acculturation. This is an important distinction because SIL, WBT, the-
ologians, and some other scholars maintain that missionary linguist scriptural
translations are equivalent to language and cultural preservation. Conversely,
quite a few outside scholars and indigenous individuals and scholars argue
that missionary linguists activities imply a destruction of traditional culture, phi-
losophies and languages. But which of the above mentioned three theoretical
104 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

categories can best explicate the sociopolitical and cultural process caused or in-
tended to be caused by (post)colonial missionary linguistic translations and re-
lated activities? The analytical classifications of acculturation, transculturation
and inculturation have received many contradictory meanings and definitions
in the scholarly literature. With the purpose to explicate missionary linguist
translations but in addition accentuate conceptional inconsistencies, which com-
plicate cultural analyzis, I apply the following definitions:
The term transcultural can be defined as a process in which the language,
religion, economy, and other structures of a (subordinated) culture are influ-
enced by another (dominant) culture but where the traditions are adaptive
and the outside elements are selectively incorporated through acceptance.¹
This notion may also describe a process where cultures or religions converge vol-
untarily (Carlsen 2001, 258; Ortiz 1947; Pratt 1992). In contrast with a transcultu-
rating, symmetrical relation between different cultures, acculturation can be de-
fined as an asymmetrical process with an antagonistic confrontation of
conflicting ideologies, practices, and concepts. ² In the process of cultural con-
tact and transmission acculturation signify assimilation, the fundamental aim
of the prevailing “acculturator” is the absolute assimilation of the subjected cul-
ture and not an adaptation or voluntary interaction of cultures (Nutini 2001,
1– 2). Acculturation refers therefore to the procurement or adaptation of a foreign
culture where transmittance of values and practices seriously affects the cultural
pattern of the target society (Beal 1953; Wolf 1962; Aguirre Beltrán 1970; López
Austin 1973; Nutini and Issac 1974; Reyes 1976). Transculturation signifies hybrid-
ization (Sp. mestizaje) of the culture’s own accord as opposed to acculturation or
enforced assimilation. Since the colonial period, the political authorities of Latin
American nation-states have used Hispanicization (Sp. castellanisación) in order
to effect cultural, linguistic, and religious acculturation and unification but this
also happens between other Western powers (English, French, and Portuguese)
and the American indigenous peoples. Forced acculturation in the context of
(post)colonialism has therefore structured the cultural configuration from the
time of the conquest.
In postcolonial analyzis, theologians and missiologists have in particularly
employed a “Newspeak” (cf. below) conception of inculturation. The latter has
the following historicial background and definition. After the Second Vatican
Council (1962– 1965), there emanated a “neo-Catholic missionary movement”

 The term “transculturation” was originally conined by Fernando Oritz (1947).

 John Wesley Powell is credited with the invention of the word “acculturation” published in a
report by the U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology (1877).
 Missionary linguistic acculturation 105

of “New evangelization”, “second evangelization” or “reevangelization” by the

Catholic Church (Orta 2004, 77). Based upon anthropological research among
the Aymara in the Andean region of South America, Andrew Orta argues that
the new strategy of Catholic mission is to be classified as “inculturation”.³
This category encompasses a “pastoral ideology” which is to interpret indige-
nous religious beliefs and cultural practices as “Christian”. There is accordingly
a “catechization of culture” that revalorizes indigenous religious symbols, be-
liefs, and practices, which “incorporate cultural difference within a universal
frame of Christian identity…” (Orta 2004, 3 – 5; 105 – 106). Inculturation is estab-
lished upon the ideology of liberation theology (Orta 2004; Báez-Jorge 2010) al-
though its predecessor entirely reject local cultural in order to promote a generic
Christian culture. In its place incultural missionaries apply a manipulative strat-
egy of homogenizing local beliefs and practices with the purpose to create a uni-
versal Christianity (Rappaport 2005: 214; Orta 1995).

Implicit in inculturation is a process of theological deculturation: distilling and retrieving a

posited pure faith message and crafting its reexpression in another cultural medium (Orta
2004, 107).

The theologian Javier García González identifies the concept inculturation (Sp. in-
culturación) as a recent missionary but also as a concept of anthropology for so-
cialization that has gained a semantic evolution in missology and theology. The
technical meaning of the term inculturation is, however, circular “…que va del
evangelio a las culturas y de éstas al evangelio”. Thus inculturation constitutes
accordingly the message and simultaneously inculturation of the Gospel to
non-Christian cultures.⁴ This semantic cultural-theological process generates
an indigenous theology (Sp. “una teología india”) (García González 2002,125 –
126; 128; cf. Báez-Jorge 2010, 202– 203). In his explication of the new evangliza-
tion of the Catholic Church among the Zoque-Popoluca of southern Veracruz in
Mexico, Feliz Báez-Jorge contends, explaining the symbolic transformation of an
indigenous maize deity, that the strategies of inculturation in reality signifies a
novel North American hegemonic ethos and privileges – “un intromisión unilat-
eral” (Báez-Jorge 2010, 230) – at the cost of the languages, religions, identities,
social and political structures of autochthones cultures (Báez-Jorge 2010).

 The notion “inculturation” was used for the first time by the XXXII Congregación general de la
Compañia de Jesus in March 1975 (García González 2002,125).
 “inculturación es el anuncio de Evanglio a las culturas y la inculturación del Evangelio a las
mismas” (García González 2002,128).
106 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

Inculturation implies a teología indígena, an alleged “synthesis” of Christian-

ity and indigenous religion (Norget 2004, 166 – 67). The Catholic theologian Ayl-
ward Shorter defines inculturation as “the on-going dialogue between faith and
culture or cultures. More fully, it is the creative and dynamic relationship be-
tween the Christian message and a culture or cultures” (Shorter 1989, 11). In “Let-
ter to the Whole Society on Inculturation” (1978), Fr. Pedro Arrup SJ defines in-
culturation as “the incarnation of Christian life and of the Christian message in a
particular cultural context, in such a way that this experience not only finds ex-
pression through elements proper to the culture in question (this alone would be
no more than a superficial adaptation) but becomes a principle that animates,
directs and unifies the culture, transforming it and remaking it so as to bring
about a ‘new creation’” (Shorter 1989, 11). His definition has been officially ac-
knowledged by the Catholic Church according to Maria Eugenia Villalón
(1999). The dialogue of inculturation may, however, be distorted when the target
culture ignores the ideas and values of the gospel. Theologians classify this as
“culturalism” (Shorter 1989, 12).
SIL’s contextualized approach through the linguistic method of “dynamic or
functional equivalence” corresponds to the theological method of inculturation,
or contextual missiology. The idea is to transform a culture (religion) through
missionary linguistic inculturation. Translation of scripture into the language
of the target culture is a strategy of inculturation with the purpose of transferring
the Christian experience. Contextual theology (inculturation) of missionaries en-
deavors to express Christian doctrine in vernacular languages and other cultural
expressions like symbolism, stories, and iconography (Cleary and Steigenga
2004, 10). Christian theological inculturation aspires to decontextualize Christi-
an religion from European and European American culture in order to adapt to
indigenous worldviews. An “indigenization” of Christian theology derives from
the Second Vatican Council’s (1962 – 1965) doctrine of seminae Verb (“seeds of
the Word”), later practiced by liberal theologians and missionaries in postcolo-
nial Americas and Africa (Greenfield and Droogers 2001; Garrard-Burnett 2004,
125).⁵ The Catholic Church combine inculturation with what it categorise as teo-
logía indígena (‘indigenous theology’) though where obligatory conversion and
salvation are core doctrinal features (Espeja 1993, 12– 14; 112 – 151: 192; cf.
Suess et al. 1998), similarly equivalent with Protestant (SIL/WBT) policy and
dogma.

 For a theologic outline of contemporary inculturation of the Catholic Church in Latin America
cf. Irarrázaval (2000).
 Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 107

Inculturation’s objective is to transform an indigenous worldview, “under-

mining its cultural specificity, framing it as a particular manifestation of univer-
sal Christianity” according to the theory of Villalón (Shorter 1989: 12). New Testa-
ments translated through so-called “ethnotheology”—where a dynamic cultural
and religious expression can be European American in form but indigenous in
meaning—conflict, however, with fundamentalist theology. This represents a di-
lemma for SIL and WBT (Stoll 1990, 88 – 89). “Translating the message” may end
up “transforming the message” (Premawardhana 2011, 33). There cannot be an
inculturating adaptation of Christian theology to indigenous religions—simply
because they represent two inconsistent philosophies. The present systematic
analysis of U.S. missionary-linguistic translations of the New Testament demon-
strates that inculturation, or contextual missiology, is merely another term, a
theological euphemism (Newspeak), for acculturation.⁶ The missionaries’ (lin-
guists’) ambition is to alter the indigenous society from within (Hvalkof and
Aaby 1981, 14). Acculturation is therefore the only appropriate categorization
for evangelizing missionary-linguistic scriptural translation. The Protestant mis-
sionaries want to impose a soteriological-metaphysical theology and the exclu-
sive status of Christ and God, which means denouncing indigenous natural phi-
losophy, local deities and saints, the Virgin Mary, and ceremonial traditions, and
practices.

Missionary linguistics as cultural and

language homogenization
Historically and regionally, the numerous Catholic institutions in America have
many various missionary strategies. It is, however, telling that representatives
of the Catholic Church in Mixteca Alta and northern Puebla with whom I have
been in contact claim an inculturating missionary theology. Catholic priests em-
ploy indigenous language in Catholic worship services. Working among Mixtecs
of the Mixteca Alta, Capuchin priests practice dialogue; they identify cultural
similarities, do social work, and improve the environment to the benefit of
local communities. According to the local Capuchin priest, the mission lives
and eats like the indigenous peoples. He does not favor the US Protestant impo-

 In social science the term enculturation is employed as a synonom for socialization in order to
outline the pervasive process of absorbing a holistic culture by a passive receiver. Cultural an-
thropologists prefer the former category because it convey a meaning of “acquring, incorporat-
ing, or internalizating culture” (LeVine 1969, 505 – 506). Enculturation is thus another synonym
for acculturation.
108 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

sition, which opposes the inculturation theology (and liberation theology) prac-
ticed by the local Capuchins (pers. comm. 2010).
In the Mixteca Alta, I witnessed local Mixtecs’ respect for the Capuchin mis-
sion and their recognition of its importance. The Capuchin priest gave me a
small, unpublished leaflet—Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas: Símbolos del
Mundo—written by the first (German) Capuchin missionaries who came to the
area. The leaflet outlines costumbres (ritual traditions and symbols from before
the conquest) in the villages of Nochixtlan, Chicahuaxtla, Chalcatongo, and San-
tiago Amoltepec—all in Mixtec territory. It is also an effort of inculturation to
draw attention to similarities between Mixtec ritual practices and symbols of
the Bible, in particular the Hebrew Bible, so the anonymous authors of this pam-
phlet argue that the Virgin Mary give indigenous religion respect and apprecia-
tion by using indigenous terminology. It also argues that despite Christian mon-
otheism, the Virgin Mary and saints provide traditional Mesoamerican religion
space and media to reach God (Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas. Símbolos
del Mundo: 3). For example, the important Mesoamerican deity Koo Sau (Quet-
zalcoatl) is equated to the Holy Ghost, the divine power that creates and mani-
fests unity and reconciles the totality of existence, as represented by the dove in
Christianity (Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas. Símbolos del Mundo: 38).
In Chalcatongo de Hidalgo Church Santa Maria de la Natividad, administrat-
ed by the “incultural” Capuchin mission, there are, however, illustrations with
commentary text in Spanish of the suffering, crucifixion, burial, and—signifi-
cantly—the resurrection of Christ. The local Capuchin priest admitted that it is
their ultimate objective to slowly introduce official Catholic Christology to the
Mixtecs (pers. comm. 2010). One therefore feels tempted to inquire about the
so-called (de‐)contextualizing inculturation of Christianity when the unfeigned
intention is to impose European American Catholic doctrine at the expense of
indigenous religious traditions.
The Parroco (Sp. Padre) in the local Catholic Church in a Nahua community
of northern Puebla also reflects Catholic missionary inculturation. He said that
there is a regional Catholic indigenous theology of Christ as a fertility deity
and sacrificial being and not as a savior or redeemer. Ceremonies of incultura-
tion are performed during Catholic Mass. Pre-Hispanic/pre-Christian songs
with la concha, a pre-Hispanic instrument, refer to rain, sun, and natural ele-
ments. Prayer in a circle to the four cardinal directions happens, as do agricul-
tural thanking ceremonies—ofrendas (sacrifices) of chile, maize, and peanuts.
The ancient traditional ritual of blessing of the seeds takes place every year
on February 2. Some of the natural elements of the agricultural earth have the
function of healing amelo (source of water). God (Christ = Creator God) is related
to agriculture among the contemporary Nahua, and Christ, Nahui Xochitl, is sym-
 Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 109

bolized by a flower emblazoned on the belly of Virgin Mary of Guadalupe—the

local Catholic priest showed me her portrait in the church. Nahui Xochitl is
only associated with the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe because she pertains to indig-
enous traditions (pers. comm. 2010). There are accordingly many examples of a
Catholic missionary endeavor of decontextualize European American theology
(inculturation) in order to adapt to indigenous religious traditions and practices.
Quite a few Protestant theologians, SIL, and WBT argue that despite their
proselytizing, missionary linguistics are contributing to the survival of endan-
gered indigenous cultural traditions and languages. An “appropriation strategy”
by New Tribes Mission and SIL entails a systematic “satanization of indigenous
traditions”—in other words, it defines indigenous religions as “satanic manifes-
tations” (Villalón 1999). In interviews with Protestant missionaries in Mexico,
Carolyn Gallaher learned that they are motivated not only by salvation but
also by rescuing indigenous culture and language, although the missionaries
abhor tequio and the ritual fiesta system (Gallaher 2007, 104, 109). Associate di-
rector of Wycliff Australia David Nicholls claims that translating scripture pro-
motes language development, literacy, and other education-related activities
for the marginalized and endangered languages and cultures (Nicholls 2010).
This is also the official view of SIL (Olson 2009, 651– 52):

SIL works with ethnolinguistic minority communities as they build their capacity for the
sustainable development of their own languages. Language development is the series of
ongoing planned actions that a language community takes to ensure that its language con-
tinues to serve its changing social, cultural, political, economic and spiritual needs and
goals. SIL’s expertise related to language development includes training and consulting
for activities such as linguistic analysis, orthography and writing systems development, lit-
erature development and multilingual education and literacy.⁷

It is not only missionaries and theologians who share this conviction. Some
scholars argue that Protestantism can be compatible with indigenous cultures
and religions. They even claim that Protestantism is contributing to a “reaffirma-
tion of ethnic identity” in Latin America (Parker Gumucio, 2002, 67; Gallaher
2007, 89). Various studies demonstrate that translations may build up a language
and a culture (Long 2005, 5). Translations of the Bible into indigenous vernacular
might revitalize and rescue endangered languages and cultures (Martin 1993 92,
178 – 81; Sanneh 1989). Professor of Latin American history René Harder-Horst
agrees with professor of missions and World Christianity Lamin Sanneh that
Protestant missionaries’ scriptural translation into vernacular languages (“moth-

 “What Is SIL International?” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/sil/.

110 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

er-tongue literacy”) encourages indigenous peoples to revitalize their cultural

identity and contribute to their resistance of being integrated into the nation-
state (Harder Horst 2004, 78). As a particular prominent advocate for this posi-
tion, Sanneh (1989, 1993, 2003) has written at length on the capacity of Bible
translation into indigenous languages liberating the Christian theology of the
colonial ideology, producing indigenous Christianity rather than Western reli-
giosity. This apologetic proposition, where missionary linguistic translation of
scripture is portrayed to decolonize Christianity, has been embraced by SIL (cf.
Olson 2009, 652). Moreover, Sanneh justifies the missionary-linguist work of
translating the Bible as cultural revitalization (Moore 1996, 208 – 9). He argues
(1993) that no other act of the missionary empowers people and dignifies their
culture more than Bible translation: it takes people seriously and says to them
that God speaks their language. Moreover, Sanneh claims “translation brings
Christian mission into an original congruence with the vernacular paradigm,
with a tacit repudiation of Western cultures as the universal norm of the gospel”
(Sanneh 2003: 90).
In principle, languages and cultures can equally formulated and express any
category of Christian theology through vernacular translation. But only if the lan-
guage and accordingly meaning system has been converted e. g. conceptional
adapted and altered with loanwords, neologisms, calques or semantic exten-
sions and transformations of religious and other concepts from the vernacular
domain of the target culture. A supposed indigenous or local Christianity entails
linguistic, religious, and cultural homogenization. Language change through lex-
ical innovation, borrowing and semantic extension and transformation is as
Günther Renck (1990) appropriately contends a strategy of how a culture
adapt. Renck’s study in Papua New Guinea shows that language undergoes
“Christianization” from the influence of missionary linguistics. It is inevitable
that “the introduction of new ideas into the value system cannot take place with-
out the language being affected and thereby changed” (Renck 1990, 58 – 72; 132).
The philosophy and religion expressed in the local language, however, are
not only transformed but also in addition annihilated after incorporating Chris-
tian terminology. This has been demonstrated by the Norwegian (European) his-
torical-linguistic example. The assertion that Bible translations affirm (salvage)
languages and cultures is consequently theological-linguistic essensialistic. Lan-
guages are related to a specific way of life and thinking, which are transformed
by missionary linguistics. Translations, grammars, and dictionaries produced by
missionary linguists give vernacular categories a different meaning or annihilate
them. Furthermore, the introduction of calques, neologisms and loanwords in
this literacy material contributes to semantic change and cultural-linguistic mo-
nopolizing.
 Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 111

But Director of Wycliffe UK Eddie Arthur takes Sannehs arguments to heart

in legitimizing the organization’s missionary-linguist education and “develop-
ment” of language and literacy:

As Lamin Sanneh has shown, Bible translation not only gives people access to the Scrip-
tures, it also gives value to communities and helps poor and marginalized peoples to be-
come more developed. The process of language development and literacy increases the ed-
ucational opportunities for minority groups and helps them to move out of the poverty
which so often enslaves them (Arthur 2010).

This is not the real aspiration of the missionary-linguist translator or the respec-
tive Bible societies. SIL’s work on literacy and education is to create readership
for its Bibles (Epps and Ladley 2009, 642). The mission of SIL and WBT are active
in order to propagate a global religion across cultures, where a Bible-based
Christianity remains the only and true faith, and “to glorify God by promoting
and participating in a movement of the church world-wide to make disciples
of all nations through Bible translation.”⁸ In their production of lexicography,
grammar, and scriptural translations, missionary linguists do represent the im-
position of alien language practices and semantics. SIL, WBT, Sanneh, and
other scholars simply do not acknowledge the (post)colonial impacts upon indig-
enous epistemology and philosophy. To wit, WBT has published the following
statement on its homepage:

Our desire is that every community have access to God’s Word in a language that speaks to
them so that they can develop their own means of theological understanding and spiritual
formation. Our desire is for all peoples to be able to lead fulfilling lives that reflect and glo-
rify God.⁹

This “theological understanding,” however, conflicts with indigenous languages

and philosophies. The Maskoke scholar Marcus Briggs-Cloud explains that a lin-
guistic-cognitive anarchy was introduced into indigenous cultures from the time
missionary linguists began translating scriptures. Therefore sentences uttered
with the same grammar, morphology, and phonology differ strikingly from the
Christian to the non-Christian (i. e., indigenous religious) context. For example,
the Maskoke (North America) concept naorketv has both Christian and non-
Christian connotations:

 http://www.wycliffe.net/a-vision.shtml
 “Wycliffe Global Alliance,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/Why
WeExist/tabid/61/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
112 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

Among Maskoke Christians, this term is used to convey the Western theological concept of
sin, in the non-Christian colloquial usage rather, it means to bother someone or to bother
the entire community, thereby disrupting the ultimate goal of the society; that is, maintain-
ing balance and harmony among the People residing in the community (Briggs-Cloud 2010,
17– 20).

Ethics comes into being when European-American and indigenous cultures with
their disparate philosophies confront each other (Ermine 2007; Dyck 2011, 17–
18). When missionary linguists appropriate and manipulate concepts from indig-
enous languages, the issue at hand is not only linguistic-philosophical but also
moral. Traditional indigenous philosophy, expressed with concepts from its own
language, is semantically annihilated by Christian theological lexicography. The
Christian gospel is missionized in an attempt to transform the indigenous cogni-
tive system. Missionaries’ translations of scripture carried out in native languag-
es entail linguistic acculturation: inculturation is not possible because the differ-
ences between Christianity and indigenous religions and languages are
insurmountable.
David Scotchmer has constructed a model of the contrasting cosmologies
held by traditional Maya religion and Protestantism: one distant God and
many deities versus one God/Trinity; cyclic time versus discontinuous (linear)
time; cosmic center versus linear or terminal space; authority of kinship/fa-
ther/family versus the Family of God, brother/sisterhood; goal of harmony/
order/forgiveness and health-life/sacrifice from sin versus the forgiveness of
sin and communion with God (Scotchmer 1986, 213, table 2). But the idea of sal-
vation is a lacking in Scotchmer’s model. How is it possible to “inculturate” the
concept of salvation from sins through (the only) God and Christ into a polythe-
istic, geocentric, and nonsoteriological religious system that holds a notion of
cyclical, not linear, time? Briggs-Cloud makes this argument quite clear when as-
serting that salvation was central for missionaries converting the Maskoke. An
eschatological rhetoric of “escaping the space in which one conducts renewal
ceremonies” is foreign to Maskoke philosophy (Briggs-Cloud 2010, 23). Briggs-
Cloud maintains that the missionaries appropriated the Maskoke word vhesaketv
for “salvation.” This notion stems from the infinitive verb to breathe. Maskoke
medical practices rely on “the breath of the heles hayv (maker of medicine) as
an inevitable efficacious marker in union with plants from the earth during heal-
ing processes” (Briggs-Cloud 2010, 24– 25).¹⁰

 When the Jesuit missionaries arrived in America, they immediately attacked traditional in-
digenous medicine (Axtell 2001).
 Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 113

Introducing a novel religion is dependent operating within the faith and

practice system that it tries to convert. After the early colonial Catholic mission-
aries came to America, indigenous deities became saints in Latin America; more-
over, the idea of divine conception, the concept of the Son of God, and baptism
were not unfamiliar to indigenous philsophies. But the Christian moral, meta-
physical, soteriological, and eschatological system is foreign to indigenous nat-
ural philosophies because it implies a philosophy of an impersonal and ethical
cosmic order that transcends the divine order “and the ideal of an exemplary
type of salvation” (Weber [1920] 1993: 103). There are fundamental structural dif-
ference between indigenous religions and Christianity when it comes to concepts
of space (cosmology), time, eschatology, the divine, and nature. This radical dif-
ference is expressed in the respective linguistic system.
Indo-European grammar, phonology, and orthography in itself are not nec-
essarily imposed on indigenous peoples or other minorities’ targed by mission-
ary linguistics. It ultimately depends upon who have agency and resources (i. e.
organized institutional structure and economy) in producing literacy material
e. g. translated scriptures, grammars, and dictionaries. For instance, missionary
linguistics – but also secular linguists and/or in cooperation with national gov-
ernment – can enforce literacy through for instance constructing a new alphabet
upon minority language cultures. An example is the conflict between the Acad-
emy of Mayan Languages of Guatemala (Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guate-
mala) and SIL about creating a Maya alphabet and orthography (cf. England
1996, 184). (Post)colonial missionary linguistic transmission of language disor-
der local linguistic ecologies and diversity, which signifies essential contrariety
and accordingly vernacular and cultural identity (Makihara and Schieffelin
2007, 8 – 9).
Indigenous languages are rationalized and simplified in the process of con-
structing alphabets (orthography), grammars and dictionaries because mission-
ary linguists principally concentrate upon applying linguistic analyzis with the
purpose to translate Christian scripture. A comparative example is Pacific com-
munities where this literacy production by missionary linguists “influence local
perceptions, use of the vernacular, and the shape of the language itself….
through process often referred to as phonological “reduction”… Language were
often simplified through selective processes, and decisions about orthography
and other issues of graphic representation and grammatical analysis were
often based on ideological and ethnocentric grounds rather than sociolinguistic
research” (Makihara and Schieffelin 2007, 6). Moreover, in order to “modernize”,
“Christianize” and “civilize”, through “processes of reconfiguration”, the linguis-
tic power dynamics of colonizers of governments and missionaries both contest
and transform local linguistic practices and cultures through not only proscrip-
114 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

tion of words and languages but also the insistence upon concepts, which they
introduce and subsequently impose (Makihara and Schieffelin 2007, 16).
Particular through the introduction of the technology of literacy, Mühlhaüs-
ler (1996) categorize mission and colonial enterprise as “linguistic imperialism”.
But it is not literacy equipment and practices in itself but the transferred linguis-
tic content (meaning), which has consequences for the target culture. It is rather
a question about local human agency in using literacy, which requires the access
to resources and the right to develop and practice innovative knowledge and
ideas according to own language, culture and ideology (Makihara and Schieffe-
lin 2007, 10 – 11; Schieffelin 2000, 298 – 299; Street 1984; 1993). Schieffelin advo-
cates that the introduction of missionary literacy programs, education, instruc-
tion, practices and products transformed the vernacular concepts of
“language, truth, knowledge” of the Kauli of southwestern Papua New Guinea.
Missionary literacy of introducing books created a different individual ‘monolog-
ic’ authority challenging collective ‘polyphonic’ oral tradition, which remodeled
local ideology and epistemology. This reformation or rather transformation of
Kauli culture is asymmetrical as the missionary linguists control the resources
of literacy technology and have the support of the nation-state (Schieffelin
2000, 293 – 294; 316).
Analyzing systematically selected interrelated concepts of conversion from
the New Testament; I validate the various semantic challenges for the mission-
ary-linguist translator of scripture. The core and key Christian theological con-
cepts are incongruent to indigenous religious and philosophical vocabulary,
and thus make missionaries’ and theologians’ aspirations for inculturation sim-
ply impossible. Instead, the missionary-linguist translator endeavors to construct
a novel “doctrinal indigenous language” through scriptural translation and lex-
icography. A word or concept and a language system are, accordingly, social con-
structions. “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary” (Saus-
sure [1916]1972). It can be (politically) manipulated or transformed by
missionary-linguist lexicography and thereby transferred to translated scrip-
tures.
Through production of grammars, dictionaries and translated scripture in
communities where they enjoy a monopoly on literacy, missionary linguists ex-
ercise the power of definition. A novel language (with concepts redefined and
adapted to the new philosophical, symbol, and practice system) is created pre-
cisely through dictionaries and translated scripture. Christianity is made vernac-
ular, but “the agent of translation perpetrates cultural imperialism through pred-
icating Western theological concepts” (Briggs-Cloud 2010). Missionary
vernacular-literacy training programs have a special impact because literacy
skills are acquired within an exclusively religious (conversion) context. More-
 Missionary linguistics as cultural and language homogenization 115

over, the introduction of “self-serving literacy programs” and the monopolizing

of missionary-translated (printed) scriptural dogmas in the vernacular aim to re-
place or alter local traditional (oral) religious knowledge, symbols, and practices
as well as sociopolitical power (Villalón 1999: 319 – 21).
Franz Boas accentuate the significance of vernacular linguistic categories for
the speaker’s conception of the world according to his/her particular language
(Boas 1982; Hanks and Severi 2014, 3 – 4). Language organizes experience into
concepts and ideas. When it vanishes—along with stories, ritual, symbols, and
oratory rhetoric—culture also disappears. Concerning the endangered indige-
nous languages of America, native “speakers commonly remark that when
they speak a different language, they say different things and even think differ-
ent thoughts” (Mithun 1999, 2).¹¹ The Tewa of Arizona say: Na:-bí hi:li na:-bí
wowa:ci na-mu “my language is my life (history)” (Kroskrity 1998: 104). Not
only the cultural history and collective identity but also their mindset “are em-
bedded in their native tongue” (Leavitt 2011, 43). ¹² For instance, the Pirahã are
monolingual despite more than 200 years of consistent contact with Brazilians
and the Tupi-Guarani-speaking Kawahiv (Everett 2005, 621). According to Ever-
ett:

Portuguese is incommensurate with Pirahã in many areas and culturally incompatible, like
all Western languages, in that it violates the immediacy of experience constraint on gram-
mar and living in so many aspects of its structure and use. The Pirahã say that their heads
are different. In fact, the Pirahã language is called ’apaitiso a straight head, while all other
languages are called ’apagiso a crooked head. …Given the connection between culture and
language in Pirahã, to lose or change ones language is to lose ones identity as a Pirahã –
hiaitih, a straight one/he is straight (Everett 2005, 633 – 634).

Quite a few secular (e. g. non-SIL) academic linguists use SIL language corpus
and software (the online catalogue Ethnologue and electronic Bibliography) in
order to linguistically – not within the discipline of comparative (history) of
ideas or epistemologies – analyze, collect, organize and encode their material
in addition to “SIL-sponsored surveys, which are disseminated through the au-
thoritative voice of Ethnologue, SIL’s global language inventory (Gordon 2005)
…, the language codes used by SIL’s Ethnologue have now been adopted as an
essential component of an International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
standard for language identification” (Dobrin and Good 2009: 622– 623). There

 For indigenous languages in Mexico, cf. the corresponding view of Navarrete Linares (2008,
69).
 For analyzis of translations of indigenous American languages into European languages, cf.
Swann (2011).
116 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

is a danger that these linguists are not aware that indigenous cultures and lan-
guages are violated by SIL linguistic activity and the promotion of a new vernac-
ular literacy through grammatical structuring, phonology, the construction of a
new alphabet, language codes, and software for new fonts and keyboard tools
(cf. Dobrin 2009; Dobrin and Good 2009).¹³ Because linguistics is a mainly a dis-
cipline detached from a philosophical, cultural, ideological, and religious con-
textual analysis, quite a few academic linguist scholars do not seem to realise
the (potential) transformative effects of missionary linguistic establishment of
a newfangled semantic language through constructing a novel lexicography,
grammar, and translations of scriptures as well as other texts.

Sociopolitics and theology of Protestant Christology

Language is indeed intimately associated with sociocultural and political reform

(Makihara and Schieffelin 2007, 5). Through missionary linguist scriptural trans-
lations, language has the potential to instigate conversion of philosophies, prac-
tices, and traditions but also sociopolitical and religious institutions of indige-
nous peoples and minority cultures. Moreover, SIL’s community-development
inclines to rely on the principles of capitalism and liberal market economy not
practiced by the target culture (Epps and Ladley 2009, 642).
In their quite long history in the Americas, European missionaries have not
only attempted to impose religion and language but also an unmitigated culture
and practices. In the colonial period, the Catholic missionaries did not only
evangelize the gospel but also the European economical system in Latin America
according to Anthony Pagden. They connected mission with commerce, trade
and business. Judicial-theologians advocated that the right to do business justi-
fied European expansion, “just war” and conquest because it was part of “nat-
ural law”. Moreover, they asserted that trade meant an exchange of moral epis-
temology between rational human beings, which created a consensus of what
was ethically right and wrong. In this way, indigenous peoples would be inte-
grated into international law (Pagden 1982: 76 – 77; cf. Harrison 2014: 151– 185).
For the Spanish missionaries working in the Andes in the early colonial period,
religious conversion was interconnected with language, doctrine, liturgy, and so-
cial and economic practices. Evangelization of European civilization, manners,

 This is the case even when these have names from Christian theology, as noted by Dobrin
and Good (2009, 623n4).
 Sociopolitics and theology of Protestant Christology 117

morals, and even economic principles would be promoted through following the
Christian liturgical calendar and festivals (Mannheim 1991, 70).
Preventing change and disruption of cultural isolation of minorities are not
realistic according to former President of SIL Kenneth L. Pike. He maintains that
SIL scientific and field training programs give indigenous and minority peoples
instruments to “necessary adaptation” (Pike 1977, v-vii). There are, however, con-
flicting theory and practical policies among SIL members regarding the dynam-
ics of cultural imposition and its reception in traditional communities (cf. Kietz-
man 1977, 79 – 82).
According to Louis-Jean Calvet, SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators of Mexico
convey a message with an emphasis upon individualisme opposing cooperation
and social solidarity, a praise for the national society of which indigenous cul-
tures and identities should submit to and the US as the epitome state (Calvet
1999: 216 – 217). Protestant scriptural translation of Christology have conceivable
extensive consequences because it represents an intention to transform (a) the
concept of religion through the divine or sacred order where radical monotheism
substitute indigenous-Catholic polytheism or monolatry¹⁴ as represented by
saints, indigenous deities and the Virgin Mary; (b) the ritual-practice system
by following a liturgical calendar regulating fiestas and other costumbres; (c) in-
digenous-Catholic civil religious, economic and sociopolitical institutions of the
community; (d) the concept of the collective or community (communitas); and (e)
indigenous ecological philosophy, which is replaced with the metaphysics of sal-
vation theology.
Intimately associated with not only the religious life but also sociopolitical
institutions of the community, Virgin Mary and the saints enjoy a prominent po-
sition not only in Latin American theology but also in the religions of indigenous
cultures. Agriculture and cycles of nature are closely related to the fiesta system
and calendar where saints and Virgin Mary figure prominently, but their stories
are either peripheral or nonexistent in the Protestant New Testament. Evangeli-
cal missionaries translate the New Testament into indigenous languages with the
intention of discarding these Catholic and indigenous traditions (costumbres)

 The definition of an indigenous Catholic as catolicoh, incorporating the Spanish loan word
combined with a Nahuatl suffix, in a monolingual dictionary of Huastecan – in preparation for
press in the Totlahtol Series of contemporary Nahuas from the Chicontepec region of Veracruz
Nahuatl – linguistically exhibit that Nahua (polytheism or monolatry) religion is still in exis-
tence: catolicoh. tlat. Macehualli tlen tlahuel quinneltoca piltotiotzitzin tlen neci pan amatl tlen
tlacohualloh. catolicoh. noun. An indigenous person who really believes in the deities that ap-
pear on purchased paper. This refers to ’paper deities’ (John Sullivan Nahuatl mailing list. 8
March 2016).
118 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

and the sociopolitical, economic and religious institutions that are interconnect-
ed to the civil-religious and ritual (fiesta) system.

Sociopolitical institutions and religious traditions

Despite the structural, regional, and cultural differences throughout Latin Amer-
ica, the organization of the civil and ceremonial offices of a town or village (Sp.
pueblo) called a “civil-religious hierarchy”—recognized as a mayordomía, fiesta,
cargo, or ladder system¹⁵—generally consists of two hierarchies incorporating in-
terrelated religious and political offices. This concept outlines a local civil polit-
ical and economic administration that sponsors and organizes religious rituals,
or fiestas. The civil-religious hierarchy is a type of kin-based economic and reli-
gious-political cargo system where powerful families sponsor commonly expen-
sive religious festivals for the benefit of local deities often represented by Cath-
olic saints. In this way the civil-religious hierarchies reproduce political and
religious authority for the affluent citizens and related groups of the community
(Dow 2001, 17– 19). As opposed to the compromise historically struck by indige-
nous and Catholic worldviews in Latin America, Protestants do not accept the
traditional indigenous sociopolitical and economic institutions. Not only Protes-
tant missionaries but also “reform versions of Roman Catholicism” like Catholic
Action have, however, attempted to destabilize indigenous civil-religious hierar-
chies (cofradía and cargo system) and costumbres (Garrard-Burnett 1996, 100 –
101; Samson 2007, 18, note 15; 59).
A communal disposition of religion is accordingly emphasized in America.
For instance, since the colonial period the Maya was not concerned with an in-
dividual relation with a universal god. Personal salvation was not significant but
collective enterprise for the general and individual well being in the mundane
world. This is manifested in how ’…, the Maya transformed the cofradía from a
particular group of devotees pursuing personal salvation through individual con-
tributions into public institutions supported by the entire community through
general obsequies to its sacred guardians’ (Farriss 1984, 328 – 329). The cultural
identity of most indigenous peoples in Mexico is born of the strong idea of com-
munity and of belonging to the pueblo and territory (space) where rituals are
celebrated and patron saints venerated (Navarrete Linares 2008, 45). In order

 Among numerous indigenous groups, a “civil-religious hierarchy” existed in Mesoamerica

(and in the Andes region of South America), even though the system, which has many variants,
has fallen into disuse in many places. It is still employed in the highland regions of Central Mex-
ico, Oaxaca, and Chiapas, as well as western Guatemala (Chance 2001).
 Sociopolitical institutions and religious traditions 119

to outline what is typical for indigenous society, Mixe (Ayuujk) politician and in-
tellectual Floriberto Díaz Gómez uses the concept of “community” (Sp. comuna-
lidad)—people living together with the same history, present, and future and in
close relation with nature. According to Díaz Gómez, there are various funda-
mental elements common to Mesoamerican indigenous traditions: the earth
seen as mother and territory; general consensus as a decision-making process;
and collective work, rituals, and fiestas (Navarrete Linares 2008, 46). Moreover,
there is common ownership to most of the land (the principle of ejidal), where
sections are assigned to each family. This sacred terrority where the deities
and other spiritual forces (dueños, “lords”) reside and where they receive offer-
ings holds the common history of the pueblo’s founding with the associated elec-
tion of the patron saint. Another important element is the Catholic Church that
dominates the center of a pueblo, the presence of which increases a sense of col-
lective identity (Navarrete Linares 2008, 50 – 51).
The sociopolitical, economic, and religious organization and institutions of
pueblos and cultures vary across the Americas, but traditionally every commun-
ity has its own sociopolitical and religious authorities that constitute a synthesis
of pre-Hispanic and Hispanic civil-religious institutions and hierarchy offices
(Sp. cargos) elected according to local customs. Cargo services in the community
are not for personal gain or prestige. The community assembly, which in general
only consists of men, is a democratic system where collective descions are taken
after compromise and unianimous consensus; however, the council of the elders,
or principals, is the supreme authority. These institutions administrate the pue-
blo and act as the intermediatry institutional contact with the government of
the state (Navarrete Linares 2008, 52– 58). Another important constituent of in-
digenous sense of community is the system of unpaid obligatory collective labor
called tequio (as the most common term from Nahuatl tequitl; “work”; “tribute”),
mano vuelta, gozona, tarea, and so forth, depending the particular indigenous
language in use. A man can only be accepted as a member of the community
by participating and exercising this type of work, which consists of constructing
and renovating the church, road, public buildings, and the like. Tequio is ritual-
ized, probably because of its associations with the Catholic cofradía system and
the village cargo system—something that benefits the Catholic Church and cre-
ates conflicts with Protestant and Pentecostal denominations and churches (Gal-
laher 2007, 99; Navarrete Linares 2008, 61– 62).
Because the collective is valued over personal enrichment and the accretion
of individual affluence, the traditional economy has a ceremonial tenor (Navar-
rete Linares 2008, 88). In quite a few communities, people who have converted to
Protestantism do not want to participate in the communal labor because it is as-
socated with not only indigenous and Catholic religious but in addition political,
120 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

social and economic values. Traditional collective values of the community are
essentially opposed to the newer Protestant political, social, and commercial val-
ues of individualism and a free market (capitalist) economy beyond the confines
of the pueblo and surrounding region. The Protestant economic mentality (spirit)
of accumulation of capital, entrepreneurship and individuality accordingly op-
pose civil-religious hierarchy collectiveness, expenditure and redistribution of
wealth (Dow 2001, 17– 19). The Protestant theological doctrine of eminence of in-
dividual freedom and rights independent of the social group, socio-political and
economic institutions or community reflects its basic dogma of personal salva-
tion, which can be achieved through subjective reading of the Bible. This is con-
tradictory to traditional communal indigenous-Catholic religious principles and
practices.
Challenges to the ancient sociopolitical, economic and religious structure do
not, however, always have to do with Protestant conversion; often existing ten-
sion and disagreement within the pueblo trouble the status quo. Communities
have been known to incaracerate and expel members who do not fullfill their ob-
ligations. But others like the Otomíes (Ñähñu) of Hidalgo have compromised
with Protestants and let them execute tequio and take civil offices not associated
with religion (Navarrete Linares 2008, 62– 63, 66, 92– 94). Moreover, in order to
avoid communal conflict and avoid impeding future conversations, some mis-
sionaries allow converted peoples to participate in the fiestas, in tequio, and
in the sociopolitical system (Gallaher 2007, 102– 3).
Converts refusing to participate in community work because it is related to
the Catholic church and the pre-Hispanic costumbres of the fiesta tradition
may cause (violent) polarization, as cases in Maya pueblos in Chiapas have pro-
ven over the last decades. A case that is in many ways representative of the prob-
lematic socioeconomic and ceremonial coexistence of the Catholic Church, in-
digenous religious traditions, and Protestant sects is the Zapotec pueblo of
Yaganiza in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, Mexico. The majority of the members
of the community support the Catholic Church and participate in ceremonies—
the church gives the pueblo its identity, but one third of Yaganiza’s population
belongs to one of two evangelical churches. According to the local Catholic
priest, the New Testament translated into Zapotec does not create disturbance
—although Catholic doctrine does encourage people not to read the Bible indi-
vidually—but the presence of evangelicos in the community and their interpreta-
tion of the gospel discourages traditional costumbres (McCune 2009). Protestants
refuse to pay for fiestas (drinking, dancing, and Catholic ceremonies) and do
service work for the chuch and community, provoking conflict and sanctions to-
ward the Protestant converts. Indigenous rights activists support the sanctions
 Indigenous philosophy of local communitas and the natural world 121

not because of Catholic religion but because they are chiefly concerned about the
harmony of the community in the face of threats to its identity and traditions.
A Mixtec Protestant convert and collaborator with SIL told me that in Santia-
go de Yosondúa, there is harmony after the compromise between Catholics and
Protestants (cristianos; evangelicos) and therefore no more religious conflict. At
the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the Protestant converts
had problems because of the fiesta system and discrimination. But not anymore.
Today participation in fiestas is not obligatory. Protestant converts are elected to
cargos in the muncipio because it is tequio. They do not, however, participate in
Catholic religious (idolo) rituals in the church. My Mixtec informant said that
they do not like this costumbre. Many have been converted to Protestantism
(there are quite few sects) in Santiago de Yosondúa, but there is no violent con-
flict since a law in the pueblo forbids discrimination toward other religions
(Somos hermanos/as) (pers. comm. 2011). According to the local Catholic priest,
indigenous Protestant converts also participate by serving and working (as part
of tequio) in the Catholic Church in the neighboring village Chalcatongo (pers.
comm. 2010).
This appears also to be the case in Naupan of northern Puebla. The local Par-
roco (Padre) of the Catholic Church explained how tequio is practiced: everyone
participates, but sixty percent of tequio has been lost because the government is
initiating different programs to better the infrastructure. Tequio is very important
for the Catholic Church because the workers execute a lot of necessary restora-
tion. But today there is not much tequio on the behalf of the church because of
“secular” substitutes (pers. comm. 2010). Thus, modern secular governments
may also threaten ancient traditions and institutions.
In agricultural ceremonies, indigenous deities of the pre-Christian/pre-His-
panic period play an important part as lords (dueños) of various natural forces,
vegetation, and places. Many of the ceremonies take place outside the pueblo—
for example, on the milpa, in a cave, or in the mountains. The ceremonies at the
end of the year mark a change of offices, but during the year many of the private
and public ceremonies associated with daily life are of of pre-Hispanic origin and
influenced by Catholicism. The religious fiestas and rituals form a key element in
a community’s collective identity (Navarrete Linares 2008, 90 – 91).

Indigenous philosophy of local communitas and

the natural world
Like the indigenous Papuan Korowai of New Guinea (cf. Stasch 2007, 102– 105)
quite a few indigenous (American) peoples perceive a connection between lan-
122 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

guage, nature, territory, community and being: “Differences of linguistic code are
analogous to differences of how people move toward their goals, and differences
of how they experience the world” (Stasch 2007, 108).
Among indigenous peoples, the fundament for sociality is interchange and
reciprocal help (Mixtec saha, Sp. gueza), which is manifested in collective
work (tequio) and in the fiestas (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 195; Medina Hernánez
2008, 216). Despite the sociopolitical consequences of the Protestant converts’
withdrawal from communal life and festivals (Kray 2004, 120 – 21), a new individ-
ual identity—one forged at the cost of collective identity and sense of community
—is introduced by translating concepts of personal conversion. The kinship,
clan, and cofradía of communiatarian cultures are replaced by individualism
of Protestantism. Indigenous cultures of the Americas traditionally have a
sense of obligation, responsibility, and rights to the community (communitas).
Evil may be the same as witchcraft in indigenous religion, but good is equated
with responsibility to the collective, to community, kinship and family. Correct
social and religious behavior is the same as ethical behavior. Whether one is will-
fully derelict or not, failure to perform responsiblities to the community is not
considered a personal affair. Recovery from antisocial behaviour is the return
to communitas (Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker 2001, 15, 102, 106, 110).
The concept of universal salvation is difficult to translate in the context of
local (nonmissionary) communities. Nation is translated with the Spanish
word nación in the Mixtec New Testament, whereas altepetl (Brockway, Hershey
de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 6) is used in the Nahuatl New Testament. The lat-
ter is a fascinating choice by SIL since the pre-European Nahua altepetl was gov-
erned as a realm (tlatocayotl) under the reign of the tlatoani. The political, social,
judicial, and religious institutions were complex, with a range of councils, offi-
cials, and religious specialists carrying out different jurisdictional, economical,
administrative, military, and religious duties (Lockhart 1992, 14– 58).¹⁶ The no-
tion of world is translated in Mixtec as ñuyɨvɨ or ñu, (Sp. pueblo, “place”) and
yi (a contraction of ñayi, “people”): “people of the pueblo” (Macaulay 1996,
228; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 99; K. Farris 2002, 70, 96; Caballero Morales
2008, 405). But metaphorically this is a “pueblo of living beings” because every-
thing that exists has life (López García 2008, 416). Ñuyɨvɨ is also employed in the
SIL New Testament. Tlalticpactli,¹⁷ or “earth,” is translated as world in the SIL
Nahuatl New Testament (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000,

 Nahuatl does not contain a word for empire. An altepetl is a designation of a state, a socio-
political unit, or a community that organized the Nahua (Lockhart 1992, 14– 15, 235 – 36).
 Cemanāhua-tl was used in the pre-European period (Karttunen 1992, 29 – 30).
 Indigenous philosophy of local communitas and the natural world 123

220; Kimball 1980, 61). No word for citizenship or commonwealth (Gr. politeuo-
mai) (BDAG 2000, 845 – 46)is rendered in Nahuatl or Mixtec New Testaments.
In Phil 3:20, we see that Paul writes, “But our citizenship (or commonwealth)
is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a savior, the Lord
Jesus Christ.” Citizenship (or commonwealth; Sp. ciudadanía) is translated as
tehhuan tipohuihque den neluicac, “we belong to heaven” and na cuu ñuu yo
andɨvɨ, “we people will be in heaven” in Nahuatl and Mixtec, respectively.
American indigenous philosophies are closely associated with the environ-
ment of the natural world. Nature is alive incorporating deities of hills, moun-
tains, rivers, lakes, caves, and so forth. For indigenous philosophy and practices,
the animated nature constitutes a “cognized environment” (Sandstrom 1991, 241;
Rappaport 1979, 5). Indigenous philosophy comprises a fundamental geocentric
conception where nature of this world plays an essential role, while the ideology
of the savior-redeemer Christ emphasizes salvation to a transcendent or meta-
physical world of the hereafter. Indigenous deities are present, manifest, and
tangible instead of distant and intangible, as God is in Protestant theology. A
philosophy and social ethics is centered on the land and nature among the con-
temporary Mixtecs. The farmer (Sp. campesino) depends upon the deities of na-
ture, and maize and other food staples are pereceived as living beings and there-
fore venerated (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 112; 2008a, 119).
In American indigenous ecological ethics there is no anthropocentric moral
principle legitimising a human exploitation of nature and the environment. This
is suggested in Burkhart’s hypothesis of a non-Christian religious and philosoph-
ical moral significance of tla(h)tlacolli where it implies a “damage” of the Nahua
cosmic i. e. natural order. The same moral principle appears to apply to Andean
(Inka) philosophy. Urton contends that there is an antonym concept to “sin” – or
misbehaviour, transgression; antisocial, antistructure, failure to fulfil (ritual) ob-
ligations of reciprocity towards the community, deities, and the natural world.¹⁸
Consequentely, it is a conflicting dichotomy (disjunction) in this moral philoso-
phy: order, structure, and creation as opposed to disorder, antistructure and de-
struction. But this moral order also encompasses a complementary opposition
mediated by confession, penance, and expiation in a credit and debit system
regulated in the religious and political economy (Urton 2009). Conversely, Chris-
tian theology operates with a radical moral dualism of good, Christ, grace, sal-
vation opposing evil, devil, and sin (Urton 2009, 823). The morality of the natural

 Ecological sins are pivotal in Andean moral philosophy according to Harrison (1993, 177–
178).
124 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

order expressed in Nahua and Inka philosophy may also well be found in phil-
osophcial categories of other indigenous languages (cf. Pharo 2016).
A social and ecological equilibrium is important for the health of the individ-
ual and the harmonic balance of the community. To the indigenous mind, nature
is not something to be exploited but is inderdependent with human society. The
do ut des principle is based on reciprocity with the deities of nature that makes
human survival possible. Moreover, the moral rules of communiality and the re-
lated ethical values have to do with sharing personal wealth with the community
and in the rituals of the deities. Many indigenous people believe that individuals
not sharing their wealth have made pacts with the devil. Oral stories of the origin
of the world, nature, and the different beings are important because they explain
and structure the world. These are frequently orated at the fiestas and religious
rituals. In Tamoanchán y Tlalocan, López Austin classifies this phenomenon as
núcleo duro (“hard nucleus”), which has survived until the present day (Navar-
rete Linares 2008, 78 – 79, 80 – 82, 84).
Christ is central (Sp. unico), but he is not related to nature according to con-
verted indigenous Protestants in Santiago de Yosondúa. Witter maintains that
Christianity is a religion centered on the human being and history (German: an-
thropo-historiozentrische Religion), where the human can be released or saved
from sin through the sacrifice on the cross by Jesus (Witter 2011, 52). This anthro-
pocentrism confronts indigenous ecological philosophies that conveive of man
as part of nature. The economic foundation for most indigenous people in Mex-
ico (and Latin America) is agriculture, and likewise the agricultural cycle of a lit-
urgical 365-day calendar adapted from Catholicism but traditionally Mesoamer-
ican celebrates the religious and political fiesta system that is so intimately
related to the sociopolitical and religious institutions (Witter 2011 15 – 75). The in-
digenous religious system’s philosophies of a sacred ecology associated with in-
digenous deities and saints does not correspond well with Protestant metaphys-
ical salvation theology.

Protestant theological exclusivism of sola scriptura as

oppositional to oral traditions

Appearently according to various reports, when the Spanish conquistador Fran-

cisco Pizarro captured the last sovereign of the Inka (Andean) empire, Atahuall-
pa (or Atawallpa), fray Vicente de Valverde asked him to read from the Bible or
according to other accounts a breviary. Not understanding Christian scripture,
the Inka lord threw the Bible or breviary away. As punishment he was garroted
in 1533 (Abercrombie 1998, 138; 164– 166; Mannheim 1991, 82). Pizarro’s retribu-
 Protestant theological exclusivism of sola scriptura 125

tion symbolizes not only a colonial European Christian evangelical and soterio-
logical mentality of a missionary religion but also recognizes the unique position
of scripture not to be blasphiemised.¹⁹ As a “high-tension faith,” in particular
Protestant exclusivism opposes other belief and practice systems (“heresies”) be-
cause there can only be one true faith (Bowen 1996, 127– 29). In the principle of
sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”), Protestant cultural, sociopolitical, and eco-
nomic exclusivism is logically combined with a radical theology of scripture.
Protestant missionary linguists’ motivation for translating the Bible and also
their endeavor to eradicate other religious expressions is rooted in sola scriptura.
Protestant religious intolerance contrasts with the philosophies of many in-
digenous cultures. The illustrious Seneca orator Red Jacket, whose original name
was Otetiani but also called Sagoyewatha, (1758?–1830) presents us with an ex-
ample of indigenous religious tolerance and the attendant lack of missionary im-
pulse. He responded to the conversion efforts of the Evangelical Missionary So-
ciety of Massachusetts by saying, “We never quarrel about religion, because it is
a matter which concerns each man and the Great Spirit” (Deloria 2003, 199 –
200). The renowned Sioux physician Charles Eastman tells of a missionary
who tried to instruct indigenous persons about the origin of the world and of
sin according to Christian theology. One of the indigenous men thanked him
and started to relate the ancient traditional story about the origin of maize. Dur-
ing his account, the missionary uttered angrily, “What I delivered to you were
sacred truths, but this that you tell me is mere fable and falsehood.” The indig-
enous man replied: “My Brother…it seems that you have not been well grounded
in the rules of civility. You saw that we, who practice these rules, believed your
stories; why, then, do you refuse to credit ours?” (Deloria 2003, 84– 85).
According to quite a few Protestant missionaries and indigenous converts,
Catholicism is “idolatry” because they regard not only images, costumbres,
and saints but also nonbiblical Christian scripture as holy (pers. comm. 2010,
2011). Besides the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament is the only sacred scripture
according to the Protestant principle of sola scriptura, quite the opposite of the
Catholic primera scriptura, which recognizes other canonical scriptures approved
by the Roman Catholic Church. For Protestants, the translated New Testament
represent the termination of the message of God, whereas the doctrine of the
Catholic Church maintains that the dogma of God continue with the aid of the
Holy Spirit (Báez-Jorge 2003, 124– 25). Sola scriptura is a doctrine from the Prot-
estant Reformation stating that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant reli-
gious authority. Only through the Word of the Bible can the faithful obtain for-

 Cf. references to accounts and theories of this encounter in Valdeón (2014, 58 – 62).
126 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

giveness of sin and salvation through Christ. Sanneh claims that the principle of
sola scriptura prevents the Western European intellectual tradition and notions
found in theological exegesis, biblical aids, and commentaries from influencing
the target culture. The Bible therefore represents choice and becomes “a shelter
for indigenous ideas and values” (Sanneh 1989, 203; 2003, 109, 114– 15). But sola
scriptura does not adapt to the local indigenous culture, according to Catholic
priest of the Capuchin mission I spoke with in Mixteca Alta (pers. comm.
2010). Instead, in the translation of Christian scriptures, the sola scriptura prin-
ciple creates a novel, substituting the indigenous, and exclusive authoritative
canon. It prescribes a Protestant orthodoxy and orthopraxis with the purpose
of replacing the philosophy, expressions, ceremonies, and media of indigenous
traditions.
Protestant scriptural translation lays the foundation for a vernacular litera-
ture where the local culture—oral and literate—representing religious belief,
symbols, and practices is regarded as heterodoxy because the literate culture
of Protestantism emphasizes the exclusive privilege of the Bible (sola scriptura),
allowing the canon to exclusively constitute revelatory authority. For indigenous
cultures, many sacred stories of a pre-European/pre-Christian origin are extant.
In fact, after the European invasion of the sixteenth century, many local indige-
nous traditions developed hagiographical (also apocryphal) stories associated
with their communities and histories (Lupo 2001, 349). The analytical category
called the “politics of storytelling” according to Michael Jackson (Jackson
2002) condemns the intention of substituting indigenous oral stories, symbols,
and sacred rhetoric with the Protestant orthodox narrative of the translated
New Testament. Storytelling has existential meaning because it is “a vital
human strategy for sustaining a sense of agency in the face of disempowering
circumstances” (Jackson 2002, 15, 36), but Protestant missionaries want to re-
place indigenous aesthetic expressions and experiences of religion with an ab-
stract, conceptual, textual doctrine of the (translated) Bible.
Sanneh claims that translations of the New Testament signify a process from
an oral to a written fixed sacred canon—or sola scriptura. Bible translation stim-
ulates the narrative oral tradition of indigenous people by introducing sacred
stories (Sanneh 2003, 109). He argues that without a translated Bible, dictionary,
and grammar, an oral culture would be “at risk of stagnation, if not of failure”
(Sanneh 2003, 111), but in fact Protestant sola scriptura theology may lead to the
loss of traditional ritual-symbolic rhetorical language. For instance, David Sa-
muels (2006) expounds how a SIL-promoted “language expert” of the Western
Apache of the San Carlos Apache community has created at its reservation in Ari-
zona a corpus of linguistic materials, including a Bible translation, and a new
genre of speaking disconnected from traditional Apache language, culture and
 Protestant theological exclusivism of sola scriptura 127

religion. The present analysis has systematically demonstrated that missionary-

linguistic production of translated lexical materials makes indigenous concepts
undergo Christianization and therefore lose their original meanings and symbol-
ic functions.
Oral rhetorical devices—tropes like synecdoche, metonymy, and metaphor—
represent verbal codifications of a culture’s ideas and values. ²⁰ Burkhart main-
tains that the Catholic colonial missionaries had to adapt their rhetoric to Na-
huatl: “To this end, friars elicited and recorded native oratory, listed the figures
of speech and adages contained therein, and strove to master the elegant speak-
ing style of the native orators” (Burkhart 1989, 12). In order to employ Nahuatl
effectively in scripture, the early colonial Franciscan mission had to adopt the
rhetorical forms of expressions appropriate to Nahuatl. Accordingly, Christian
precepts expressed the refined indigenous oratory, figures of speech, and adages
in their striving to be grammatically correct (Burkhart 1989, 22– 23). In their
translations of scripture, the early colonial missionary linguists had to adjust
the Christian ceremonial rhetorical language and concepts to indigenous lan-
guages.
The Dominican missionary Hernández was ambivalent toward Mixtec reli-
gion. He destroyed material objects and persecuted practices that he classified
as “idolatry.” Paradoxically, Hernández wrote books and preached in Mixtec,
employing local literary style with many native religious concepts, symbols,
and metaphors, thereby expressing values familiar to the people he tried to con-
vert to Catholicism (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 176). His early colonial
Doctrina contains intercultural Christian theology marked by the use of tradi-
tional Mesoamerican literary techniques like paralelismos, difrasismos, and met-
aphors (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009b, xvii–xix). Jansen and Pérez Jiménez
have observed that contemporary Mixtec oral-ritual discourses, which have
been collected and analyzed by the Mixtec scholar Ubaldo López García
(2007), harbor many similarities to the Doctrina (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez
2009b, xixn13). The Catholic missionaries therefore made compromises in their
orthodoxy and orthopraxy to adapt to indigenous expressions and symbols. In-
complete conversion ensued because Christian elements were accordingly only
superficially incorporated (Klor de Alva 1979, 1982; Burkhart 1989, 192– 93).
In the contemporary postcolonial period a rich, living oral literature of
songs, poetry, oratory, prayer, invocations, and stories is expressed in indigenous
languages. This reflects both a contemporary mentality and a worldview of a pre-
European/pre-Christian origin. Every language has its distinct style of expres-

 Sapir and Crocker have analyzed what they designate as “ethnographic rhetoric” (1977).
128 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

sion: Mesoamerican literature tends to use paired terms and phrases, comple-
mentary and contrasting parallelisms, difrasismos, and metaphors. In recent
years, a number of indigenous writers have published novels, short stories,
and poetry based on their traditions and languages. Eloquent and correct
usage of the language is very important in indigenous communities as it is
used to establish agreement among officers of the religious and political system
(Navarrete Linares 2008, 74– 75). Catholic and Prostestant priests in the Sierra of
Puebla and the Mixteca Alta indicate that indigenous languages are frequently
preferred in both indigenous religious and Christian rituals according to my con-
versations with them during field interviews. This applies also to quite a few
other, not only monolingual, but multilingual indigenous cultures of the Amer-
icas. According Flores Farfán’s (2009) research, yektlatolli designates the ritual
language for religious specialists in Nahua communities of Xalitla, Guerrero
(Castillo Hernández 2007, 202). Traditional stories in Cuetzalan are called tajto-
mej, “words,” and toueyitatajuan, “words of our grandfathers” and are also
known recorded as maseual sanilmej, “indigneous stories.” In addition, an
oral literature of speeches and supplications are classified as tatautilis by reli-
gious specialists (tatajtanilis and tepajtiani, “those who cure”) (Castillo Hernán-
dez 2007, 66 – 67, 204, 208, 210).
In the Nahua municipio of Pajapan, Veracruz, Christian and indigenous re-
ligious beliefs and practices coexist even though they are mutually exclusive.
This coexistence is also manifested in the use of ritual language where Spanish
or Latin is employed in prayers to saints or at family altars in the home—indig-
enous prayers in Nahuatl are directed to Nahua deities (García de León 1969:
291– 92). In Sierra de la Norte de Puebla, equilibrium among the animistic enti-
ties is established through pleas (tatatauhtiliz or súplicas) to the deities in ther-
apeutic rituals of males del alma by the tapahtihque (Signorini and Lupo 1989,
175). According to the Nahua of Puebla, the prayers and invocations by the ta-
pahtiani must be conducted in Nahuatl. Christ is “un natural (es decir, un
indio),” even given the fact that he understands all the languages; Nahuatl is
the most rewarding for Him and all the other deities whom he manages (Signo-
rini and Lupo 1989, 181– 82). In Sierra de la Norte de Puebla, the Nahua think
themselves superior to the mestizos when it comes to religion and contact
with the supernatural because Christ is perceived to belong exclusively to the
Nahua. Thus, it is preferable to communicate with him in Nahuatl and not in
Spanish, which is perceived as a challenge to the religious and linguistic Hispan-
ic monopoly (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 182).
The oraciones católicas—cathecism and confession—are communicated in
Spanish because the clergy often does not know the local indigenous language.
The monolinguistic memorize prayers like Padrenuestro or Ave Maria in Spanish.
 Protestant theological exclusivism of sola scriptura 129

But the majority of religious practices are located in the home or in caves, chap-
els, and fields (consider cruces en el campo, “crosses in the field”) only by the
indigenous peoples and are therefore in Nahuatl (Signorini and Lupo 1989,
182– 83). Moreover, Nahuatl is perceived as more effective and therefore essential
for obtaining success in the religious practice of therapeutic curing (Signorini
and Lupo 1989, 183). There are many Spanish loanwords in the invocations,
but they are considered to have become Nahuatl words. Religious language is
a rhetoric with an aesthetic and sophisticated use of metaphors and paralelisms.
Failures and successes of the curanderos (“curers”) or tapahtihque, are frequent-
ly attributed to the employment of language in order to ask for assistance from
the deities (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 183 – 84). Even given the fact that many of
the deities are “loans” from Catholicism, the language of the Nahua is essential
in the religious observance (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 184).
From the pre-European/pre-Christian Mixtec manuscripts and contemporary
ceremonial discourse, we know that ritual religious language is designated as
shahu or sa’vi (Sp. palabra de reverencia) in Mixtec.²¹ With its distinct style
and structure, this special language is in particular employed by individuals
with sociopolitical and religious offices (cargo) (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 220 – 22;
López García 2007). Shahu, or shiau, is Mixtec term for prayer to ancient indige-
nous deities and the spirits of nature (Sánchez Sánchez 2004, 32, 37). It is reveal-
ing that these and other non-Christian indigenous religious-philosophical con-
cepts do not exist in SIL dictionaries. Simply because they and other
indigenous words are perceived as belonging to a religious tradition, opposing
sola scriptura, the missionary linguists exclude them.
In a study from Yutsa To’on (Apoala) of the Mixteca, the Mixtec scholar Ubal-
do López García demonstrates the refinement of the ceremonial discourse of the
Sa’vi and argues that it is important for cultural and community memory. The
oral literature helps transfer values, traditions, norms, and explicatory ideas
about the nature, history, politics, morals, and religion of the Mixtecs. Sa’vi is
the religious languages used to address the deities and reference sacred symbols
and authorites (Tade’e). Sa’vi is also employed within the family and community:
baptism, compadrazgo, marriage proposal, Thanksgiving to Mother Earth for the

 The Mixtec language is called Tu’un Savi, “language of the rain,” where tu’un can be trans-
lated as “words; talk; language; history.” In Dadavi, “language of the rain,” da is a contraction
of da’an, “language,” and davi is “rain.” A variant is Daidavi, “sacred language of the rain,”
where i of dai means “sacred.” Da’an Ñuu Davi, means “language of the Pueblo of the Rain,”
whereas da’an enka ñuu, “language of the other Pueblo,” is used in order to describe a foreign
language. In addition, the verb ka’an can be employed to describe the language of the Mixtecs
(López García 2008, 407– 8).
130 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

harvest, curing rituals, mayordomías, and so forth—any occasion for which the
ancestors are important references (López García 2007). The group of elders
called Tanisa’nu, señores principales o caracterizados, or tse ka’an sa’vi (“people
how speak the ceremonial language”) uses and has exclusive knowledge of sa’vi.
They have gained moral and social authority by taking various offices (cargos) in
the civil-religious hierarchy. This poetic language reflects social, scientific, phil-
osophical, religious, moral, and political thinking and is applied to educate the
people of the local community’s history, traditions, symbolic system, stories, and
so forth. (López García 2007; 2008, 409 – 12).
There is no American indigenous sola scriptura—one exclusive sacred scrip-
ture—as promulgated by Protestant missionaries. This is intimated in Protestant
oratory. Rhetoric constitutes linguistic codes of the philosophy, symbolism, and
practices of a culture. Based upon Burke’s concept of language as entitlement,
where terms imbue objects with cultural meanings and values, Crocker defines
“rhetorical entitlement” as statements and metaphors, prescribing values, that
have social and moral functions and implement behavior. Rhetoric does provoke
emotions, not just thought (Crocker 1977, 35 – 39, 53 – 58; Burkhart (1989, 12– 13).
Missionary linguistic translators endeavour to create analogies and identities
through the use of codes from their semiotic system. In so doing they intend
to transform the local rhetorical language, with the fundamental concepts and
epistemology of the target culture, which is equivalent to a change of indigenous
experience, thinking and practices. In translation, the Protestant doctrine of sola
scriptura’s ultimate objective is a monopoly on the power to define concepts,
knowledge, ideas and rhetorical oratory. Herein lies the linguistic politics of
scriptural translation.

Saints and deities omitted in scripture

Fernando Cervantes give several examples of evidence from the colonial period
where Catholics allowed and incited affinity between Indigenous deities and
Christian saints and Virgin Mary. Various features of Indigenous religions were
therefore unoffially allowed to endure and even integrated into Christian rituals.
The Catholic missionaries perceived this as a strategy for conversion (Cervantes
1994: 54– 55; cf. Lockhart 1992: 235 – 251; 400; cf. Nutini 1976: 310 – 316; cf. Rubial
García 2006). In contrast with Catholic acceptance, the Protestant sola scriptura
ideology (theology) of translating only the Bible, means that principal traditional
indigenous and Catholic beliefs, symbols, sacred beings, and practices – which
do not occur or are marginlised in Protestant scripture – are simply excluded.
 Saints and deities omitted in scripture 131

Sola scriptura translation exclusiveness signifies omittance of indigenous Amer-

ican religious systems of saints and deities as well as Virgin Mary.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul uses the concept of saint (Sp. santo): “To all
God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7). Hagios (Gr.) is defined as a
person holy, sacred, pure, and reverent—in other words, someone reserved for
God and God’s service (BDAG 2000, 10 – 11). Various Mixtec and Nahuatl words
resonate with saint, and many of these are also used for deity in both SIL and
non-SIL dictionaries (Nahuatl: Brewer and Brewer 1971, 90, 248; Key and Key
1953, 113, 214; Kimball 1980, 65; Mixtec: Campbell et al. 1986, 26, 48, 57, 79,
136; Pensinger 1974, 28, 120; Jansen 1982, 298; Monaghan 1995, 100 – 101; Macau-
lay 1996, 211; Pérez Jiménez 2003, 62). Instead of using the Chol (Maya) word
(ch’ujul, “holy”), SIL translators apply the phrase i cha’ano’ bv Dios (“those
who belong to God”) in translating Eph 3:8 of the Chol New Testament since
“this brings into clear foucs the relationship of the Christian to God.” The mean-
ing of “saints” in Eph 3:8 signifies “Christians consecrated to God” (Aulie 1979,
123), but the saint concept is avoided by SIL Mixtec and Nahua New Testaments
because those figures are not part of Protestant theology.
In sixteenth-century Castile as well as in Latin America local (Catholic) reli-
gions had their own saints operating as patrons of the community. For the Indig-
enous peoples these corresponded with their tutelary deities (Cervantes 1994,
57– 58). Nancy M. Fariss advocate that in many places (in partuclar among Yuca-
tán Maya) since the colonial period a gradual process of a merging into saint-dei-
ties followed by an end of this ‘dual identity’ into saints has taken place (Farriss
1984, 312– 314). Every community (pueblo) has today a patron saint (tutelary
deity), signifying autonomy and identity, which plays a quite important part in
the religious and ritual-liturgical life of indigenous peoples in Latin America.
The apostle Mark is the patron saint of Naupan, and the apostle Santiago
(Jacob) is the patron saint of Yosondúa. The local pantheon of saints and deities
reflects an indigenous religious system that’s actually independent of Catholic
doctrine. The patron saint and its associated festival, which costs a lot of work
and money, is important for the identity of the community. People who have emi-
grated come back for the fiesta day of the patron saint, which takes place in the
main plaza (zocalo) and in the church. Procession with the “idol” of the saint is
undertaken to mark the borders of the territory (Navarrete Linares 2008, 88).
The patron saints of Nahua villages are replacements for the pre-Hispanic
sacred bundles, tlaquimilolli, consisting of relics and belongings of the ancient
divinized founder (tutelary deity) or mythic hero of the calpulteotl, the parochial
deity of the community (calpulli) (López Austin 1997; Klor de Alva 1997, 178 – 79).
Early after the conquest, Saints had a significant religious role in Nahua ritual,
132 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

corporate, and individual existence. The Nahua include Saints in writing of their
wills, municipal decrees, various types of contracts, annals, and primordial titles
—many were not created under Spanish supervision. In an early usage in the city
Tlaxcala of Central Mexico, the subentity of the altepetl—from the metaphorical
doublet in atl, in tepetl or “the water(s), the mountain(s),” referring to a sovering
entity of an ethnic state, town or city(‐state)—was called santopan, “where a
saint is” (Lockhart 1992, 14– 15, 235 – 36). The Catholic colonial missionary lin-
guists introduced the Spanish loanwords ángel and santo with the purpose of de-
scribing sacred individuals with a lower status (Burkhart 1989, 39). The Nahua
borrowed the Spanish words santo and santa but did not use santo (a masculine
word) as a generic form (Lockhart 1992, 238 – 39).
The Nahua of Naupan of the Sierra Norte de Puebla claim various non-Chris-
tian deities and saints associated with nature (Báez Cubero 2008, 224– 25). Indig-
enous deities are the target of invocations among the Nahua of Sierra de Puebla.
Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Trinity, and saints have become designations for in-
digenous pre-Christian/pre-European deities. Within a hierarchical pantheon of
deities and saints, God is the primus inter pares (Signorini and Lupo 1989,
185 – 86). In Sierra Norte de Puebla deities/saints are associated with and control
nature, celestial, and meterological phenomena, so Christ is associated with the
sun, San Juan is identified with Venus, San Antonio with fire, San Andrés with
water, and the Trinity is associated with the earth (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 187).
The ontology of humanity and deities represent a unity according to Nahua phi-
losophy. In an invocation by a ritual specialist, it is said: “la Santísima Trinidad
somos nosotros, Dios Padre, Dios Hijo, Dios Espíritu Santo somos nosotros”
(“the Holy Trinity we are us, God Father, God Son, God Sacred Spirit, we are
us”) (Lupo 2001, 345 – 46). Indigenous deities are invoked by the religious spe-
cialist, tapahtiani, with the purpose of curing diseases, in particular nemouhtil
(Signorini and Lupo 1989, 187– 88). The saints Santiago and San Miguel Arcángel,
patrons of the Nahua villages Yancuictlalpan and Tzinacapan, are associated
with rain and play an important part in the invocation of the diseased (Signorini
and Lupo 1989, 236 – 40), which is conducted in Nahuatl and Spanish (222– 23).
The deities—Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Trinty, and the Saints—are, how-
ever, ambiguous (ambivalente). They send out diseases in order to punish offens-
es or to satify third-party petitions. A deity may therefore act injustly as an amo
cuali, or demon (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 186 – 87). Sandstrom distinguishes be-
tween the contemporary less-Westernized Nahua, who have pantheons of deities
and spirits manifesting natural phenomena of the world, and the more accultu-
rated communities, which have a cult of saints. Sometimes pre-Christian/pre-Eu-
ropean spirits or deities are amalgamated with Christian saints: for example, the
 Saints and deities omitted in scripture 133

rain deity Tlaloc, an ancient spirit, has merged with San Juan (Saint John) (Sand-
strom 2010, 31– 32).
Santo and sagrado are translated as yy in the Mixtec Doctrina by Hernandez
in the early colonial period (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 196 – 97, 199) but
also with the Spanish loanword Sancto (Hernández, 1568, xxxvii reverso; Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 157).²² Offerings to saints in Santiago de Yosondúa
today are called tahu santu (Sánchez Sánchez 2009a: 30 – 31). The deities are
in many cases combined with Christian Saints and fiesta days of the calendar
(Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 195 – 97).²³ Important deities with corresponding
names among Mixtecs of contemporary Chalcatongo include:

Ihà Sàu Señor Lluvia (festejao en el día de la Santa Cruz)

Ihà Ndikàndi Señor Sol (= Padre Eterno)
Ihà Nunì Señor Maíz (= Jesùs, “Chuhchi”)
Ñùhu Ndéhyu (Deidad de la tierra) (“San Cristobal, San Cristina)
Nanáñúù Abuela, la Patrona del Baño de Vapor (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 6).

Despite the impact of Catholicism and other religions, some people in Yosondúa
worship the sun and other deities/saints of nature (Sánchez Sánchez 2004, 40,
45; 2009, 7, 10, 14). Some pre-Hispanic/pre-Christian deities and spiritis have be-
come saints:

Santa Cristina = La Abuelita del Baños Temazcal

San Cristóbal = Tova ñuhu jitu (earth deity lived under cultivated land); Tova Yuku; Tachi
Shraan; Tova Ñuhun Ndehyu (water spirit).
San Eustaquio = ya tova isu (protector de venado).
Toho Ndoso (sun deity)
Iha Ñahnu Ndoso (Dios Principal).
Iha Ñɨhɨn Casa (1 Yaha).
Iha Sɨhɨ Koo Sau (Plumed Serpent of rain).²⁴
Iha Tachi (Wind deity).
Iha Sutu (hombres-dios) (Sánchez Sánchez 2004, 2009a).²⁵

 Cf. Terraciano (2001, 302).

 Raúl Alavez Chávez has given a survey of the deities associated with contemporary Mixtec
rituals, costumbres, beliefs, and stories. See Ñayiu xindeku nuu ndaa vico nu’u: Los habitants
del lugar de las nubes (1997).
 Quetzalcoatl 9 Ehecatl in Nahuatl is called Koo Sau (Coo Dzavui) or Koo Savi, which can be
translated from Mixtec as “Rain Snake” and is an important deity in Chalcatongo (Jansen and
Pérez Jiménez 2007, 74; Jansen 2008, 202). In Santiago Nuyoo, the Koo Savi is the ii. He is asso-
ciated with rain and fertillity (Monaghan 1987, 428 – 34; Witter 2008).
 Cf. Sánchez Sánchez (2004, 31– 32, 37– 47) for names of pre-Hispanic/pre-Christian deities of
nature and in addition the four mountains of four cardinal directions in Yosondúa.
134 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

The ancestral patron and creator deity in Santiago de Yosondúa was called Toho
Ndoso, which means patrón pecho o seno. Associated with the sun, he was also af-
filiated with computation of time, which of course has much to do with the sun.
Toho Ndoso represent the four elements of nature: air, fire, water and earth (Sánchez
Sánchez 2004, 38– 39, 42– 45; 2009b).²⁶ The Spanish came in 1522, introducing San-
tiago from Galicia in Spain to Yosondúa. The indigenous made sense of this by po-
sitioning Toho Ndoso as the brother of Santiago, who lives in the cave Yuevikui. San-
tiago appeared in Cañada de Galicia, a short distance from the cave, and he walked
from there to Yosondúa to become patron saint.

Virgin Mary marginalized in scripture

Based on stories from the New Testament gospels and centuries of cultural accre-
tion, Christian theology generally holds that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ,
who was impeccably conceived through The Holy Spirit. The word for virgin in
the Greek New Testament is parthenos, a female of marriageable age who has
never engaged in sexual intercourse (BDAG 2000, 777). The Virgin Mary enjoys
a prominent position in Latin American Catholicism and is included among dei-
ties and saints in quite a few indigenous religions, whereas Protestant denomi-
nations contest this theological phenomenon – called Marianism²⁷— that is, the
veneration of the Virgin Mary.
In Luke 1:42,²⁸ Elizabeth, the Mother of John the Baptist, is filled with the
Holy Spirit and exclaims to Mary, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed
is the fruit of your womb.” SIL translators constructed a Nahuatl word for blessed
(Sp. bendito): tlatiochihualistli (“making something sacred”) (Brockway, Hershey
de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 168, 175, 232). The Mixtec translation does not,
however, contain an equivalent word for blessed (K. Farris 2002, 71; Dyk and
Stoudt 1973, 69; Pensinger 1974, 73). This may be because Protestants consider
Mary’s sacred status a deviation from doctrine.
Missionary lingusts have difficulty translating the meaning of virgin into in-
digenous languages. In the Nahuatl New Testament, they use ichpochtli, which
according to SIL-dictionaries (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés

 For deities associated with natural phenomena in the ancestral pantheon of Yosondúa, see
“Cuentos y leyendas,” Vitu, http://www.yosondua.com/category/cuentos-y-leyendas/.
 In opposition to the veneration of saints and Virgin Mary, Protestants called themselves Cris-
tianos.
 The quote from Luke is inscribed in Spanish in the celing of the Catholic Church of Chalca-
tongo.
 Virgin Mary marginalized in scripture 135

2000, 48; Key and Key 1953, 157; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 129) and non-SIL dic-
tionaries and ethnography (O. Lewis (1972, 394)²⁹ refers to a young unmarried
woman (Sp. muchacha; señorita; doncella). Catholic colonial missionary linguists
also used ichpochtli to express the idea in Nahuatl (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
33v; Karttunen 1992, 93). To abstain from sexual relations was valued in pre-
Christian/pre-European Nahua religion. Female (ichpochtli) and male (telpochtli)
³⁰ youths served in sanctuaries and lived celibate lives. They were called mopia-
liztli, “keeping oneself,” or chipahuacanemiliztli ichpochtli, “pure living.” The
colonial ethnographer-missionaries and the missionary linguists modified the
concepts itelpochtli or telpochtli, which were initially employed to designate
girls and boys who had not completed puberty but had not yet achieved adult-
hood.³¹ These terms did not denote sexuality or social status, but they became
synonyms for virgin (Burkhart 1989, 150).
From the sixteenth century on, Nahuatl missionaries categorized the Virgin
Mary as totlaçonantzin, “our precious mother.” As opposed to the European
Christian concepts of “our lady” and “mother of God,” this term suggests a
human mother deity analogous to a human father God who was called “our pre-
cious father,” totlaçotattzin, in some Nahuatl manuscripts. Wills in Nahuatl give
other names toVirgin Mary: “eternal [rather, “always”] virgin [“young girl”],” or
mochipa ichpochtli; “heavenly lady; “dear mother of Jesus”; and “our interces-
sor” (Lockhart 1992, 252– 53). Lockhart claims that the Spanish clerics might
have been eager to satisfy Nahua religious desire for a mother figure but one
should not dismiss:

the exigences of language either. Nahuatl has nothing as smooth and stylish as “our lady”
or “nuestra señora” in that general semantic range. Then necessity of adding the cumber-
some cihua– (“woman, female”) to pilli “noble,” or “–tecuiyo, “lord,” to achieve approxi-
mate equivalents deprives the resulting expressions of pitiness or emotional force, and –te-
cuiyo was already preempted by God and Jesus anyway. Nor does inantizn Dios, “mother of
God,” roll trippingly off the tongue, especially in the vocative, which was precisely where a
term was most needed. There were no easy alternatives to totlaçotattzin for constant every-
day use, and I suspect that rather than doctrinal considerations, it was usage’s insistence
on a concise and affectionate yet respectful term that was ultimately decisive (Lockhart
1992, 252– 53).

 Ichpokawah (Am)/ ichpakawah (Oa) is a young girl or maiden of marriagable age, about 14 to
20 years old. Amith: “Home,” Nahuatl Learning Environment, http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/.
 No concept for male virgins can be found in the SIL Nahuatl and Mixtec New Testaments.
 “To express the idea of virginity it was necessary to modify these terms with qualifiers, as in
oc uel ichpochtli ‘still really a girl’, or to resort to a metaphor, such as using jade, a symbol of
purity and wholeness, for a virgin girl-hence Molina’s oc chalchiuitl ‘still jade’” (Burkhart
1989, 150, referencing Molina).
136 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

Virgin Mary of Guadalupe is also known as La Morenita (“the little brunette”).

She is a significant religious and national symbol not only in Mexico but also
among Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) in the United States regardless of Christi-
an denomination. Our Lady of Guadalupe enjoys global reverence: she has her
own chapel beside the grave of St. Peter in his basilica in Rome and in the
Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. In January 1999 the Roman Catholic Church de-
clared her the first and greatest evangelist of America (Elizondo 2001, 446 – 47;
Poole 2001). According to Mexican Catholic tradition related in Nahuatl, the Vir-
gin Mary of Guadalupe appeared and spoke in Nahuatl to the Nahua Juan Diego
Cuauhtlatoatzin (1474– 1548) on the hill of Tepeyacac or Tepeyac, north of Mex-
ico City (Tenochtitlan) on December 9 and 11, 1531. It is interesting that the hill of
Tepeyac was originally dedicated to the Nahua goddess Tonantzin (“our revered
mother”). After the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe executed miracles, the first bishop
of Mexico—Juan de Zumárraga—commissioned a a Church to be built, according
to her wish, on that hill (today called Guadalupe) (Sousa et al. 1998, 61– 89,
131 ff.; Poole 2001). The Catholic Church categorized Mary as Tonantzin in the six-
teenth century (Klaus 1999, 96), but Sahagún opposed the application of this
Nahua goddess’s name to the Virgin Mary (Lockhart 1992, 252).
The Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, a manifestation of the pre-Christian/pre-Eu-
ropean earth and fertility deity Tonantzin/Tonantsi, is still venerated among the
Nahua today; there is even a major winter solstice ritual devoted to her (Sand-
strom 2010, 31– 32).³² The Virgin is sometimes perceived as dual deity with
Christ, as brother and sister and as a couple (Navarrete Linares 2008, 86). Christ
is associated with the sun, masculinity, and heat, whereas the Virgin is associ-
ated with the moon, feminity, and coldness. The story goes like this: Tonantsi
lives in a cave at the top of a sacred mountain. Her four sons each a realm of
the universe and former world eras—Tlahuelilo is associated with the under-
world, Sa Hua (from San Juan) has the sea, Montesoma has the earth, and the
sun-Christ, or Toteotsij, rules from the sky. As the last born, the sun has less
power than his three brothers but rules over the present world age of Christianity

 The nonmissionary Nahuatl dictionary Tla’tolpamit nauatl kojchinankokayotl uan kaxtilan-

tla’toli (1982) reads, “Tonantsin, nuestra madre tradicionalmente se usa para designar al deidad
madre de todas las cosas. También sirve para designar a las vírgenes de la religión católica”
(Nepmuceno Vázquez and Lascano 1982, 167). In the village of Huautla in Hidalgo, Mexico,
the Virgin Mary and the saint are called Tonantzih (Classical Nahuatl tonantzin, “our (honorific)
mother”) (Kimball 1980, 65).
 Virgin Mary marginalized in scripture 137

(Sandstrom 1992, 40 – 41).³³According to the Nahua of the Huasteca region of

northern Veracruz, Tonantsi is the deity of fertility and reproduction the mother
of all existence. Tlakatekolotl is the lord of the underworld (Miktlan), St. John the
Baptist, and Moctezoma (lord of the Ehecatl spirits) are the other three sons.
Christ is the King of Saints and the sun deity but is considered to be of minor
importance (Provost 1980, 81).³⁴
As patroness and guardian of midwives (whose fiesta day is December 25)
and children, Cihuapiplitin is an important godess in the pantheon of the
Nahua of Naupan of northern Puebla. Cihuapiplitin is dueña and a creator
deity maybe associated with Virgin Mary (Báez Cubero 2008, 226 – 27).³⁵ The
Catholic church in Naupan was built in 1808. Symbols of the façade of the
Church represent the sun and the moon. The sun symbolizes, but is not, the
male (creator) God (Sp. Dios Padre/Creador), whereas the moon symbolizes the
female God of fertility (earth). Sun and moon together represent mother and fer-
tility. Representations of the Virgin Mary have sunrays behind her and the moon
below, which, according to the local Párroco (Padre) of the Catholic church of
Naupan, signifies that God is sending the Virgin to give life and fertility to
earth to the benefit of agriculture. The Párroco describes the façade of the Cath-
olic church of Naupan as conveying a Catholic indigenous theology of Christ as a
fertility deity and sacrificer—not as savior or redeemer. Essentially, God (Christ =
Creator God) is related to agriculture. “Dios Padre” sent his son by making the
Virgin pregnant. Christ is symbolised by a flower, for life. He is Nahui Xochitl
(“Four Flower”).³⁶ The original painted cloth from ca. 1531 of Nuestra Señora
de Guadelupe in the basilica in Mexico City depicts quadripartite flowers on

 Cf. also Alan R. Sandstrom, “The Tonantsi Cult of the Eastern Nahua,” in Mother Worship:
Theme and Variations, ed. James Preston (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2010), 25 – 50.
 Christ or Cristo-sol is the preminent deity associated with the sun (tonal), light, heath, and
day. He is invoked to restore and liberate the ecahuil (tonalli) from the resistance of Tierra-Trini-
dad, in the curing ritual where he is assisted by the Virgin Mary, who is herself related with the
moon and the cold and night (again, associated with water and vegetation) (Signorini and Lupo
1989, 230 – 34).
 To the Aztecs, birth was highly valued. The militaristic society perceived the conceiving and
childbirth of women as preparation for and going into battle. If the woman triumphed, it meant
she gave birth, but if the child died in the womb together with the mother or the mother died
before the child, she suffered the death of the warrior and went deified as one of the Cihuapi-
piltin or Cihuateteo (Mocihuaquetzqui, “Woman warrior” or “valiant woman”) to the House of
Sun in heaven—the same place where male warriors who died in combat went (Sahagún
[1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 161– 165, fol. 128v–143v; Sullivan 1966).
 The Virgin Mary and Christ had the epithet flower in Zapotec ritual songs from Villa Alta,
Oaxaca, of the colonial period (Tavárez 2011, 210).
138 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

the belly of Virgin Mary. These blossoms may represent he four cardinal direc-
tions and thus Christ’s totality. Her dress contains many flowers, but only
Nahui Xochitl is represented on her belly. Christ is coming to earth as a flower
because that symbol represents truth, life, and beauty in Nahuatl (Nepmuceno
Vázquez and Lascano 1982, 238). Nahui Xochitl is only associated with Virgin
Mary of Guadalupe because she pertains to indigenous traditions. The people
of Naupan give welcome to peoples whom they think will to do some very
good things for the pueblo by giving them a crown of flowers, symbolizing Christ
(pers. comm. 2010).³⁷
In the Mixtec New Testament the SIL missionary linguists translate virgin as
ñahan lulu (Mt. 1:23), which means “little woman,” and also as ñahan suchi (Luke
1:27), or “woman child.” In the SIL-dictionary of Yosondúa, ña lulu is translated
as muchacha, señorita (“young woman”) (K. Farris 2002, 67), but the SIL-diction-
ary of Chayuco translates ña yoco as virgin and señorita and ña tyivaa as mucha-
cha, joven (Pensinger 1974, 30). Ña yoco signifies a woman ready to marry (Sp.
casadero). Ñaha Yoco (ñaha, “female person”; yoco, “maize flower”) is a pre-
Christian/pre-European Mixtec term for virgin preserved in pre-European/pre-
Christian manuscripts (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2010, 60). In Mixtec nonmis-
sionary dictionaries, there are some entries denonting the concept of virgin (Cab-
allero Morales 2008, 257, 784; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 11), while in Santiago
Nycoo yan si’i (“virgin”) is the female nu ñu ‘un (Monaghan 1995, 101). Ñaha
nee ñaha yoco means “virgin” in Mixtec colonial literature (Jansen and Pérez Ji-
ménez 2007, 329n3).³⁸ In the early colonial period, iya, the señor of the nobility,
takes the feminine form iyadzehe, (señora), which was also employed to charac-
terize the Virgin Mary (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 211). The concept yuhui-
tayu constituted an alliance between equal male and female rulers, thus yuhui-
tayu andehui represented the celestial variant of male and female rulership. The
Virgin Mary was therefore rendered as a female ruler illustrated in the Doctrina
as Christ of the yuhuitayu andehui and in pre-Christian codices (Terraciano 2001,
298 – 300). In fact, there were various Virgin Mary designations in different

 It is fascinating that the four-flowers (Nahui Xochitl) symbol is also painted on the doorway
house of eagle warriors at the Casa de las Águilas of the Aztec Templo Mayor of Tenochtilan,
where they symbolize the four cardinal directions. See Leonardo López Luján, Anthropologie re-
ligieuse du Templo Mayor, Mexico: La Maison des Aigles (Antropología religiosa del Templo
Mayor: La Casa de las Águilas; Paris: Universidad de París-X, 1998).
 Alvarado records many lexemes for virgin (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 203v).
 Virgin Mary marginalized in scripture 139

texts.³⁹ God and the Virgin Mary were in some manuscripts considered to be an
equal creator-couple, as Father and ruler and sacred Mother and ruler, which is
demonstrated by theirs various titles.
Virgin Mary was even considered to be a goddess (Terraciano 2001,
300 – 2).⁴⁰ She carries today the same Mixtec designation as the ancient lords
and divine beings (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 5, 27; Macaulay 1996, 211, 280). The sa-
cred patron of Chalcatongo (Ñuù Ndéyá), Ihàsɨhɨ Ñuù or “la Virgen del Pueblo,
is “la Virgen de Natividad” who is celebrated on September 8. She is the central
deity as the founder and protector of Chalcatongo. This veneration is shared by
the sister village Nuyoo (Nuù Yoò, “place of the moon”) (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 269;
2008, 174). The Virgin Mary is the mother of the corn deity Jesus (Witter 2011, 35 –
38). As a complementary pair, Virgin Mary and Dzahui function as two ñuhu in
Chalcatongo in prayers and chants according to Jansen and Pérez Jiménez (Ter-
raciano 2001, 308). On Jueves Santos of Semana Santa in Chalcatongo, a large
tortilla is made with maize in the shape of a “tlayuda” representing maize and
the sun. People offer tortilla, mole and pulque in the religious practice and in
the celebrations of the fiestas. Pulque symbolizes the milk of “la Virgen” (Virgin
Mary). Mole is food from God.
In an agricultural ritual of the Nahua village San Miguel Tzinacapan of Sier-
ra Norte de Puebla, the Virgin, representing earth, symbolically receives the
seed. This ritual undertaking has references to the sexual act through penetra-
tion, defloration, and fertility (Pury Toumi 1984: 128 – 29). ⁴¹ It accordingly con-
tradicts the Christian moral story in the NT (Luk.1:26 – 36) where the conception
of Christ by Virgin Mary is not through a sexual act, except by The Holy Spirit.
The idea of miraculous (divine) fertilization does not only exist in Christian the-
ology: the Aztec Tlatonani (ruler) Motecuhtzoma Ilhuicamina was appearently
born after being impeccably conceived according to Fernando Alvarado Tezozo-
moc, Crónica mexicayotl (Schwaller 2006, 392n7). Similarly, a famous story re-
lates the extraordinary conception of the Aztec patron deity and later state (im-

 Cf. Terricano and Molina’s Vocabulario for the various Mixtec names of the Virgin Mary (Ter-
raciano 2001, 300 – 302). For the Doctrina and colonial literature, cf. Jansen and Pérez Jiménez
(2009a, 156, 178, 182, 188, 190 – 91, 196 – 97, 205 – 6, 230, 233, 273, 275, 276).
 According to colonial Mixtec manuscripts, the Virgin Mary is a savior (Jansen and Pérez Ji-
ménez 2009a, 230).
 According to the Vocabulario mexicano de Tzinacapan, sierra norte de Puebla Virgin Mary is
called Tonāntsin or Nuestra Madre, Totajsomouināntsin is Nuestra Santísima Madre; and Tote-
skaltikanāntsin is Nuestra Santísima Criadora (Pury Toumi 1984).
140 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

perial) deity, Huitzilopochtli.⁴² Apparently, his mother Coatlicue conceived him

with a ball of feathers on the mountain Coatepec, located not far from the city
of Tollan, or Tula. Interestingly, colonial missionaries—for instance Motolinía
and the document Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas—highlight that
the Aztec goddess Coatlicue is a virgin (Burkhart 1989, 154).⁴³ Because of the
great shame attending a single mother, Huitzilopochtli’s half brothers (the Cen-
tzon Huitznahua) and half-sister Coyolxauhqui wanted to murder Coatlicue and
what they considered to be her bastard child. But Huitzilopochtli managed to
vanquish them. He kills most of Centzon Huitznahua and slays Coyolxauhqui,
her dismembered body falling down from the mountain of Coatepec. This
story is commemorated in the great temple of Hueyteocalli (“the great house
of god”) or Templo Mayor, which was placed in the center of Tenochtitlan
(today the Zocalo in Mexico City) (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, IV, 1– 5; Taube
1995: 45 – 50). Religious notions of female virginity and divine (miracualous)
conception do therefore exist in some indigenous religious traditions, but they
are not associated with the Christian theological principles of sin and salvation
or the story of the birth of a (personal) savior.
There were in the colonial period and are today different designations for vir-
gin and the Virgin Mary in Nahuatl and Mixtec languages. SIL New Testament
translations operate, however, with the secular variant for virgin, thus indicating
her more modest (nondivine) character according to Protestant theology, but op-
posing to her status in indigenous (Catholic) religious systems. Also, the use and
nonuse of the translation “virgin” in scriptures has theological implications. Re-
cently a controversy surrounding the translation of the concept of virginity has
arisen among Norwegian Protestant theologians. The Lutheran Det Norske Bibel-
selskap (“The Norwegian Society of the Bible”) has decided that young girl (Nor.
ung jente) should be substituted for virgin (Nor. Jomfru) in the new translation of
Isa 7:14⁴⁴ of the Hebrew Bible into Norwegian. The prophet predicts the birth of a
young girl—or virgin—several hundred years before the birth of Christ. Apparent-
ly, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, the Hebrew word almah
was translated as “virgin,” but “young girl” may be a better rendering. Regard-

 López Austin gives several examples of miraculous conceptions of various hombres-dios

(1998, 147– 49).
 The Great Binding Law of Peace (Woodbury 1992) of the Haudenosaunee (also known as the
Iroquois) Confederacy of the northeastern part of North America relates that the lawgiver Dega-
nawídah is born after being divinely conceived.
 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman/virgin is with child
and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
Indigenous assistant-informants and “language experts” of missionary linguists 141

less, the terminology does not confirm or disprove any status of Mary, the mother
of Christ according to the New Testament.⁴⁵

Indigenous assistant-informants and “language experts” of

missionary linguists
Since the commencement of the evangelical enterprise in the Americas, mission-
ary linguists of various denominations educated literacy in the language of the
target culture to (converted) fluent speakers whom acted as assistant-informants
and “language experts”. The missionized then became missionaries (linguists).
But, neither in the colonial period or today were/are all the native collaborators
of the missionary linguist converted or acculturated to European or US Christian-
ity.
In the colonial period, indigenous assistant-informants linguistically local-
ized Catholic theology “by employing phrases, literary style and concepts in
the translations of scripture” (Burkhart 1989). According to Burkhart, indigeniza-
tion is a process where “Christian teachings adapt to indigenous structures of
though and indigenous concerns” (Burkhart 1992, 340). Translation of Christian
theological words in scriptures, taken from the vocabulary of the target lan-
guage, may, however, have connotative and denotative meanings quite different
from what the translators intended (Burkhart 1989, 27). Burkhart maintains that
the concept of sin translated with the Nahuatl word tlahtlacolli in the colonial
period exhibits “how the friars attempted to convert the Nahuas by converting
indigenous rhetoric to the expression of Christian moral concerns, and how
Christian rhetoric was made indigenous by its adaptation of Nahua form” (Bur-
khart 1989, 13 – 14). Rather than indigenization, a colonial Catholic missionary
linguist and converted indigenous assistant-informant maneuver with the pur-
pose of giving the concepts of the target culture a new meaning through the dic-
tionaries and translated scripture. Contrariwise, indigenization may represent
only an initial phase in a long process potentially, although not necessarily, fol-
lowed by the acceptance (conversion) of novel Christian theological meaning.⁴⁶
Contemporary Protestant missionary linguists also make use of native col-
laborators in making the dictionaries, grammars, and translated New Testa-
ments. One should think that these are carefully selected local people already

 “Mister møydommen,” Klassekampen, 2010 http://www.klassekampen.no/58306/article/

item/null/mister-moeydommen.
 Cf. analyzis by Mark Z. Christensen of various colonial religious texts translated into Yucatec
Maya and Nahuatl by Spanish ecclesiastics and indigenous peoples (2013 & 2014).
142 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

converted and do not represent the general beliefs and practice systems of their
communities. In some cases the reading and interpretation of translated scrip-
ture do depend heavily on the indigenous assistant-informants of the missionary
linguist translators. SIL require intimate knowledge of the grammatical and lex-
ical system connected to semantics and culture of the target language. Therefore
there is prerequisite for native speaker collaborators. Ideally, the literate and
educated (converted) native assistants and informants should do most of the
translation work but trained and supervised by the SIL missionary linguists.
Not every native speaker cooperating with SIL is, however, acculturated, convert-
ed or literate. It depends on availability. In these occasions the SIL missionary
linguists take responsibility for most of the translation although assisted by
the native speaker (Moore 1977, 160). But this practice is apparently not consis-
tent. When translation is completed, SIL and WBT organize a “translation check-
ing session” where the native collaborator is investigated whether he or she had
a part in the “actual translation”, which they are required not to have, whether
he or she is disinterested in the result and exhibit comprehension of the trans-
lated gospel (Everett 2008, 267). The native collaborator may therefore not always
be acculturated or converted. It seems, moreover, that the role and status of na-
tive collaborators in the linguistic and translation work of SIL and WBT varies
according to local SIL or WBT exercise. But one would commit a serious error
in perceiving missionaries as acting subjects and indigenous peoples of the tar-
get culture as passive objects.
In Santiago de Yosondúa, the converted Mixtec collaborators of the SIL mis-
sionary linguists labor for the use and preservation of their own language. That
might also be the case in other regions or cultures where indigenous languages
are threatened with extinction. In the history of missionary-linguistic translation
activity in the Americas, indigenous assistant-informants have their own reac-
tions and practices. Sahagún comments about the indigenous (Nahua) contribu-
tions in translating evangelical texts of the early colonial period:

If sermons, glosses, and doctrines have been done in the Indian language, that seem to be
and are free of all heresy, they are precisely those that were composed with their help, and
because they understood Latin, they taught us the propeties of their words and the charac-
teristics of the language. Any other thing that has been translated to their language, if it
was not examined by them, will have errors (Baudot 1995, 114).

Conversely, Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615/1616) outlines how Andean in-
digenous pastoral assistants sometimes distorted the translation of sermons be-
cause the Spanish Catholic priest did not master Quechua well enough. Father
Varica’s admonished in one sermon, “My beloved children, do not make me
mad. When I am mad I am a puma, when I am not mad I can be led around
Indigenous assistant-informants and “language experts” of missionary linguists 143

like a horse by the bridle.” His indigenous assistant-translators satirically ren-

dered this into Quechua as “My children, do not make me mad, When I am
mad I am a pussycat, when I am not mad I am a mouse.” The Jesuit Pablo
José de Arriaga (1621) noticed that in catechisms the significance of words was
changed from the translation of Spanish into Quechua. In the Credo, instead
of using hucllachacuyninta (“the communion of the saints”), pucllachacuyninta,
“the horseplay or merriment of saints” was employed (Durston 2007, 283 – 83n15
& 16; 383). Moreover, indigenous linguistic assistants sometimes manipulated,
satirized, or distorted Christian doctrine translated into Quechua in the early col-
onial period (282 – 85). Christensen outline how Nahua translators both with and
without adequate theological education transformed colonial Catholic doctrine
into unorthodox ideas in Nahuatl (Christensen 2012). The noted indigenous lin-
guistic assistance of the early colonial period was accordingly not properly con-
verted. It seems that this is less a problem for the missionary linguists today
since indigenous peoples of the Americas have come to be more or less acquaint-
ed with Christianity. Furthermore, quite a few indigenous peoples have over the
years converted to Catholicism and Protestantism (Pentecostalism).
The converted collaborating indigenous assistants represent a minority in
the community, where the majority adheres to traditional religion. Mixtec Nuyoo-
tecos Catequistas are “nominally representatives” of the Catholic Church. But
there is not much contact with Catholic priests. They operate as prayer leaders
in traditional rituals in Santiago Nycoo. Many of the Catequistas are monolin-
guals. They therefore prevent doctrinal influence from the Roman Catholic
Church. There are conversions to evangelical sect but the converts continue par-
ticipation in traditional Mixtec social and religious institutions (Monagahan
1995, 26). Conversely, the indigenous assistants of SIL represent a different
group, with a different religious identity, because they are converted into the
Protestant ideological, symbol, and practice system.
Missionary linguistic translations are instrumental and can therefore be
categorized as political in order that they venture to ultimately transform a reli-
gious-linguistic system. For analyzing a translated text or scripture, the identities
of the translators are of principal importance. If an indigenous person translated
the New Testament without any knowledge of Christianity, he or she would per-
haps do so for the intellectual challenge or out of curiosity. This inside transla-
tion will take a methodological and theoretical direction different from the ap-
proach of outside (US missionary) translations. If we are concerned with US
missionary linguists’ translations among indigenous peoples, we need to differ-
entiate between three categories of agents: the missionary linguists, their con-
verted assistants and collaborators, and the target audiences—peoples of the tra-
ditional religion to be converted. One must accordingly make the basic
144 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

distinction between endogenous and exogenous translations. Adherents of the

target culture execute ‘endogenous translations’. But when the translators asso-
ciates with a different culture they perform an ‘exogenous translation’. In the lat-
ter case, the primary objective is to change the religion, culture, and language of
the target community through translation. There are also instances where the
translators are “bi-or multicultural” (Durston 2007, 12), which may—but not in
every case—apply to the indigenous collaborators of the missionary linguist.
The converted assistants and collaborators of the missionary linguists have un-
dergone ideological and theological transformation and consequently no longer
belong to the traditional belief, practice (ceremonial), or symbol system of their
communities. This frees them to change existing words and create new notions
that supposedly correspond to the source text.
Samuels explicate how indigenous informants and assistants (collaborators)
perform as “language experts” and how they exercise influence over the “index-
icality” of the traditional language. Evangelical Christian linguistic ideology and
practice requires that the Apache language must dispose of “indexical associa-
tions with non-Christian Apache cultural practices” (Samuels 2006). Samuels’
study establish that language expertise of the language experts is institutional-
ized and sought by the missionary linguist not because of his or her extensive
knowledge of the religious and cultural traditional corpus but because of the
ability to translate and provide the missionary linguists with instrumental infor-
mation about the target language. The indigenous cultural and social language
practices are simply reduced to lexicon and syntax. Because, Evangelical mis-
sionary linguists and even hegemonic secular educational institutions have
sought to create a language without indexical and conceptional attachments,
i. e. a “semantic purification”, to non-Christian values and philosophies—it has
impeded the efforts of local cultural-linguistic communities to achieve language
revitalization (Samuels 2006, 530). In the asymmetrical process of language and
epistemological encounter and transference, the language expert is part of inter-
nal colonialism or a modernizing and rationalization strategy, which in certain
countries are exercised by three interrelated institutions: the national govern-
ment, various denominations of Christian missionary institutions and churches,
and the educational institutions (public cultural centers and schools) of the
state. A principal feature of this operation is translation, and in particular
Bible translation according to Samuels (Samuels 2006, 531; 537).
My methodology for analyzing instrumental missionary linguist translations
has been to compare the theological concepts of the source text with the religion
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 145

of the target culture.⁴⁷ How a nonmissionary translator would render the con-
cepts of conversion if he or she were to translate the New Testament or Bible
would without a doubt be an interesting topic for future research. Torkel Brekke
gives a fascinating example of the Bengali intellectual Rammohan Roy (Brekke
2006), a Hindu Unitarian Universalist making an effort to combine Hinduism,
Christianity, and Islam into one integrated religion. At the beginning of the nine-
teenth century, Roy translated Hindu manuscripts from Sanskrit into Bengali and
English. But he also tried, with the assistance of two Baptist missionaries, to
translate the New Testament into Bengali—however, he capitulated once he
found it too difficult a task (228 – 31).
Parts of the Bible are, however, translated by indigenous persons not asso-
ciated with the US Protestant missionary-linguistic enterprise. Gabina Aurora
Pérez Jiménez of Yuku Shíó, part of Ñuù Ndéyá (Chalcatongo), was novenaria
in the organization of the “fiesta patronal for la virgen de la Natividad de Ñuú
Ndéyá” in 2007. At the behest of the Capuchin fathers of Chalcatongo of the Mix-
tec Alta, she translated various biblical texts for reading in Mass (Pérez Jiménez
2008b, 10). Moreover, Magnus Pharao Hansen reports that in Hueyapan, More-
los, around fifty people, mostly young, constitute a Jehovah’s Witnesses congre-
gation that encourages Nahuatl to be spoken and preached. They have even de-
veloped Nahuatl concepts for Christian terminology (Hansen 2008, 145 – 46). As
more indigenous people getting higher education, there are—and most certainly
will be more in the future—other examples of independent indigenous transla-
tions of Christian scripture. The agency of independent, from foreign missionary
linguistic organisations and institutions, indigenous translations are not only
important for indigenous autonomous language preservation and development
but also indeed exciting for future analysis of scriptural translations.

Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture:

rejection; appropriation; conversion

As is the case with peoples of other continents, indigenous American peoples re-
spond differently to the encounter with European and North American Christian-
ity. As I have argued, there are three principal categories of receptions of trans-
lated scripture: Rejection, appropriation (adoption) or conversion.

 Samuels outlines how the many different Christian denominations at the San Carlos Apache
reservation in Arizona have different language ideologies and theologies that are related to
scriptural translations (Samuels 2006, 539 – 40).
146 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

Receptions of Christianity by adaptation or appropriation, not conversion or

outright rejection, can be observed in the corpus of colonial indigenous pro-
duced literature, more or less under European missionary linguist supervision,
using the Latin alphabet as in for instance Title of Totonicapán (cf. Sparks
2016) or The Books of Chilam Balam (cf. Hanks 2010). ⁴⁸ In an explication of
translation and employment of Christian theology in indigenous produced scrip-
ture, a theoretical recognition in order to establish adaptation not conversion is
conceivable by applying the hitherto suggested methodological model. This con-
stitutes a linguistic analytical ascertaining of an absence or existence of incorpo-
ration of a missionary and soteriological theology translated with principal con-
cepts into the indigenous language in question.⁴⁹
Quite a few peoples have been converted, some have rejected Christian con-
version but a vast majority of indigenous peoples and other minority cultures of
the Americas have appropriated i. e. incorporated and even redefined Christian
key elements into their inclusive religious and linguistic systems. Vicente L. Ra-
fael has formulated the missionary linguists’ translator’s principal dilemma. Be-
cause he or she is obligated to apply native vernaculars in evangelization this
approach compel a restriction of the “universalizing assumptions and totalizing
impulses of a colonial Christian order” (Rafael 2001, 21). The equivalent translat-
ed term can have one meaning for the missionary linguist (imposition) and an-
other for the vernacular culture (appropriation) (Meyer 1994, 61– 62). A non-con-
trolled, by the missionary linguists, appropriated cognitive-linguistic process
takes place in non-converted cultural systems. Nevertheless, this condition
changes character through missionary linguistic conversion, which is exhibited
by a different semantic practice of the vernacular by peoples of the target cul-
ture. For instance, Rafael maintain that the difficult translation concepts of para-
dise and hell were somewhat appealing to the colonial Tagalog of the Philip-
pines (Rafael 2001, 170 – 185; 192– 193). But this does not necessarily signify
that the Tagalog were about to be converted. Field research of contemporary
poor and rural Filipinos by Fenella Cannell establishes that they are not interest-
ed in the “economy of salvation/damnation” (Cannell 2006: 144– 145).⁵⁰

 Cf. also the extensive study by William B. Taylor about catechetical practices of local parish
priests and indigenous church officals (Sp. fiscal) in indigenous communities in colonial New
Spain (Taylor 1999).
 Indigenous produced pictorial catechisms, semiotically transferred from doctrines originally
written in alphabetic script in several indigenous languages, represent an interesting case
whether adoption or conversion has taken place (cf. Burkhart 2014).
 Cf. also 137– 162 in Cannell, Fenella. 1999. Power and intimacy in the Christian Philippines.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 147

Target cultures can consequently appropriate several key Christian doctrinal

features and practices although concurrently rejecting the core elements of con-
version. That is exactly why there is now an extensive postcolonial missionary
(linguist) enterprise in the Americas (and in other continents) still after hundred
years of evangelization.
In the Mixteca Alta and in northern Puebla the large majority of local indig-
enous peoples do not seem interested in SIL translated New Testaments. Ideolog-
ical and epistemological systems and languages are, however, dynamic and not
static. There is accordingly “ an ongoing, multilingual process of translation that
enacts a constant transformation of Christianity into the local language context
and a constant transformation of people into Christians” (Handman 2010: 584).
Around the world there are different receptions, recitations, and practices of
translated scripture. It is therefore valuable that (linguistic) anthropologists (of
religion/Christianity) document the various processes of the different ways of re-
ceiving and appropriating Christianity. For instance, The Guhu-Samane culture
in the Waria Valley of Papua New Guinea encompasses two Christian denomina-
tions using the same SIL translation (1975) of the New Testament. But they rep-
resent: “two radically different approaches to translation. One is a literal (funda-
mental) word-for-word recitation and the other a “performative retranslation”
(Handman 2010). In Guhu-Samane communities there are moreover “multiple
forms of receptive identity—with linguistic identity coming from the local situa-
tion and religious identity coming from the outside”. Both churches work to
maintain the local language, but one tries to separate out language identity
from cultural heritage and the other tries to combine them” (Hardman 2009,
638).
For various reasons, quite a few indigenous peoples apply the category
“Christian” (Sp. “Cristiano”) about themselves. Some say they have always
been Christians even before the European arrival (cf. Gow 2009). The Piro of
the Peruvian Amazonas have been Christian in their own view despite that
they were converted mainly by SIL missionaries in the late 1940s and 1950s
(Gow 2006: 211; 221– 222). Contrariwise, other peoples acknowledge theirs cul-
tures transformation or conversion (cf. Bonilla 2009).
Thomas J. and M. Eleanor Nevins Nevins have documented the dichotomy of
Christian identites among the White Mountain Apache on The Fort Apache res-
ervation in Eastern Arizona where there are different religious identities within
the Apache community. Representing competing postcolonial indigenous reli-
gious movements, the Apache Independent Christians (AIC) and Traditionalists
conceive differently the Bible and Christianity in relation to their traditions (Ne-
vins and Nevins 2009). Both claim an authentic Christian-Apache identity. The
Apache Independent Christians (AIC) and Traditionalists have an Apache leader-
148 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

ship from the community. They also employ Apache language in the religious
ceremonial activities. Each also appropriates the Bible but in different manners
(Nevins 2010. There is a Western Apache New Testament translated by SIL but it
is in limited use. Most AIC employ the Bible translated into English. There is a
performance of quotations of Biblical passages given in English or interpreted
in Apache language discourse (Nevins 2010, 28 – 29). There are accordingly two
contrasting language ideologies, which recontextualize global scripture in
order to serve different purposes and interests (Nevins 2010). The evangelical
Apache Independent Churches (AIC) advocate a Christianity denying ancient cer-
emonial practices and story traditions whereas members of Traditionalist reli-
gion, who also attend Christian service, appropriate Christian elements to
what they perceive represent as “authentic Apache” history (Nevins and Nevins
2009, 13; 17, 19). In this way “AIC church members and Traditionalists make com-
peting claims about what it means to be Apache and what it means to be Chris-
tian” (Nevins and Nevins 2009: 19). Certain traditional Apache religious special-
ists assert that the Apaches have always had the Bible as manifested in their
stories and ceremonies. Traditionalists identify as “Christian” claiming tradition-
al religion and Christianity as compatible. They apply Christian symbols and in-
tegrate Jesus, God, and Mary citing Bible as moral authority. The English appel-
lations for Jesus, God, and Mary are, however, analogous with Apache language
names for individual beings in Apache stories and ceremonies (Nevins and Ne-
vins 2009: 17, 19):
Much like the interchangeable use of Apache and English place names observed by Sa-
muels (2001), establishing translational equivalents between Biblical figures and charac-
ters in Apache cosmological narratives has an important ideological effect. According to Sa-
muels, asserting an established Apache language name for Jesus (Naghenezgańé)⁵¹ or Mary
(Isdzań Nadleeshé) in contexts where an official English language name would otherwise
appear upsets the authority of the Biblical names. It opens the way for understanding
Christianity not as a successor to a defunct Traditionalism, but as an expression of it (Ne-
vins and Nevins 2009, 25 – 26).

Members of the Catholic mission may attend traditional ceremonies. They also
apply religious symbols of the Traditionalists in Catholic service (Nevins and Ne-
vins 2009: 30, note 3). On the other hand, mostly Anti-Catholic and anti-tradi-
tional, the theological-conservative Protestant churches of The Apache Inde-
pendent Christian (AIC) Churches sermonize a doctrine of salvation through

 “Nayénezgháné is a key figure in traditional Apache creation narratives. The precise meaning
of the name is somewhat open-ended, but it is generally rendered in English as ‘slayer’ or ‘killer’
of ‘enemies’ or ‘monsters’” (Samuels 2006, 547).
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 149

“accepting Jesus as a personal savior,” healing and intensive reading of the

Bible” (Nevins and Nevins 2009, 18, 30, note 2). This fact simultaneous explains
conversion and the reason for continued mission in the community: “The fact
that Traditional religion is still practiced is used to justify the evangelizing proj-
ect quite a few AIC advocate” (Nevins and Nevins 2009: 21).
To make the religious condition more complex, which is the case in many
other communities and to the constant frustration of the missionaries, there
are no permanent and coherent religious identities:
Some Apache Christians are opposed to Traditionalism, many are not. Most people move
between these seemingly opposed religions without experiencing any theological contra-
dictions (Nevins and Nevins 2009, 23).

The moral agency of Apache Traditionalists oppose colonizing Christian mission

(Nevins and Nevins 2009, 26):
In the context of an imagined global Christianity colonial mission churches introduced new
texts and new genres such as sermons, creeds, hymns as transplanted liturgical forms es-
tablished in seminaries far afield; local discursive practices received and interpreted in in-
digenous communities. Apache religious leaders strategically deployed Apache language
religious idioms and local genre precedents to recontextualize the Bible within discursive
practices that simultaneously underwrote the authority of local leadership as well as the
indigenous authenticity of Christianity (Nevins 2010, 21).

Appropriation of certain Christian doctrinal and practice components among re-

ceptor cultures leads to the issue of the definition of what constitute an authentic
“Christian identity” or a so-called “indigenous Christianity”. We have seen that
some indigenous peoples define themselves as Christians. The premise of this
book’s analyzis is, however, whether the ideology of the missionaries allows a
categorization of the target or receptor cultures as Christian. We must therefore
contemplate the missionary (linguist) definition of religion as “Christian” or
not, otherwise he or she would not missionize through not only extirpating
non-Christian elements but impose core Christian doctrine. I have advocated
that it is the soteriological doctrine, which for missionary linguist organization
SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators establish a Christian faith and identity. This
is not appropriated by quite a few indigenous and other minority cultures of
the Americas.
Since hegemonic translations are challenged and redefined by the minority
interpreter within his or her cultural-linguistic context, there is no absolute
power dichotomy between translator and receiver (Gentzler and Tymoczko
2002, xviii-xix). Translation undertaken in colonial and postcolonial contexts im-
plies an intellectual transfer of meaning from center to periphery where also a
150 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

third (hybrid or intersemiotic) meaning is created. In the exegesis of canonical

scriptures, there are various interpretations of the theology within a community
and accordingly quite different understandings (i. e. receptions). It is particularly
challenging to translate the Bible’s original theological, sociocultural, and his-
torical context while maintaining relevance to the target audience, who may
not not want to read the scriptures or study them in order to appreciate the ex-
tensive information involved (Kirk 2005, 98). “The expectations of the intended
audience are of crucial importance to the success of every Bible translation,”
Larson has said (2001, 40), and the target audience has to be defined and con-
tacted in order for their requirements of the translated text to be genuinely sat-
isfied (Kirk 2005, 101). Even when an interpretation can convince the audience,
the message can be distorted according to Farrel and Hoyle (1997) and Wendland
(1996) because when the target audience members return to everyday life they
prefer their own cultural interpretations, which are more relevant and less de-
manding to uphold (Kirk 2005, 98 – 99). Successful translation is not always a
question of understanding—or of something being lost in translation—because
the translated message also needs to be preferred and accepted. How scriptural
translations are appropriated depends on the religious orientation and literacy of
the target culture’s native speakers. It is evident that reception and practice—that
is, the translated scripture’s application and performance in social and religious
ritual practices—varies greatly across cultures.
The appropriation and practice of scripture depends upon whether the indig-
enous population speaks its native (monolingual, bilingual, or trilingual) tongue
in the community. Indigenous monolinguals, of which there are few left, make
up a linguistic group with great potential for reading scripture. Religious identi-
ty—whether indigenous individuals adhere to local religion, Catholicism, or Prot-
estantism—is a crucial factor in the adoption of scripture, but it really depends
upon literacy, that baseline ability to read indigenous languages in the alphabet-
ic system constructed by the missionary linguists. Accordingly, the missionaries’
ecclesial activity matters a great deal. Their teaching of the constructed alphabet-
ic system that makes indigenous scriptural literacy possible and their willing-
ness and ability to promote translated scripture evangelically in religious service
matter a great deal.
A quite few indigenous communities deny Protestant and Pentecostal sects
access because they disrupt the social, religious, and political harmony (pers.
comm. Yásnaya Elena Aguilar Gil, 2011). SIL is not welcome in many indigenous
communities of the Mixteca Alta, or northern Puebla. For instance, the pueblo of
Yosonotu of the Mixteca Alta does not allow any Protestant sects to establish
churches there (pers. comm. 2010). In my field research in the Mixteca Alta
and northern Puebla in 2010 and 2011, I observed numerous indigenous peoples
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 151

and Catholic priests’ hostility toward SIL missionary linguists and Protestant,
Pentecostal churches and associated groups.
This history, at least in the European context, has deep roots. In combating
the Protestant reformation, the Council of Trent (held in three sessions from 1545
to 1563) made an effort to (re)construct a standardized Catholic theology. Read-
ing of the Bible by lay individuals was discouraged because it did not benefit the
ecclesiastically controlled catechism classes and seminars. The Second Vatican
Council (1962– 1965) opened up for vernacular languages in the liturgy at the ex-
pense of Latin’s linguistic-theological monopoly. Catholics are, however, still not
encouraged to read the Bible without clerical supervision. The theologically edu-
cated priesthood is alone deemed qualified to exegete scriptures. Therefore,
Catholic missionary linguists have translated only parts of the Bible into indige-
nous languages. Moreover, Catholic priests look upon the translated Protestant
Bible with suspicion—much as Protestant converts look askance at the Catholic
Bible. There are, however, Catholic priests in indigenous communities who use
translated Protestant New Testaments. Catholic priests apply translations of
the Protestant Bible in Guatemala (McCleary and Pesina 2011, 34) and in Oaxaca,
Mexico, among the Mixe (Ayuujk) (Søren Wichmann pers. comm. 2007).
Traveling catechists, many indigenous, of the Catholic Church translate ser-
mons and books of the Bible as part of their evangelizing in eastern Chiapas (Col-
lier 1999, 62). The Franciscan mission employs the Protestant Bible translation
into the Maya language Chol in Tumbalà, Chiapas of Mexico. There has even
been cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics in producing a Catholic
version of the Bible into Chol approved by the Catholic Bishop of Chiapas Sa-
muel Ruiz (Aulie 1979, 194– 95). This suggest the religious complexity, in partic-
ular outside the centers of the Roman Catholic Church – in the case of the Cath-
olic Church of Mexico: Mexico City and the Vatican in Italy – regarding
theological doctrine about scriptures. According to my observations, the Catholic
priests and mission working in the local communities (pueblos) acknowledge
the absolute need to adapt to the majority, i. e. the indigenous peoples, religious
experiences and preferences. Otherwise, they will enjoy far less support among
the indigenous peoples but also it is a strategy in order to counter the challenge
of Protestant mission in the pubelos. The power of the use of a particular lan-
guage in religion is again being demonstrated.
The patterns of acceptance and rejection surrounding scriptural translation
must be nearly impossible to predict since they vary so widely. The translated
Bible is important in the religion of the Q’eqchi’ (Maya) of Highland Guatemala.
The Q’eqchi’ regard language as “hot” or “heated” because it is a substance from
the body. This heat also originates from creation of the world and from the first
words of the indigenous deities. Written languages embody heat and have there-
152 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

fore symbolic power, so the Bible represents the sacred heat. Q’eqchi’ people
says that the Bible derive from God and from the United States (Adams 1999,
157– 58; Adams 2001: 215 – 16). Scotchmer has found that Maya converts in west-
ern highland Guatemala perceive the Bible as the “ultimate authority.” The
words of the Bible have an almost physical impact upon many people (Adams
1999, 156 – 57; Adams 2001, 218). Adams describes one Baptist Q’eqchi’ woman’s
trance during a prayer vigil. She entered the trance demanding that visitors place
three Bibles close to her body, one behind her head, one on her left, and one on
her right side. Afterward, she requested that each of the three Bibles be placed
on her body and that Matt 7:13 should be read. The Holy Spirit then spoke
through, her but she simultaneously invoked the local Q’eqchi’ mountain spirits
Tzuultaq’a (Adams 2001, 210, 212). From the missionary linguists perspective,
this trance experience could be an example of unwanted indigenous interpreta-
tion and adaption of translated scripture.
A member of the Yaganiza Pentecostal church says that she is delighted that
the New Testament is translated into her language because she can for the first
time understand the word of God and communicates with Him. But this woman
cannot read. In religious service and seminars, the local SIL missionary linguist
from the United States reads and exegetes the Yaganiza Zapotec New Testament.
She says that her translation of the New Testament into Yaganiza Zapotec de-
pends very much upon collaboration with Zapotec informants and assistants.
But in many Zapotec pueblos the language has gone out of use. Few can read
the language. A previously translated New Testament in a nearby Zapotec com-
munity is nearly out of use since so few indigenous persons can read it (McCune
2009).
The Yucatec Maya of Mexico consider Spanish the language of formal wor-
ship services even though SIL has translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Tes-
tament into Yucatec. Converts to Protestantism and Pentecostalism among the
Yucatec prefer the Spanish translation simply because they are accustomed to
Spanish and because it enjoys a higher symbolic prestige. God is frequently re-
ferred to as todopoderoso (“Almighty”); Spanish is accordingly the language of
God and power. Among Yucatan Protestants, the designation “Word of God” is
used more frequently than “Bible” for scripture; both Catholics and Protestants
consider the Spanish Bible a sacred object and treat it accordingly (Kray 2004,
96, 112, 116 – 18).⁵²

 Cf. Le tumben nupt’an: el nuevo testament (Mexico City: Sociedad Bíblica de México, 1960)
and Quili’ich biblia: ich maya yetel Deuterocanonico’ob (Mexico City: Sociedad Bíblica de México,
1992).
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 153

I asked an anthropologist and a linguist, not associated with missionary lin-

guistic evangelism or SIL, who both have worked many years among the Nahua
about the reception of the New Testament. Probably every indigenous commun-
ity in the state of Huasteca, Mexico, has a Protestant presence and a copy, or ac-
cess to a copy, of the SIL translation of the Bible, which was published by La Liga
Biblica in 2005 in Mexico (Alan Sandstrom pers. comm. February 21, 2011). But
the only Protestant Nahua group in Atliaca, Guerrero, became inactive a long
time ago. It seems therefore that there are no SIL missionary linguists present
in the region (Jonathan Amith, pers. comm. February 14, 2011). When considered
in light of the above examples from various native communities, my interviews
fill out the very complicated picture of translated scriptures’ reception and prac-
tice in Mesoamerica.
It appears that the SIL does not have updated knowledge about the reception
of its New Testaments translated into Mixtec in Oaxaca and Nahuatl in Puebla.
Dr. Albert Bickford of SIL’s International Mexico program and the Sign Language
Leadership Team was not able to provide concrete information, but he thought
the reception varied depending upon the local community. He kindly directed
my question about the degree of the employment of translated scripture in
Nahua communities of Puebla and Mixtec communities of Oaxaca to Cindy Wil-
liams, director of field programs for the Mexico Branch of SIL (pers. comm., Feb-
ruary 19, 2011). She received the following replies from SIL colleagues who work
in these areas:

Nahuatl: Nahuatl of Zacatlán, Ahuacatlán and Tepetzintla is not yet published, but the
audio version of Mark, Acts, Timothy & Titus and 25 Psalms are in use in quite a few private
homes. The printed versions are in use by a handful of people who evangelize and visit
older church members. They are not in use by the church, and the great majority of pastors
are not using them. However, people are beginning to use key terms that the translation
team coined in Nahuatl (from listening to the CDs). As far as we know the Nahuatl del
Norte de Puebla (Huauchinango) and Nahuatl de la Sierra de Puebla (Zacapoaxtla) trans-
lations are not available in audio format. We doubt that there is a lot of use. One pastor in
Uitzilan was using the translation at church. They also produced a CD with songs; that kind
of product normally receives use. For the Nahuatl of Southeast Puebla there is a Jesus film,
which has been used. The New Testament has just recently been recorded, and a workshop
on scripture Use is being held this very week (beginning Feb. 28th). Mixtec: The coastal Mix-
tec groups use the translated scriptures in their worship services. Among the highland Mix-
tec groups the translated scriptures are only used in the homes, and not in churches, al-
though we have seen some use of the translated scriptures in one congregation in our
area. The leader of that group has asked for some copies of a couple books of the NT
(pers. comm., February 26, 2011).
154 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

How much a translated New Testament is read is determined not only by fluency
in a language but also by literacy. Many indigenous peoples are illiterate in their
own languages due to the fact that they do not learn them in school.⁵³ There are
quite a few analphabetics among Mixtecs. As many other indigenous people of
the Americas, they also have less access to (higher) education. Inhabitants of
some communities have upheld traditions but do not speak the Mixtec language
(Mindrek 2003, 7, 24). The ‘Archivo historico municipal’ in Santiago de Yosondúa
(1861) only contains manuscripts in Spanish, not in Mixtec. The fundamental ob-
stacle is that there is no bilingual (Spanish-Mixtec) education in schools, and
some schools flatly do not allow Mixtec (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 7; 2008, 17).
According to local teachers, in some Nahua communities of northern Puebla
ninety percent of adults can speak Nahuatl, and it is the maternal language for
many children, but Spanish is obligatory in school. Ten percent of the population
—primarily elders—cannot understand Spanish because there were no schools
when they were young, and the children do not learn how to write in Nahuatl.
There is, however, a bilingual school on the outskirts of the Nahua pueblo Nau-
pan (pers. comm. 2010). As Victoria Bricker has noticed, literacy in Maya has no
function if there is no Maya literature besides textbooks from which to learn the
language (Bricker 2004, 92n7). Due to poor formal education and a confusing al-
phabet, literacy in Maya languages is low. Few are therefore able to read the
translated Bible into Yucatec. People read the Bible in Spanish, and contempo-
rary Maya speech does contain many loanwords from Spanish. The vocabulary in
the translated Yucatec Bible does not reflect colloquial speech but uses neolo-
gisms and archaic concepts in addition to new words that Protestant missionar-
ies introduced into Spanish. Furthermore, the local Catholic priests conduct serv-
ices only in Spanish. Pentecostal sects do convert indigenous individuals, but
not by translating the Bible into an indigenous language (Kray 2004, 97, 114–
119). On the other hand, indigenous peoples of eastern Chiapas converted to
Protestantism are more interested in reading and writing in their own language
than are indigenous people in the Yucatán since they perceive Spanish as the
language of repression. They can therefore more easily participate in Protestant
churches that are conducted in their own language (Bricker 2004, 92– 93n9; Col-
lier 1999, 55 – 60).
The reception and practice of translated scripture depend very much upon
local active evangelizing entrepreneurs and established ecclesial institutions.

 Statistics about bilingual-bicultural education in Mexico can be found in Estadística Total de

Educación Indígena Inicial y Básica: Incio de Ciclo Escolar 2007 – 2008, from Dirección General
de Educación Indígena (DGEI) of the SEP.
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 155

Foreign missionaries may create well-organized churches and then hand them
over to local converts (indigenization), or they may simply aid local converts
in developing their own churches (indigeneity). The missionary strategy of SIL
and WBT is, however, nonecclesiastical, which implies that they are not active
in the field as priests or as preachers. They do not establish churches: their ob-
jective is to transfer the duty of making a congregation of believers to the local
people, who act as converted language indigenous assistants and informers in
the first place, in order to propagate translated scriptures (Stoll 1982, 75 – 76).
The SIL missionary linguist Kenneth S. Olson maintains that members who
want to evangelize or preach are straightforwardly advised to become members
of another organization (Olson 2009, 650):

SIL’s articles of incorporation do not mention religious or ecclesiastical activities…This is

because the goals of the organization—including Bible translation—are not religious
tasks per se, but rather scholarly ones (Olson 2009, 650).

The method of SIL and WBT missionary linguists in the field reflects this prac-
tice: select informants, many of them younger persons, as first converts who
are occasionally brought back to the local base of SIL or WBT. The converted in-
digenous informants may become bilingual teachers, but in any case it is they
who evangelise the word of the New Testament and put to use the grammars,
dictionaries, and educational material produced by SIL and WBT. Visiting SIL
missionary linguists may assist them (Hvalkof and Aaby 1981, 11– 12; Stoll
1981, 32 – 34).⁵⁴ SIL and WBT, however, employ other techniques of direct mis-
sion: social services, medical aid, education, economic aid, promoting socioeco-
nomic and communal development, and so forth, but these are secondary activ-
ities according to their “Statement of Policy” (Hvalkof and Aaby 1981, 11– 12).
SIL and WBT believe that their work is complete when the New Testament
and portions of the Hebrew Bible have been translated and published with
some locals capable of reading the material and converted people or evangelical
denominations that can continue to the work. After the New Testament transla-
tion, however, SIL and WBT’s activity in a given region varies (Stoll 1981, 33)⁵⁵:

 WBT Ministry Bible’s translation principles are to “organize translation projects in a way that
promotes and facilitates the active participation of the Christian and wider community, commen-
surate with local circumstances. Where there are existing churches, we will encourage these
churches to be involved in the translation and to carry as much responsibility for the translation
project as is feasible” (“Latest Prayer Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/
Ministry/BibleTranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx).
 Ethnos360 is planting ‘tribal churches’ among in particular unreached people groups
(“About Us,”Ethnos360, https://ethnos360.org/about).
156 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

“Though faith-based, SIL limits its focus of service to language development

work. SIL does not engage in proselytism, establish churches or publish Scrip-
tures.” ⁵⁶ But despite this public proclamation by SIL International individual
SIL (missionary) linguists engage in Christian activities of teaching scripture,
lead prayers and singing of hymns in the local community they do linguistic
fieldwork. Moreover, the use of new technology like audio-video through the In-
ternet in particular “The Jesus Film” (see below) exhibits that SIL are not only
linguistic but indeed missionary linguistic (Epps and Ladley 2009, 644). This en-
deavour depends, however, upon the zeal of the individual missionary linguist.
SIL and WBT appear to be not particularly active among the Nahua in northern
Puebla or among the Mixtec in Oaxaca. During my field research to these regions
in 2010 and 2011, I learned that there is no contact between the converted indig-
enous collaborators and the US SIL missionary linguists.
In Naupan of northern Puebla, there are no religious (missionary) orders—
the Augustinians left the community two hundred years ago. Nor are there SIL
or other foreign (i. e., US) missionaries in the area. There are two Protestant
(evangélicos) churches in Naupan. The Catholic religion predominates, having
ninety percent of the Nahua community’s adherents, of which forty to fifty per-
cent of the Nahua Catholics are actively committed to the Church. Everyone (also
Protestants) participates in the fiestas (pers. comm. 2010). The teacher of the
local school at Naupan told me that what little use the Nahuatl New Testament
sees, it is only among Protestants. To the knowledge of the Párroco (Padre) of the
Catholic Church of Naupan, no one reads the Nahuatl Bible (although he did
have one himself) in the local Catholic Church, but he did mention some oral
translations of the Bible in Nahuatl that were designed to preserve language.
During Mass, the Catholic priest in Naupan gives the homily in Nahuatl, but
the rest of the Mass is conducted in Spanish. Many people prefer Nahuatl trans-
lations of scripture because they understand the concepts and feel the message
in their hearts (pers. comm. 2010). It is indeed fascinating that bilingual people
favor their native languages, in particular in religious services. According to the
Chol Maya, the word of God reaches the heart only in the indigenous language.
This is also why the Chol ignore the Spanish text in the bilingual Chol-Spanish
edition of the New Testament (Aulie 1979, 109, 111). In Sierra de Puebla, the bi-
lingual Nahua employ Nahuatl in order to communicate with the traditional dei-
ties. The Quechua of the Andes in South America also speak to their sacred be-
ings in Quechua but use Spanish with mestizo representatives of civil society
(Mannheim 1991, 81– 82).

 “What Is SIL International?” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/sil/.

 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 157

In Santiago de Yosondúa of the Mixteca Alta, there is a quite large Catholic

church that is open to the public but has no resident priest to officiate regular
services. Less than twenty minutes distant by car, the neighboring pueblo Chal-
catongo’s Capuchin missionaries have being doing almost three decades of pas-
toral work in more than forty indigenous communities of the Mixteca Alta.⁵⁷ The
original Chalcatongo mission consisted of a German group of Capuchin brothers
from the Province of Rhine-Westphalia established in the parish, Santa Maria de
la Natividad. The parochial territory includes another forty-three communities,
having approximately seventy thousand inhabitants within four municipalities.
The members of the Capuchin mission collaborate with the local church, taking
care of the pastoral ministry in four municipalities with forty indigenous com-
munities. There are many (Protestant) sects in Santiago de la Yosondúa: Baptist,
Pentecostal (called la luz del mundo) Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints (which is problematic to categorize as Protestant), Ad-
ventists, and so forth.⁵⁸ But a comparative analyzis of these denominations with
SIL and Wycliffe evangelical missionary linguist enterprise is beyond the scope
of the subject of this book although the translation work of LDS of “The Book of
Mormon”⁵⁹ into various (indigenous) languages is a particular compelling case
for future (translation) research.
The Baptist pastor who worked on the SIL dictionary and grammar and a re-
vised translation of the New Testament (made at the SIL office in Mitla of Oaxa-
ca, which is located many hours away with car) in Santiago de Yosondúa said
that he preaches in Spanish and Mixtec, using the Santiago de la Yosondúa Mix-
tec New Testament in the liturgy. Other families in Santiago de Yosondúa—par-
ticularly in the more remote, monolingual rancherías (small, rural settlements)
consisting of about a thousand people—also use the translated New Testament.
The SIL Mixtec New Testament is therefore very useful according to the local
Baptist cleric. He said that he employs the Mixtec language to evangelize the
people of the pueblo. Since they do not have a church building, religious serv-
ices are held in the home of the pastor, who also gives the Santiago de Yosondúa
Mixtec New Testament to people so that they themselves can read it. Sometimes
they read it, sometimes they accept it, and sometimes they convert to Protestan-
tism. He says that Protestants do not use the Catholic Spanish Bible because of
illustrations of Virgin Mary and saints whom they designate as idolos or dioses
and therefore unable to represent proper monotheism. The young daughters

 Capuchin is a member of Order of Friars Minor Capuchin (O.F.M.Cap.), associated with the
Franciscan order, established 1525 in Europe. It is devoted to social work and mission.
 http://www.elocal.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/oaxaca/municipios/20026a.htm
 Cf.: https://www.lds.org/liahona/1997/06/in-his-own-language?lang=eng
158 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

and the wife of the pastor even call attention to the Catholics’ application of a
different Bible (abbreviated texts like Psalm 115), which they showed me during
my visit to their home (pers. comm. 2010, 2011). In agreement with the Protestant
indigenous converts with whom I spoke in Santiago de Yosondúa, the Capuchin
priest in Chalcatongo and the Catholic priest in Naupan maintained that there is
a fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Not only
do the Catholic Bible has seventy-three books, whereas the Protestant Bible
has sixty-six books, they claim that the content of scripture does not correspond
(pers. comm. 2010, 2011).
The Baptist Mixtec family came to Santiago de Yosondúa about fifteen years
ago. A Protestant missionary, the man found twenty boxes with ten to fifteen
copies of the Santiago de Yosondúa Mixtec New Testament in each box left
there as a gift from the SIL. They rescued five boxes and distributed the Mixtec
New Testament to many peoples in the pueblo and beyond (ranchérias). The Bap-
tist family has only four Mixtec New Testaments left and therefore needs more
copies, but, they told me, they do not receive outside help or have contact or col-
laboration with the SIL. Consequently, few families use the Santiago de Yoson-
dúa Mixtec New Testament; there are simply too few books available. The Baptist
family in Santiago de Yosondúa, therefore, wants more SIL-translated Mixtec
New Testaments. Without them, the family cannot evangelize in Mixtec, but
the Baptists do say that many people in Santiago de Yosondúa want to read
New Testament in Mixtec. They therefore make copies and are able to obtain Mix-
tec New Testaments from other churches in the region. There are two Bible group
readings per week in Mixtec and in Spanish. On Thursdays, his daughters lead
the reading only in Mixtec (pers. comm. 2010, 2011).
Some schools in the countryside teach Mixtec: rancheriás have bilingual
schools with indigenous teachers who use the SIL Diccionario Básico del Mixteco
de Yosondúa (K. Farris 2002). Only Spanish and English are taught in the pueblo,
and there is a lack of reference material supporting literacy education in Mixtec.
The Baptist family in Santiago de Yosondúa has a SIL textbook (and other SIL
materials) for learning Mixtec; they sell these and other SIL-produced texts in
their own store (pers. comm. 2010, 2011).
According to the Mixtec Bapist family, in the Mixteca Alta many indigenous
words are lost, replaced by Spanish words, or modified (Sp. modismo). Still, they
maintain that translation of the New Testament presents relatively few problems,
for several reasons: the SIL alphabetic system is comparatively simple (tone is
not marked by diacritic signs), as is the Santiago de Yosondúa dialect of Mixtec.
Moreover, the theological context of the New Testament is familiar to the people
there. The pastor has taught his daughters to read the Mixtec New Testament—
and they learn English in school—but his wife cannot since she is originally
 Indigenous (literacy) receptions of translated scripture 159

from the Mixteca Baja, la Costa, and speaks a different dialect of Mixtec. The ma-
jority of peoples in Yosondúa, however, listen to readings of the Mixtec New Tes-
tament but do not read themselves (pers. comm. 2010, 2011).
There are five Protestant churches and two missions in Santiago de Yoson-
dúa. In a rancha located outside the pueblo, I visited a specially constructed
house (Sp. templo) where the local New Testament is preached by a Mixtec Pres-
byterian pastor, another linguistic collaborator of SIL. The constructed templo is
employed for worship in Mixtec and Spanish, and the translated Mixtec New Tes-
tament was on the table when I arrived. It appeared to have its regular place
there. The man, a self-sufficient farmer, belongs to the Mexican Presbyterian
Church (Presbyteria iglesia nacional de México). Few people, only four families,
attend service in the templo.
There are two independent Baptist churches in the pueblo because, accord-
ing to the Presbyterian pastor, they have different methodological commitments.
Another contributor to the Santiago de Yosondúa dictionary, grammar, and New
Testament has built a separate Baptist church in the center of Santiago de Yoson-
dúa, only a few hundred meters from the Catholic Church. Every Wednesday
there is Bible reading. According to the Mixtec Presbyterian of the ranchería,
Pentecostals are the same as other Protestant denominations for the basic reason
that they have faith in Christ.⁶⁰ But only evangelicos use the Mixtec language in
religious worship in the municipio. The feeling and understanding of Christian
religion are better in Mixtec than in Spanish (pers. comm. 2011), which is another
example of the preference for native language in religious service.
From the above-cited examples of the receptions of translated scripture, we
can make an interesting linguistic-religious deduction. In some indigenous com-
munities there are a minority of converted Protestant or even Pentecostal indig-
enous informants and assistants of SIL whom desire to keep and practise the in-
digenous language. Conversely, the majority of Catholic indigenous peoples,
although maintaining ancient tradition costumbres, do not demonstrate a simi-
liar interest in the conservation and promotion of their language. Instead they
prefer the dominant lingua franca, Spanish in the case of Mexico, of the nation
state. But the converted indigenous Protestants or Pentecostals, whom also takes
an active part in the production of the translation of scriptures and in the making
of grammars and dictionaries in collaboration with SIL missionary linguists, ac-
cordingly transform tradition through the construction of a novel (Protestant) in-

 But Jehovah’s Witnesses in the region present a considerable problem, as they are very ag-
gressive in conversion: “They force people.” He is therefore afraid that they will convert Catho-
lics (pers. comm. 2011).
160 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

digenous philosophical and religious vocabulary. We can consequently establish

the following theoretical model of the practices of the religious-philosophical
vernacular within the indigenous communities:

1. The exclusive oral use of indigenous language by traditional religious prac-

tioners and lay peoples.
2. The oral, but also in a few cases written scripture, practice of indigenous
language by local Catholic priests and mission during the celebration of
Mass.
3. Oral and scriptural practices of indigenous language by converted indige-
nous Protestants collaborators of SIL.

In the perpetuation of the exercise of indigenous religious and philosophical lan-

guages, it is the Protestants whom enjoy advantage, due to the scriptural resour-
ces made available to them by SIL, through the considerable professional activity
of translations of scriptures into indigenous langauges – accompanied by the
necessary grammars and dictionaries. ⁶¹
No culture is static but is in a continuous dynamic process undergoing
changes and modifications. Its members, like the indigenous Protestant con-
verts, have of course every right to make their own choices. But the linguistic
and literarcy condition for indigenous peoples is not righteous. Ever since the
colonial period various national governments and local administrations haved
utterly failed in the education of indigenous languages and literacy thereby un-
dermining indigenous self-determination and fundamental rights. They have
even in many cases promoted the nation’s lingua franca in order to encourage
“development” among indigenous peoples. Instead a foreignly based Protestant
scriptural monolopy is created by the SIL and other missionary linguist organi-
sation, imposing a huge influence upon indigenous languages, literacy and cul-
tures.
The Bible and other literacy material in the vernacular prepared by the mis-
sionary linguists and their native collaborators are interrelated and in conjunction
create a novel epistemological authority (Schieffelin 2000, 322– 323). Local politi-
cal, social, linguistic, literacy, and religious circumstances determine indigenous
approbation of translated vernacular New Testaments, but new electronic multi-

 Besides grammars, dictionaries and translation of the New Testament into indigenous lan-
guages, SIL also produce various adapted literacy material like books of traditional stories
and other native-authored literature, picture dictionaries, alphabet books, phonological studies,
literacy (pictorial-logographic) manuals, analyzed texts, courses for learning the indigenous lan-
guage etc.
 Translated multimedia and the semiotic rhetoric of conversion 161

media forms the backbone of the missionary linguists’ innovative strategy for con-
veying translated scripture in the future. This, as we shall see in the following sec-
tion, may further reinforce the Protestant missionary-linguistic endeavour in im-
pacting and transforming indigenous religions, philosophies, literacies and
languages.

Translated multimedia and the semiotic rhetoric

of conversion
Written and oral communication form one of “the symbolic clusters” of various
indigenous American cultures. When used in communicating with the divine,
language, speech, song, poetry, and text make up a sacred symbol system. There-
fore the evangelical victors in today’s “ideological warfare” will go to the missio-
nizing groups who offer literacy programs in indigenous languages (Gossen
1986, 7– 8). Since the early colonial period, scripture has been evangelized
through different media in the Americas. Indigenous religious concepts, visual
culture, and semiotics are all under attack by missionary linguists. Visual-devo-
tion patterns such as the presence of the Virgin Mary and saints alongside indig-
enous iconography in home altars and religious buildings do not comply with
Protestants’ rigid emphasis on Christ, sin, repentance, and salvation.
Illustrations in the translated SIL New Testaments represent an ancillary at-
tempt of an iconography of conversion. Depicting narrative events but not reli-
gious concepts of conversion, the translated Mixtec and Nahua New Testaments
contain black and white illustrations with captions. Both include maps of Pales-
tine and the Roman Empire notated with the historical geography of the New
Testament. Religion is, however, closely associated with (ceremonial) space for
indigenous peoples in the Americas. The missionary linguist therefore translates
the sacred space of the world of the New Testament with the intention of sup-
planting the sacred space of American indigenous religions. The Protestant the-
ology of sola scriptura is in this regard significant because it does not permit na-
tive scripture or religious expressions defining sacred topography beyond the
European and Middle East geography of the Bible.
Missionary linguists are imaginative in transmitting evangelization of con-
version through indigenous communication (semiotic) systems and languages.
In particular Mesoamerica and the Andes of South America from the early six-
teenth century, where the Europeans encountered numerous civilizations with
refined semiotic systems and writing systems, missionaries created various inter-
semiotic (pictorial-logographic) catechisms and confessionals based upon indig-
enous and European semiotic, symbolic and iconographic conventions. Colonial
162 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

pictorial-logographic catechisms and confessionals could be written in an indig-

enous language with Latin alphabetic script and with the indigenous semiotic
system. Indigenous iconic images (often logosyllabic, or rebus, writing but
also “semasiographic mnemonic” ones) were sometimes, but not always, accom-
panied by Latin script. Pictorial-logographic catechisms by the so-called ‘Tester-
ian manuscripts’ (but cf. Burkhart 2014, 186 – 187, note 58), after the Fransciscan
Jacobo de Testera (1490? –1554)⁶², were made in Mesoamerica from the sixteenth
through the nineteenth centuries and produced by both indigenous peoples and
missionaries (Edgerton 2001, 28 – 30; Glass 1975; Galarza and Bequelín 1992). ⁶³
These catechisms were to be “”read” in a line-by-line, word(s)-for-image man-
ner” (Burkhart 2014, 186). The particular code, context, and language, however,
had to be known in order to be able to read the pictorial cathechisms, so this
colonial manuscript tradition represents a hybrid (intersemiotic) combination
of non-European indigenous pictorial-logographic and European catechistical
systems (Leibsohn 2001, 214– 15; cf. Burkhart 2014).⁶⁴ Khipu ⁶⁵ (dyed knotted
strings), originally used by the Inka and other linguistic cultures of the Andes
in order to record and communicate a variety of information (Urton 2009:
823 – 824, note 10) functioned as a confessionals and catechisms for the early Eu-
ropean mission.⁶⁶
With the purpose of transferring Christian gospel not only linguistically but
semiotically, postcolonial missionary linguists also make of use of media other
than commonplace alphabetic scripture. For the illiterate, Protestant evangelists
have produced “cartoon-style tracts” containing the Gospel of John. Their only
word is PALABRA (“word”), which symbolizes Christ (Adams 1999, 153). There

 For catalogue references to the manuscripts cf. Burkhart (2014, 186 – 187, note 58).
 Cf. the recent argument by Burkhart that the pictorial catechisms of New Spain were com-
posed by native peoples in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Burkhart 2014).
 Pictorial-logographic Roman Catholic catechisms for conversion were produced for Quechua
and Aymara speakers from the Lake Titicaca region of Boliva and Peru in the Andes as late as
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The nineteenth-century North American Plains In-
dians and the Cunas of Panama have ledger-art traditions (Mitchell and Jaye 2008, 265, 267).
 Khipu (pl. khipukana) – from Quechua or chinu from Aymara (pl. chinunaka), which both sig-
nify “knot” – constitutes a quite complicated system. It apparently represents a combination of
dyed knotted strings where form, structure, ply, colour, direction, placement, direction and num-
ber are significant for communication. Khipu contains interrelated accounts (narratives) and
transference of quantitative (mathematical) information. This system – which may have a binary
codified, mnemonic or phonetic (i. e. writing) principle – is, however, not satisfactorily deci-
phered (Salomon 2008: 286 – 287; cf. also Quilter and Urton 2002; Urton 2009; Hyland 2014a; Hy-
land 2017).
 For an analytical survey of lingustic, semiotic and scriptural traditions and strategies in the
Americas cf. Pharo (2017).
 Translated multimedia and the semiotic rhetoric of conversion 163

was and is, although to a limited extent, a semiotic coexistence of indigenous

and European literacy in the Americas.
Rachel M. McCleary and José de Jesús Pesina claim that since Guatemala is a
highly illiterate country, Protestant missionaries at the start of the twentieth cen-
tury began century to evangelize orally and visually through open-air services
and at fiestas with music and preaching in the indigenous languages. Protes-
tants have made use of various communication technologies in Guatemala: lan-
tern projectors (1880s), portable organs (1880s), portable phonographs (1913),
reel-to-reel tape recorders (1930s), videos (1951), fingerfonos (1957), cassette re-
corders (1963), lightweight portable bullhorns (1959), and portable projectors
(the late 1950s). Beginning in the 1940s, missionaries started employing the
radio to evangelize in Spanish and in indigenous languages. Scripture reading
in indigenous languages is an important feature of Protestant radio shows
(McCleary and Pesina 2011, 1– 3, 10, 15; McCleary 2017). These communication
technologies made evangelizaion to numerous peoples, living in distant and
hard to reach places, possible. In a way, expensive limited disseminations of ed-
itions of (translated) Bibles and other scriptures were not able to do. Up to the
twenty-first century restricted access to education meant that the rate of literacy
in Spanish and indigenous languages were low. Many simply cannot read the
printed scripture. Rachel McCleary hypothesize that peoples of Guatemala main-
ly converted to Protestantism not by reading the (translated) Bible but “through
audio and visual technologies”. Conversions were therefore not mainly through
translations of written Christian scriptures into indigenous languages. In addi-
tion, quite a few cultures prefer an audio-oral and visual religious experience
to reading and interpretation of doctrines in sacred books, which according to
McCleary has been successfully exploited in mass conversions by Pentecostal
missionaries in Guatemala (McCleary 2017). But that does not imply that trans-
lations of the Bible and other scriptures into indigenous and other minority lan-
guages do not serve an important evangeligcal function. Missionary linguist
translations are today conveyed through different media: TV, radio, and most im-
portantly the Internet. It is expected that this represents the newly aggressive
missionary linguist strategy of evangelizing scripture to non-Christian cultures.
WBT Ministry Bible Translation Principles state on the official web page:

… choose the media for the translation that are most appropriate for the specific target au-
dience, whether audio, visual, electronic, print, or a combination of these. This may involve
164 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

making adjustments of form that are appropriate to the medium and to the cultural setting,
while ensuring that the translated message remains faithful to the original message.⁶⁷

Film and audio (especially MP3 files) have gained importance in evangelization
and proselytising. There is presently a novel religious rhetoric of visual and oral
(audio) of conversion—a multimedia strategy of conversion that intends to dis-
tribute the translations of the missionary linguists to a much larger public.⁶⁸
SIL and WBT are making translated New Testaments more easily available as
PDF files online. These PDFs may have received an updated orthography but
do not, however, contain illustrations or maps from the published books. Nor
are they bilingual. ⁶⁹ But based upon printed editions of the New Testament,
SIL and WBT produce translations ready to meet a radically expanded (potential)
audience, where the visual and audible message might have a particularly pro-
found effect upon the target cultures.
Significant among these novel technological media and communication
techniques is “The Jesus Film Project,”⁷⁰ with a film based on the translated Gos-
pel of Luke published online. The Jesus Film has been translated into more than
fifteen hundred languages, with new languages being added constantly.⁷¹ The
project’s website signifies on scripture with the maxim “Seeing is believing”
and by stressing the importance of translation: “It is the power of the Word of
God in their heart language.” As people of remote regions gain access to the In-
ternet, this audiovisual, expressive representation may become a powerful tool
in the future conversion efforts of missionary linguists. Future research on mis-
sionary scriptural translations and Christian mission in general should therefore
look into this multimedia phenomenon making Christianity into an even more
global religion.

 “Latest Prayer Items,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/Ministry/Bible

TranslationPrinciples/tabid/63/language/en-US/Default.aspx
 Global Recordings Network focuses on making audio recordings of scriptures available in the
“least reached language groups in the world.” http://globalrecordings.net/en/ (pers. comm.
2013. Katrina Van Heest).
 “Scripture Resources: Mexico,” Scripture Earth, http://www.scriptureearth.org/00i-Scrip
ture_Index.php?sortby=country&name=MX.
 “Home,” Jesus Film Project, http://www.jesusfilm.org/.
 The Jesus Film Media website has created a mobile app, and missionaries carry “Give Them
Life” backpacks carrying everything needed to screen and promote the film in remote regions
(“53 Gifts to Transform Hearts,” Jesus Film Project,” http://www.jesusfilm.org/updates/121101).
 Multilingualism and World Christianity 165

Multilingualism and World Christianity

According to Wycliffe Bible Translators, the incarnation of Christ itself opens up

the possibility of translation:

The reality of Jesus Christ is expressible in any language for the simple fact that “he became
a man and dwelt among us.” If God had not chosen to communicate with us on our terms,
rather than on his, then none of our languages would be adequate (Arthur 2010).

Andrew F. Walls has made the interesting argument that there was an original
undertaking of translation when the Word became translated, so to speak,
into flesh in the Gospel of John: “God chose translation as his mode of action
for the salvation of humanity. Christian faith rests on a divine act of translation:
‘the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us’” (Walls 1992, 24, referencing John
1:14). Walls perceives translation and conversion as the same dialectic process,
which consists of transference by application of language and theology but
brings in new linguistic and ideological features (Walls 1992, 25 – 26). This is
also the official linguistic and theological position of WBT:

Through the incarnation, Christ was metaphorically translated so that humanity could un-
derstand the nature of God (he also gave sanction to the idea of Bible translation by quot-
ing from the Old Testament in the Septuagint—Greek—translation from the original He-
brew). Because of the incarnation, the Christian faith is, in Andrew Walls’ words,
“infinitely translatable”. There is no human language or culture, which cannot appropriate
the truth of God’s revelation in Christ. You do not need to adopt the language and culture of
first century Palestine in order to become a follower of Jesus. This was underlined at Pen-
tecost where God did not reverse the consequence of the tower of Babel, as some have said,
but actually underlined Babel by allowing everyone to understand Peter in their own lan-
guage. God powerfully gave his own approval of the indigenising of the Christian message
(Arthur 2010).

The linguistic, theological, and cultural translatability of the Christian religion

has the potential to make it a world religion. Christianity is no longer located
in its center of origin, Bethlehem and Jerusalem. It does not communicate in
Christ’s original tongue. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Bible was translated
into Latin (the Vulgate) and subsequently into various vernaculars around the
time of the Reformation and since. Translation is accordingly an important
part of Christian theology and mission (Sanneh 1992, 1– 3).⁷²
There is no single sacred language of God since the Christian scriptures are
multilingual. The Christian God does not speak a specific language that enjoys a

 For more on early Bible translations, cf. Black (1970).

166 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

privileged or sacred status. Christian scripture therefore represents religious mul-

tilingualism, not monolingualism. The language and mode of Islam is monolin-
gual, since classical Arabic represents the word of Allah of the Qur’an. The
Qur’an according to Muslims cannot therefore be translated (Calvet 1999, 36 –
39, 41– 42). The Hebrew Bible is predominantly written in classical Hebrew ex-
cept a few chapters that are rendered in Aramaic. In the extant Greek New Testa-
ment, there are some glosses and words in Near Eastern languages (Black 1970, 1,
2, 4). The New Testament is written “in a form of biblical Greek, the language of
the Greek Old Testament and related writings,” but is influenced by Semitic
ideology and language (Black 1970, 7– 11). Christianity’s vernacular pluralism
and thereby readiness for translation is in this sense opposed to Islam, where
Arabic is a lingua franca, and this affects missionary linguistic strategy.
Multilingual, translated Christian scripture was conveyed through various
media already from the early colonial period. In the Americas, citations of scrip-
ture in Spanish and other languages were publically inscribed on the walls of
numerous Catholic churches in indigenous communities. A mural on the baptis-
tery entrance of the seventeenth-century in the church of Andahuaylillas, close
to Cuzco (capital of the former Inka empire) of Peru displays an example of mis-
sionary-translated multilingualism. The inscription on the portal (“I baptize you
in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen”) was written
in Latin, Spanish, Quechua, Aymara, and Puquina. A baptistery entrance mural
from the same time period in the church of Checacupe, also near Cuzco, contains
all of those languages except Puquina. The mural text was written in order that
indigenous peoples should learn the formula to baptize their children in their
mother tongues. The placement of the various texts represents a linguistic hier-
archy and its chain of transmission (Mannheim 1991, 47– 48; Durston 2007, 123 –
24). In Ciudad de Oaxaca of southern Mexico, the Jesuit Templo y Convento de la
Compañia de Jesús, also known as Templo de Inmaculada o Templo de Compa-
ñia (celebrating the Immaculate Conception) contains a section dedicated to
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. The following multilingual inscription in English,
Spanish and various indigenous languages⁷³ is inscribed on the interior wall of
one of the chapels dedicated to Virgin Mary: “Am I not here, for I am your Moth-
er?” (¿No estoy aquí, que soy tu madre?) In Nahuatl it reads, cu ix amó nican nicá
nimo nantzin, and Mixteco del la Costa has Atu nia nyiaa, yu’u i’ya chia cuvi sɨ’

 The indigenous languages are: Nahuatl, Mixteco de la Costa, Amuzgo, Chianteco Alta, Triqui
de Sn Juan Copala, Mazateco, Alto, Cuicateco, Huaves, Chatino de Yaitepec, Zapoteco del Valle,
Zapoteco Sierra Sur, Zapoteco del Istmo, and Zapoteco de Teotitlan de Valle.
 Multilingualism and World Christianity 167

un. These were some of the words that the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe originally
uttered in Nahuatl when she appeared to Juan Martin in 1531.
At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries,
quite a few Protestant missionaries were skeptical of translating the Bible into
American indigenous languages. Today SIL and WBT challenge Mesoamerica’s
existing religious system (indigenous/Catholic) through translation of sacred
texts within a multilingual context. It is not a case of replacing many languages
with one lingua franca but of transmitting scripture through many languages of
the world in order to generate a common theology.
The story of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1– 9) in the Old Testament has, as
Long argues, been “a metaphor for translation” for numerous scholars working
with translation theory (Long 2005, 2). God punished (nemesis) monolingual hu-
manity’s hubristic construction by making the people speak in different vernac-
ulars. From that time on, Christians think, translation becomes necessary for
communicating Word of God in a multilingual world. This dynamic is further op-
erative in the New Testament on the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2:1– 13; 1 Cor.14),⁷⁴
when the Apostles of Christ became the first Christian missionary linguists. The
word of the God was to be communicated to people of various languages in the
world (Smalley 1991, 252– 253).
Missionary linguist translation is, however, somewhat inconsistent with con-
version according to Rafael:

Translation, by making conceivable the transfer of meaning and intention between coloniz-
er and colonized, laid the basis for articulating the general outlines of subjugation prescri-
bed by conversion; but it also resulted in the ineluctable separation between the original
message of Christianity…. and its rhetorical formulation in the vernacular…The necessity
of employing the native vernaculars in spreading the Word of God constrained the univer-
salizing assumptions and totalizing impulses of a colonial-Christian order (Rafael 2001, 21).

As I have demonstrated in the systematic analysis of translation concepts of con-

version into Mixtec and Nahuatl, both a linguistic-theological impostion and de-
contextualization (i. e., inculturation) of traditional Euro-American Christian the-
ology is accordingly achievable only by annihilating indigenous and other
religious cultures.
The plural concept of “World Christianities” refers to the fact that the reli-
gion is being understood and practiced in many different manners (Premaward-
hana 2011, 30n1). But can these practices be categorized as Christian if Christ in

 For an overview of theory and methodology in the study of Biblical translation in particular,
see Kroneman (2004).
168 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

not pivotal but one of many deities and saints, as is the case in quite a few in-
digenous American religions? Indigenous communities codeswitch between the
religious language in their local ceremonies and in various Christian churches;
they then each have many religious identities. The category for this is not so
much syncretism but religious dimorphism, where practices in church and indig-
enous ceremonies are separated (Jace Weaver pers. comm. 2010). In reality,
though, there can be plural religious “morphisms” since indigenous peoples
may well participate in ceremonies of not many Christian denominations apart
from their own religious traditions. The predicament for missionary exclusivism
is that many indigenous peoples do not see the logic in adhering exclusively to
one Christian denomination’s theological doctrine and practice.

(Post)colonialism and missionary linguistic

scriptural translation in a globalized world
As endangered-languages scholars formulates (cf. Abley 2003, Crystal 2000, Har-
rison 2007, Nettle and Romaine 2000), languages represents ideas, values and
epistemology particular to the native speaker’s community (Hardman 2009, 636).

Language represents something more than just structure. Rather, language embodies an
outlook on the world that is also connected to the other facets of ‘intangible heritage’
that UNESCO identifies: performing arts, rituals and festive events, knowledge and practi-
ces concerning nature and the universe, and traditional craftsmanship. In this language
ideology, language is not just a denotational code; it has become a part of identity and
identity politics (Hardman 2009, 636).

A principal premise of the present study is that language in combination with

religion or philosophy makes up the core of many American indigenous peoples
and minorities identity. Missionaries’ scriptural translations have potential lin-
guistic and religious consequences for cultural identity and traditions. Quite a
few national governments are conscious that SIL language surveys and literacy
programs make cultural and linguistic minorities more receptive to the national
language and culture (Epps and Ladley 2009, 641– 642). I dare to make the rather
inmodest claim that this signify why my analyzis is important because the reli-
gions, philosophies and languages and accordingly human rights and human
dignity for indigenous peoples and minorities in (post)colonial nation states
are under threat.
There is a historical relation between (Spanish Catholic) colonial and con-
temporary or postcolonial (North American Protestant) missionary linguistics.
They both apply the same methods of employing (converted) indigenous assis-
 (Post)colonialism and missionary-linguistic scriptural translation 169

tants and informants or “language experts” (Samuels 2006) and more or less
equivalent translated theological concepts. Moreover, postcolonial linguistic mis-
sion (SIL) applies dictionaries and grammars produced by the (Catholic monastic
orders) colonial linguistic mission. Some Catholic priests put into practice mis-
sionary linguistic material and translated scriptures producted by Protestant
missionary linguists. Nonetheless the missionary linguistic activities of SIL (sup-
ported by WBT) contest not only the cultural heritage of local indigenous tradi-
tions, religions, languages and identities but also the spiritual and political he-
gemony of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America. Latin American states
and nationalists fear that North America advances separatism through missions
to indigenous cultures, which then causes a counter-Hispanic movement (Stoll
1990, 16 – 17, 305).
Translations of Christian scripture and the New Testament into indigenous
languages imply that a global religion (Beyer 1993), that is, US Evangelical Prot-
estant Christianity, becomes localized through linguistic and ideological accul-
turation. This diffusion of dogma expands US cultural and geopolitical suprem-
acy. Salomón Nahmad of the National Indigenist Institute of Mexico writes that
“those Americans are the Franciscans and Dominicans of our time. They may not
see it that way, but they are the religious arm of an economic, political, and cul-
tural system.” Vernacularizing Christianity equals cultural imperialism because
traditional language practices are distorted while Christian theology is simulta-
neously domesticated. The impact of missionary-linguist translations of indige-
nous languages, religious philosophies, and traditions is dramatic. There is
need for an indigenous “decolonization of the mind,” instrumentally revitalizing
language and also the indigenous agency of language acquisition (Briggs-Cloud
2010).
The linguistic-political principles of “Newspeak” in the George Orwell’s dys-
topian novel 1984 have structural resemblances to missionary linguistics. Both
impose a new mentality and ideology by altering the vocabulary of a language:
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for
the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [i. e., “English
Socialism”], but to make all other modes of thought impossible” (Orwell [1949]
1961, 246). The powers that be constructed a new lexicon in order to exclude cer-
tain messages. Invention of novel (technical) concepts and eliminating undesir-
able words are undertaken with the purpose of purging heterodox meaning and
introducing orthodoxy in the already existing words from “Oldspeak.” The objec-
tive of neologisms is not only to express new subtle meanings but also to destroy
ancient ones: “The greatest difficulty facing the compilers of the Newspeak dic-
tionary was not to invent new words, but having invented them, to make sure
what they meant: to make sure, that is to say, what ranges for words they can-
170 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

celed by their existence” (Orwell [1949]1961, 251). Oldspeak reflects “Oldthink”

and Newspeak reflects “Newthink.” It is accordingly impossible to translate
from Oldspeak to Newspeak without making an ideological translation that al-
ters both significance and language. To get the intelligibility of the subtleties
in meaning and master a language, it is crucial to understand the philosophy be-
hind it. The linguistic-philosophy employed by missionary linguists in order to
convert not only language but also the philosophy (religious system) of the target
culture is equally manipulative.
European American words like “art,” “music,” “philosophy,” and “reli-
gion”—which are not strictly Christian or theological—do not exist in indigenous
languages because they belong to categories that are not compartmentalized ac-
cordingly in indigenous worldviews. Briggs-Cloud provides an example of this
fact from the Maskoke context. In order to partake in national and global dis-
course, indigenous peoples require the linguistic agency to translate these no-
tions into their own philosophical and epistemological systems (Briggs-Cloud
2010, 22– 23). By manipulating and imposing concepts in translations of Christi-
an scripture into indigenous languages, US missionary-linguistic evangelization
conflicts with the linguistic, philosophical and religious consciousness displayed
in the revitalized identity in the current postcolonial period. Indigenous cultures
undertake various linguistic strategies in order to establish their agency. Move-
ments have introduced indigenous-Christian (Catholic and Protestant) churches
that are antiassimilationist but dedicated to indigenous cultural survival and re-
vitalization. Secular nonprofit organizations and institutions work together to
promote the indigenous languages and cultures. In 2011 I spoke with a young,
secular Mixtec of the Mixteca Alta who works in order to rescue traditions
through the Internet and computer technology. He wants to create a vitu (Mixtec
for “bridge”) between the present and the past through “human-computer inter-
action.” The young man makes use of globalized media and technology in order
to salvage the costumbres of his community (pers. comm. 2011).
However, linguistic identities and reactions to Western incursions vary sig-
nificantly across the indigenous cultures of postcolonial America. The Western
Apache of the San Carlos Apache community reservation has about twenty-
four Christian missions and churches. Bible translation has a central role in
the various language ideologies and cultural practices. The different denomina-
tions have, however, each a somewhat specific opinion of Apache religion, lan-
guage and culture and thus how they conceive language revitalization is to come
about on the reservation (Samuels 2006). White (1944) has demonstrated that
concepts of prayers and songs of the ritual vocabulary among various Pueblo
languages of the Southwest United States belong to different language families,
and cultures have been exchanged between the different linguistic groups (Mi-
 (Post)colonialism and missionary-linguistic scriptural translation 171

thun 1999, 318). Such interchange is quite common among indigenous peoples in
the Americas. But as noted, Dozier (1955, 1958) has observed that Tewa and Tao
speakers do not incorporate (outside) Spanish loanwords but make neologisms
or extend the meaning of existing words in their own languages (Mithun 1999,
311). On the other hand, converted Mazatec of Mexico do not conceive of Protes-
tantism as a threat to their language. They prefer the “pure code,” with no influ-
ence of Spanish words, instead of the “power code” (Feinberg 2003, 86, 245n10).
It appears that Maya cultures of highland Guatemala are more interested in keep-
ing their language uncorrupted from Spanish influence than are those in the Yu-
catán. Jan Rus asserts that Tzotzil is in the process of being the lingua franca in
San Cristóbal de las Casas of Chiapas, Mexico, whereas Tzeltal is becoming the
lingua franca of eastern Chiapas, replacing Spanish (Bricker 2004, 90 – 91). More-
over, a Tzotzil speakers of Zinacanteco consider their language superior and call
it b’ac’ i k’op, “the real language” (81).
Incorporating loanwords from Spanish is the modern form of Nahuatl ac-
cording to a study by Hill and Hill (1999). But linguistic purists in Cuetzalan
in Sierra Norte de Puebla conceive of this as an inauthentic language because
it does not follow ancient tradition. Bilingualism is regarded as positive, but
Spanish is the prestigious “power language” of dominant mestiza (koyomej) so-
ciety, whereas Mexicano (Nahuatl) is the language of community solidarity.
Spanish and Nahuatl are used symbolically in different social, religious and po-
litical contexts (Castillo Hernández 2007, 121, 123, 165 – 67).⁷⁵
Major European colonial languages—particularly the (post)colonial lingua
francas Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English—have indeed influenced the
indigenous languages of the Americas to varying degrees. For instance, in Mex-
ico Spanish influences indigenous culture through the educational system,
radio, Internet, and television, but there is also a network of regional radio sta-
tions where indigenous languages are broadcasted (Navarrete Linares 2008, 75 –
76). According to a teacher of a local school in a Nahua community in the north-
ern Puebla, during the last fifteen years the government has built many schools,
which makes migration easier because people have more education. This implies
the loss of traditional culture and language. “EspaNahuatl” has been the result.
Nahuatl has changed considerably because of “EspaNahuatl” and the great var-
iation within Nahuatl as it is used in different regions of Mexico (pers. comm.
2010). Pérez Jiménez contends that since Mexico’s independence in 1821 there

 For the use of Spanish and Nahuatl in various cultural-linguistic contexts, see Castillo Her-
nández (2007, 148 – 67).
172 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

have been efforts to homogenize and make the indigenous more Spanish in order
to abolish their own languages (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 59).
Various American (post)colonial nation-states’ cultural and linguistic assim-
ilation policies have caused and continue to cause great damage to indigenous
cultures. But this study has suggested that indigenous peoples also confront
highly resourceful multiinternational organizations, the ultimate objective of
which is the absolute transformation of their linguistic, cultural, and religious
heritage and sociopolitical structure.
The local Catholic priest in Mixteca Alta is critical of Protestant missionaries
(sectas) from the United States. They are divisive and thereby destroying com-
munities and families, which is a political strategy of the government of the Unit-
ed States according to him (pers. comm. 2010). There are many conspiracy the-
ories about SIL and WBT operations. According to numerous Catholics,
anthropologists, and indigenous peoples, Pax Americana amounts to cultural,
political, and economic imperialism from the West and multinational companies
(Hvalkof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982; Colby 1995). Since the end of the Cold War,
with the decline of communism and the apparent surge of Islam, there has been
a new geopolitical order under which the United States as a nation is not as in-
terested in Latin America. So Protestant Evangelical missionaries are corroborat-
ing the United States’ cultural, not political, hegemony. But not without compe-
tition it would seem. Catholic missionary linguistic translation of scriptures is
being official resumed. Since 2012, under Pope Benedict but set to continue
under Pope Francisco, the Roman Catholic Church has organized so-called pas-
toral workshops on Nahuatl language and culture in order to make a official
translation of the Catholic mass and a cohesive liturgical language for Nahuatl
speakers. Translation is undertaken by collective groups of Catholic priests of
the region, the majority native speakers (macehualme), mastering various dia-
lects. They in turn communicate with native speakers from their parishes for
comments and advice about translation. The priests aim to create a standarized
or “Unified Nahuatl” but with footnotes replacing words where there are prob-
lematic semantic, orthographic or phonologic dialect difference (cf. Pharao Han-
sen 2014). “Unified Nahuatl” most certainly will have linguistic impact upon not
only the dialects but also upon Nahuatl cognitive categories.
SIL and WBT draw up contracts with local governments to engage in linguis-
tic work with native languages. They operate as official literacy agencies with
host governments, nongovernmental agencies, indigenous organizations, and
academic institutions worldwide as well as with churches and local communities
with the unstated purpose of promoting North American acculturation and as-
similation. SIL and WBT have thereby created a controversial linguistic monopo-
ly where they influence national linguistic policy across Latin America (Stoll
 (Post)colonialism and missionary-linguistic scriptural translation 173

1982, 249 – 59; Richards 1989; Adams 2001, 224– 25, 249 – 59). Moreover, SIL has
special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) and formal consultative relations with the United Nations Education-
al, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Olson 2009, 647; UNESCO
2009.⁷⁶ It is in this regard interesting that:

On May 6, 1988, United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar praised SIL in a
letter to then-SIL President Kenneth Gregerson: Your mission as ambassadors of literacy de-
serves high praise. By transcribing into writing mother tongues that were previously unwrit-
ten, especially among tribes people distant from urban centres, you are facilitating the pres-
ervation of ethnic cultures and building bridges for those cultures to the rest of humanity
(Olson 2009, 647).

UNESCO has a language ideology as part of the definition of “intangible herit-

age” where language is acknowledged as important for personal and collective
identity, traditions and the conception of the world by minorities. Native speak-
ers have the inalienable right to their intangible heritage and language. Con-
versely SIL claims that native speakers have a right to this linguistic identity
but that they have choice when it comes to the cultural and religious identity.
Thus as opposed to UNSECO, SIL separates the linguistic from the religious iden-
tity (Handman 2009, 636 – 38). Epps and Ladley notes that this is not compatible
with the principle of self-determination although community is seldom of only
one opinion (Epps and Ladley 2009, 640, 643). Every culture or community
has the right to change even when discarding theirs traditions according to SIL:

SIL supports indigenous people’s right to self-determination. At the same time, SIL believes
that people have a right to informed choices. History has shown us the danger of attempts
to restrict people’s access to information….The right to self-determination also includes the
right to change one’s view…Our translation work adds to the choices available to indige-
nous people (Olson 2009, 651).

If a community is to be culturally or religiously transformed, why not leave this

to the peoples themselves without interference from outside organizations and
institutions?
The principal problem is that many indigenous peoples do not have the re-
source to the vote of linguistic, literacy and cultural agency. Social and economic
inequality instigates, by missionary linguist organizations and quite a few gov-
ernmental institutions, change of languages among minority cultures. This has
led linguists to conceive research in marginalized language communities as an

 “SIL International,” SIL International, http://www.sil.org/sil/.

174 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

issue of human rights (cf. Nettle and Romaine 2000, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000,
Hinton 2002) (Dobrin and Good 2009: 620), which is related to the principle
issue of self-determination:

… self-determination must include the freedom to dissociate profound cultural and linguis-
tic choices from other choices relating to matters of material and psychological survival,
particularly when these are imposed from outside (Epps and Ladley 2009, 643).

Although 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights ⁷⁷ is not protective of in-

digenous peoples, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopt-
ed by the UN General Assembly (2007) can be seen to oppose linguistic and re-
ligious neocolonization of indigenous cultures. The missionary linguists
enterprise and several national governments schools systems and cultural cen-
ters transformation of the language ecology i. e. the “speakers’ metalinguistic re-
sources, or by introducing standardized ways of reading (cf. Kirsch 2007, Schief-
felin 2007)” (Dobrin and Good 2009: 622) constitutes a loss of idexicality of
philosophy, culture, and religion. Language and religion constitute the intellec-
tual property of a culture. When the local community no longer controls and de-
velops its own language and religion—crucial to identity, worldview, and way of
life—they lose the rights and dignity founded upon timeless traditions. Accord-
ing to the Zapotec intellectual, teacher and author Mario Molina Cruz from Villa
Hidalgo de Yalálag, Oaxaca, Mexico, “intraculturidad” (“interculturality”) or
knowledge of own culture, history, language, and local region is what, in partic-
ular young, indigenous peoples need in order to encounter the postcolonial na-
tion-state and the world. This instruction is, however, the (moral) responsibility
of the education system of the respective nation-state.
Concluding this explication about the politics of missionary-linguistic scrip-
tural translations, I call for scholars to not overestimate the linguistic, religious,
social, and political effects of the missionary-linguist enterprise. Community-de-
velopment has been seen to be fundamental in the advancement of the influence
of SIL in minority-language communities (Epps and Ladley 2009, 641– 642). So-
cial-scientific studies, particularly anthropological ones, have in the previous
three decades investigated US missions toward the indigenous people of Latin
America (see, for instance, Annis 1987; Dow and Sandstrom 2001).

 By 1973, SIL has translated, published, and distributed the The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948 into twenty-five indigenous languages of South America and an additional
nine indigenous languages in 1988, published by Peruvian Ministry of Education in 1988 (Olson
2009, 649). Cf. “United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,” United Nations, http://
www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html.
 (Post)colonialism and missionary-linguistic scriptural translation 175

Anthropologists and sociologists propose complex political, social, and eco-

nomic theories about conversion to Protestantism and Pentecostalism. They hy-
pothesize that the Protestant efforts do promote education, health, and medicine
while ameliorating alcoholism, advancing the condition of women (especially in
terms of domestic violence), and advancing a capitalist mentality by encourag-
ing savings and investment and banning participation in the expensive indige-
nous-Catholic fiesta system. Protestants also encourage social and economic im-
provement and literacy, creating possibilities for participation and leadership in
the community, which undermine compulsory unpopular labor (tequio). Indi-
vidualist Protestant faith and practice offer new ways of making meaning be-
yond traditional philosophy, and at the same time they foster resistance to Ca-
tholicism, local authorities (cacique and Catholic priest control) and an
allegiance to the nation-state and also Western culture (Dow and Sandstrom
2001; Kray 2004; Dow 2005; Hartch 2006; Gallaher 2007). Notwithstanding
those arguable benefits, Chestnut maintains that faith healing of poverty-related
illnesses—not only somatic but also mental diseases caused by social distress,
such as alcoholism, domestic strife, and unemployment—explains the great con-
version to Pentecostalism in Latin America (Chesnut 1997).
After the European invasion, missionaries (“language and religion”) and col-
onial and postcolonial governments and institutions (“language and develop-
ment”) have helped undermine indigenous languages of the American continent
(Mannheim 1991, 61– 63). It is not just missionaries that instigate cultural and
linguistic change, however. Various internal and external forces affect the trans-
formation of indigenous communities in the Americas. Modernization, migra-
tion, secularization, and globalization are all processes of alteration from the
outside that mold religion, language, tradition, and sociopolitical institutions.
Globalization, migration to major cities and to the US, infrastructural improve-
ments, extractive industries like logging and mining, NGO-sponsored projects,
product marketing, and governments have serious effects upon the traditions
of local communities. Globalization has been forced in the Mixtec region and
in particular in Santiago de Yosondúa where seven out of ten adults have migrat-
ed to the larger cities in Mexico, the United States, and Canada. This has affected
culture, identity, language (even Spanish is replaced by some English words),
moral values, familial cohesion, and traditions (costumbres) upholding the insti-
tutions and community work (tequio).⁷⁸ On the other hand, remesas (remittance
of money sent to the community from emigrants) are invested in the fiesta sys-

 Salomón López has made this point (“Official Page,” Sántiago, Yosondúa, 2009, http://www.
yosondua.net).
176 III Sociocultural and Political Ideologies

tem and contribute to construct schools and hospitals in the pueblos (Mindrek
2003, 22– 24).
A teacher of the local school in Naupan maintains that “city culture” and
raiz cultura are opposed. There is no acceptance of or respect for the use of in-
digenous language in the city, which is one of the reasons that provincial life
is getting lost. Some experience discrimination against traditional dress and
other hallmarks of indigenous lifestyles. Local communities are experiencing se-
rious economic problems, in particular agricultural troubles, and lack of support
from the government makes people migrate to the US and the larger cities within
Mexico. People coming back from extensive migration do not want to work in
agriculture and do not wear traditional costumes anymore. Costumbres, dress,
languages, and (fiesta) traditions are changed (Americanized) or lost because
of globalization and migration (pers. comm. 2010).
In order to administer and adopt novel subjects and phenomena contempo-
rary indigenous and other minority language systems and practices require,
which they can easily obtain, intertranslatability with other languages through
the expansion of its lexicon i. e. development of a technical “subvocabulary”
of innovative concepts, words, and expressions (cf. Ferguson 1968). The con-
struction of a needed translatable indigenous terminology concerns in particular
to the sciences, politics, economics, and law. Translation of the constitution of
Colombia into Nasa Yuwe and Guambiano epitomize a fascinating example of
linguistic revitalization and representation involving indigenous elders, lin-
guists, teachers etc. applying their own linguistic methodology appropriating
Western concepts and constructing neologisms. Indigenous definitions and rec-
onceptionlazations of core and key concepts of the national constitution and
consequently the national state are achieved through the agency of translation
(Rappaport 2005, 93 – 98, 235 – 240).⁷⁹ There is therefore indeed indigenous lin-
guistic self-determination when resources and institutions are accessible. Be-
sides missionary linguist translated scriptures, scholars ought also turn attention

 Cf. Rojas Curieux, Tulio. 1997. La traducción de la Constitución del la República de Colombia
a lenguas indígenas. República de Colombia, Dirección General de Asuntos Indígenas, ed., Del
olvido surgimos para traer nuevas esperanzas – la jurisdicción especial indígena. 229 – 244. Bogó-
ta: Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho/Ministerio del Interior.
Rojas Curieux, Tulio. 1997. Transportar la cosa hablada a otra lengua: La experiencia del la
traducción de la Constitución del República a lenguas indígenas. Felipe Castañeda and Matthias
Vollet (eds.) Conceptiones de la Conquista: Aproximaciones interdisciplinarias. 361– 388. Bogóta:
Ediciones UniAndes.
 (Post)colonialism and missionary-linguistic scriptural translation 177

to multimedia productions⁸⁰of both originals and translations of scientific, polit-

ical, economic and judicial material into indigenous American languages. A fu-
ture comparative analysis of translations of Spanish legal terminology and con-
cepts of Latin American national constitutions into for instance Quechua and
Shuar of Ecuador, into Nahuatl of Mexico and into Guaraní of Paraguay should
therefore definitely be interesting in relation to developing original methodolo-
gies and theories about multilingualism and lingua franca as linguistic-intellec-
tual phenomena (cf. Pharo 2016; 2017).
These symmetrical (anti-missionary linguist) translation procesess can be
categorized as “interculturalism” or as we saw above interculturality, which con-
stitutes the radical opposite to inculturation. The objective of the inculturation is
to transform the autochthonous culture into a novel Christian culture but at the
same time identify its “evangelical legacy” i. e. its implicit Christian message On
the other hand, the concept of interculturalism, as developed in Latin America,
promotes not only multiculturalism tolerance and pluralism but a way for equal-
ity and promoting minority cultural differences according to Johanna Rappaport
(Rappaport 2005, 130). “Whereas interculturalism seeks to appropriate external
elements to strengthen an indigenous core culture, inculturation aims at reveal-
ing and fortifying those elements of that core that are identified as Christian to
strengthen an external belief system” (Rappaport 2005, 214). Consequently, inter-
culturalism signifies “counteracculturation” (Rappaport 2005, 213 – 214).⁸¹
(Post)colonial national governments, institutions, and international organi-
zations have a moral responsibility to provide indigenous peoples and other mi-
nority cultures with linguistic, scriptural, and other literacy resources that will
allow them to make their own choices. Otherwise, their present and future will
continue to be decided and undermined by outside forces aiming to convert tra-
ditions (Sp. “costumbres”). Without this agency, indigenous languages, religions,
philosophies and other cultural traditions will inevitably transform and perish.

 There are many other examples of translations of various texts and media into Indigenous
languages. For example, Mozilla Firefox is translated by Indigenous peoples of different lan-
guages in Mexico. http://www.mozilla-mexico.org/firefox-en-lenguas-indigenas/
 For instance, John D. Early document that the contemporary Maya appropriate Catholic el-
ements in their ritual calendar systems. This, however, do not imply conversion into Catholicism
(Early 2006).
IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral
Philosophy
SIL missionary linguists translate moral-theological concepts in order to transfer
Protestant Christian theology onto indigenous religious systems. These translat-
ed, interconnected key concepts of conversion principally represent the Christian
moral-soteriological system of the New Testament. So translating these concepts
from the New Testament has implications not only for the moral value system of
indigenous peoples but additionally for perceptions of the human being (anthro-
pology), of space (cosmology), and of time (chronology). Consequently, SIL mis-
sionary translations of Christian create a new concept of the human body—one
with a single immortal soul, as opposed to indigenous concepts of several ani-
mistic entities inhabiting each individual. The focus upon the individual
human being goes hand in hand with personal sin, repentance, conversion, con-
fession, and salvation, which contrasts with indigenous religious communality.
Moreover, Protestant missionary linguists endeavor to promote a Christian meta-
physics of transcendent space contrasted with indigenous religious experience
of the natural (geocentric) world. The Christian eschatological concept of linear
time also has the tendency to supplant the indigenous temporal emphasis on cy-
clical time. I will systematically demonstrate that the translation component of
Protestant Christian linguistic moral conversion instigates fundamental changes
to the lives and philosophies of indigenous American peoples.
I have considered the fundamental difference between a missionary and a
nonmissionary religion by considering the metaconcept of conversion in combi-
nation with the concept of repentance as the New Testament is translated into
Nahuatl and Mixtec. I will now make the argument and give linguistic evidence
for the essential difference between soteriologial and nonsoteriological religious
systems, emphasizing the translation of salvation as a key concept related to in-
terconnected Christian moral theological notions—particularly because salvation
is so closely associated with the idea of sin. Finally, translations of Christian
moral principles of conversion are compared with indigenous philosophical cat-
egories of anthropology, space, and time.

The politics of translating a soteriological religion

In the New Testament, the concept of sin (Sp. pecado) is introduced where Christ
is portrayed as the future eschatological personal savior of sins, as the forthcom-
ing birth of Christ was prophesied by an angel of God to Jesus’s father, Joseph.

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-005
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 179

Mary, a virgin, is said to conceive the Messiah immaculately with The Holy Spirit:
“She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people
from their sins” (Mt. 1:21). This passage contains the core of New Testament
Christian moral-soteriological theology, which SIL attempts to transfer through
translation.
As is the case with other concepts of conversion, sin is closely related to the
conception of salvation in Christian moral-soteriological theology. This gives it a
particular meaning quite different from notions in indigenous (religious) lan-
guages. One of the quandaries in not only the translation enterprise of missiol-
ogy but also the anthropology of non-Western languages¹ is whether the concept
of sin can be used outside its original (Christian) religious context. Problematic
translations of moral concepts in nonsoteriological religious systems can be
found both in anthropological scholarships and in missionary scriptural transla-
tions. I advocate that the complex lexical term sin and related Christian theolog-
ical notions from scripture can only be defined in relation with core moral-soter-
iological and metaphysical concepts: salvation and eternal perdition (damnation
or judgment). Protestant Christian moral doctrine of personal soteriological “sin”
radical opposes indigenous moral philosophies of transgression or wrongdoing.
Consequences (divine judgment) for sin accordingly differ in soteriological and
nonsoteriological religions, making translation complicated.

The multiple-reference semantics of “sin”

“Sin” is translated in the SIL Nahuatl Testament as tla[h]tlacolli and in the SIL
Mixtec New Testament as kuachi. Sin and pecado have the same Christian
moral significance in English and Spanish, respectively. But there is a different
non-Christian etymology as the English and Spanish terms originate from two
distinct Latin words. Etymologically, sin in English derives from Old English
synn, “wrongdoing, offense, and misdeed” and is probably related to the Latin
sōns, “guilty, guilty person” (Barnhart 1988, 1008; Ernout and Meillet 1951,
1123). On the other hand, the Spanish pecado originates from the Latin peccō,
“to stumble or make a wrong step” (Ernout and Meillet 1951, 869). This suggests
that sin is a highly complex, multiply referential semantic notion with a variety
of meanings depending upon the religious-linguistic system in question. This is
also one of the most difficult tasks facing SIL’s translation into non-Christian in-
digenous religious vocabulary.

 Andeanists disagree on whether to apply this translated concept (Urton 2009, 822n9).
180 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

The words tlahtlacolli and kuachi were in existence in Nahuatl and Mixtec
languages before the arrival of the European missionary linguists, although
they did not correspond to Christian theological doctrine. American indigenous
religious systems do not contain the idea of individual wrongdoings or transgres-
sions associated with subsequent metaphysical, post-mortem judgment, which
presents the missionary linguist with a dilemma. So why were tlahtlacolli and
kuachi selected to translate sin?
There are many bewildering connotations for the translated concepts, tlaht-
lacolli and kuachi, of sin recorded in the dictionaries of Nahuatl and Mixtec from
both the colonial and postcolonial period. This lexicographic disorder menaces
to create confusion for the reader, who is supposed to exegete the religious mes-
sage according to Protestant theology. It is therefore important to explore the
non-Christian religious or nonreligious (secular) meanings these words could
have held for the Nahua and Mixtec before the missionaries gave them the Chris-
tian theological value of sin.
Earl Brockway and associates translate the lexical word for sin, tlahtlacolli,
in Nahuatl from northern Puebla in their SIL-dictionary with different glosses:
pecado (“sin”), delito (“crime”; “offence”) and culpa (“fault”; “guilt”) (Brockway,
Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 216), whereas the verb quitlahtlacoltiya
is rendered as culpar (“to make fault” or “to blame”) as well as condenar (“to
sentence”; “condemn”) (170). SIL Nahuatl dictionaries from Sierra de Puebla
and from Tetelcingo of Morelos contain identical words and add the entries mal-
dad (“evil”) and descompone (“to decompose” or “to rot”; “to break”; “to mess
up”) (Key and Key 1953, 208; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 231).
The present-day SIL concept of sin is analogous to the one employed by
Catholic missionary linguists in the early colonial period. Louise M. Burkhart
has analyzed the concept as translated into Nahuatl by Catholic missionaries
in the sixteenth century in order to introduce Christian moral concepts (Burkhart
1989).² The Spanish ethnographer-missionaries and missionary linguists certain-
ly translated and used tla[h]tlacolli in ethnographic and doctrinal writings in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but Burkhart has not been able to execute a
systematic investigation of a translation of this notion in the complete Old Testa-
ment or New Testament simply because the Catholic Church and religious orders
prefer to translate only selected excerpts.
The colonial missionary linguist fray Alonso de Molina records tlahtlacolli as
sin (pecado), guilt (culpa), or flaw or defect (defecto) ([1555 and 1571] 1977, 137r),

 Regina Harrison has made a recent analyzis of translations of sin and confession in colonial
Quechua in Peru (Harrison 2014).
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 181

more or less the same glosses as in the entries of SIL dictionaries. The noun tlat-
lacolli derives from the intransitive verb tlatlacoa, which again originates from
the transitive verb itlacoa, “to damage, spoil or harm.” When the nonspecific ob-
ject prefix tla- is attached, the meaning is “to damage things (or something).”
Burkhart maintains, therefore, that tlatlacolli can be literally translated as
“something damaged or corrupted” (Burkhart 1989, 10, 28; Karttunen 1992,
263; Olmos [1547] 1985, 218).
It is fascinating that the Catholic missionary linguists made use of not only
the word tlahtlacolli as a translation for sin in Nahuatl but also the word tlapil-
chihualli, or tlapilchiualiztli. Although sin was translated exclusively as tlahtlacol-
li in the Fransciscan sermons of the sixteenth century analyzed by Susanne
Klaus (Klaus 1999, 196), fray Andrés de Olmos also records various verbs for
sin not only containing the roots for tlahtlacolli and tlapilchihua but also molicie
(“to hurry oneself”), xixitla (“urinate or defecate”) and machihua (“do not do or
make something”) (Olmos [1547] 1985, 101, 235). Molina records tlapilchiua as
“sin” (“pecado”) or “defect or flaw” (“defecto”) with the connotation of “guilt”
or “fault,” as a synonym with tlahtlacoli (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 33r, 37r,
62r, 81v, 132r; Karttunen 1992, 291). It is also recorded in fray Alonso Urbano’s tri-
lingual Spanish-Nahuatl-Otomí dictionary (Urbano [1605] 1990, 328v). ³ The root
word is pilīn(i). ⁴ I analyze the meaning of tlapilchihualli as “make something
wither or deflate⁵, conveying a moral deficency. This concept is, however, un-
known in SIL-translated New Testaments, grammars, and dictionaries, and it
seems not to be employed by the Nahua today (John Sullivan pers. comm. No-
vember 16, 2010).⁶
In the SIL Mixtec dictionary from Yosondúa, kuachi is, like tlahtlacolli, ren-
dered with culpa (“fault”; “guilt”), delito (“crime”; “offense”) and pecado (“sin”)
(K. Farris 2002, 35; Pensinger 1974, 8; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 7; Stark et al. 2005,
23). In San Andrés Yutatio of Tezoatlán, this word also has the meaning

 The Nahua confessed wrongdoings to the deity Tlacolteotl—of evil, perverseness, lust, and de-
bauchery—that she could forgive (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 23). The penitent or wrongdoer
called tlapilchīhualeh, “confesses” his or her “sins,” ītlapilchīhualiz (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982,
I, 24– 25). He or she is said by the soothsayer (tlapouhqui) to overcome (poliuitz) his or her faults
(motlatlacol) and his or her “sins” (motlapilchioal) through “penance” and ritual practice of self-
sacrifice. The “sins” or “penance” (tlapilchioalli) were also offered to Tezcatlipoca (Sahagún
[1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 26). As a worship of Tlacolteotl, confession of faults or penance, ītlapilchīh-
ual was given to the religious specialist at the time of death (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 34).
Cf. Pharo 2016.
 Pilīn(i), to wither, to deflate (Karttunen 1992: 195). Cf. also Brewer and Brewer (1971: 174).
 tla-pil-chihua-lli; “something-wither/deflate-make-ABS.
 Cf. Pharo for an explication of this concept (2016).
182 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

“error” (Ojeda Morales, Torres Benavides, and Williams 2003, 81– 82). But from
Mixtec spoken in Chalcatongo, the (secular) academic linguist Monica Macaulay
records kʷáčí as “cause” and “fault” (Macaulay 1996, 218). Interestingly, she does
not define this concept as sin in the entry. It appears in Diccionario Sahin Sau
(Mixteco de Chalcatongo), which is a collaboration between indigenous and sec-
ular linguistic scholars—where kuachi is defined as “guilt” (culpa), “sin” (peca-
do), “crime” or “offense” (delito) and “fault” (falta) (Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009,
50). In addition, chaa kuachi is rendered as “to blame” (culpar) or “accuse” (lle-
gar acusación), to “slander” or to “malign” (caluminar), be “accused” (ser acusa-
do) or “guilty” (culpado) (3 – 4).
As is in the case with Nahuatl, the Catholic and Protestant missionary lin-
guists use the same word in Mixtec for sin. It was recorded in fray Francisco
de Alvarado’s colonial dictionary as quachi ( [1593] 1962, 163), the many glosses
of which include “guilt” (culpa), “crime” (crimen), “flaw” or “defect” (defecto)
and “fault by guilt” (falta por culpa) (54, 57, 59, 68, 109). The same concept is em-
ployed in the Doctrina by fray Benito Hernandez to render “evil life” (vida mala),
“vice” (vicio), “guilt” (culpa), “falsehood” (falsedad), and “fault” (falta)” (Her-
nández 1568, cxix-cxii; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 154). Fray Antonio de
los Reyes defines quachi as “sin” and “guilt” ([1593] 1962, 129). But quachi also
appears as a metaphor for “disagreement” (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 54).
As with Classical Nahuatl, there is another word translated for sin in the en-
tries of the Mixtec colonial dictionaries. Alvarado and Reyes both record the verb
dzatevui for “to sin” (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 163; Reyes [1593] 1962, 115).⁷ Dzatevui
means “to cause damage,” according to Reyes (141). This verb is also employed in
the Doctrina by Hernandez, where yodzatehui can be translated as to “perish,”
“damage,” “pervert,” and “make rot” (Hernández, 1568, cxix–cxii.; Jansen and
Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 154). This is contrasted with chihi ñuhu (Sp. poner como
Ñuhu), which signifies “to venerate God” (venerar a Dios) (Jansen and Pérez Jimé-
nez 2009a, 215). Dzatevui is, however, not employed in the SIL translation of the
Mixtec New Testament of Yosondúa. But this verb is used among modern Mixtecs
of Chayuco with the implication of “destruction” (Pensinger 1974, 58).
To summarize the rather chaotic lexical condition of translating “sin” into
Nahuatl and Mixtec, both Spanish Catholic missionary linguists from the begin-
ning of the sixteenth century and contemporary Protestant US missionary lin-
guists employ tlahtlacolli and kuachi with the intent of translating sin. But the
colonial Catholic missionary linguists also make the use of other words for
“sin”—tlapilchiualli and and dzatevui in Nahuatl and Mixtec, in that order—

 (Tay) yodzatevui or, in Spanish, el pecador o el que peca (Reyes [1593] 1962, 141).
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 183

which are not rendered in the postcolonial SIL translations of the New Testa-
ment.
A plethora of glosses define tlahtlacolli and kuachi as other than sin, and
these simply represent constructed lexical additions to the indigenous words.
The additive glosses make up the basic linguistic strategy of the missionaries’
theology and politics of conversion. The semantic ambiguity of a translated mul-
tireference concept is, however, a serious problem for a “correct” theological ex-
egesis. As opposed to the more denotative notions of repentance, conversion,
and salvation, sin is particularly complicated to analyze philologically because
of the wide variety of secular and religious semantic connotations. The recorded
translated term for sin in the Greek New Testament is hamartanō, “to commit a
wrong, to sin in the sense ‘transgress’ against divinity, custom, or law. In general
sense ‘miss the mark, err, do wrong’” (BDAG 2000, 49 – 50). Hamartema claims
meanings ranging from “involuntary mistake to “serious moral default, trans-
gression” (50), whereas hamartolos “pertains to behavior or activity that does
not measure up to standard moral or cultic expectations; wrongdoing; irreli-
gious; sinners of gentile descent” (51– 52). In the early nineteenth century,
Cyrus Byington of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
made a fascinating but completely failed effort to equate hamartia, with the lit-
eral meaning of “to miss the mark,” with aiashachi/aiyoshoba from Choctaw of
North America. A contemporary Choctaw native speaker gave, however, “the pri-
mary meaning of yoshoba as wandering in the wilderness, as wild animals does
(the connection to nashoba, wolf, indicates the primacy of this meaning)” (Kid-
well, Noley, and Tinker 2001, 101). Consequently, a use of this word in scriptural
translation would not convey to the Choctaw a sense of human moral wrongdo-
ing or transgression.
The notion of sin translated into Nahuatl (as tlahtlacoli) and Mixtec (as kua-
chi) only in a limited sense corresponds to the corresponding entry in the Greek
New Testament lexicon. We have seen the many philologically anarchic glosses
for sin in Nahuatl and Mixtec employed by the missionary lexicographers. This
makes it quite complicated for the receiver, unaided and uninitiated in Protestant
theology, to exegete SIL translations of the New Testament in his or her lan-
guage. Nahuatl tlahtlacolli and Mixtec kuachi are employed by SIL translators
to express not only sin but also “debt” (Gr. opheilēma), as when Christ gives
his Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 6:12: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive
our debtors.” Consequently, SIL missionary linguists do not make a theological
distinction between sin and debt when translating scripture into these indige-
nous languages.
Nextlahualli or nextlahualiztli is a Nahuatl term that has been translated as
“debt” or “debt-payment”. Sahagún renders it, however, as “sacrifice”. Nextla-
184 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

huall is not correctly translated. There are other Nahuatl terms for ‘“debt”, al-
though not with religious connotations according to Ulrich Köhler (Köhler
2001).⁸ Nextlahualli is associated with the verb nextlahualoya, which derives
from the verb ixtlahua, “to restore or pay back”. ⁹ This verb connotes moral ob-
ligation and behavior and reflects the belief that the creator deities had sacri-
ficed themselves in order to create the universe and humanity. The Nahua there-
fore celebrated reciprocal rituals but where they had not an (asymmetrical)
moral inferior relation – e. g. debt payment for (original) sin – like Christians
have with the Christian god. The Nahua simply felt a responsibility to repay
the gods in (symmetrical) retroactive “payment” for the gift from the gods in
the form of a loan with ritual-symbolic sacrifice (Köhler 2001, 125 – 127), which
denote renewal of the natural world and time (cf. Pharo 2013). Nextlahualli epit-
omize the moral obligation of the preparatory fasting (periods of) four days per-
formed in rituals by Nahua religious specialists (Carrasco 2005, 4185).¹⁰ These re-
ciprocal exchanges were the responsibilities of collective groups where not a
Christian doctrine of (original) sin was to be recompensed by the individual.
Consequently, there is no theological concept of individual debt to morally supe-
rior deities in Nahua thought. In its place, a framework of the apposite relation
between human beings and Nahua deities can be categorized by the Nahuatl no-
tion tlamacehua according to Miguel León-Portilla. This term has the meaning of,
as we have seen, “to do penance” but also “to deserve or be worthy of some-
thing”.¹¹ León-Portilla advocate that the Nahua deities

,… through their own penance and sacrifice, deserved – brought into existence – human
beings. The gods did this because they were in need of someone who would worship
them, someone who would provide them, the gods with sustenance so that they could con-
tinue to foster life on earth. They could not, however, do this without human cooperation.
There was to be a reciprocal obligation between the gods and humanity. People also had to
perform tlamacehualiztli (“penance, the act of deserving through sacrifice” ….., If the gods
“for us did penance” (topan otlamaceuhqueh), we ought to follow their example, to deserve
and be worthy of our own being on earth through the offering … (León-Portilla 1993, 43 –
44).

 Cf. “debt” Online Nahuatl Dictionary, Stephanie Wood, editor. The Wired Humanities Projects
http://whp.uoregon.edu/dictionaries/nahuatl/index.lasso
 Ixtlaua, pagar lo que se deue (Molina 1571, 48v); (I)XTLĀHU(I) to be restored or satisfied, to
prosper (Karttunen 1992; 121).
 Cf. López Austin’s discussion of the term in relation to sacrifices offered in exchange for
mundane benefits (López Austin, 1988, 381 f).
 Tlamaceualiztli, penitencia, o merecimiento, o el acto de dar sacomano (Molina 1571, 125v);
maceua, conseguir, o merecerlo deseado o hacer penitencia (Molina 1571, 50rv);
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 185

This ethical principle of reciprocity has theological implications, which exhibit

the fundamental difference between Christianity and indigenous religious mor-
ality. In the ethical system of the latter, a lack of obligatory debt to a deity or dei-
ties, for collective or individual sin, signifies that there was no prerequisite for
salvation. It is reason to assume that equivalent moral principles to tlamacehua
are to be found in other indigenous American religious systems.
Moreover, there is no particular Nahuatl word for the Christian word guilt
(Sp. culpa) according to Burkhart. The colonial Catholic missionary linguists em-
ployed the same word, tlahtlacolli, that they used to translate sin. “Mea culpa”
was, for example, translated as notlatlacol, literally expressed as “my damage.”
Hence there is no distinct moral cause-and-effect relation in Christian doctrinal
notions translated into Nahuatl (Burkhart 1989, 32– 33). SIL missionary linguists
attempt to translate guilt (or culpa) with the Nahuatl word ipampa in Mt. 26:28.
In this passage Christ institutes the eventual sacrament of the Eucharist by say-
ing, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.” Transgression against the divine order consitutes a moral sin,
with guilt as its outcome. A distinction between sin and guiltis, however, not
made in Mt. 26:28 of the Greek, English or Spanish text.¹² But in the Nahuatl
SIL translation, this is rendered as intlahtlacol tleca impampa nimiquis and in-
tended to be understood as “because for your sin and your guilt I will die.”
Guilt relates here to impampa, and sin to tlahtlacol. But impampa does not
refer to guilt in Nahuatl. It has the original meaning of causation—as “because
of something, for some reason” (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 41v; Karttunen
1992, 107, 186). Besides “guilt” (por culpa de), the definition “instead of” (en
lugar de) appears in the SIL dictionary (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés 2000, 57). This is one of several lexical examples where missionary lin-
guists give Christian theological significance to secular words from indigenous
languages.¹³ Therefore, a literal translation(s) of the passage from Mt. 26:28
would be “because of your something damaged and instead of/for that reason
I will die.”
From this we can make the following exciting deductions: The concepts
translated as sin—Nahuatl tlahtlacoli and Mixtec kuachi—contain a wide range
of meanings falling beyond Christian moral and ethics. It is the missionary lin-
guists who impose the new religious meaning upon the original concepts taken

 The SIL Mixtec translation of the passage in Mt. 26:28 is: chi ja quenchaa cuachi i naa i, “be-
cause it now takes away sin from themselves.”
 This also applies to the word for “fault” (faltar) or polihui. This term has various meanings:
desaparecer (“disappear”); perder (“loose”); faltar (“lack”); morir (“die”) (Brockway, Hershey de
Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 116).
186 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

from the target languages in order to Christianize indigenous philosophy. Herein

lies the politics, and the power, of manipulating language and thereby construct-
ing a new cognitive system translating scripture. Moreover, sin, guilt, fault, debt,
and so forth are distinguished notions in Christian theology, even though they
are not rendered in this manner in the New Testament translated into Mixtec
and Nahuatl. Sin refers to a confirmation of truth i. e. admitting guilt. It is there-
fore to be guilty when the committed crime is established (Bjorvand and Linde-
man 2007, 1099 – 1100). Methodologically, it is instructive to compare non-mis-
siological religions – also outside the Americas. In this regard, the British
anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard has observed that a comparative linguis-
tic-religious significance is lacking for these words in the Nuer language of
southern Sudan because there is no distinction between “sin” and “fault”
(Evans-Pritchard 1967, 192). This suggests that an equivalent concept does not
exist in that indigenous religious system. Furthermore, the fact that the word
sin represents a highly connotative concept with many possible meanings may
create hermeneutic chaos when the target reader, not initiated into Christian the-
ology or enjoying the privilege of pastoral guidance, exegetes Bible passages.
Sin, crime, and offense could very well refer to moral wrongdoing or transgres-
sion in a theological context, but guilt conveys a quite different meaning—one
like shame, regret, or remorse. Sin is the accomplishment of the offence and
transgression whereas guilt, shame, regret, and remorse constitute the emotion
of the individual after conducting the misdeed. There is accordingly an unambig-
uous semantic discrepancy between sin “as the wrong act itself, the guilt which
thereafter rests upon the sinner, and the consequences of the sin which fall
sometimes on the sinner and usually on the innocent” (Burke 1961, 227– 28).
These Christian doctrinal principles do not correspond well with indigenous phi-
losophy. For instance, for the Navajo virtue is knowledge, since the moral code of
misdeeds does not constitute wilful acts but is the result of not having ethical
knowledge. Consequently, Navajo morality has no concept of sin as it is under-
stood in Western Christian theology. Wrongdoings are mistakes but not crimes,
guilt, or sins (Ladd 1957, 272). It is therefore impossible to translate the concept
of sin without simultaneously making a cognitive transformation—a religious
conversion—in the target culture.
I have so far outlined the lexical difficulties for the missionary linguists try-
ing to convey the Christian concept of sin by translating the multiple reference
words tlahtlacolli in Nahuatl and kuachi in Mixtec. But did these terms have orig-
inal, non-Christian/non-European religious meaning? In other words, did these
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 187

notions belong to the indigenous religious domain before the Spanish invasion?
¹⁴
In the colloquial secular and religious form of European languages, sin has
both religious and nonreligious connotations: as a serious or regrettable fault, a
moral or lawful wrongdoing, offense, transgression, or omission. No conclusive
evidence for an exclusive either religious or nonreligious domain for tlahtlacolli
and kuachi have been identified. The entries of the SIL dictionaries record sen-
tences with Christian and nonreligious usage of tlahtlacolli and kuachi. The
translations of these words change due to proper framework. For instance, a
Christian meaning of tlahtlacolli is given in the sentence “In aquin teixtlasa in
Dios quichihuas hueyi tlahtlacoli,” or “he or she who rejects God commits a
great sin” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 216). In Mixtec
from Chayuco we see that “proudness is sin against God” (tatu zacahnu yo sii,
yo cuatyi cu si nuu Ndyoo) (Pensinger 1974, 110). In these examples, we know
the religious content of tlahtlacolli and kuachi because they are associated
with and refer to (the Christian) God. On the other hand, a nonreligious usage
of tlahtlacolli is inherent in the sentence neh notlahtlacol, tleca onicahuilic ma
yau, or “the guilt is mine because I gave you permission to go” (Brockway, Her-
shey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 216), and in the case of Mixtec kuachi, we
have Jasu kuachi ri kuu ja ni kani tat ra chii ra, or “it is not my fault that you beat
your father” (K. Farris 2002, 35). The missionary linguists translate tlahtlacolli
and kuachi with “guilt” or “fault” (culpa), indicating no apparent religious impli-
cation, but an ambiguous, both religious and nonreligious sense is expressed in
Nahuatl—Inon telpocatl tequin tlahtlacolana tleca san tlen quichihuas (“this child

 Colonial missionary linguists used both keban and çibil or zipil for “sin” in Yucatec Maya.
Keban is associated with Christian doctrine, whereas çibil relate to all other offenses (Hanks
2010, 137, 196 – 202, 265). Could this also be the case with the Nahuatl: tlatlacolli and tlapilchi-
hualiztli? In both the Spanish-Nahuatl section of Molina’s dictionary ([1555 and 1571] 1977,
94v) and Urbano ([1605] 1990, 328v), only tlatlacollli is combined in the entries with Christian
theological concepts: “original sin” (pecado origina), “mortal sin” (pecado mortal), “great sin”
(pecado grande), “venial sin” (pecado venal), “sin that can purified through sacrifice” (pecado
que se purga por sacrificio). The Quechua dictionary of Gonzalez Holguín (1608), anonymous
Quechua dictionary of 1586, and the Aymara dictionary of Bertonio (1612) translate sin, business,
occupation or work, contract, dispute, and debate with hucha and cama. As a negative word,
hucha became the missionary linguists’ preferred term for sin (Harrison 1992, 12– 15; 1993,
172– 74; 1995a, 111– 14; Taylor 1987, 30; Salomon 1991 et al., 16; Zuidema 1982, 425 – 29). No
every colonial dictionary in Quechua registers both the lextemes cama and hucha for sin,
only hucha (Harrison 2014, 95). Durston and Urton argue that cama is an antonymic concept
to “sin” or hucha (Durston 2007, 215, 238; Urton 2009, 816, 821– 23). Hucha and cama as under-
stood by Andean moral philosophy and later colonial Catholic doctrine has been recently ana-
lyzed by Harrison (Harrison 2014, 95 – 114; 128). Cf. also Pharo (2016) for discussion.
188 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

sin very much because he does what he wants”) (Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 216)—as well as in Mixtec: Ni sa’a ra ɨɨn kuachi ka’nu
xaan, chi ni ja’ni ra ɨɨn yɨvɨ, “you committed a very serious crime in killing this
individual” (K. Farris 2002, 35).
Entries in nonmissionary dictionaries in Nahuatl and Mixtec demonstrate
that tlahtlacolli and kuachi carry both religious and nonreligious reference. Vo-
cabulario náhuatl de Xalitla, Guerrero (1979) records tlatlacōhli as “sin” and “of-
fence” (Ramírez de Alejandro and Dakin 1979). In modern Huastecas Nahuatl,
however, tlahtlacolli is “fault” and not related to the Christian concept of sin
(John Sullivan, pers. comm., November 16, 2010). In the extensive online diction-
ary of Nahuatl in Ameyaltepec and San Agustín Oapan of Guerrero by Jonathan
D. Amith,¹⁵ tlatlako:hli (Am)/tlátlakó:hli (Oa)¹⁶ is translated as the expected “sin”
and “fault” but also by the more surprising gloss “Holy Week.” That tlatlako:hli/
tlátlakó:hli refers to the semana santa indicates that the term has a relation to
Christian theology. But why has tlatlako:hli/tlátlakó:hli received this semantic
value? Amith assumes that tlatlako:hli derives from the fact that Christ died
for “our sins” on the cross” (Jonathan Amith, pers. comm., October 6, 2009).
According to Amith, a nonreligious sense of tlahtlacolli is suggested in San
Agustín Oapan by the verb tlátlakó:ltia, which is rendered as “to blame; to ac-
cuse (unfairly, of something didn’t do or didn’t intend to do); to charge or entrust
with a (not specified) task; to give (it, an unspecified task or similar action) a
good try.” Tlatlako:lkwi:lia refers to the action of mocking someone who is at-
tempting to do something that he can’t do well, such as dancing, painting, or
other activities involving skill, whereas kitlakowa (Am)/ kítlakówa (Oa) means
“to damage or ruin, to take apart or dismantle (something put together like a ma-
chine, house, etc.), to break (in the sense of ‘to make useless’ such as a machine
or something that ‘works’).” Conversely, kitlatlako:lkwi:lia (Am)/kitlátlako:lkwí:
lia (Oa) suggests Christian doctrine: “to take the sin of (e. g., if one murders
someone who has himself murdered another, then the first person will suffer
the sin in Hell while the other will be absolved.” We see the same Christian over-
tone in the sentence “Deke so:lo timoyo:lkwi:ti:s, hkó:n, hkó:n xtitlatlako:leh. / If
you just confess, that way, you aren’t a sinner.”¹⁷
After five hundred years of missionizing in the Americas, Christian theology
has unignorably impacted indigenous peoples to various degrees. Nevertheless,
how much of Christian doctrine is appropriated depends upon personal factors

 “Home,” Nahuatl Learning Environment, http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/.

 Am: Ameyaltepec; Oa: San Agustín Oapan.
 “Home,” Nahuatl Learning Environment, http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/.
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 189

as well as particular indigenous communities—among which there is obviously

great variation, which makes generalizations largely impossible. In some cases
there is no strong Christian influence, as for instance in the Mixtec village San-
tiago Nuyoo, where kuachi refers to “sin; fault; transgression” (Monaghan 1995,
103). “Complain” can be directly translated as ka’a kuachi, “speak fault,” or
say something wrong as, for instance, one might do with respect to the Mixtec
rain deities, ñu ‘un savi (Monaghan 1995, 114n13). Offenses against the earth dei-
ties, nu ñu ‘un (“the face of the Earth” or “the place of Earth”), are considered
kuachi (Monaghan 1995, 97, 99, 103 – 4). Consequently, the gloss sin is superfluous
in these translations where offence, misdeed, crime, or transgression would better
convey indigenous religious meaning. In the extensive Diccionario del Idioma
Mixteco: Tutu Tu’un Ñuu Savi (Caballero Morales 2008) produced by Mixtec lin-
guists not affiliated with SIL, kuati is translated not as sin at all but with reli-
giously neutral and secular notions like fault and crime (Caballero Morales
2008, 191, 201). This is also the case in the secular dictionary from Chalcatongo,
where this word is only given a causative function (Macaulay 1996, 218).
Tlahtlacolli and kuachi are not neologisms but originally did not have, and in
some communities still do not have, the meaning “sin” as understood in Chris-
tian theology. One of the principal linguistic evangelizing strategies of both the
colonial Catholic and postcolonial Protestant missionary linguists is taking a
concept from an indigenous language and then giving it a novel or additional
lexical meaning, thereby transforming the existing language of the people
they aim to convert. The colonial Doctrina by Hernandez represents a quite clever
strategy of literacy in this regard, as he saw the need to explain (exegete) the
concept of sin (cuachi) through loanwords and various metaphors in Mixtec.
In so doing, Hernandez gave the word cuachi a meaning new to the people
who heard or read his book (Terraciano 2001, 305 – 6).
We can compare this linguistic theology with a very relevant example from
the Andes region of South America. Several Andeanists maintain that the Span-
ish colonial missionaries used the Quechua term hucha ¹⁸ to translate sin for the
conversion of the Inka.¹⁹ As in other parts of the Americas, Spanish missionary
linguists translated catechisms, doctrinas, and sermons into Quechua—and to a
lesser degree, Aymara—in the Andean region (Durston 2007, 67– 75, 105 – 15;

 Hucha is not used as translation for sin in various SIL Quechua New Testaments.
 The Inka ruled the largest known empire, C. 1430AD – 1532, in the Americas before the Euro-
pean invasion. They spoke a dialect of Quechua (Aymara was also important language of the
empire), which became a lingua franca within the multicultural and multilingual empire and
after the Spanish conquest (early colonial period).
190 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

Urton 2009, 817– 18).²⁰ Hucha came to be the favored term for the missionaries
(Harrison 1992, 13 – 14; 2002, 270), who use it to mean “sin” (pecado), “guilt,”
and “fault” (culpa) in the missionary dictionaries (Urton 2009, 816, 818 – 23).
But hucha originally referred to “debt” or “obligation” concerning the reciprocity
between social groups or individuals and a huaca (an Andean divinity manifest-
ed by various objects in the natural world) where a ritual transgression had mun-
dane consequences of misfortune. This concept of sin lacks the Christian concept
of an exclusive individual transgression or wrongdoing related to a metaphysical
(post mortem) consequence, eschatological judgment. Contemporaneous Span-
ish observers claimed that indigenous people of the Andes “confessed” their
hucha to religious specialists (“confessors”) who ordered various forms of “pen-
ance.” Alan Durston claims, however, that these were in fact divination rituals
and that there was no Andean concept of sin where an individual voluntary ac-
tion polluted the soul and had to be purified (Durston 2007, 211). Moreover, the
Andean notion of hucha referred to social groups and not individuals, as is indi-
cated by the employment of the same confessional khipu by various people (Dur-
ston 2007, 287). Originally (e. g., in pre-Hispanic/pre-Christian times), hucha was
an Andean religious concept given a new religious (Christian) meaning by the
missionaries. May we find similar examples of “a lexical-religious acquisition”
in the cases of the Nahua tlahtlacolli and of the Mixtec cuachi (kuachi)?
Burkhart’s hypothesis about the non-Christian religious domain of tlahtla-
colli is that it constitutes a “damage” of the “cosmic order”. In Nahua religion
there was a constant fear that the world would fall into chaos, from a state of
structure into antistructure, which is quite different from the Christian theologi-
cal concept of sin as associated with the dualism of good versus evil (Burkhart
1989, 34– 39).²¹ If the hypothesis of Burkhart is correct, tlahtlacolli is one of the
core concepts in the Nahua religious and moral philosophical domain, but is it
possible to extrapolate from the available historical sources such a meaning for
the concept of tlahtlacolli in the religious language of the Nahua? Burkhart also
maintains that tlahtlacolli refer to wrong deeds, faults, mistakes, or anything
wrong—basically, it is a crime. She provides examples of this usage of tlahtlacolli
in nonreligious Nahuatl vocabulary where tlahtlacolli connotes a broad range of
meanings falling beyond Christian moral philosophy. It has indeed many differ-
ent connotations in The Florentine Codex and in Molina’s dictionary, which refers
to many types of intentional and unintentional misdeeds, offences, damages, or

 SIL has translated the New Testament into various dialects of Aymara and Quechua.
 Cf. K. Th. Preuss Die Sünde in der Mexikanischen Religion (1903) for an analysis of the rep-
resentation of the concept of sin in Nahuatl manuscripts.
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 191

errors like sexual (excesses), sickness,²² theft, and intoxication according to Bur-
khart’s study. Slaves were, for instance, considered to be damaged, tlatlacoliztli
(Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 78r, 109r; López Austin 1980, 1:463).
Moreover, tlahtlacolli is used to characterize cultural defects of non-Nahua
groups; things being off balance, destroyed, dislocated or displaced; and unful-
filled duties (Burkhart 1989, 28 – 29). Furthermore, even good (Nahuatl: cualli)
day-signs from the divinatory 260-day calendar could be corrupted, itlacauhtiuh
(Burkhart 1989, 29), as stated in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982,
IV, 9).²³ These examples—which Burkhart (1989, 29) employs to argue that the
tlahtlacolli concept relates to damage or violations of the sacred order as effect,
not as cause, in the Nahua moral system, disrupting not only the individual
being but also society and world order.²⁴ It is good reason to assume that tlaht-

 Sexual intercourse was associated with illness and death (celicayotl itzmolincayotl) among
the Nahua: “A pregnant woman was called ococox, itlacahui, meaning ‘to have fallen ill,’ ‘to
have been damaged.’ Likewise, according to Molina’s dictionary, the terms itlacauhqui, itlacahui,
and itlacahuiztli mean, in that order, ‘a damaged or corrupted thing, a newly pregnant woman,
or a damaged or fertilized egg’; ‘to corrupt, damage or ruin something… or fertilize the egg’; and
last, ‘corruption or a woman’s pregnancy’” (López Austin 1997, 205; referring to a 1944 edition of
Molina).
 Burkhart asserts that damaging a ritual or breaking a fast constituted a sin for the Nahua
(Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 11– 12), which caused divine sanctions by the powerful deity Tez-
catlipoca (Aguirre Beltrán 1963, 38 – 43; Burkhart 1989, [1565] 1950 – 1982, 31). But the word tlaht-
lacolli is not employed as a religious concept in the passage from the Florentine Codex cited for
this transgression.
 It is said that tlahtlacoāni, evildoers, were kept in jail, which consisted of a wooden house
(quauhcalli) (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VIII, 44). Tlatlacole is something characterised to be
bad: “he goes joining that which is bad (tlatlacole), the corner, the darkness, the secret road,
He goes to seek, to find, that which is bad (tlatlacole)” ((Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, XI , 268).
In describing the deities whom the Nahua worshipped Tezcatzoncatl (belonging to Centzonto-
tochti, “The Four Hundred Rabbits”) that “he was the wine in times past considered full of
sin (tlatlacolli)” because he killed people (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, 1, 51). An admonisment
of dignitary where “…he censured the evils (tlatlacolli), which the ruler first mentioned” (Saha-
gún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 79). The rhetoric and moral philosophy, tlatlacolli refer to fault defined
as adultery and theft (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 259). In the trial “And in order that the
ruler might verify one’s accusations and guilt (tetlatlacol)”…. (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VIII,
54). A snake called petzcoatl is said not to dangerous (ano tle itlatlacol) (Sahagún [1565]
1950 – 1982, XI, 86). The errors (ītlahtlacōl) of a city, altepetl (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI,
58). On the day sign of the 260-day calendar, One Dog (Ce Itzcujntli), according to a court of jus-
tice, peoples were said to take a bath in Chapultepec “to lay aside their crimes (in-tlatlacol)” (Sa-
hagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, IV, 91). People born under the day-sign Nine Deer (Chicunavi Macatl)
was said to be bad, “who brought others into sin (tlahtlacōlnāmictia)” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 –
1982, IV, 51). Likewise people born under the day-sign One Rabbit (Ce Tochtli) “ they had incur-
red sin (motlahtlacōlnāmictiah)” and commited “great sin (huetlatlacolli)” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 –
192 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

lacolli relates to transgressions or misdeeds toward deities or not fulfilling reli-

gious obligations – i. e. the sacred order. Crime and misdeeds for the present-
day Nahua constitute indeed an imbalance for the interrelated sociopolitical
and religious (moral) order (John Sullivan pers. comm., November 16, 2010).
The religious and the nonreligious domains were (and are not) easily sepa-
rable in indigenous philosophies, as they have become in Europe and the United
States after the Enlightenment and beginning of secularism. Since it was clearly
a moral concept of the non-Christian Nahual philosophical domain (cf. Pharo
2016), the missionary linguists could have selected tlahuelliloc, tlaueliloc, “per-
verse”, “bad”²⁵ where tlahueliloca categorize “someone malicious, a villain or
rogue” (Karttunen 1992: 268 – 269] as a concept for sin and sinner respectively
in the early colonial period. Moreover, the Nahuatl concept tlazolli may seem
to be an appropriate non-Christian Nahuatl equivalent word for sin. The moral
system of the Nahua comprises the dichotomy between purity (chipahua) and
pollution or filth (tlazolli),²⁶ where the latter is associated with damage, chaos,
and antistructure—in other words, it corresponds to tlahtlacolli according to Bur-
khart (1989, 87– 91). Tlazolli refers to sexual transgression and is associated with
the deities Tlazoteotl (“filth deity”) and Tezcatlilpoca (Pettazzoni 1929, 1931;
López Austin 1980 1:250; Burkhart 1989, 91– 93).²⁷

1982, VII, 24). A merchant does something really wrong (otlatlaco/itlatlacaio) i. e. a crime could
be severely punished with death penalty (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VIV, 23). The bad feather-
worker and lapidary harms (tlatlacoa) and damages (tlahitlacoa) his feathers (Sahagún [1565]
1950 – 1982, X, 25 – 26). Sahagún outline indigenous deities in an appendix admonishing against
“idolatry” (tlateutoquiliztli) and “those who often call upon His holy name commit a sin (tlatla-
coa)” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 60). “When a fault had been committed (otlatlaco)” in the
house (calmecac) of the religious specialists it had severe consequences for the transgressor (Sa-
hagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VII, 17). An illicit relation of a woman is described as “having erred”
(otlatlaco) (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, II, 103). Pulque may corrupt (quihtlacoa) a human
being (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 69). “Singers did something amiss (quihtlacoa)” (Sahagún
[1565] 1950 – 1982, VIII, 56). “if some had done wrong (quihtlacoah) in battle” (Sahagún [1565]
1950 – 1982, VIII, 53). Tezcatlipoca was angry when someone “had injured (quitlacoaia) the fast-
ing” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 12). People “did not err (quihtlacoa)” against Quetzalcōātl
(Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, X, 169). Sexual veneral diseases (in āquin mihtlacoa, “one who has a
venereal disease) or exesses are characterised as tlatlacoa (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, XI, 154;
183; 174). In these examples from the Florentine Codex, “crime” or “transgression” would be
more appropriate translations than the Christian moral theological concept of “sin” or “guilt”.
 tlaueliloc. maluado, o vellaco (Molina 1977 [1571]: 144r); tlahuelli, rage, fury, indignation
(Karttunen 1992: 269).
 For the etymology of tlazolli, see Burkhart (1989, 87– 89).
 The term for goldin Nahuatl is teocuitatl (“divine extrement”). Ordure and filth were Aztec
symbols for gold, the sun, urine, and “sin” (Lipp 1998, 76 – 77; Preuss 1903, 257; 1906, 355 – 56).
 The multiple-reference semantics of “sin” 193

Tlazoteotl was associated with the five Cihuateteo earth deities whose pur-
pose was “adultery” (tetlaximalitzli) according to Sahagún’s Primereos Memori-
ales (Burkhart 1989, 92). The concept for sin is in the Catholic colonial pictori-
al-logographic catechism Gante I, by fray Pedro de Gante (1490 – 1572),
illustrated as representing the graphic concept tlazolli, “filth” (Boone 2011,
207– 8; Resines 2007) and not the abstract notion tlahtlacolli, as used in alpha-
betic script (Pharo 2016). In his grammar (Arte) Horacio Carochi provide gram-
matical examples of Nahuatl metaphors, connoted with filth, for “sin”. The
verb potōni, “to smell bad”; “stink” form the possessive pluperfect “nopotōnca,
my stench, and metaphorically my sins”. “Ìyāc, something foul smelling… Meta-
phorically our sins are called tìyāca, our stench; tocatzāhuaca, our filth, from the
adjective catzāhuac, something dirty;…. Topalānca, our rottenness, form the verb
palāni, to rot” (Carochi [1645: 48v-49v] 2001: 192– 194). Moreover, Carochi com-
bines “filth” with “sinner”: “īcatzāhuaca or īcatzāhuacāyo in tlàtlacoāni, the fil-
thiness of the sinner” (Carochi [1645: 49v-50] 2001: 194– 195). Interestingly in the
same section, although without making any theological exegesis, he indirectly
oppose these lexemes with concepts for “something clean” or “pure”, chipāhua-
cāyōtl and qualnēci, “beauty” or “to have good appearance” referring to Virgin
Mary: “Īchipāhuacāyōtzin īqualnēzcāyōtzin in ilhuicac cihuāpilli, the purity and
beauty of the Queen of heaven” (Carochi [1645: 49v-50] 2001: 194– 195). The ques-
tion is whether there was a Nahuatl dichotomy of filth/purity in Nahua moral
philosophy or whether this is a Catholic construction.
Robert J. Priest has identified a rich vocabulary practiced for “moral evil” in
the language of the Aguaruna-Jívaro from Peru (Priest 1997, 30 – 31). He empha-
sizes filth, as Burkhart does for the Nahua (1989) and as Paul Ricoeur does in The
Symbolism of Evil (1967), where it is a transcultural symbolic concept for moral
evil (Priest 1997, 33). Guilt after defilement can be removed through a purification
ritual, whereas guilt as debt can be removed through offering gifts (Priest 1997,
33). Among the Nahua, sex and filth was associated with “sin” via the metaphor
in teuhtli, in tlazolli—“the dirt, the trash,” according to López Austin (1997, 205).
But Pettazzoni maintains that the sexual nature of Tlazoteotl is intimately asso-
ciated with motherhood as represented in the Nahua manuscripts Codex Borbo-
nicus (p. 13), Codex Vaticanus B (p. 41, 74) and Codex Borgia (p. 16) (Pettazzoni
1931, 192– 93). Tlazoteotl was at the same time connected to fertility and vegeta-
tion, which is symbolically related to sexuality (198). This beneficial function of
Tlazoteotl suggests that tlazolli did not have an exclusively evil or antistructural
meaning corresponding to sin. Moreover, it is in this circumstance a very impor-
tant fact that the Christian moral dualism with a radical dichotomy between
“good” and “evil” does not exist in indigenous philosophical systems where
there is a complimentary relation between these two notions (vid infra).
194 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

Tlazoteotl was also a Huastec, Olmec, and Mixtec (of the Atlantic coast,
south of the state Veracruz, Mexcio) goddess to whom people “confessed” (Saha-
gún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 7). The Mixtec did not emphasise sexual sins but in-
stead illness and crime (Pettazzoni 1931, 225, 229 – 30). Cuachi was quite often
modified by other words to convey a different meaning according to context.
This Mixtec notion is applied in criminal records from the colonial period.
“Crime” probably represents, therefore, the fundamental (original) pre-Christi-
an/pre-European meaning of kuachi and dzatevui. Terraciano has observed
that this notion is applied in criminal records from the colonial period. Pedro
de Caravantes from the pueblo Yanhuitlan of the Mixteca Alta applied the
word cuachi to refer to his criminal act of murder according to a note from
1684. In addition, he employed cuachi “in reference to his anima (“soul”) and
God. Thus, the instigator of the murder conveyed a Christian concept by extend-
ing the semantic range of a native-language word in conjunction with a basic
loanword (anima)” (Terraciano 2001, 305).
Priest comments that the ancient Hebrews and Greeks had many different
biblical words (about twenty) translated as the English term sin. None of these
concepts was, however, originally applied with a religious meaning as “a term
speaking of moral failure in relationship to God,” a valence that they were all
given later (Priest 1997, 29 – 30). Likewise, missionary linguists working among
indigenous people in the Americas take words from both the religious domain
(Quechua) and the nonreligious domain (Nahuatl and Mixtec) in order to give
them the Christian theological moral value of sin. To continue the analysis of
translating Christian moral concepts of conversion, I now shift to considering
how the missionary linguists impose their key concept, salvation, upon indige-
nous American (religious) languages and cognitive systems.

The concept of salvation translated into nonsoteriological

religion
Missionary linguists seek to obtain a correspondence between European Christi-
an and indigenous words, although their intention is to transfer their own theo-
logical cognitive categories. I argue that this is a particularly difficult linguistic
enterprise in the translation of the Christian concept of salvation.
A variety of indigenous words were and are used by the colonial and post-
colonial missionary linguists in order to translate the Christian theological
idea of salvation. These terms carry the sense of escape and liberation in both
Nahuatl and Mixtec. There are, however, also other words in Nahuatl and Mixtec
that have these connotations, which exhibits not only the random selection in-
 The concept of salvation translated into nonsoteriological religion 195

herent in the missionary linguists’ method but also identifies a source of lexical
confusion for members of the target cultures. But most importantly, indigenous
notions did not have religious implications before the advent of Christianity in
the Americas simply because indigenous philosophies did not contain the
same theological doctrine. In some indigenous languages, missionary linguists
have not been able to identify a noun corresponding to salvation and instead
have had to employ a verb for save in translating Bible passages. Moreover, it
is quite revealing that SIL dictionaries refer to a variety of examples of colloquial
practices involving indigenous words to which the missionaries have given the
constructed meaning of salvation but that do not display any such religious
tenet. It is interesting that the Christian concept of salvation does not represent
any significant value in the belief, symbol, and religious practice systems of
quite a few indigenous peoples, many of whom attend (Catholic) church and par-
ticipate in Christian services. Neither the fundamental Christian doctrine of sal-
vation nor the idea of Jesus Christ as a personal savior (vid infra) has any reli-
gious importance in indigenous contexts. So how have the missionary
linguists translated salvation into Nahuatl and Mixtec?
In the SIL Nahuatl New Testament, salvation (Sp. salvación) is rendered with
the word temaquixtilistli (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 77).
Colonial Catholic missionary linguists also applied this lexeme (Molina [1555 and
1571] 1977, 97r). Terms identical to temaquixtilistli exist in the Nahuatl dialects
from Sierra de Puebla and from Tetelcingo, Morelos (Key and Key 1953, 220;
Brewer and Brewer 1971, 167, 191), where SIL dictionaries have given the word
the connotation of “to be liberated.” This rendering suggests a non-Christian
contex and, as one would expect, a nonreligious semantic connotation.
There are two possible ways to etymologize the polysynthetic concept tema-
quixtilistli in Nahuatl. Maquisa conveys the meaning “escape” or “liberate” so
that temaquixtilistli can be translated as to “escape or be liberated from some-
thing dangerous or harmful” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés
2000, 290; Karttunen 1992, 136 – 37). But temaquixtilistli can also have another
connotation because ma(i)-tl has the meaning of “dependency” (Karttunen
1992, 133), and quīxtiā is to be translated as “to relieve oneself; to cause someone
to leave, go out, withdraw” (212). Hence, temaquixtilistli may as well signify “to
relieve someone from dependency.”²⁸

 Maquisa can be analyzed as Ma(i)-tl, compounding form ma –. Mah, hand or arm, branch,
dependency (Karttunen 1992, 133) and quiz(a), to come out, to emerge, to conclude or finish
(Karttunen 1992, 213): “Emerge from dependency (escape).”
196 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

In order to identify a supposedly non-Christian religious domain for tema-

quixtilistli among the Nahua, let us look at the earliest semantic framework of
māquīxtia as recorded by Sahagún.²⁹ In describing the ceremonies of the Meso-
american 365-day calendar, Sahagún writes about the ritual practices of the time
period Etzalqualiztli in honour of the rain deity Tlaloc. Captives and transgres-
sors were taken in order to be sacrificed by ritual specialists. But “he who was
detained could free himself” (momaquizitia) or “escape” (māquīxtia) from captiv-
ity (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, II, 83 – 84, 86). Maquixtia means in this context
“to flee, escape or take refuge from captivity” and has no relation to the deity
Tlaloc or to Nahua religious belief or practices. Quite early after the Spanish mili-
tary conquest, fray Andrés de Olmos’s grammar (1547) of Nahuatl attests that the
missionary linguists commenced influencing indigenous languages by giving
words like maquixtia new meanings within a quite different religious context:
Yuic o yuicpa onino-maquixti in diablo, “liberate me from the devil”; teopan
nino-maquixtia, “take refuge in a church”; ueca nino-maquixtia, “escape far
away”; “liberate, save someone”. Maquixtilo; one-maquixtiloc, “all the world
was saved” (Siméon [1885] 1997, 256). In this last example from Olmos’s gram-
mar, we observe that maquixtia has received the semantic Christian theological
value of salvation. It is also worthy of note that these linguistic examples are
from a grammar and not a doctrinal work, which suggests that missionary lin-
guists applied nonreligious literature in order to transform the indigenous lan-
guages and thereby their philosophies.
In the Mixtec case, it gets more complicated because the missionary linguists
apply various words to translate salvation. The verb nama, or “save,” is the word
that the SIL translators of the Mixtec New Testament employed with the purpose
of transposing the Christian theological doctrine of salvation. It is quite revealing
that the SIL translators employ a verb instead of a noun to transpose salvation in
the Mixtec New Testament. This is simply because a similar concept does no exist
in the Mixtec language. Nama has not only the meaning “save” but also the
glosses “defend”, “rescue, “ransom”, and “protect” according to the SIL diction-
ary from Yosondúa (K. Farris 2002, 50 – 51). Nama, “save,” can be found in SIL
dictionaries from various Mixtec communities. Although only recorded as “es-
cape” in the SIL dictionary from Yosondúa (K. Farris 2002, 24) the verb káku,
however, also has the meanings of “to save” as well as “to be born” and “to es-

 Māquīxtia (Sp. salvar) lit. hacer huir, lograr sacar de las manos, causativo de māquīza (Launey
1992, 200n42).
 The concept of salvation translated into nonsoteriological religion 197

cape”³⁰ in contemporary Mixtec languages (Pensinger 1974, 2, 55, 120; Dyk and
Stoudt 1973, 22; Stark et al. 2005, 13, 93; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 28).
Employing nama instead of káku for the theological concept “save” (with the
extended meaning “salvation”) in the SIL dictionary and New Testament from
Yosondúa appears to be random by the SIL missionary linguists. Selecting one
of several words with more or less the same meaning from the target language
in order to introduce different semantics is a common feature (predicament) in
(missionary linguistic) lexicography and translation.
Other concepts for “salvation” in Mixtec were employed, or rather com-
posed, by the colonial Catholic lexicographer Alvarado: sa tavui ini (Alvarado
[1593] 1962, 186), which can be translated as: “In the grace or mercy of the spirits
who gives life” (sa cacu sa cay cuisi, 186) or “become saved in white glory.” In the
Doctrina by Hernandez, salvationis expressed as saha tahuiñahaya sindo, “in
order to save us” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 159). Another example dis-
playing the theological-linguistic strategy in the colonial literature in order to im-
pose a semantics of salvation: yonacay ndito, yonacay quihuini, “you liberate,
you save” (242).
An example of an ambiguous translation practice of Nahuatl (temaquixtilis-
tli) and Mixtec (nama) words for “salvation” in the SIL New Testaments can be
exemplified in the handling of Luke 3:6, where John the Baptist proclaims,
“and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” The Nahuatl passage can be
back-translated as “and all the people shall see our salvation (escape or libera-
tion) that we will come to God.” The SIL word used for “our salvation” (totema-
quixticahtzin) is given a special quality by including the Nahuatl reverential suf-
fix –tzin. We have seen that the root word maquix has the meaning of “escape” or
“liberate.” Consequently, the SIL translators add the sentence “that we will come
to God” (tlen techualtitlanililos in Dios) in order to explain the theological sense
of “salvation” of the Nahuatl concept for “escape” or “liberation,” which is not
part of Nahua religious belief. But it is quite uncertain whether this addition has
any explanatory effect in elucidation this completely exotic idea.
The SIL Mixtec translation of Luke 3:6 can be reconstructed as “and all peo-
ple of the world will recognize how he, God, will later save them” (Ti taca yɨvɨ
ñuyɨvɨ nacuni i nasa quii nama Yandios maa i). As in the Nahuatl translation,
there is a theological ambivalence since the lexeme nama can have not only
the gloss “save” but also “escape,” “protect,” and “defend.” Another ambiva-
lence is quii, which has several referents related to the concept of salvation,

 Besides maquisa, Nahuatl has two terms, monecuihcuiliya and xolcopini, for “escape” (Brock-
way, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 77, 90), but not for “save.”
198 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

here expressed by the verb nama: “slowly,” “later,” and “calm.” For a reader fa-
miliar with a Christian tradition, it may seem quite obvious that “later” repre-
sents the choice of translation. Of course, this also applies to the interpretation
of the translated words for salvation—totemaquixticahtzin and nama in Nahuatl
and Mixtec, respectively. But this is not necessarily understandable to people
who are not instructed in Christian theology. Furthermore, speaking of cultural
context in decoding a religious message, it is indeed quite revealing that neither
the Mixtec nor the Nahuatl translation contains a direct translation for the term
flesh but instead both employ “all people of the world” (Mixtec: taca yɨvɨ ñuyɨvɨ)
and “all people” (Nahuatl: nochin tlacamen). According to the examples collect-
ed in the dictionaries by the SIL missionary linguists, the various words translat-
ed for salvation in Nahuatl (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000,
77, 90, 252) and Mixtec (K. Farris 2002, 50 – 51) all appear in the nonreligious do-
main. This lack of Christian uses for these indigenous terms unmistakably sug-
gests that Nahuatl and Mixtec speakers do not inherently exegete the concept
salvation theologically.
This brings us once again to the real predicament of scriptural translation for
the missionary linguists. A similar religious concept of “salvation” simply does
not exist in indigenous religions, which does not have a soteriological philoso-
phy. The Greek word sōtērios is defined as “pertaining to salvation, saving, deliv-
ering, preserving, bringing salvation” (BDAG 2000, 984), or more precisely
sōtēria, “deliverance, preservation. Salvation with focus on transcendent as-
pects” (BDAG 2000, 983 – 84). The Christian theology of salvation is fundamen-
tally metaphysical and has transcendent implications. My field research to indig-
enous villages in the Mixteca Alta brought me in contact with a local
nonindigenous Catholic missionary priest who stated that in order to communi-
cate with the indigenous people in the religious service, there has to be not only
what he called a “theology of humanization”—the liberation theology feared by
the conservative Catholic hierarchy—but also a “theology of the cross (pers.
comm. 2010).”
“Theology of the cross” reflects an emphasis upon the indigenous crucifix-
ion, not Catholic resurrection, of Christ. It is the image of the blood (imagines
sangrientes) as displaying oppression and suffering of indigenous peoples that
is preached in “theology of the cross.” Moreover, the local Catholic priest explic-
itly said that a message of a metaphysical or transcendent theology of salvation,
as Protestant missionaries want to evangelize, does not reach the hearts of the
indigenous peoples simply because they do not find it interesting or relevant
to their lives or worldview (pers. comm. 2010). As will be further elaborated,
the philosophy of indigenous peoples of the Americas is focused upon this life
in the natural world and not upon an existence in a different metaphysical
 The concept of salvation translated into nonsoteriological religion 199

world after death. This nonsoteriological spatial-temporal thinking is cyclical

and geocentric and not soteriological, linear, and transcendent. Sandstrom
(2010) outlines that a novel belief of an afterlife among the Nahua is influenced
by (Catholic) Hispanic culture and Protestant proselytizing:

In less-acculturated communities the fate of the soul is linked to the circumstances of death
rather than being conceived as a reward or punishment for behavior. In these communities,
children who die before acquiring speech become angelitos (“little angels”) who may be re-
born. Those who die an unpleasant or premature death may wander among the living
spreading disease and death. People who die from water-related causes may go to a kind
of paradise and reside with the water spirit. In communities that are more acculturated,
people increasingly embrace Christian ideas about death and the afterlife (33).

In Mt. 1:21 the concepts of sin and salvation are combined, but where there are
many possible interpretative back-translations in the SIL Nahuatl and Mixtec
New Testaments. In Mt. 1:21, the angel says to Joseph that the virgin Mary is
going to give birth to a son conceived by the Holy Spirit. Joseph must give the
child the name Jesus because he is said to save people from their sins. Part of
the passage of Mt. 1:21 reads, “for he will save his people from their sins.” A
quite literal back-translation of the SIL text into Nahuatl can be reconstructed
as “because for He [with the Nahuatl reverence suffix –tzin] will emerge them
from dependency or escape [tleca Yehhuatzin quinmaquixtilos] at the home of
our peoples [in techantlacahuan] against yours something damaged or corrupted
[ica intlahtlacol].”³¹
The Mixtec SIL translation can be understood as “he that can defend the
back of sister, brother, friend and relative” (i cuu ja nama sɨquɨ cuaha ñanijnahan
i), followed by the sentence “people have crime” (yɨvɨ ca iyo cuachi). These back-
translations—based upon Nahua and Mixtec non-Christian vocabulary and con-
sisting of concepts that do not have indigenous religious significance—do not
disclose a theological message of a future eschatological salvation from moral
failure against a monotheistic divine order, as intended by the SIL missionary
linguists.
Redemption is a concept related to salvation (Sp. redención), as is apolytrōsis
in the Greek New Testament lexicon, which conveys a release, redemption, and
deliverance—the release from sin and finiteness that comes through the redeem-
er Christ (BDAG 2000, 117). Paul writes in Rom 3:24 that “they are now justified

 A rhetoric of guilt is expressed in orations and admonitions of the huehuetlatolli (“ancient

sayings”) in Sahagún book VI (D. Carrasco 1999, 3 – 4), but not the concepts of salvation or per-
dition in an afterlife metaphysical realm.
200 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The SIL
Mixtec translation represents a total rephrase of this verse where the concepts
of redemption, justified, and grace are not rendered. Conversely, the SIL mission-
ary linguist of the Nahuatl New Testament conveys redemption as “fight our
guilt” (topampa otlahtolo), whereas grace is expressed by the aforementioned tet-
lasohtlalis. Here we have yet another example various SIL missionary linguist
translators selecting two different translation strategies for a central Christian
concept that does not exist in American indigenous languages.
A (religious) conversion takes place through an unconditional sanction of
external ideas and associated transformation or substitution of concepts of the
nomenclature of the target language. This linguistic process reflects the transfor-
mation of religious affiliation. When Nahuatl- and Mixtec-speaking people take
tlahtlacolli and kuachi to signify “sin” and temaquixtilistli and nama “salvation”
in their vocabulary, then a Christian (linguistic) conversion has succeeded.

Moral transgression in soteriological and nonsoteriological

religious systems
Moral prescriptions exist in every society where ethical precepts regulate the so-
cial order. Culture contains, therefore, moral imperatives and values, which warn
against transgressions against religious mores, the divine order, and social con-
ventions. Moral transgression—expressed in Christianity by the concept of sin—
has theological-judicial consequences. In a soteriological-eschatological religion
like Christianity, there are two possible final outcomes for the individual human
being: either eternal salvation or eternal perdition postmortem. Conversely, with-
in a nonsoteriological moral system there is no such judicial idea of a metaphys-
ical or transcendental destiny. For indigenous American people, the consequen-
ces for committing moral crimes against the divine order can be severe but only
concern the social affairs of the natural world. In addition, these wrongdoings
can be corrected through ceremony.
In their efforts to translate the moral system of a non-Western and non-Chris-
tian culture, various anthropologists have much preferred the concept of sin,
however imprecise. J. Goetz (1960) associates sin with a breach of taboo and a
relation with impure objects among so-called “primitive people,” whereas
Hywel D. Lewis identifies two of sin’s common features: “moral evil, something
you are blamed or held accountable of, and offence against deities” (1973, 149,
151). C.J. Bleeker maintains that ethical sins include murder, robbery, adultery,
and cultic transgressions (abusing the deities and not observing the prescribed
rituals) as well as cosmic “sins” like crimes against nature (Bleeker 1973, 74). We
 Moral transgression in soteriological and nonsoteriological religious systems 201

have seen before comparative similarities between non-soteriological systems

outside the Americas. According to E.E. Evans-Pritchard, the Nuer have a con-
cept of sin that is associated with “a breach of interdiction” of various transgres-
sions or violations followed by divine (religious) sanction in this world, and
there are various related concepts in their language (1967, 177). Neither does Rob-
ert Herz in Le pécheé et l’expiation dans les sociétés primitives (1922) make a plain
distinction between the soteriological religions with nonsoteriological religions
by claiming that sin (péché) is a transgression of the moral order that implies se-
vere earthly consequences for the instigator (Herz 1922, 51– 52). Alfredo López
Austin insists on employing the concept of sin in his analysis of pre-Christian
Mesoamerican religions. He argues that this term, which has “many conceptual
variations” in different religious concepts, “is found in all deist religions.” He
therefore employs sin as a synonym for either human beings’ or gods’ transgres-
sion against any “divine order” (López Austin 1997, 46n9).
Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf has, in The Sense of Sin in Cross-Cultural
Perspective (1974), created a multiform model that explicates the broad phenom-
enon of sin language. He argues the word sin as it functions in numerous Euro-
American Christian languages (peccatum, péché, sin, sünde, synd, etc.) expresses
the same idea but becomes problematic when compared by missionaries to other
concepts in non-Christian religions (Fürer-Haimendorf 1974, 540). Fürer-Haimen-
dorf has made the following classification of categories of moral systems in the
world:

Category A embraces all those societies whose ideologies discount any casual link between
human actions of a moral nature and the intervention of supernatural powers in the for-
tunes of men either in this life or in a life beyond death. Category B includes societies
which recognise that certain human actions, such as breaches of taboos, do bring about
an intervention of supernatural powers, but assume that any sanctions exercised by
such powers are restricted to man’s fortunes in this life, and do not affect his fate after
death. Category C consists of societies which believe in a universal moral order, according
to which all human actions are rated as either morally positive, and hence generating
merit, or morally negative and hence diminishing a person’s store of merit. Rewards and
punishments are believed to be automatic without the intervention of divine powers, and
they are located in the life after death, either in the form of reincarnation or in heavens
and hells. Category D, finally, is made up by all those societies which believe in a personal
God or a number of deities acting as guardians of the moral order and rewarding or punish-
ing man’s actions in the hereafter (553 – 54).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—where retribution, or punishment, and reward,

or salvation, represent the central religious moral doctrine—belong to category D
(Fürer-Haimendorf 1974, 554), whereas the pre-Christian Nahua religion belong
to category B according to Burkhart (1989, 30 – 31). The idea of a divine interven-
202 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

tion during the human lifetime but without a religious doctrine of a postmortem
eternal judgment affecting the moral behavior does indeed describe indigenous
religions of the Americas. To be saved in Christian theology is to be rescued from
hell and redeemed by God in heaven. Willard G. Oxtoby is quite right when he
writes that in “Christian theology, in effect, salvation is not a comparative cate-
gory at all, but a unique one” (1973, 29). The morphology of salvation in non-
Christian religion constitutes relief of the human condition in the natural
world from insecurity and danger, which can be obtained by ritual (sacrifice)
(31, 33). Furthermore, Pettazzoni distinguishes between the subjective will to
sin and the objective reality of the sin, the fact of sin. For non-Christian religions,
the latter constitutes evil, which is followed by suffering and misfortune (Pettaz-
zoni 1953, 266). Evil and misfortune are signs of sin having being committed
without will or previous knowledge. Sin as a religious concept represents viola-
tion of the sacred order by the transgression of certain taboos or the commission
of offenses followed by divine punishment and suffering. Non-Christians may
seek salvation, or rather deliverance, from the terror, misfortune or pain in
this current, mundane world instead of holding out for transcendent redemption
on some other plane (267– 68).
From this I infer that concepts that have been translated as sin in the lan-
guages of nonsoteriological religion should rather be translated with the
words crime, transgression, wrongdoing, or offense—depending upon the linguis-
tic context.³² The concept of sin in Christian theology belongs to a dual ontology
where it is intimately associated with salvation and perdition.³³ Nondualistic
moral systems do not contain the concept of soteriology related to a metaphys-
ical or transcendental world, but despite this fundamental structural ontological
difference, there is great variation between the many indigenous religious cos-
mological and moral systems. In A Native American Theology (Kidwell, Noley,
and Tinker 2001), scholars of various indigenous cultures of North America—
Claire Sue Kidwell (Choctaw/Chippewa), Homer Noley (Choctaw), and George
E. Tinker (Osage/Cherokee)—challenge concepts and religious dogma surround-
ing the Christian theological concepts of deity, Christology, sin, and eschatology
through comparison with to American indigenous religions. They contend that

 But cf. Gruzinski (1989) about Mexican indigenous peoples’ interpretations and practice of
various Catholic Christian “sins” in the colonial period.
 In certain Christian denominations, a healing in this world can be theologically emphasized
sometimes at the cost of a theology of salvation. For example, among Pentecostal churches in
Brazil, sickness—intimately associated with the condition of poverty—in the human world is
the result of sin, where the cure for sickness (salvation) is sought (Chesnut 1997).
 Moral transgression in soteriological and nonsoteriological religious systems 203

the idea of sin and salvation outlining a metaphysical moral doctrine of human
evil and corruption does not exist in indigenous American languages:

From the Indian point of view, sin can be defined as a failure to live up to one’s responsi-
bility, sometimes deliberately but more likely as a result of impulsive or unthinking behav-
iour, a mistake. Salvation can be defined as the ability to return to a state of communitas”
(Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker 2001, 19).

Sin connotes personal responsibility for individual salvation in Christianity. But

in many indigenous cultures, moral transgressions and their consequences are
not related to the individual human being but to family (ancestors and descend-
ents), kinship, clan, and community. For instance, collective transgressions re-
sulting from lack of game make up an important part of the Iglulik Eskimo belief
system, according to Knud Rasmussen (1929, 123; Hallowell 1939, 195n3). For the
Nuer, wrongdoings not only affect the culprit but also nonresponsible people
(Evans-Pritchard 1967, 189). Hucha suggests “debt and obligation to society” ac-
cording to Inka moral philosophy, and R. T. Zuidema (1982, 1989) maintains that
it was considered hucha to do or think badly against a lord or to not fulfill ritual
obligations according to the calendar. Gerald Taylor (1987, 30) points out that
hucha represented a combination of sin, transactions, and law with morality
to perform ritual duties (Harrison 2002, 270; 1992; 1993; 1995; 2008). For the
Inka, the concept of hucha was associated with acts toward the community
and failure to perform (ritual) obligations to the sacred order; these are not per-
sonal faults and or moral deficiencies on the part of the individual. Hucha can,
according to Regina Harrison, be perceived as an unsettled debt to society (Har-
rison 1992, 13; Urton 2009, 819 – 20).³⁴ Moral flaws constituted a breach of the rec-
iprocity between individuals, on the one hand, and the community and divine
order, on the other. Europeans emphasized the morality of the individual
mind, whereas the Inka focused on the acts related to the community (Urton
2009, 820 – 21n7). Likewise, among Mixtecs of Santiago Nuyoo kuachi, (“sin,”
“fault,” “transgression”) is the concept for offense toward the nu ñu ‘un—“the

 Cama and hucha both originally refer to reciprocity between human beings and society and
deities and ancestors. Hucha for the Andean signified a debt to society, a social and political
transgression towards the common good. Cama was an animating force from deity or ancestor.
Therefore it “imply debt and obligation to the community, for the originating force emanates
from the deities”. Cama refer to structure, order and harmony whereas hucha is the negative op-
posite. That is probably why the last was selected by the missionary linguist to represent “sin”.
According to Gerald Taylor, in Catholic moral doctrine cama and hucha both received the mean-
ing from “a debt not repaid, an obligation not carried out, similar to the relationship in Spanish
between deber (to owe) and deuda (debt)” (Harrison 2014, 95 – 98).
204 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

face of the Earth” or “the place of the Earth,” which is likened to saints (with
Christian names) or ndiosi. Sickness is a punishment for this wrongdoing, but
the illness does not necessarily strike the transgressor. Usually, its object is an-
other member of the family. There is therefore a principle of collective account-
ability (Monaghan 1995, 99 – 104n8).
Individual sin, repentence, conversion, and salvation are simply not ele-
ments of American indigenous religious systems, Vine Deloria Jr. says. Indige-
nous religions are communitarian, whereas the salvation religions focus upon
the individual. These indigenous philosophical systems each contain a covenant
between the community and the sacred order and that sacred bond is according-
ly not perceived as a personal relationship. There is no concept of salvation and
no doctrines of heresies since an abstract theology is not needed where religion
constitutes a communal experience. Participation in the community is judged.
No idea of an exclusive individual exists in indigenous religion; instead, there
is interdependence between individuals and their collective identity. Conse-
quently, it is not possible to convert to an indigenous religion by accepting its
religious principles. One must be born or otherwise innately integrated into
the family, clan, and community and participate in the ceremonies, following
the customs and religious duties (Deloria 2003, 194 – 95).³⁵
The concepts of sin, or moral transgression, and salvation in Christian the-
ology absolutely contrast with indigenous religions since the soteriological doc-
trine does not exist in the latter cognitive system. This fundamental theological
idea must be appropriated by the indigenous target culture in order for a trans-
lation of scripture to have the, for the missionaries, the desired hermeneutical
effect. Inculturation of Christian theology and indigenous religions through an
interfaith dialogue is not possible simply because these cognitive systems are
radically different. To wit, in some Nahua communities, it is not the Catholic
priest but the indigenous religious specialist who officiates the burial ceremony

 There are two types of sin in Christian doctrine: original sin (peccatum orginans), which is
sin “in principle,” inherited from Adam, and “actual sin,” which refers to moral failures commit-
ted by an individual human being (Burke 1961, 222). “Actual sin” comprises evil actions, deeds,
thoughts, and words of the individual. Adam’s original sin, outlined in Genesis 3, belongs to the
human race collectively. Paul outlines a corporate or collective inherited sin in Rom. 5:12– 21, but
the doctrine of original sin was developed after Paul and is therefore lacking in the New Testa-
ment (H. Lewis 1973, 158). In the colonial period, Catholic missionary linguists translated orig-
inal sin as tlatlacolpeuhcayotl (“the beginning of sin” or “the sinful beginning”) tlatlacolnel-
huayotl (“the origin of sin”), achto tlahtlacolli (“first sin”), and huehuetlahtlacolli (“old sin”).
According to Motolinia (1971, 369), the last of those concepts was employed to categorize a
type of inherited slavery (Burkhart 1989, 114). For colonial Nahuatl, cf. Molina ([1555 and 1571]
1997, 137r, 138v), and cf. Alvarado ([1593] 1962, 164v) for colonial Mixtec.
 Mundane and transcendental punishment for moral failure 205

(John Sullivan, pers. comm., November 16, 2010). This last rite de passage is con-
cerned not with Christian eschatological theology about eternal perdition and
salvation but with indigenous values instead.
In some places, however, indigenous people have been thoroughly accultu-
rated (e. g. converted) as shown by the story “Heaven and Hell,” recorded from
the indigenous speaker Señora Antonia Osorio de Valle in Nahuatl and translat-
ed into English by Geoffrey Kimball. She relates that the Nahua of the village
Huautla in the “municipio” of the same name in Hidalgo, Mexico, believe in pun-
ishment of evil where the sinner is sent to hell, and an individual human is re-
warded for doing good by being sent to heaven (Kimball 1980, 118 – 19, 130 – 31).
In this case the missionary linguists have succeeded in translating their message
because the semantic value of the Nahuatl concepts has been transformed com-
mensurate with Christian theology. A linguistic-religious conversion has taken
place.

Mundane and transcendental punishment for moral failure

Salvation in Christian doctrine has the antonyms punishment, perdition, and

damnation. The adjective eternal is essential in the hermeneutics of the transla-
tions of these theological concepts. In Mt. 25:46 Christ gives an eschatological
speech about the final judgment to his disciples: “And these will go away into
eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The SIL missionary lin-
guists translate “eternal punishment” (Sp. castigo eterno) in the Nahuatl New
Testament with the expression “they will always suffer” (tlapanosque nochipa),
later followed by “the correct or honest” (tlamelajcanten; Brockway, Hershey
de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 222) will enter into always life (calaquisque
ipan in nemilistli nochipa)” (104). The Nahuatl word for punishment is given as
tlapanolistli, which refers to the concepts of both punishment (Sp. castigo) and
suffering (Sp. sufrimiento)³⁶ (226). The Catholic colonial missionary linguists se-
lected, however, tetlatzacuiliztli and tenonotzaliztli (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
26v, 100v, 110r) to translate punishment. Tētlatzacuiltīlōni has the sense of inflict-
ing punishment (Karttunen 1992, 236), where the root word tzacu(a) conveys the
meaning of “to close, enclose, lock up something or someone; to pay a penalty”
(310).
It is believed in the Mixteca Alta that in the afterlife a person continues to
perform the same kind of activities that they did on earth. This is manifested

 Its root word, panō means, “to ford, cross a river” (Karttunen 1992, 187).
206 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

in the burial ritual by including objects associated with the individual’s profes-
sional activity (Anonymous. n.d. Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas. Símbolos
del Mundo.: 21), and there is accordingly no moral judgment in the hereafter. The
SIL translators of the Mixtec New Testament express the idea of eternal punish-
ment not through a single concept but with the rephrasing “and when these bad
people shall go down to hell they shall think in order to always have all time”
(yucan na ti quincoyo yɨvɨ un nuu infernu na condoho coo nene i ja cuu taca tiem-
pu). The notions of both hell and time are rendered by Spanish loanwords. Re-
markably SIL missionaries choose not to employ the Mixtec word for punish-
ment—nundo’o, or “when suffering”—which also refers to difficulty (K. Farris
2002, 65). Furthermore, there are many expressions for the verb punish recorded
in the Catholic colonial Mixtec dictionary (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 46r).
To locate a word for the verb punish or the noun punishment is not extraor-
dinarily difficult since many cultures have equivalent concepts in their judicial-
moral systems. But the Christian theological idea of punishment carries the se-
mantic meaning expressed by kolasis in the Greek New Testament lexicon: as not
only a “infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement, punishment…but also a
transcendent retribution or punishment” (BDAG 2000, 555). This is not a judi-
cial-religious American indigenous concept, which would not be concerned
about “a transcendent retribution or punishment.” The Christian dual moral col-
locations of “eternal punishment” and “eternal salvation” are absent in indige-
nous languages.
The Greek concept of eternity in the New Testament is aiōnios, “a long period
of time, long ago, a period of time without beginning or end, eternal or to a pe-
riod of unending duration, without end” (BDAG 2000, 33). The SIL translators of
the Nahuatl New Testament choose to apply nochipan, which has the meaning of
“always” (Sp. siempre) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 104).
This adverb does not have a connotation of “forever” or “eternal” but instead
could be understood as “all the time” or “constantly.” In his grammar (Arte), Car-
ochi define mochipan as “always, all time, continually” because the noun mochi,
“all” is compounded with the particle pa, “which in any fashion signify number,
makes them adverbs which mean as many times as the number”. This grammat-
ical principle applies to the Nahua numeral system adding the suffix “times” i. e.
from tlapohualli, “something counted”, derives tlapohualpa, “times that can be
counted”.³⁷ For instance, from ce, “one” comes ceppa, once; from macuilli,
“five”, macuilpa, “five times”; from cempohualli, “twenty”, cempohualpa, “twen-

 With the negation, amo tlapohualpa or amo can tlapohualpa, “innumerable times” (Carochi
[1645: 106 – 106v] 2001: 388 – 389).
 Mundane and transcendental punishment for moral failure 207

ty times” etc. (Carochi [1645: 106 – 106v] 2001: 388 – 389). I contend therefore that
nochipan is more correctly translated as “always,” corresponding to “all the
time” and not “forever.”
It is therefore interesting that for the purpose of translating eternal the Cath-
olic missionary linguists and ethnographer-missionaries in the early colonial pe-
riod selected a different noun: cemicac(ca) (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 16r; Kart-
tunen 1992, 29). It is employed various places in the non-doctrinal Florentine
Codex, for instance within a passage describing the Nahua deity Chalchiuhtlicue
as “eternally awake” (in cemjcac itztica) (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 206). I
would instead opt for the English translation “perpetually awake”, simply be-
cause cemjcac get a less Christian connotation. Furthermore, cemicac is defined
as “perpetually, forever and ever” consising of cem, “one” and icac “to stand”
(Carochi [1645: 101v-102] 2001: 372– 373, note 3) whereas the appearent synonym –
also employed by the missionaries in order to refer to an eternal existence – cen-
manyan comprise cen, “one” and quenmanian, “at times, sometimes” and the lo-
cative yan (Carochi [1645: 101– 102] 2001: 370 – 373, cf. note 3, 370 – 371). Carochi
advocates, however, that there is a semantic difference: “cemicac extend to all
time, present, past, and future, whereas cenmanyan denotes the beginning of
the state that a thing assumes, which is to have forever, as with one goes to
hell, or the city that falls into the hands of enemies without hope of recovery”
(Carochi [1645: 102– 102v] 2001: 374– 375). In the pre-Christian period, cenman-
yan had only the latter meaning for the Nahua, which is expressed in Book
Twelve of the Florentine Codex.³⁸ Nevertheless, both these notions were subse-
quently given a Catholic doctrinal meaning associated with a final judgment
and an (eternal) afterlife existence.
SIL translators also use the word for always (nene) in Mixtec in order to ex-
press the idea of eternity in the New Testament (K. Farris 2002, 64). Because
there is no single corresponding term, other SIL Mixtec dictionaries construct
whole sentences in order to convey the idea of eternity (Dyk and Stoudt 1973,
29, 85; Pensinger 1974, 41, 90). Moreover, dictionaries by Catholic colonial mis-
sionary linguists (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 109v; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2003,
343) report use of the difrasismo (or kenning) nee huasi cana huasi (eterno y
de siempre, or “eternal and forever”) (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 159).
Misbehavior according to moral principles in American indigenous religions
carries consequences, although it has nothing to do with eternal damnation in
an afterlife and instead concerns human existence and condition in the natural
world. This also applies to indigenous peoples outside the American continent,

 Cf. Carochi ([1645: 102– 102v] 2001: 374– 375, note 6, 375).
208 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

where the effect of moral transgression or failure is physical sickness or disease,

as it is with the Nuer that Evans-Pritchard studied. The spiritual condition is
changed in the sense of being polluted, made unclean, or contaminated (1967,
191– 92, 195). A. Irving Hallow has conducted a fascinating investigation of the
relation of sin to sex and sickness among the hunting people Berens River Saul-
teux, who are of Ojibwa descent and live east of Lake Winnipeg in North Amer-
ica. For the people of Berens River Saulteux, sickness derives from various types
of transgressions (Hallowell 1939, 191).³⁹ In the Mixtec community of Santiago
Nuyoo there are various types of offences against local deities considered to
be kuachi (Monaghan 1995, 97, 99, 103 – 4, 114n13). The punishment for the trans-
gression is that the deities make the offender ill through the loss of ánima (ani-
mating life force) (97, 99, 103 – 4). Illness is also associated with collective fault
and blame since the retaliation is not necessarily directed toward an individual
offender but to another member of the household (103 – 4n8). For instance, not
to share food with other people is considered a moral failure, a crime or injustice
(kuachi) and will be punished where the Sun (as personified by Christ) is told in
stories to punish people in the natural world (47). An analogy between sin and
disease was also a conception, not only a rhetorical metaphor, in Christian tra-
dition. In the effort to evangelize the Mapuche (Chile), the Jesuit missionary lin-
guist Luis de Valdivia exploited a causative conncetion between transgression
(sin) and illness in the natural world. In sermons written in Mapudungun
(1621), Valdivia correlated sin not only with Christian divine law but also with
the Mapuche moral system. Serious sin would lead to suffering in afterlife. Addi-
tionally, the punishment of committing sin would be grave illness and plagues in
this world according to Valdivia. He consequently made a causal relation be-
tween the European epidemics and rejection of Christian doctrine. This connec-
tion between sickness and sin was already a part of Mapuche and indigenous
etiology. Valdivia made a linguistic relationship between sin and the Mapuche
supernatural illness wenu kutran, which is caused by failure to observe küme
or appropriate behavior according to moral and social norms (admapu) transfer-
red by the elders. Instead of the local deities, it was Dios (god) who sent these
diseases and it was only Him and Jesus Christ who could heal through the mis-
sionaries according to Valdivia (Prieto 2011, 49 – 51).
There is no word for eternal perdition in Mixtec and Nahuatl (or other Amer-
ican indigenous) languages; neither are there analogues for the synonymous no-
tions of eternal damnation and eternal judgment. In Mark 3:29 Christ gives a

 Ironically, the group that Hallowell examined was supposedly “Christanized and less abo-
riginal” (Hallowell 1939, 191n1).
 Mundane and transcendental punishment for moral failure 209

speech to the scribes where he says: “But he that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”
(KJV). The SIL Nahuatl New Testament translates this expression literally as
“this always something damaged” (inon tlahtlacolantoc nochipa), but an equally
relevant translation is not provided in the brief rendering that appears in the SIL
Mixtec New Testament. The Nahuatl translation distorts the original meaning be-
cause it contains no satisfactory concept for eternal, damnation, or sin, whereas
the translators of the Mixtec New Testament capitulated in the effort to transpose
this idea. Both translation strategies, executed by SIL missionary linguists who
were apparently not in lock step, demonstrate not only the difficulty but also the
impossibility of translating a totally unfamiliar religious principle into a lan-
guage which that a radically different belief, symbol, and practice system.
Eternal damnation, or eternal judgment (Gr. krima; BDAG 2000, 567), is pro-
claimed in Hbr. 6:2): “instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrec-
tion of the dead, and eternal judgment.” As opposed to the quite direct transla-
tions of “instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the
dead,” the concept of eternal judgment is appearently translated in the Nahuatl
New Testament with the remarkably different idea: “always witness” (in tlixco-
macalistli nochipa). On the other hand, the SIL translators employ the concept
of loosing oneself (naa, but without a gloss for eternal) (K. Farris 2002, 49) in
the Mixtec Testament.⁴⁰ This again exhibits the insurmountable difficulty of con-
veying the idea of eternal perdition in indigenous American languages.
The final example demonstrating the lack of indigenous vocabulary to ex-
press Christian eschatological concepts is from the second letter of Peter. 2
Pet. 3:7 sketches the final coming of the Lord, saying, “But by the same word
the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the
day of judgment and destruction of the godless.” In the Nahuatl New Testament,
“the day of judgment” is translated as “the day of witness” (in tonali den tlixco-
macalistli) and “destruction or perdition of the godless” as “the failure, disapper-
ance or death of they who are disobedient” (in tlapololistli ica yehhuan aquin
ahmo tetlacamatihque) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000,
116, 157, 228; Karttunen 1992, 293). Ahmo tetlacamatihque can also be understood
to mean “ignorant people”. Judgment day is rendered with the Mixtec word for
“day,” quɨvɨ, and with the Spanish word juicio in the Mixtec New Testament.
The “destruction of the godless” is expressed as “the people will loose them-

 Judgement recorded in the colonial dictionaries. Nahuatl: Molina ([1555 and 1571] 1977, 74v,
116v); Mixec: Alvarado ([1593] 1962).
210 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

selves there will be no sacred respect from God” (naa taca yɨvɨ tu ca chiñuhun
Yandios).
Religious doctrines of punishment and judgment do exist in nonsoteriolog-
ical religions, but Christian eschatological ideas of eternal punishment, eternal
perdition, and eternal damnation have no analogues. For indigenous peoples
of the Americas, it is ceremony that restores the world to perfection, so there
is no need for sacrifice of Christ to redeem humanity. There are accordingly heal-
ing deities where Christians might expect to find saviors, and there is no praise
but thankfulness in worship because the indigenous have a collective or commu-
nitarian, not individual, reciprocal relationship with the divine order (Kidwell,
Noley, and Tinker 2001, 56, 75, 107). Only if the missionary linguists succeed
in making (manipulating) the selected words, which originally signified “al-
ways,” correspond to the Christian temporal theological sense of “eternal”
would the readings of these translated scriptural passages acquire moral-soter-
iological interpretation.

Confession and forgiveness of moral failure

In order to further elucidate the strategies of SIL in its endeavor to transfer its
version of Protestant Christianity to indigenous peoples, I consider the translated
concepts of confession and forgiveness of sin. After “forgiveness of sin”: Osten-
sibly corresponding ideas are expressed by various linguistic categories of reli-
gious systems. These notions have nevertheless different meanings in Christian
and indigenous religious frameworks.
Confession (Gr. homologia; BDAG 2000, 709) involves an oral declaration,
contrition, and symbolic practices imposed by the adjucating priest with the pur-
pose to revoke the sin of the confessant (Pettazzoni 1953, 263 – 64). The Roman
Catholic doctrine of the obligation, since the Fourth Lateran Council of 1216,
of private auricular confession does not exist in Protestantism. In general, as op-
posed to Catholicism, in Protestantism the confessional is not a regular (compul-
sory) private practice between the individual layperson (penitent) and the clergy.
It is more a direct communication between the believer and God. Confession in
non-Western traditions is commonly collective reflecting public values, commu-
nal practices and social structure and not the interior state of the mind of the
individual (Abercrombie et al. 1986, 46; 53).
As for the indigenous American religions, Rafael maintains that the Tagalog
of the colonial period was interested in confession but this did not have anything
to do with an absolute submission to a solitary (Christian) God (Rafael 2001, 132).
There is a fundamental semantic discrepancy between soteriological and nonso-
 Confession and forgiveness of moral failure 211

teriogical religious systems: For the Nuer, confessional sacrifice in order to expi-
ate sin may reveal resentments and accusations toward other people. Sacrificial
rituals erase the transgression but “not even sacrifice is sufficient by itself to
change it, only sacrifice which carries with it the will and desire of the sinner”
(Evans-Pritchard 1967, 190 – 93). Urton argues that Andean and European colo-
nial Catholic cultures had the same rational moral concepts of sin and confes-
sion. A governmental bureaucratic system of double-entry bookkeeping of the
equilibrium of checks and balances and debit and credit in order to record
“sin” and “confession” to maintain social authority and the structure of the di-
vine order developed independently in Europe and the Andean region. Those ac-
counting and recordkeeping systems register individual asocial actions threaten-
ing to undermine society by rhetoric of double entry. This resulted in a statistical
and political arithmetic of collecting and organizing data in order to survey and
control moral behaviour (Urton 2009).⁴¹ Inka chronicler Guaman Poma de Ayala
has outlined an organization of accountants where the upper level of the hierar-
chy involved an official called contador mayor hatun huacha quipoc (“major ac-
countant of the great sin khipu”); at a lower level was the contador menor huchuy
huacha quipoc (“minor accountant of the small sin khipu”). The accountants of
sin mediated between the sinners and the confessors. The confessors divined
the cause and origin of the “sinful” actions through various ritual techniques.
They also demanded that sinners do penance (Urton 2009, 819). The pre-Christi-
an Nahua acknowledged (“confessed”) their carnal transgressions of adultery
(“sins”) to the deity Tlazoteotl, as related by Sahagún in book I, chapter XII
and book VI, chapter VII of the Florentine Codex (Pettazzoni 1931, 198 – 99,
208). Guilhelm Olivier maintains that the deity Tezcatlipoca was the “master
of penance and confession” forcing the Nahua to “repent” their moral transgres-
sions through ritual fasting and offering. The admission could be either an indi-
vidual or a communal one (Olivier 2003, 24– 25).
In stark contrast with these examples from the Nuer, Andean, and Nahua,
Christian acts of sin confession, although not important in Protestant traditions,
carry a quite different meaning and purpose. Confession is an act of personal,
not communal, repentance done in order to obtain forgiveness from sin and
thereby achieve future salvation (redemption).
In Rom. 10:10 Paul says, “For one believes with the heart and so is justified,
and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.” In their translation of this
passage in the Mixtec New Testament, the missionary linguists do not attempt to
locate an analogous word for confession; instead, they prefer to transpose a dif-

 I thank Gary Urton for giving me a copy of his article.

212 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

ferent meaning than from the source text. In the SIL Mixtec dictionary of Yoson-
dúa, there is, however, a verb for “confess,” ndeyu’u, recorded (K. Farris 2002,
56). Moreover, in other Mixtec communities the word nahma is used, which in
addition has the connotations of “suffering” and “punishment” (Campbell et
al. 1986, 29, 31; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 65; Pensinger 1974, 19; Macaulay
1996, 222; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 22; Caballero Morales 2008, 264). But surprising-
ly, the SIL translators do not employ any of these lexemes in the Mixtec New Tes-
tament. For instance, the phrase “confessing their sins” in Mark 1:5 is replaced
with “repenting their sins” (nacani ini i nuu cuachi i).
The reason might be that Protestant theology does not emphasize confes-
sion, although it constitutes a quite important practice in Catholicism and in in-
digenous religions. It seems therefore reasonable to assume it as the reason that
SIL missionary linguists prefer to avoid conveying this word in translating scrip-
ture. The same Mixtec word for confess, yonamandi, is recorded in the Catholic
colonial vocabularies (Reyes: [1593] 1962, 34; Alvarado [1593] 1962, 55r). Nanama,
“the act of confessing,” is also applied in the Doctrina as an admonishment to
“straightening one’s heart” (quidzandaa quidzacuite yni). According to Terracia-
no, it is equivalent to the pre-Christian Nahuatl word for ritual of confession, or
neyolmelahualiztli, “the act of straightening the heart” (Burkhart 1989, 181– 82;
Terraciano 2001, 305 – 6n326).⁴²
A back-translation of the Nahuatl New Testament’s Rom. 10:10 passage can
be reconstructed as “in order to that we may revise/cover our something dam-
aged to God” (ic quixtlapacholos totlahtlacol in Dios), continued by “we will in-
terrogate ourselves [i. e., confess] to Christ in order to escape” (timocuitisque ica
in Jesucristo ic timaquisasque). Mocuitiya (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés 2000, 86, 127) as well as quiyolcuitiya (187) appear as entries in SIL dic-
tionaries for “confess.” Mocuitya can be translated as “interrogate oneself”
and quiyolcuitiya as “interrogate ones heart” (Brewer and Brewer 1971, 219,
164; Key and Key 1953, 218; Pury Toumi 1984). Catholic colonial mission records
the lexeme yolcuita, “to know one’s heart” (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 40v, 95v;
Olmos [1547] 1985, 198). For the Nahua of the pre-Christian European era, the pu-
rification rite of confession—when slaves of merchants were sacrificed (Sahagun
[1565] 1950 – 1982, IX: 56, 59) teiolmelaoa, “it straightens people’s hearts—was
called neyolmelahualiztli (“straightening one’s heart”), a term that the mission-
aries later employed to designate Christian confession. The verb to confess was
expressed as yolmelahua or yolcuita (Burkhart 1989, 181– 82). In the Florentine
Codex, the term yolcuita is applied in various religious contexts. Confession to

 Other Mixec words were used for confession (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 225 – 26).
 Confession and forgiveness of moral failure 213

the deities Tlazoteotl and Tezcatlipoca (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 23 – 27; VI,
29 – 34) was articulated in the following way: “in her presence confession was
made, the heart was opened; before Tlazolteotl one recited, one told one’s tla-
chihual” (iixpan neyolcuitilo, iixpan neyolmelahualo, in tlazolteotl, iixpan
mopoa, mihtoa, in tetlachihual) (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 24).
Moreover, the Huaxteca is said “not to confess” (ahmo nō moyōlcuītiāyah) to
the deity Tlacolteotl because covetousness was not conceived as a wrongdoing in
their religion (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 34). Consequently, admitting trans-
gressions to a deity or religious specialists was not foreign to Nahua religion be-
cause there was a pre-Christian word for this practice in the language. But yol-
cuita was never combined with a conception of obtaining “salvation”—or of
avoiding eternal perdition, for that matter. The missionary linguists took this
word and gave it a novel theological definition in the indigenous language.
Forgiveness of sin is associated with salvation in Luke (1:77), where the fa-
ther of John the Baptist, Zechariah, is filled with the Holy Spirit prophesying
that his son will precede Christ: “to give knowledge of salvation to his people
by the forgiveness of their sins.” The Nahuatl New Testament employs the
word tlapohpoluilistli for “forgiveness” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés 2000, 174; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 235; Key and Key 1953, 213; (Kimball
1980, 50; Pury Toumi 1984), while the the Catholic colonial missionary linguists
used (tetlapopolhuiliztli) (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 109r, 133v; Olmos [1547]
1985, 236). Molina includes the entries tlahtlacolpohpolhuilliztli, “forgiveness of
sin,” and tlatlacolpopohuia, “to pardon sins, to grant absolution” (Karttunen
1992, 263; Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 137r). Burkhart has noticed that the
word tetlapopolhuia, “pardon” or “forgiveness” of a transgression, refers to “to
destroy things in regard to someone” (Burkhart 1989, 144). It is remarkable
that the root of the word has, besides “pardon someone,” the semantics of “to
destroy something for someone” with “the lexicalized sense of specifically oblit-
erating someone’s sins or guilt” (Karttunen 1992, 201).⁴³
Consequently, the passage “so that your sins may be wiped out” of Acts 3:19,
where tlapohpoluilistli is combined with the Nahuatl word for “sin” (tlahtlacolli),
can be rendered in two ways: “will destroy your sin” or “will pardon your sin”
(mechtlapohpoluilisque namotlahtlacol). This suggests that both “destruction”
and “pardon” are relevant translations in contemporary Nahuatl. But a semantic
ambiguity can be seen in the translation of Mark 3:29, where Christ admonishes

 The original meaning of tlapohpol is “disappear, to loose or to consume, destroy, obliterate

something” (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 133; Karttunen 1992, 201; Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 116).
214 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

the scribes from Jerusalem: “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can
never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” The Nahuatl word for for-
giveness, quitlapohpoluisque (“will pardon or destroy something”) is in this
framework independent of the translated concept of sin (tlahtlacolli), thus creat-
ing an uncertain meaning. Because an interpretation of quitlapohpoluisque as
“destroy” is not modified by the notion of sin, the word does not give any
sense. A direct translation of Nahuatl translation of Mark 3:29 might in this
case be understood as: “and only when he who will speak ill of the his sacred
day revered God [i. e., the Holy Ghost] will not any more have destruction [or par-
don]. This always taken something damaged.”
A concept of pardon or forgiveness existed in the pre-Christian religious
ideology and practices in Mesoamerica. In ceremonies during the time period
of Tecuilhuitontli, people intoxicated with pulque were abusing other people,
but “the offense was pardoned” (motlapohpolhuia)—in other words, “de-
stroyed”—according to the translation of Dibble and Anderson (Sahagún [1565]
1950 – 1982, II, 95). In an appendix to book I of the Florentine Codex, where Saha-
gún refutes “idolatry” and criticise “idolaters,” he employs pohpolhuia in a
Christian framework of a “destruction of sin” saying that the Lord: “Thou dost
not at once destroy sinners” (in tlahtlacoānih ahmo niman tiquimmopohpolhuia)
(Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 60). In other non-Christian frameworks, however,
the semantics of the root pohpolhui can only refer to “destruction” or “perdition”
(Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, I, 60; III, 4; IV, 24, 25, 43, 45, 69, 93, 102, 105; IX, 87; X,
30, 31, 48; XII, 1), “disappearance” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VII, 81) and “con-
sumption” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, VI, 48, 55). It is therefore worthy of note
that the root of quitlapohpoluiya, polihui (“forgive”), also connotes “to disap-
pear,” “to loose,” and “to lack,” and is a metaphor for “to die” (Brockway, Her-
shey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 116, 157).
There are various lexemes recorded in the SIL Mixtec-dictionaries for the
concept “forgive”—where kuanka’nu…ini appears in the Yosondúa dictionary
(K. Farris 2002, 37, 72; Campbell et al. 1986, 67; Pensinger 1974, 110; Caballero Mo-
rales 2008, 139). Moreover, there are many entries for “forgive” in the Catholic
colonial dictionary of Alvarado, but these words do not correspond to the one
recorded by the SIL missionary linguists (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 166r). The concept
of forgiveness is translated with cahnu ini in the Mixtec New Testament. This
word is, however, curiously rendered as “to confide” in the SIL Mixtec dictionary
from Yosondúa (K. Farris 2002, 27). Aphesis is the word for forgiveness in the
Greek New Testament lexicon, where it has the meaning of “the act of freeing
and liberating from something that confines, release and of freeing from an ob-
ligation, guilt, or punishment, pardon, cancellation” (BDAG 2000, 155). Neither
the Nahuatl word for destruction nor the Mixtec word for “confide” convey
 Translating the anthropology, cosmology, and chronology of Christian morality 215

this meaning. The Christian interrelated notions of confession and forgiveness of

sin performed in relation to a transcendent God or Christ in order to achieve met-
aphysical salvation (redemption) and avoid perdition do not resonate with indig-
enous philosophies and, therefore, with their languages.
SIL missionary linguistic lexicographic strategy consists of either altering the
meaning of existing indigenous lexemes through in the dictionaries. Another but
not a common stratagem is, in particular in the Mixtec translations, not to make
an effort to identify presumed synonyms from the target language or include
Spanish loanwords but rephrase the entire passage. This rather defensive linguis-
tic method appears quite strange when scripture is bilingual. Bilingual readers,
who constitute the large majority among the indigenous peoples today, will prob-
ably find the textual discrepancy rather awkward.

Translating the anthropology, cosmology, and

chronology of Christian morality
Christian moral-philosophical concepts are intimately connected to cosmology,
chronology, and anthropology. SIL translations of the New Testament impose
the semantics of the Christian anthropological, cosmological, and chronological
concepts of soul, space, and time upon indigenous vocabularies and philoso-
phies. According to Christian theology, the immortal soul is either to be saved
or perish postmortem. This anthropology is logically associated with Christiani-
ty’s ontological conception of space and time. The soul is to be judged to either
reside in the realm of paradise or hell. Completing eschatologically linear time,
the Messiah will return where the eternal fate of every human being is to be de-
termined.
SIL translators enforce this theology by redefining concepts from the vocab-
ularies of indigenous languages into Christian scripture. Indigenous religious an-
thropology of Mesoamerica contains the idea of several “animistic entities,” not
one immortal soul. Moreover, the focus is mainly the natural world (geocentric),
and although there is a vertical spatial conception of upperworld(s) and
underworld(s), traditional indigenous philosophies do not conceive these realms
as a heaven and hell. Indigenous thinking emphasizes cyclical (agricultural)
time in lieu of Christian eschatological (historical-causal) linear time.
216 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

Christian moral anthropology

A dualistic anthropology of matter and spirit—that is, a concept of the corrupti-

ble physical body versus the moral soul—is alien to indigenous religions and
thus complicated to translate (Klor de Alva 1997, 191– 92). When Christ summons
his twelve disciples, he says to them, “Do not fear those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in
hell” (Mt. 10:28). This phrasing suggests a radical dualism between body and
soul, or between the material and the spiritual. The soul, in the Greek New Testa-
ment lexicon, corresponds to the word psychē, a life principle that assumes “life
on earth in its animating aspect making bodily function possible. The soul is de-
livered up to death i. e. into a condition in which it no longer makes contact with
the physical structure it inhabited whereupon it leaves the realm of earth” (BDAG
2000, 1098 – 99). This inner spiritual substance is separate from matter, or the
body (flesh), called sarx in the Greek New Testament. Sarx is defined as “the ma-
terial that covers the bones of a human or animal body, flesh or the physical
body as functioning entity, body, physical body” (914– 16). Burkhart maintains
that Christian theology elevates the immaterial, perceiving it as morally superior
to physical existence. But this is not a customary perception in indigenous reli-
gions, which do not place spiritual reality in radical opposition to the material
(Burkhart 1988, 237). For instance, the Nuer do not conceive of the soul as a de-
tached human substance that interacts with deities; the whole human being has
a relationship ith divine entities (Evans-Pritchard 1967, 177). Similarly, contempo-
rary Mixtec philosophy posits one life principle or one sacred force, not a duality
of spirit and matter (Monaghan 1995, 98 – 99).
In the SIL Nahuatl version of Mt. 10:28, “body” is translated as in tetlacayo,
where the root tlacatl signifies “human being.”⁴⁴ The Mixtec translation for body
is rendered as yɨquɨcuñu. This Mixtec term is a combination of words for flesh
and bone (K. Farris 2002, 45, 95). The SIL missionary linguists translate soul in
Mt. 10:28 with the Nahuatl word in tetonal, or “your [or his or her] spirit,” and
this word opens up a treasure trove of meaning. The root word tonal(i) is a
term with many connotations, “day,” “date,” “sun,” and “spirit” (Brockway, Her-
shey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 241). It is associated with the phenomenon
of “tonalism” in Mesoamerican philosophy. The sign a child was born under in
the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar determined the child’s character, tempera-
ment, and behavior, that is, the individual’s identity and destiny or fate. This

 There is no neutral expression for human being in Nahuatl. Tlacatl has the additional mean-
ing “man”; “noble person” (Klaus 1999, 96).
 Christian moral anthropology 217

phenomenon has been given the designation tonalism, after tona, tonal, or tonal-
li (“day,” “sun”) in Nahuatl (López Austin 1988; Pharo 2012).
In Mesoamerican thought, human beings also obtained a substance—what
historians of religions call a “free soul,” or a substance that could leave and re-
turn to the body during the lifetime of a human being—that was connected to the
calendrical day of birth. The term tonalli refers to a free soul, or a shadow with-
out shape (Sp. sombre) (López Austin 1988, 204– 5, but cf. 297). George Foster ar-
gues that the tonalli apparently was a kind of spiritual substance, because the
physical welfare of the individual human being totally depended upon it. If a
man or woman lost his or her tonalli, he or she would become ill; if it never re-
turned, the person would die (Foster 1944, 94– 95; see also Ruiz de Alarcón [1629]
1984, 161, 361n9, 380).
Today, the 260-day calendar is only employed by indigenous peoples in the
highlands of Guatemala and in the states of Veracruz, Chiapas, and Oaxaca in
Mexico.⁴⁵ In many Mesoamerican cultures, the tonal(li) concept also refers to
an “animal companion spirit,” also known as a nagual. If something happens
to this spirit—injury or death—the same will happen to its human owner. The
tonal of the Nahua of the pueblo Naupan in the Sierra Norte de Puebla can travel
when the human being is sleeping (Báez Cubero 2008, 235), which do not corre-
spond well with Christian theological doctrine. SIL missionary linguists thereby
defy Nahua philosophy of the human by translating the Christian concept of the
soul in the New Testament with tetonal. This translation strategy risk an indige-
nous misunderstanding of the Christian idea of the body and the soul related to
salvation.
Presumably, this is partly why the Catholic colonial missionaries selected
other Nahuatl words to translate soul. They used the term teyolia (Karttunen
1992, 341), referring to “living” and the neologism teanima from Spanish
anima (“soul” or “spirit”), with the possessive prefix te– from Nahuatl (Molina
[1555 and 1571] 1977, 9v). The Christian concept of the soul was translated early
on by the Spanish loanword anima, which was always linguistically possessed
and often written animan, in the early colonial period. From the end of the six-
teenth century, this term became part of the vocabulary of Nahuatl. Testaments
from the sixteenth and early seventeeth centuries also include the Nahuatl words

 This is particularly true for the Mixe, but fundamental components of the calendar persist
among the Zapotecs, Chatinos, Mazatecs, Chinantecs and Mixtecs of southern Mexico, whereas
in the highlands of Guatemala the calendar is used by the K’iche’ but is also known by the Ixil,
Akateko, Q’anjob’al, Mam, Popti, and Chuj (“Time and Identity,” Universiteit Leiden, http://
www.archaeology.leiden.edu/research/ancient-america/mexico/time-identity/).
218 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

(no)yolia, “(my) means of living, what makes me live,” and yolli, “heart,” which
are somewhat explanatory from the perspective of Christian doctrine (Karttunen
1992, 342).⁴⁶ This circumlocution was later gradually reducted to anima only, al-
though in some regions both terms were retained (Lockhart 1992, 253 – 54).
A reason for using yolli may have been the aforementioned ritual neyolmela-
hualiztli, the “act of straightening out the heart” (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982,
1,38), which was a confessional and repentance ritual for healing the afflictions
and imbalance of the animistic entit i. e. yollotl of the heart or teyolia (Klor de
Alva 1997, 185). On the other hand, tonal is not known to be employed for soul
in colonial Nahuatl secular texts, despite the fact that Molina includes it
under the entry for anima o alma (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 11v)—appearently
because it was considered connected with Nahua religion and with sorcery by
the Catholic colonial missionary linguists (Lockhart 1992, 553n215). It is therefore
quite unusual that the Protestant missionary linguists of the SIL applied tetonal
in their Nahuatl New Testament.
According to the Nahua from Naupan, the human being consists of one ma-
terial component, the body (inakayotl), and five immaterial components, where
the latter are the “animistic entities”: itonal, or as meant “airs”; isewal, or “shad-
ow”; iyolotl, or “spirit”; and inawal, or “nagual” (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 38 –
42). When iyolotl leaves the body, the person is dead according to belief in Nau-
pan (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 47). Iyolotl and not the SIL-translated tetonal is
closer, but far from identical, to the Christian notion of the soul. The same is
the case among the Nahua of the Sierra Madre de Puebla, where tonal (and eca-
huil) continues to stay on earth after death, whereas the yolo (“heart”) goes to
either heaven or hell (Signorini and Lupo 1989; Knab 1991; López Austin 1997,
163 – 69).⁴⁷ This region witnesses some terminological confusion because of
Christianity’s influence (acculturation) and its various social statuses; there is
also linguistic ambivalence due to the interchangeable uses of Spanish and Na-
huatl by the Nahua. This applies in particular to the concept of the immortal soul
and the “animistic entities” (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 46 – 47).
According to Pre-Christian Nahua philosophy, there is not one substance or
soul but three “animistic entities” within the human body. These were the tonalli
of the head, ihiyotl of the liver, and teyolia of the heart (López Austin 1980,

 –Yollo, “heart,” applied in many words and phrases having to do with volition, emotion and
mood conveying the sense of “spirit” is also known to be used instead of –yolia (Lockhart 1992,
553n215).
 Cf. also data collected among contemporay Nahua by Guy Stresser-Péan (2005, 431– 45).
 Christian moral anthropology 219

1988).⁴⁸ The animistic entities were not restricted to human beings but also could
reside in material objects and animals. In contemporaneous Nahua communi-
ties, a perception of various animistic entities exists, but these vary in number
and character. In some pueblos there are two of them, yolotl and tonali. Tonali,
or “heat soul,” is a gift from the sun and is represented by Christ. Funerals and
other rituals dedicated to the deities are performed to keep the heat soul in the
underworld (Sandstrom 1991, 257– 60). In the Nahua of the Sierra Madre de Pue-
bla’s concept of three animistic entities, the tonal is external and independent,
although it is mortal, not very vulnerable. It may signify day, sun, and shadow,
but it also stands for an animal companion spirit. The zoomorphic tonal deter-
mines the character and emotions of the owner (Signorini and Lupo 1989; Ara-
moni Burguete 1990, 30 – 47; Knab 1991; Lupo 2001, 358).
Communities in Sierra de la Norte de Puebla also have a notion of three ani-
mistic entities. The yolo go either to the underworld, called Mictan, or to “la Glo-
ria,” paradise in heaven. Heaven is located in the south and also called campa
xochita (“where flowers grow”). Yolo designates the substance when the body is
alive. After death, the Spanish word ánima or the Spanish-Nahuatl neologism
animtzin is used. Violent or accidental demise causes the anima to exist as a pen-
itent on earth until the predestined divine date of death (Signorini and Lupo
1989, 46 – 80; Lupo 2001). Among the people of Sierra Norte de Puebla, the des-
tiny of the human soul after death varies; however, there is no idea of salvation
into heaven by the personal savior Jesus Christ (Stresser-Péan 2005, 437– 45).
A non-Christian idea associated with animistic entities, the concept of puni-
tive reincarnation has the anima reborn into various domestic animals on earth.
Seven years after death, the anima of the dead return to earth as butterflies or
other beings with wings. In addition, anima can return to earth at the day of
Todos los Santos as invisible human bodies in order to receive offerings. The
days of the saints on the 365-day Gregorian calendar have replaced the tonalpo-
hualli (“count of the days”) of the 260-days calendar. The ecahuil is called “el es-
píritu del Santo.” After death, some believe that it stays within the body, whereas
others believe that it remains on earth and can reincarnate into another person
with the same name—who consequently assumes the same character and desti-
ny (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 46 – 80; Lupo 2001).

 The three animistic entities have been illustrated on page 44 in the pre-European manuscript
Codex Laud as leaving the various places of the body of human being at the time of death (López
Austin 1980, 221– 62; 1988, 203 – 36; McKeever Furst 1997; 1998, 212– 15). Cf. Roberto Martínez
González (2007), “El alma de Mesoamérica: unidad y diversidad en las concepciones anímicas,”
Journal de la société des américanistes 93 – 92: 7– 49.
220 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

In the village Atla in the municipal Pahuatlán of Puebla, close to Naupan,

there is a belief that human beings have a soul called itónal without which hu-
mans cannot live. But a state of itonalcholo (loss of soul and consciousness)
when the itónal leaves the body during sleep is possible only for a brief period
of time. After death, according to individual human behavior in life, the good
souls (cuale itónal) go to heaven (nelhuícac), where they are welcomed by the Vir-
gin Mary and enjoy a pleasant existence. But the bad souls (amo-cuale itónal) go
to hell (mictla), where they suffer. Children who remain unbaptized (oxoxocámic)
go to limbo, which is confused with purgatory. But there is also belief in reincar-
nation where the good souls (cuale itónal) can be reborn as Christian persons,
whereas the bad souls (amo-cuale itónal) are reborn as animals (Montoya
Briones 2008, 165 – 67, 190 – 91).
In the eschatology of the Nahua of the Huasteca region of northern Veracruz,
the afterlife is not personal—humans’ souls do not exist in continuity. The soul is
not a “personalised concept…an invisible extension of the human personality”
after death like in Christian theology. The soul acts an independent and nonper-
sonal entity necessary for life but not related to the identity of the human indi-
vidual. Thus the destiny of the soul is not associated with Christian morality as
are human behaviors, activities, and beliefs (Provost 1980, 83 – 84).
The SIL translation of Mt. 10:28 into Mixtec employs the word añu for soul.
This Mixtec word is associated with the heart (K. Farris 2002, 3; Dyk and Stoudt
1973, 1; Caballero Morales 2008, 35; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 2). The colonial
Catholic missionary Hernández uses the Spanish loanword ánima (also em-
ployed in modern Mixtec today) to express the idea of the soul (Hernández
1568, cxii; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 154). The colonial Dominican mis-
sionaries wanted to construct a distinction between the body—expressed by
the difrasismo (kenning) yeque coño, huesos (“bone”), carne (“flesh”)—and the
soul, so they used the Spanish word anima, abbreviated as aia (Jansen and
Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 148; Pérez Jiménez 2008a, 82).
The Mixtec pueblo Jamiltepec holds to three individual components of ani-
mistic entities: sombra (“shadow”); tono, or “animal companion spirit” (nagual);
and alma, or “anima” (a Catholic soul concept). “Heart” is translated by anima
yo (“my/our soul”). According to the Mixtec belief system, the tormented sombra
continue to exist after death and can therefore return to earth, whereas the body
belongs to the earth (Flanet 1977 103 – 18). The alma or ánima, when the owner
has committed severe crimes, may go to hell (miñi’ino, Charco del Espejo) but
heaven (the top of Monte Viejo, Yucu Chahnu) is not important in this context.
This is therefore a Mixtec and not a Catholic cosmology (Flanet 1977: 115 – 21).
In Yosondúa not all spirits go to the place of the dead after burial; some re-
main punished on earth. A spirit of the dead is transformed to a bird called tu-
 Christian moral anthropology 221

cancito, and dogs guide the souls in the land of the dead. In contrast to adults,
children are not judged by their God because they have not committed sins (Sán-
chez Sánchez 2009a: 16 – 17). In Ñuù Ndéyá (Chalcatongo) every human being
can have an animal companion spirit, either an ordinary or extraordinary one,
called nagual or tono/tona, respectively. In fact, a person can have more than
one, up to a maximum of fourteen (Pérez Jiménez 2008b: 90).
The belief in animistic entities gives rise to a fragmented self, some pieces of
which are not controlled by the individual being. These animistic entities are not
exclusive to human beings, as is the case with the Christian notion of the soul,
but also belong to animals, objects, and plants. In many cases, there is no per-
ception of an afterlife where one eternal soul is either punished or rewarded ac-
cording the moral quality of its human owner. In some communities there is a
belief in reincarnation, but the concept of transmigration of souls after death op-
poses Catholic and Protestant theology. For many indigenous peoples, health is
perceived as upholding equilibrium between a variety of internal substance and
external forces. A disease like, for example, susto comes about because the souls
leave the body, and espanto (“fright”) may be the diagnosis (Navarrete Linares
2008, 83). The ultimate concern is not to achieve salvation of the internal sub-
stance (soul) in the afterlife but to safeguard the animistic entity in this life
on earth,. Otherwise, brutal consequences for the health of the human owner
of the animistic entity may ensue. Appropriating one of the animistic entities, te-
tonal, from the Nahuatl language and translating it with the purpose of signify-
ing the Christian idea of the soul in scripture amounts to a direct attack upon
indigenous belief system by the SIL. By using this linguistic strategy, the Protes-
tant missionary linguists reveal their goal of imposing a radically divergent an-
thropological philosophy—one corresponding to Christian moral soteriology (sal-
vation of one immortal soul).
There are thus two different linguistic strategems for translating indigenous
American anthropologies of the soul. The SIL missionary linguists’ translation of
the Mixtec New Testament has appropriated the Mixtec añu for “heart” and a
specific animistic spirit with the purpose of expressing the Christian notion of
soul. Likewise, the SIL translators of the Nahua New Testament select tetonal
—associated with the Mesoamerican philosophy of “tonalism”—to convey the
idea of the Christian soul. Both añu and tetonal are seen to require therefore a
radical Protestant Christian redefinition in the Mixtec and Nahua languages,
and that correspondence with the objective of SIL missionary translation effects
a transformation of indigenous anthropologies.
222 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

The Christian moral-spatial system

The ultimate objective, or rather the instrumentality, of Christian morality is the

salvation of the soul, after repentance of sins, so that it can continue to exist
postmortem in a blessed realm quite different from the mundane world. The al-
ternative to a salvation of the soul is its condemnation to another metaphysical,
but quite unpleasant, dwelling. This Christian spatial concept differs completely
from the indigenous ecological view of space. Christian transcendental cosmol-
ogy is quite distinct from an indigenous geocentric cosmology. But this does not
signify that indigenous people did not have concept of other worlds or regions
beyond this one.
There are three levels or spheres in Christian cosmology: heaven, earth, and
hell. Due to lacking primary sources, it is difficult to establish pre-European In-
digenous American structural topography of upper/underworld(s) or metaphys-
ical space beyond the natural world and therefore the later Christian impact. For
instance, there are quite a few categories for “metaphysical” space or regions in
Nahuatl (cf. López Austin 1980, 378 – 387) where there are plenty linguistic data.
The missionaries refer to numerous linguistic references and categories but these
might have been neologisms or calques in order to facilitate evangelization in
the native languages. There are various colonial pictorial records (cf. Nicholson
1971, 406 – 408) but the only extensive primary textual source in the Americas,
the Classic Maya writing system, do not, to date, have known words for upper-
and underworlds. There is, however, epigraphic “circumstantial evidence” for
places above in the inscriptions according to Stephen D. Houston. Moreover,
iconography is suggestive for heavenly and underground locations or state of be-
ings (Stephen D. Houston p.c. 26.04. 2016). Regarding the issue whether indige-
nous American culture conceived of a metaphysical geography of underworld(s)
and upperworld(s) or other space rather must in this context be perceived in a
definite lack of whether a moral philosophy of judgment of sin led to damna-
tion/perdition in an (hellish) underworld or of good deeds/mind to salvation
in an upperworld (heavenly paradise). This can firmly be established founded
upon the American linguistic evidence, which do not contain such an ideological
concept in the indigenous religious vocabulary.
A conception of a tripartite vertical cosmology exists among contemporay in-
digenous peoples of the Americas,⁴⁹ but despite this structural equivalence with

 According to the numerological spatial system of Naupan, the cosmos consists of thirteen
vertical levels, six hot and seven cold. Each of these thirteen regions is divided into the four car-
dinal directions: 4 x 13 = 52. Twenty-four parts are hot and twenty-eight parts are cold: 24 + 28 =
 The Christian moral-spatial system 223

Christianity, there is an entirely different notion at work in indigenous religions—

that conception is not metaphysical but ecological. We might call this a “geovi-
sion,” where the sacred or deified earth and nature are seen as crucial for the
community because they provide the conditions fundamental for human exis-
tence. But there is also another religious feature regarding an after death exis-
tence in the other world. For instance, the colonial Maya had a belief in life in
subsistence after death enjoying either good or suffer bad fate. Although they
did not regard a theology of eternal salvation or damnation according to person-
al moral behavior during life on earth. Instead, the individual postmortem des-
tiny depended upon the collective actions performed by relatives and community
after his/her death. The latter need to appease and in particular at the Day of the
Dead (Sp. día de los muertos) pay homage to the spirit of the ancestor otherwise
they risk suffer malvolence in the natural world (Farriss 1984, 328). A communal
veneration of ancestors, important in quite a few Latin American cultures and
communities, accordingly undermines a soteriological theology of individual re-
ward or punishiment according to moral behavior during life on earth.
Heaven is conveyed in the Greek New Testament lexicon as ouranos—a tran-
scendent abode, the portion or portions of the universe generally distinguished
from the planet earth. God, attendant spirits of God, and the righteous dead
abide in heaven; Christians who have died dwell in heaven, where their glorified
bodies awaited them (2 Cor 5:1), as did their reward (Mt 5:12) (BDAG 2000, 737–
39). In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ proclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spi-
rit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:3). In the Nahuatl New Testament,
this is rephrased to avoid needing an Nahuatl term analogous to heaven. The SIL
translators do not translate the expression “kingdom⁵⁰ of heaven” but instead
employ “because they belong to the authority of God” (tleca poutoque yehhuan
ipan tetlatequiutilistzin in Dios). The word for heaven in Nahuatl is recorded as
neluicac, which also refers to (the Christian) paradise, according to SIL (Brock-
way, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 102). The same root, ilhuicatl, ap-
pears in Catholic colonial dictionaries (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 38v) because
from the middle of the sixteenth century onward, Catholic missionary linguists
adopted the concept ilhuicatl just for that purpose (Schwaller 2006, 405).
But some of the first catechisms used neologisms. The Dominican Doctrina
Cristiana (1541) outlines the pleasures of heaven not with ilhuicatl but with “cen-

52 (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 37n104). The number 52 represents, therefore, the totality of cosmos
and may have been an ancient reference to the Mesoamerican 52-year calendar and of its asso-
ciated spatial-temporal system.
 “Kingdom” in early colonial Nahuatl was tlatocayotzintli; auh telen tlatocayotzin (Olmos
[1547] 1985, 240).
224 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

papacoaya: anozo parayso”: cenpapacoaya is glossed as “glory”—literally as

“place of great rejoicing”—and anozo parayso means “or paradise.” Molina re-
cord ilhuicatl and its variants as “sky” (cielo), with the exception of ilhuicatl
itic, “cielo empireo, o parayso celestial,” “empyrean heaven or celestial para-
dise.” (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 37v). Paraíso of the Spanish–Nahuatl section
of Molina’s dictionary contains two entries: “parayso terrenal—xuchitlalpan,
yectlalpan” and “parayso celestial—ylhuicatlitic, ytecentlamachtiayan dios,” cor-
responding to “earthly paradise—place of flower gardens, good earth” and “cel-
estial paradise—within the sky, God’s glorification,” respectively (Molina 92). It is
moreover remarkable that xuchitlalpan and yectlalpan are two terrestrial abodes
in Nahua cosmology (Schwaller 2006, 405 – 6; 409n62).
In Nahua philosophy of the herafter, the people who died by water or light-
ening went to the heaven or Tlalocan, of the god of rain, Tlaloc. This postmortem
existence was corporeal, although one’s body might be transformed. In the Flor-
entine Codex, one of the above quoted Nahuatl words, illhuicac, corresponds to
the sky or heaven. Illhuicatl is associated with the sun, tonatiuh. Ichan Tonatiuh
Ilhuicac (“home of the Sun”) was the place where the warriors who died in battle
went (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 49). Upon death, the warriors followed the
sun (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, IX, 25; XXI, 68; Schwaller 2006, 391, 398).
In the Mixtec New Testament, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” from Mt. 5:3
is entirely reshaped by the SIL translators so that a corresponding word for
“heaven” does not occur,⁵¹ but andɨvɨ and other designations are recorded in Mix-
tec dictionaries as entries for heaven (K. Farris 2002, 3; Campbell et al. 1986, 3;
Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 1; Pensinger 1974, 1; Caballero Morales 2008, 31– 32), and
the Catholic colonial missionary linguists used the same word to translate heav-
en (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 63r). Consequently, in both the Nahuatl and Mixtec
translations of Mt. 5:3 the SIL missionary linguists avoid using supposed syno-
nyms from these languages.
Paradise is in the Greek New Testament lexicon recorded as paradeisos, a
garden of Eden, a transcendent place of blessedness (BDAG 2000, 761). After
his crucifixion, Christ says to another convicted man, “Truly I tell you, today
you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). This Bible passage is translated
more or less directly in the Nahuatl New Testament, where neluicac, “heaven,”
is interestingly employed to confer the idea of paradise. Other Nahuatl concepts
for terrestrial paradise used in the Catholic colonial dictionary include xuchitlal-

 The Catholic colonial missionaries translates “Kingdom of Heaven” as yuhuitayu andehui

Gloria or yuhuitayu toniñe andehui, “yuhuitayu rulership in the sky.” Yuhuitayu was a political
entity in pre-European Mixtec city-state (Terraciano 2001, 298).
 The Christian moral-spatial system 225

pan (“flower earth”); yectlalpan (“the good earth”) (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
35r, 92r, 162v); a notion of celestial paradise, ylhuicatlitic (“heaven”; 36v); and
ytecentlamachtiayan dios (42r) (“God’s wholly prosperous place”; 92r).
The SIL translators’ use of andɨvɨ in Mixtec also applied to “paradise.” In Al-
varado, paradise is conceived as a synonym of heaven (Alvarado [1593] 1962,
162v). Nevertheless, the SIL translators add in their Mixtec translation of Luke
23:43 a description of paradise (heaven) confirmed by God: “where it is very
good and beautiful—He [i. e., Christ] said” (nuu vii xaan caa―ni cachi ya). This
addition is included by SIL with the explicit purpose of explaining the locative
character of blessing (salvation) in the human condition after death. Translations
of Mt. 5:3 and Luke 23:43 supplant heaven with an analogous word, but the theo-
logical concept of paradise is rendered with Nahua and Mixtec words for the sky.
This paradox exhibits the problems that missionary linguists had in conveying
the idea of a blessed celestial dwelling where the saved souls of individual
human beings resided after death.
The underworld, or “hell,” has two denominations in the Greek New Testa-
ment. Hadēs is the netherworld, a place of the dead (BDAG 2000, 19), whereas
hell refers to a Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, a ravine south of Jerusalem. In
the canonical gospels it is the place of punishment in the next life (BDAG
2000, 190 – 91). Geenna is translated with the Spanish loanword infiernu in the
Mixtec New Testament. There is no entry for hell in the Mixtec SIL dictionary
from Yosondúa—but Catholic colonial, SIL, and other contemporary dictionaries
record Anyaya, where Anuhu means “abyss,” as place of the dead, or hell (Ojeda
Morales et al. 2003, 31; Campbell et al. 1986, 3; Pensinger 1974, 1; Caballero Mo-
rales 2008, 32; Reyes [1593] 1962, 109; Alvarado [1593] 1962, 132r).
Mictlan (“place of the dead”) is translated as hell in the Nahuatl New Testa-
ment in Mat.10:28 (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 79 – 80;
Brewer and Brewer 1971, 141; Key and Key 1953, 168). Mictlan also appears in
the entry for hell in Catholic colonial dictionaries (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
56r). The Dominicans employed the Spanish term, infierno, instead of mictlan,
the “land of the dead.” But in some passages they represented hell with mictlan
infiernos, “underworld hell,” which refers to the physical reference of hell in the
underworld (Schwaller 2006, 405 – 6). In pre-Christian Nahua religion, Mictlan
was the place where people, without regard to social status or moral judgment,
went after death (Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 41– 46).⁵² Amith comments that
Miktla:n (Mictlan), is rarely used to describe “hell” (miktlan tia:chkaw yeyekatl)
in Ameyaltepec and San Agustín Oapan, Guerrero today. Some consultants inter-

 Cf. Primeros Memoriales about the “Heavens” and the “Underworld.”

226 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

pret miktla:n to mean hell, whereas others take it to signify “the inside of the
earth where the dead are buried.” It is seldom actually used in this manner, al-
though elders understand it to have this connotation.⁵³
But there are also other names registered for the world of the dead in Na-
huatl—Xīmohuayān and Tētōnehualōyan ⁵⁴—although both these names were
mainly used in Catholic colonial confession manuals (Bartholome de Alva, Con-
fesionario Mayor, [1634] 1999, f.13r.Marg) and catechisms (Frances Xavier Clavi-
gero, Regalas de la lengua mexicana c. 1850, 42).⁵⁵ Ximoayan was originally
one of the names for Mictlan. López Austin claims that “the meaning of the
word approximates the contemporaneous native idea of a constant shrinking
unit where the minimal expression of the force’s purity is reached. The term
comes from xima, ‘to smooth,’ ‘to polish.’ It can be reasonably applied to a proc-
ess of a loss of integrity…. Ximoayan can be seen as the part of the cosmos where
the process of reduction took place, which ultimately produced the seed, the new
beginning” (1997, 266).⁵⁶
Due to different conceptions of the character of the underworld in Christian
and indigenous American religions, SIL translators do not constantly employ a
seemingly corresponding concept for hell from Nahuatl and Mixtec. For instance,
on the day of the Pentecost, Peter says to the eleven disciples: “For you will not
abandon my soul to Hades….” (Acts 2:27). In the Nahuatl New Testament, the for-
mulation “where the dead are” (canin caten in mijcamen) is used to translate
Hades (“hell”). Conversely, the Mixtec New Testament applies the modifying ex-
pression “where there are cold/humid dead” (nanu cahiin ndɨyɨ) to contour the
idea of hell. These translations do not give any warning of a place where punish-
ed souls are suffering (eternal) torment.
As in Christianity, quite a few American indigenous religions have tripartite
cosmologies, but there are two fundamental differences between in the philoso-
phy of space as it operates in indigenous religions and Christian doctrine. Indig-
enous religions have an ecological conception where earth or nature is animated
with deities or spirits, as opposed to the transcendence of God in the metaphys-
ical Christian cosmovision. Moreover, according to indigenous philosophy, there

 “Home,” Nahuatl Learning Environment, http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/.

 Xīmohuayān, “place of the dead,” “realm where the human body is shaved free of flesh”
(Karttunen 1992, 325). Tētōnehualōyan, “hell,” infierno (Karttunen 1992, 236). Tētōnēuh, “some-
thing that causes pain” (Karttunen 1992, 236). Tōnēhu(a), “to suffer burning pain” (Karttunen
1992, 247).
 http://nahuatl.ifrance.com/.
 Cf. López Austin (1997, 266 – 67).
 The Christian moral-spatial system 227

is no reward (salvation) of residing in heaven (upper world) or punishment for

sins that involves dwelling in an underworld after death.⁵⁷
In Cuetzalan, the earth is designed as cemanahuac (“that which is surround-
ed by water”), which is associated with talticpac (“on the border of the earth”)
and talmanic (“on the flat extensive earth”). The sky or heaven is ilhuicac, and
the underworld is talocan and mictan. It is this perceived relationality with na-
ture and agriculture of the mundane world that is central for the Mesoamerican
worldview and practices. Rituals and prayers to spirits or deities are focused
upon life in this world, where there is a reciprocal relationship with the sacred
forces of nature (Báez Cubero 2004, 10 – 14). This is illustrated by the view of
the universe’s structure that the Nahua of Chicontepec in the region of Huasteaca
of northeast Veracruz hold, which is divided into these realms: Ilhuicactli (“heav-
en”), Tlaltepactli (“earth”), and Mictlah (“place of the dead”), also called Tlalt-
zintla (“under the earth”), and Yoalcalco (“house of the night”), with its various
subdivisions. But the earth is the most important level and is described by the
notion semanahuactli (“container”) (Báez-Jorge 2003, 466 – 74).
The model of the universe adopted by the Nahua of Naupan of the Sierra
Norte de Puebla consists of ilhuicac, or the sky; tlaticpactli, or the earth; and tla-
litec or mictla, the underworld (the place of the dead). Three stones—symbolizing
the pillars that sustain the world—support the comal (“cookware”), or tenamaz-
tle (Báez Cubero 2008, 223 – 24; Lupo 2001, 342– 43; Knab 1991). People who suf-
fer good deaths and have led impeccable lives on earth go to Miktlan, but both
killers and their victims have to reside in “Lugar del Malo” (“evil place”), which
is associated with the earth, the mountain, and the deity Tlaltecutli (Velásquez
Galindo 2006, 47– 48). A child dying before he or she is 14 or 16 years old respec-
tively goes directly to Ilwaikatl, or heaven (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 51).
There are four places where human beings reside after death in Naupan: El
lugar de las “nanas”; Ilwicatl, or heaven; “lugar del malo” of the underworld;
and Miktlan (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 94 – 101, 116 – 17). It is the religious spe-
cialist tetokani (“sembrador” or “the planter”) and not the local Catholic priest
who presides over the funerary rituals ensuring that the deceased will be able
to reach the place of the dead. There is a belief in reincarnation where the spirits
of human beings return to earth, but in the neighbor village Tlaxpanaloya, the
Protestants criticize this cult of venerating the dead since they consider the
dead’s return a lie (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 115, 140 – 42, 154– 55). The Nahua
of San Miguel Tzinacapan of Sierra Norte de Puebla have two coexisting concepts

 The souls of the unborn were placed in Yoapan (yohuayan), “the Place/Time of Night” (Jan-
sen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 87, 310n18; Sahagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 52– 53).
228 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

for Mictlan: cali (“house”) and tecali (“cave”). Cali corresponds to the Christian
hell, whereas tecali is the place where the dead meet their ancestors again (Pury
Toumi 1984: 170 – 71).
According to belief in the village Santiago Yancuictlalpan, which is situated
in the eastern part of Sierra of Puebla, hell corresponds to Mictlan, or the cold,
hostile northern world, and not with the fire and heat in Christian theology (Si-
gnorini and Lupo 1992, 85).⁵⁸ Talocan is a designation not only for paradise of the
underworld but also for earth according to the people of Sierra de Puebla. Many
converts call the dwelling place of supernatural beings hell: “For the people of
the Sierra de Puebla life on earth is opposed to life in the earth and it is in the
earth that the supernaturlas are said to live” (Knab 1979, 127). Timothy Knab ar-
gues that the phrase “Tinemi in Talticpac: ‘We live on the earth’ indicates that we
—those who are our brothers’ tokniwan—live on the surface of the earth between
the heaven ilwikak and the underworld talokan. This ‘we,’ however, does not in-
clude the myriad supernatural beings …..these supernatural beings, duendes as
they are referred to in Spanish, are classed as amo tokniwan, ‘not our brothers,’
and they play an important role in society” (Knab 1979, 127). In the sixth subdi-
vision of heaven, Teopanco, dwell the Catholic saints (totiotzitzih) and the vari-
ous indigenous deities (Báez-Jorge 2003, 469). Apan, the Hill of Riches, consti-
tutes the eastern part of Talokan, whereas Mictalli, the Place of the Dead,
forms the northern part (Knab 1991; López Austin 1997, 168). In pre-Christian
Nahua religion, Tlalocan was the heaven of the rain god Tlaloc (Burkhart
1989, 51), known today in Cuetzalan as Talocan (Pury Toumi 1984: 176 – 78). Ac-
cording to the Florentine Codex, Tlaocan, the place of eternal spring, was a loca-
tion of wealth and pleasure with no suffering. People of various diseases and
those who had been struck by lighting and drowned went there after death (Sa-
hagún [1565] 1950 – 1982, III, 47).
For the Nahua of the Huasteca region of northern Veracruz, the dead go ei-
ther to Miktlan or to the underworld, but those who drown travel to the watery
realm called Apan (Provost 1980, 82). Human beings reside in Mictlan after death
but not in Ilhuicac. For the Nahua of the Sierra, the concept of talocan, or lugar
de Taloc (= Tlaloc) designates the chthonic world (cf. Lok 1987, 219; Knab and
Sánchez 1975, 3). This world consists of supernatural beings (taloque) and
does not correspond to a subterranean paradise where elected dead sprits of Tla-
loc subsist (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 192n6).⁵⁹ James Taggart outlines, however, a
quite different contemporary Nahua concept of sin and hell:

 Cf. also data collected by Stresser-Péan (2005, 406 – 7).

 Cf. Knab (1979, 1991).
 The Christian moral-spatial system 229

The Nahuat have adopted the idea that one’s destiny after death depends on moral conduct
in life. Sinners end up as slaves of the devil, who lives in a cave in the forest. The less tar-
nished go to paradise (Talocan) where milpas grow tall, animals graze on rich pastures, and
one can buy things in stores much as one does in life on earth (Taggart 1983, 162).

This is a concept of perdition and salvation adapted to Christian eschatological

doctrine, but the natural world of indigenous philosophy is still emphasized.
Andaya, later translated as “hell” by the Christian missionaries, was the an-
cient Mixtec concept of underworld. The Catholic missionaries also employed the
Spanish loanword infierno in the colonial period. Hellcould in addition be des-
ignated as huahi demonios, “house of demons” (Terraciano 2001, 304). Accord-
ing to Alvarado’s dictionary, Andaya, “Place of Death,” or Huahi Cahi, “ceme-
tery,” represents south (one of the four cardinal directions). Huahi Cahi is
today pronounced Vehe Kihin, which does not refer to the south; instead, it is
a cave of evil spirits. Huahi Cahi might have contained the entrance to the under-
world (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 192), and various caves are known to be
Vehe Kihin in Mixteca Alta (Dzahui Ñuhu), of which Santiago de Yosundúa gives
a renowned example (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 195). The Spanish ethnog-
rapher-missionary fray Francisco de Burgoa reports that the Huahi Cahi cave in
Chalcatongo (Ñuu Ndaya) became a mausoleum of Mixtec lords (Burgoa [1674]
1989, I, 337– 441 in Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 319n35). Bad souls go after
death to miñi’ino, which is a big charco (“of the devil”) close to Jamiltepec of
the Mixteca (Flanet 1978, 93). In Chalcatongo, an informant told me that there
is a tradition that dogs help individuals cross the river to the next life. A person
needs many dogs because an owner does not know which dog is going to assist
him or her in the task (pers. comm. 2009).
Andevui, “heaven” or the House of the Sun, is located in the east. This is rep-
resented on earth by Kaua Kaandiui (Cavua Caa Andevui), “Rock That Rises into
Heaven” or “Rock on Which the Heaven Rests” the place of Heaven located on a
mountain close to the Mixtec village Apoala (Yuta Tnoho) (Jansen and Pérez Ji-
ménez 2007, 71, 85, 140). Ñuu Anima, “Place of Souls,” is the name for the moun-
tain Yuku Kasa (Yucu Cadza) in the Itundujia region, which is situated between
the coast and Mixteca Alta. ⁶⁰ The dead congregate on the top in “a special mar-
ketplace of the deceased,” a “gateway to Heaven” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez
2007, 195). Moreover, there is a partition of cosmology in two halves (sava) in
Santiago Nuyo, and they consist of Ñu’un (Earth), Sukun (Sky), and Savi (Rain)

 The rain shrine in Santiago de Yosondúa is on the mountain Yucu Kasa (Monaghan 1995,
108).
230 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

(Monaghan 1995, 97). Ñuu ánima, located under the earth, is the name of the
place of the dead in Santiago Nuyoo (Monaghan 1995, 118).
These numerous examples of indigenous geocentric philosophy demostrate
its complete dissimilarity from the Protestant spatial conception of postmortem
metaphysical dwellings where human beings are being judged according to their
moral behavior. But here lies also the potentially transformative effect of the SIL-
translated New Testaments into indigenous languages: a radical shift in the re-
ligious content of spatial philosophy has to take place among indigenous people
in order for them to appropriate the translated cosmology of the New Testament
into their own languages.

The Christian moral-temporal system

Intimately associated with spatial philosophy, the Christian concept of linear es-
chatological time involves a final judgment at the end of the world where the
souls of human beings are committed to either perdition or salvation. This tem-
poral ideology contests the indigenous American philosophy of cyclical (agricul-
tural) time, which is connected to the natural world. Deloria maintains that
Christian theology is occupied with the philosophical problem of time where na-
ture (ecology) does not have the same significance. Conversely, indigenous
American religions are concerned with the philosophical problem of space,
where the religious experience and traditions involve the natural world (Deloria
2003, 61– 62, 65). In this regard, Deloria considers the radical difference between
the metaphysical (abstract) moral principles of Christianity with the moral prac-
tical ecology of indigenous thinking: “spatial thinking requires that ethical sys-
tems be related directly to the physical world and real human situations, not ab-
stract principles, ….” (2003, 72).
Eschatological Christian ideology contains the concept of a final judgment,
which represents the definitive termination of history where time (Gr. chronos)
has an absolute beginning and conclusion. In indigenous religions, there is no
teleology of time that corresponds to the Christian eschatology of the ultimate
future human salvation.⁶¹ Human existence follows agricultural cycles of nature
related to ceremonies (Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker 2001, 13 – 14), for example, in
the cyclic worldview of Naupan’s Nahua, who survive because of the deities to
whom they sacrifice and of whom they ask forgiveness for transgressions. Expe-

 The Long Count Calendar of Mesoamerican civilizations follows a linear temporal principle
(cf. Pharo 2013).
 The Christian moral-temporal system 231

rience on earth is only temporary, something that happens before human beings
return to the world of the shadows; in this view, humans are destined by the dei-
ties at birth and are accordingly not masters of their own fates (Báez Cubero
2008, 228 – 29).
In all cultures, the concept of time reflects and constructs a predominant
psychological disposition. Eschatological linear time is suggested in the New
Testament, particularly in chapter twenty of Revelation, although that passage
lacks particular abstract philosophical concepts describing this temporal ideol-
ogy. The apostle Peter’s speech in Acts 3:19 – 20 suggests, however, the end of the
world and (linear) time by the advent of the Messianic age: “Repent therefore,
and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing
may come from the presence of the Lord.” The key word in this passage is “times
of refreshing” (Sp. tiempos de refrigerio), or anapsueis in the Greek New Testa-
ment lexicon, which refers to the Messianic age with an “experience of relief
from obligation or trouble, breathing space, relaxation, relief” (BDAG 2000,
75). There is, however, no corresponding translation of Acts 3:19 in the Mixtec
New Testament; the SIL translators have chosen to avoid this idea, which is
quite foreign to Mixtec language and religion. Instead, there is the rephrasing
“but repent your sin before you will perish, and believe in your God, in order
to remove your this sin or you will perish” (Co nacani ini nuu cuachi ra naa ra,
ti candixia ra Yandios, nava na quenchaa cuachi ra un naa ra)—accentuating a
future threat of eternal individual condemnation (another unfamiliar conception
in Mixtec religion and philosophy). Conversely, the SIL missionary linguists at-
tempt to translate “the times of refreshing” in the Nahuatl New Testament
with mechyolpacmacalos (“will give you happiness in heart”). The whole sen-
tence can be literaly back-translated as: “Now therefore, change your heart
and he will pardon or destroy you something damaged. When this your revered
Lord (Totecohtzin) will give you happiness in heart” (Axan tel, ximoyolcuepacan
huan mechtlapohpoluilisque namotlahtlacol. Ihcuac inon in Totecohtzin cuali me-
chyolpacmacalos). Clearly, mechyolpacmacalos (“will give you happiness in
heart”) does not have any temporal connotation but instead focuses upon a per-
sonal blessing. Thus, following Protestant theology, the translation of Acts 3:19 in
both the Mixtec and the Nahuatl New Testaments accentuates the sin, repen-
tence, and salvation of the individual human being as opposed to the termina-
tion of time and the world for the human race, as is indicated in the source text.
Another example of a suggestion of a Christian eschatology of time in the New
Testament is expressed by Christ at the very end of the Gospel of Matthew. After his
resurrection, he encourages his eleven disciples at the mountain in Galilee to mis-
sionize Christianity to all nations of the world. He concludes according to the last
passage from Mt. 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” The Greek
232 IV The Politics of Translating Christian Moral Philosophy

word aiosōnos, or aiōnios, from the New Testament has both temporal and spatial
connotations (BDAG 2000, 32– 33). A close observation of nature where time and
quadripartite space are interrelated exists in the spatial-temporal thinking among
the contemporary Mixtec (Pérez Jiménez 2008a: 111), but the SIL linguists of the Mix-
tec New Testament translate the passage as “I am with you every day until when the
world will terminate” (ri jiin ra naa ra taca ni quɨvɨ undi na ndɨhɨ ñuyɨvɨ). Also, the
translated Nahuatl New Testament has a spatial emphasis: “I will be together
with you every day, until when the world will end” (niyes nochin tonali hasta ic tla-
mis in tlalticpactli). There is accordingly a more or less literal rendering of Reina Va-
lera with an emphasis on “space” or “world,” expressed with the Mixtec word ñuyɨvɨ
(Macaulay 1996, 228; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 99; K. Farris 2002, 70) and the Na-
huatl word tlalticpactli (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 220;
Karttunen 1992, 277)—instead of time (age).
As linear and cyclic calendars were important, many Mesoamerican cultures
had the notion of world ages or world eras (cf. Pharo 2013). Scholars generally
agree that the Aztecs had a conception of five world ages. The world age was
called “sun,” or tonatiuh in Nahuatl (Bierhorst 1992a, 142 – 44, 147– 49; 1992b,
87– 88, 90 – 92), and the five world ages in Aztec religion each have a distinctive
set of characteristics and hence identities represented by names of the 260-day
calendar. These were respectively terminated by a particular cataclysmic destruc-
tion, and its inhabitants were either destroyed or transformed into another form.
In chronological, or linear, order the five world ages were:

1. Nahui Ocelotl (“4 Jaguar”)

2. Nahui Ehecatl (“4 Wind”)
3. Nahui Quiahuitl (“4 Rain”)
4. Nahui Atl (“4 Water”)
5. Nahui Ollin (“4 Movement”)

Each world age was named after a date in the 260-day cycle and was associated
with and presided over by a particular deity and a particular group of beings that
were either exterminated or transformed into different kinds of beings. These
were the dates on which the Sun (tonatiuh) or world were terminated. The
world that we are now living in will end on the date Nahui Ollin (“4 Movement”).
Ollin in this context refers to a world-devastating earthquake, since that type of
natural disaster is quite common in central Mexico. Thus the names from the
260-day calendar of the Five Suns refer to the quality of the world ages and
the ways their inhabitants will be demolished. It is not surprising that the SIL
translators would not select tonatiuh, the Nahuatl temporal word for “age”
(which was also the name of the Nahua sun deity), because it is to close to
 The Christian moral-temporal system 233

the religious non-Christian vocabulary. It is, however, rather remarkable that to-
nali has glosses not only for “day” (and “date”) but also “time” according to the
SIL dictionary from northern Puebla (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés 2000, 241). The meaning of either a ultimate termination of “age”
(time) or the “world” (space) represents more or less the same eschatological
ideology, but the SIL spatial-lexical translations indicate that contemporary in-
digenous philosophy does not contain a conception of linear temporal time
and is more concerned with space.
It is the narrative of the New Testament and not its abstract concepts that
conveys the evangelical message of a final future end of the time and the
world, which is quite exotic to indigenous American cyclic temporal philosophy.
In this regard, it is indeed remarkable that the SIL missionary linguists do not
make the story of the beginning of the world (cosmogony) and humanity (anthro-
pogeny) available to indigenous American peoples through translation. It is not
the New Testament but its predecessor the Hebrew Bible that contains the crea-
tion account, but the so-called Old Testament is, however, not generally translat-
ed by the SIL into indigenous American languages (nevertheless, there are quite
a few exceptions to this general tendency). Consequently, the SIL translators do
not make the related creation story—the account about the beginning of time,
space, and beings—accessible to the target cultures. Because the narrative of cre-
ation is fundamental to indigenous American religions, its omission surely ap-
pears strange to the readers of the translated New Testaments. Thus, the SIL mis-
sionary linguists do not convey to their audience some of the cornerstone
elements of the Christian message; in fact, a significant part of scripture is lack-
ing due to nontranslation.
V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology
Among missionary Protestant denominations there exists an Evangelical theolo-
gy of conversion holding that the individual must repent of sins and “accept
Christ as their only savior.” The fundamental principle of salvation establishes
a personal relationship with God, which can only happen through Christ, not
by baptism or (ritual) actions alone. Christ’s sacrifice allows repentance and
faith to work in this way (Bowen 1996, 76, 102– 3). In Why Bible Translation Is
Important, director of Wycliffe UK, Eddie Arthur emphasizes Christ not only in
Christian belief but also in Bible translation:

The incarnation of the Son of God on the earth is the central fact of the Christian faith and
our primary responsibility is to bear witness to his life, death and resurrection. Our message
is not a philosophical system or a religion, but the man, Jesus Christ. The incarnation is not
only the heart of our faith; it is also at the heart of Bible translation providing both the pos-
sibility of translation and the model for translation (Arthur 2010).

Christ came to the Americas, so to speak, with evangelizing European mission-

aries in the early sixteenth century. Indigenous polytheistic, inclusive religions
have appropriated Christ, but he has different (often marginal) roles, status,
and representations.¹ Christ is, however, not conceived as the moral-eschatolog-
ical savior of human beings from sin according in many contemporary indige-
nous American religions.
The cultural ethos of a community comprises epistemology and ideas ex-
pressed by key and core concepts of indigenous languages. Furthermore, linguis-
tic cognition defines the meaning and structure of social and political practices,
organisations and instituions of a society. I consequently hypotheize that mis-
sionary linguistic translation of the Christological moral-soteriology doctrine of
the New Testament has potential repercussions not only for the languages, phi-
losophies and religions but in addition for the societies and political systems of
indigenous American peoples.
The title “New Testament” (Sp. Nuevo Testamento) suggests the central role
and actions of Christ.² In Mt. 26:28 Christ says to his disciples, instituting the sac-
rament of the Eucharist: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is

 Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker have observed several parallels between Christ and the trickster in
indigenous religions of North America (Kidwell et al. 2001, 121– 25).
 The Greek term diatheke is translated as “last will, testament, covenant, compact, contract”
(BDAG 2000, 228 – 29).

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-006
 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology 235

shed for many for the remission of sins.”³ The New Testament, or New Covenant,
refers to the ancient accord of the Old Testament, where God made a contract
with the Hebrews as his chosen people—Christian theology conceives of the
New Testament as the fulfillment of the that promise, but between God and
the followers of Christ. The Hebrew Bible contains the first covenant with Abra-
ham (Gen. 15 – 17) and prophesies the arrival of Christ as the Messiah, the savior
of humanity, in fulfillment of that pact.
New Testament is translated with In Yancuic Mononotzalistli ica Totecohtzin
Jesucristo: “The new discussion/conversation/talk/consultation/ by our revered
Lord Jesus Christ” in Nahuatl. There is no correspondence between testament
and the polysemic mononotzalistli. The SIL translators of the Mixtec New Testa-
ment, on the other hand, simply use the Spanish Nuevo Testamento, but
Mt. 26:28 is translated with the Spanish word tratu (trato), “deal, agreeement,
pact,” modified by the Mixtec jaa (“new”) to render “new testament.” The
term New Testament is not translated in Nahua and Mixtec colonial or postcolo-
nial dictionaries; neither is there a translation for Bible in colonial or postcolo-
nial dictionaries. The Mixtec dictionary of San Juan Colorado is an exception; it
translates Bible with tútu nyòó (Campbell et al. 1986, 105), which means “Paper
of God or saint.”
Gospel ⁴ is also closely associated with Christ. The gospel relates Christian
doctrine and the word of God, the good news of the New Testament. The teaching
or revelation of Christ or the record of his life and teaching in the four gospels of
the New Testament ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John give an account of
the birth, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Mark 1:1 opens with
“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” but there is no
synonym for gospel in indigenous languages of the Americas. The Mixtec New
Testament translates gospel with “here begins the word of Jesus” (jaha quejaha
jnuhun Jesús), adding that “and with this word He can fight to save us” (ti jnuhun
un cuu ja ni quii ya ja ni nama ya yoho). “The new word of Jesus Christ” (in yan-
cuic tlahtoli ica Jesucristo) is the SIL translation in the Nahuatl New Testament.

 Cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25.

 Euaggelizo or euaggelion (BDAG 2000, 402– 3).
236 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

Translation of Christology:
The identity, person, and nature of Jesus Christ
Christology collects the doctrines concerning the person, identity, philosophy,
and works of Christ. I concenter the analysis to the translation of the moral-es-
chatological and sociopolitical aspects of this extensive theological subject. Be-
fore I explicate SIL translations of the identity, person, and nature of Christ, I an-
alyze translations of Trinity, God, and the Holy Spirit.

Trinity in scripture

Christ is part of the Trinity with God and the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. Neither
the term Trinity nor a definite theological doctrine about this concept is outlined
in the New Testament. Wycliffe Bible Translators base its theological doctrine on
this proclamation:

We believe in one God, who exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit ….We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, is
fully God and fully human.⁵

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are associated together in the missionary
commission to the eleven disciples given by Christ after resurrection. According
to Mt. 28:19, Christ says: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptiz-
ing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The
last phrase naming the Trinity has been translated in the Mixtec New Testament
as “and you baptise those who truly believed father God with Son (God) with
Holy Spirit” (ti scuanducha ra i nu ja ni ca candixia ndaa i maa tata yo Yandios,
jiin Sehe ya, jiin Espíritu Santo). “In the name of” is omitted. Father and Son are
rendered with the Mixtec-Spanish neologism Yandios and Mixtec Ya, respective-
ly, indicating deity status, whereas the “Holy Spirit” is expressed with the Span-
ish loanword Espíritu Santo. SIL translators employ the preposition with (jiin) in-
stead of the conjunction and to emphasize the unity—a monotheism of one God
in three persons—of the Trinity and to guard against the idea that Christianity
has three separate individual deities and is therefore polytheist.
Since the beginning of the evangelization of the Americas, missionaries have
tried to explain the difficult idea of monotheism through the concept of trinity. In

 “About Us,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/DoctrinalStatement/

tabid/64/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 Trinity in scripture 237

the Catholic colonial Doctrina, Trinity is called uni yya Reyes (Hernández, 1568,
xxxvii reverso), or “the three lord kings” (tres Señores Reyes) (Jansen and
Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 157). But the idea is also expressed in the same Doctrina
as “Saint Trinidad, three persons but one Lord (iya) God” (Sancta Trinidad uni
personas dza eeni yya Dios [iya]) (Hernández, 1568, clxxxiii reverso; Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 153). The Mixtec concept yya refer to “sacredness”
and is connected to yy, “a term associated with honoured, sacred, precious,
and delicate things” (Terraciano 2001, 135, 439n3). In communities of the Mixteca
Alta, the San Cristóbal is the Spanish name for the deity of the earth whom the
curanderos invoke as the Trinity—San Cristóbal, San Cristina and Santo Lugar
(Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 126). Among contemporary Mixtecs, Ñuhu
Ndehyu, the Earth God, manifests the concept of Ñuhu (“God”), and he is “in-
voked as the Trinity of ‘San Cristobal, San Cristina, Santo Lugar,’ present
throughout the landscape and the epitome of Nature as a superhuman force”
(Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2010, 73).
SIL translators of the Nahuatl New Testament choose a different semantic
strategy by not accentuating monotheism. A back-translation of the passage in
Mt. 28:19 may be conveyed as: “and let sprinkle on your head with the authority
of our great revered father and I the his revered child and the its sacred revered
spirit” (huan xiquincuatequican ica in tequihuahyotl den tohueyitahtzin huan neh-
huatl in iconetzin huan in itiotonaltzin). “Authority” (tequihuahyotl) replaces “the
name,” but more importantly, the literal translation gives the impression of three
separate deities or spirits instead of one God in three persons. Only adding to
that singular depiction, Christ is emphasized with the independent singular pro-
noun I (nehhuatl). An early colonial testament from Culhuacan operates with the
Trinity as çan ce persona (“just one person”), confusing the Spanish loanword
persona (“person”) with esencia (“essence”), where the latter frequently appears
as –yeliztzin, “being,” in Nahuatl. In other cases, notaries translate “three per-
sons” with the Spanish loanword or the Nahuatl term (yeintzitzin) teotlacatzitzin-
tin, “(three) god-persons,” or “(three) divine persons.” One text from Tenayuca
(located north of Mexico City) renders Trinity with “three gods but just one
God,” in yeintintzitzin teteo auh ca ça cetzin yn teotl Dios (Lockhart 1992, 254,
553 – 54nn218 – 19).
The theological concept of the Trinity is mainly avoided in Sierra Norte de
Puebla (Stresser-Péan 2005, 446 – 47),⁶ where the Nahuatl concept tenamazte is
likened to the Christian Trinity and the earth. The tenamazte are named Dios te-
tahtzin, Dios tepiltzin, Dios Espíritu Santo (Dios, Padre, Dios Hijo, Dios Espíritu

 For various translations of the Trinity into colonial Nahuatl, cf. Tavárez (2000).
238 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

Santo). Feminine elements are also linked with the earth (Dios tetahtzin, Dios
tenanzin, Dios tepiltzin; Sp. Dios, Padre, Dios Madre, Dios Hijo) as three divine
persons (María, Colasa, Xihuana; Sp. María, Nicolasa, Juana) (Lupo 2001,
344n7). The identification between Trinity and comal symbolize the domestic mi-
crocosmos and the three tenamazte, where the Trinity is likened to the inter-
twinement between world and God (a pairing understood as “our lord and his
woman”), so that sacred whole is half woman and half man—the sexual under-
standing of the earth is accordingly dual, not tripartite. The Trinity (earth) can
therefore be called Padre Trinidad y Madre Trinidad, Juan Antonio Trinidad
and María Nicolasa Trinidad, and so forth (Lupo 2001, 347n10, 348). Some be-
lieve that the Trinity represents the three stones of the hearth, tenamaztli, man-
ifesting the Father, Mother, and the Son. One prayer to the earth entitled “Trin-
ity,” refers to the Father as Tetahtzin, the Mother as Tenantzin, and the Son as
Tepiltzin (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 226 – 27; Stresser-Péan 2005, 447). In the com-
munities of Sierra norte de Puebla, the Trinity can also consist of Nuestro Padre,
creator of the sky (Talokan noteiskaltijkatatsin), his son Jesucristo-sol, and madre
(creator of the earth) called Talokan noteiskaltijkanantzin (Aramoni Burguete
1990, 27). In Cuetzalan Tejuatzin Semanauak is the sacred mother Virgin of the
earth. A masculine-feminine opposition organizes the universe of the Nahua
(Aramoni Burguete 1990, 165).
Among the Nahua of the village Santiago Yancuictlalpan the eastern part of
Sierra of Puebla, a monolactric pantheon posits supernatural beings as primus
inter pares and relates them to various natural phenomena: in addition to God
and the saints, Christ is the sun, the Trinity is the earth, and the Virgin Mary
is the moon (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 226 – 28; Lupo 1990; Signorini and Lupo
1992, 93n11). The Nahua synthesized the Christian Trinity with the pre-Christian
dual earth deity, and the concept of Holy Trinity is today applied to the divine
male and female couple who reigns on and below earth: “as in Aztec times,
the Earth-Trinty is still “at one and the same the great womb and tomb of all
live’” (Nicholson 1971, 422 quoted in Signorini and Lupo 1992, 93n12).
Additionally, in Sierra de Puebla, the Nahua pray to the Trinity, which is per-
ceived as the earth: “Nombre del Padre, del Hijo, del Espíritu Santo, amen. San-
tísma Trinidad, tehuatzin titalticpac (“Tú eres la Tierras”)” (Signorini and Lupo
1989, 204– 7). This Trinity consists of various beings of both genders. The three
tenamatze (three cylindric stones of the home that support the comal and the
ollas) are tetahtzin (padre), tenantizn (madre), and tepiltzin (hijo, “child”),
where the last element can substitute for many deities of both genders and
many names. Earth was, accordingly, both masculine (Tlaltecuhtli) and feminine
(Cihuacoalt, Coatlicue, Tlazolteotl) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 226 – 27). In Sierra
de Puebla, the Tapahtiani (religious specialist) makes an invocation (Súplica con-
 Translations of the concept of God 239

tra un nemouhtil) to the Tierra-Trinidad in order to obtain benevolence for a sick

child (carente de ecahuil) with help from invoked deities (Christ, Virgin Mary,
Santiago, San Miguel). Essentially, this would liberate the substance ecahuil so
the diseased can get it back (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 204– 26).
This exemplify that American indigenous peoples conceptualize the Trinity
in a manner quite different from European-American Christian theology. Trans-
lating the New Testament into indigenous languages, using words from indige-
nous religious vocabury, consequently represent a significant linguistic and
theological challenge for the US Protestant missionary linguists.

Translations of the concept of God

There are many concepts of God in the history of Christian theology, but by and
large the perception of divine being(s) is radically different from indigenous re-
ligious systems. A translation of the Christian deity into indigenous languages
has therefore been a major challenge for missionary linguists. ⁷ The doctrine
of monotheism is itself in stark contrast with indigenous American polytheism
or monolatry. The idea of an exclusive transcendent (deus otsius) Christian
God (Gr. Theos; BDAG 2000, 450) opposes the presence of deities (saints) or spi-
rits of the natural world. For the Nahua of Naupan and in Sierra del Norte, the
deities can be creative and positive as well as destructive and negative in char-
acter (Velásquez Galindo 2006, 38n106). In this, the Nahua have much in com-
mon with many other indigenous worldviews, so missionary linguists’ scriptural
translations of God truly impose a concept of the divine that is fundamentally
other.
Despite their aspiration to avoid loanwords, SIL translators of the Nahuatl
New Testament used the Spanish word Dios for “God”⁸— they were very con-
scious of not confusing the Christian God with deities and spirits of Nahua reli-
gion Nahuatl terms for God are, however, being used today, and various lexemes
have been recorded by SIL and nonmissionary lexicographers (Key and Key 1953,
219; Kimball 1980, 52, 56; Pury Toumi 1984). Scholars usually translate the pre-
Christian term teotl as “god” (Hvidtfeldt 1958, 77), as opposed to “human being”
(tlācatl) (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 101r). Tavárez and Pury Toumi maintain,
however, that there were multifunctional referents of teotl in the pre-Christian/

 For the translation of God into Dakota, see Siems (1998).

 A SIL dictionary contains a Latin-Nahuatl compound for honorific plural, deities, deustzītzi
(Brewer and Brewer 1971, 126). Cf. the corresponding Nahuatl lexeme tiotzitzih in the nonmissioa-
nary dictionary (Kimball 1980, 56).
240 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

pre-Hispanic period, creating ambiguity for the Franciscans (Pury Toumi 1994,
64– 65; Tavárez 2000, 24– 25; Murillo Gallegos 2010).
Causing a translation predicament for the missionaries, a theistic theology of
monotheism of absolute goodness and lordship did not exist in polytheist Amer-
ican religions. Instead, indigneous Mesoamerican deities were ambivalent, both
benign and malign, creators and destructors, forces of harmony and chaos in na-
ture and the universe (Cervantes 1994, 40 – 43). Colonial missionaries used teotl
as well as Dios in order to translate the Christian notion of God (Burkhart 1989,
39; Tavárez 2000, 24– 25). The former became the generic term for deity, while
Dios became the appropriate name for the Christian God. Wills from the late sev-
enteenth and eighteenth centuries combine the Spanish and Nahuatl terms for
God by using my god (noteotzin) and ruler (notlahtocatzin), God (Dios) and
teutl dios. In the late colonial period, the Spanish loanword santo became the ge-
neric term for indigenous supernatural being (Lockhart 1992, 253, 553nn213 – 14).
But there were other colonial linguistic strategies for translating god. Sahagún
equates the Nahuatl word teotl with “devil” (Sp. diablo) (Sahagún [1560] 1997,
70n3) and warned against translating teotl as Christian “God” because of its as-
sociaton with Nahua religion (Burkhart 1989, 40 – 44). This is manifested in Libro
de los Coloquios, where Sahagún puts the modified designation of the Christian
God into Nahuatl: in zan iceltzin nelli teotl, “the only true God” (Pury Toumi
1984: 64 – 66). Some missionaries, as for instance in the doctrine of Peter of
Ghent (1547), attached a reference to the Christian deity to teotl by including
the Spanish name in the Nahuatl text (Tavárez 2000, 24– 25).
A contemporary nonmissionary Nahuatl dictionary translates teotl as “deity”
(Nepmuceno Vázquez and Lascano 1982, 138), but the SIL dictionary from north-
ern Puebla record the Nahuatl word teotl as “host” (Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 202). The body of Christ, or the bread consecreated in the
Eucharist has this designation among Nahua in northern Puebla. In Sierra Norte
de Puebla, God is sometimes confused with Joseph, the husband of Mary and the
father of Christ. God is feared and venerated but has no specific cult; he is asked
for healing of illness, but he is the Almighty Father who punishes the sins of
human beings, not a God of love (Stresser-Péan 2005, 447). An invocation as-
serts, “You are most powerful,” Tehuatzin más tipoderoso (Sp. Tú eres más poder-
oso) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 260 – 61). There are no moral absolutes between
humans and deitites in Nahua philosophy; instead this “instant religion”⁹ has
a ‘do ut des’ (Lat. I give that you may give) or reciprocal relation manifested

 See Ioan M. Lewis (1981), Social Anthropology in Perspective. The Relevance of Social Anthro-
pology (Harmondsworth: Penguin), 144– 51.
 Translations of the concept of God 241

in rituals between supernatural and human beings and has no eschatological

doctrine with judgment in another world postmortem (Lupo 2001, 353).
In the Mixtec New Testament, SIL translators employ the compound neolo-
gism Yandios (the Mixtec prefix yan, or “sacredness” and the Spanish Dios) for
“God” (K. Farris 2002, 94; Monaghan 1995, 101). Ñuhu and yya toniñe which
were the pre-Hispanic terms for title of divine beings and male and female
ruler (Terraciano 2001, 297– 98). The Mixtec concept stoho refers to “lord”
(135), and yya is connected with yy, “a term associated with honoured, sacred,
precious, and delicate things” (439n3). In the colonial period, God and Christ
were both translated with stoho ñuhundo Nuestro Señor Dios (Ñuhu), iia toniñe
no Sr el rey “Nuestro Señor” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 147– 48, 181–
82), “Our Lord God, the king Our Lord.” God was also rendered as stoho Dios,
“lord God”; Stohondo Dios, “our Lord God.” The titles of divine beings, the
kings and queens were ihà, ‘señor’ and ihà síhí, ‘señora’, Ihà síhí is today the des-
ignation for Virgen María (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 14). The colonial Catholic mis-
sionaries defined the Christian God as yya, “Señor divino, cacique” and ñuhu,
“deidad, espíritu” (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 182). Ñuhu is for instance
used in Doctrina (Hernández, 1568, viii.; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 155;
Alvarado [1593] 1962, 81r; Reyes [1593] 1962, 127). In the collection Belmar,
ñuhu is applied in translation of Christ on the Cross: Eli Eli lama sabatanini yo-
cachitnuni ndudzu ñudzahui ñuhu, ñuhu, nidzañe ñahani si ñadzaña (Aramaic
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani; “My God, my God, for what have you forsaken
me”) (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 182n9). There is in addition a reference
to God as Ini Andehui, “Heart of the Heaven” (i. e., the sun) (Jansen and Pérez
Jiménez 2009a, 184). But also the Mixtec-Spanish neologism ndios was used
(159, 215). Ndiosi, “god,” in Santiago Nuyoo relates today to saints or nu ñu’un,
the face of the earth (Monaghan 1995, 99 – 104).
Concepts of the divinity are expressed in contemporary Mixtec languages by
various designations. Spirits of places who are venerated are called Ñùhù or
Toba. Ñùhù is the general concept for divine beings. Ñùhu, “divinity,” can appear
to express religious respect in various verbs (Pérez Jiménez 2008b, 126). The
highly complicated concept of Ñùhu refers, for instance to religious beings like
Saints and deities of various natural sites. The etymology of its synonym Toba
may derive from the name “santo Cristiano,” of which it was identified: San
Cristóbal. Tohò vàha is translated as señor bueno. Tobas live everywhere and
are invoked and thanked for various actions, agriculture, and curing (Pérez Jimé-
nez 2008b, 102; Witter 2011, 123 – 42).
The diminutivo suffix –tzinohua appearing with verbs that have a mo– prefix
indicates great respect and are employed in ceremonials and in reference to a
deity in Nahuatl (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 375).
242 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

There is no male gender in the grammatical systems of various indigenous lan-

guages. There is therefore a bigender or neutral duality in numerous indigenous
religions of the Americas (Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker 2001, 17). Gender is not a
grammatical category in Nahuatl. In Mixtec, there is a taxonomy of pronouns
classifying not only gender but also beings. Human beings in general (yɨvɨ) are
categorised by i and yɨ, whereas masculinity (chaa, “man”) is classified by da,
femininity (ña’a, “woman”) with ña, and animals with tɨ. Ya is applied as the di-
vine pronoun for “He” (E. Farris 1992, 134– 36; K. Farris 2002, 155, 158).¹⁰ Every-
thing is animated by the same sacred force yɨɨ in Santiago Nuyoo (Monaghan
1995, 137).
Indeed, the SIL lexicographers register a quite a few words that can express
the divine or God in the dialects of the Mixtec language (Stark et al. 2005, 40;
Campbell et al. 1986, 18, 48, 57). Furthermore, in the nonmissionary linguist Mix-
tec (oral) literature there are numerous designations for “God” and the “divine”
(Macaulay 1996, 210, 211, 258; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 9, 11, 62, 93, 97; Caballero
Morales 2008, 333, 407, 748, 806). As opposed to the Nahuatl translation, by con-
structing the compound Mixtec-Spanish word Yandios and using the divine pro-
noun Ya, SIL misssionary linguists of the Mixtec New Testament make a strategic
compromise in order to convey the idea of the Christian God.
The Yucatec-Maya word ku was used by missionaries in the early colonial pe-
riod for both indigenous deities and the Christian God. To worship “false” deities
was described with the expresion kuulilantah, “to god-revere it,” which required
a Spanish entry. U kuul ah ma ocolalob, the deity of the gentiles (“the god of
those who do not believe”) categorizes non-Christian deities, whereas hunab
ku (“one god”) represents the singular Christian God. Spanish Dios was also
used simulataneoulsy (Hanks 2010, 133, 153, 237– 38). Conversely, colonial mis-
sionaries hesitated to employ Mixtec ñuhu or Nahuatl teotl for God because of
their association with non-Christian deities (Terraciano 2001, 260, 303 – 4). The
same cautious practice is observed by SIL missionary linguists.¹¹

 In contemporary Nahuatl, plural is employed to indicate passive voice. The subject of the
nominal phrase is omitted, but not if the agent is God (Dios) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway,
and Valdés 2000, 362).
 In Acts 3:19 God is translated not with Dios but with Totecohtzin, “our Lord (Señor),” in the
Nahuatl translation; Mixtec scriptures apply Yandios. Teuc-tli refers to “lord” in the Classic
Nahua aristocratic system (Karttunen 1992, 237), whereas the meaning in contemporary Nahuatl
has become “elder” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 198).
 The Holy Spirit /Ghost transferred 243

The Holy Spirit /Ghost transferred

The third entity of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit (Gr. Hagios pneuma; BDAG 2000, 10,
832– 34, 836) or Holy Ghost (Old English gast, “spirit”; Gr. phantasma—1049) is
in particular outlined in the Acts of the Apostles, where this being is associated
with spiritual healing, prophecy, exorcism and speaking in tongues (glossola-
lia).¹² Pentecostals in particular emphasize spiritual baptism and healing
through ecstasy in the Holy Spirit, but the same power given to the apostles is
only considered a historical act according to traditional Protestant and Catholic
theology. Translating the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is complicated because sa-
cred spirits are known in many of the polytheistic indigenous religions.¹³
Carlos Garma maintains that Pentecostalism has held particular appeal for
indigenous peoples due to practices of faith healing and miracles. Spiritual heal-
ing is essential in converting indigenous peoples to Pentecostal churces, which
also tradionally have a considerable contingent of indigenous clergy, allowing
religious services to be conducted in indigenous languages (Garma 2001, 59 –
60). Garma claims that “many Indians have understood the similarity between
Pentecostal spiritual healing and traditional supernatural curing that invokes
the aid of divine elements or entities. It is possible for them to accept that “heal-
ing by the Holy Spirit” is the correct way to achieve salvation, although this
means renouncing their previous beliefs and practices” (Garma 2001, 59).
James Dow does not agree with this “psychologial explanation” of indigenous
conversion to Protestantism. The flower ceremonies (Sp. costumbres) of the
Ñähñu (Otomí) in the Sierra of Hidalgo of Central Mexico constitute meetings be-
tween supernatural beings and humans during which it appears that religious
specialists speak in tongues during trance. This is not ecstatic and unintelligible
personal contact with the Holy Spirit, however, but intelligible visionary (and
meaningful) public speech toward local deities in order to heal the community
and counsel individual beings. There is no equivalence between “speaking in
tongues and native visionary counselling” and accordingly no correspondence
between Pentecostal and indigenous religious practices (Dow 2001, 10 – 11;
2005, 832– 33).
There may be a danger in confusing the concept of the Christian “Holy Spi-
rit” of the transcendent Trinity with local indigenous spirits, deities, and saints,
which in many cases are intimately associated with phenomena in the natural

 The apostles at the day of the Pentecost are in described in Acts 2.1– 4.
 The Holy Spirit is likened to spirit possession in African-Brazilian religions (Chesnut 1997,
93 – 94).
244 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

world. By making use of the Spanish loan phrase Espíritu Santo in the Mixtec
New Testament, the SIL translators attempt to avoid such confusion with the pur-
pose of setting the Christian Holy Spirit apart from indigenous religion. More-
over, it is possible of course to use Mixtec words to translate “spirit”: tachi
and añu work, but the former is associated with “demon” or “wind” (K. Farris
2002, 78; Monaghan 1995, 136; Macaulay 1996, 207; Caballero Morales 2008,
35; Pérez Jiménez 2003, 93; Alvarado [1593] 1962, 105v). Holy Spirit is also trans-
lated as Espíritu Santo in colonial Mixtec (Terraciano 2001, 298) ¹⁴ and in colonial
Nahuatl.
SIL translators of the Nahuatl New Testament have, however, chosen a dif-
ferent missionary linguistic strategy. They translate “Holy Spirit” with the obvi-
ously constructed (neologism) word Itiotonaltzin, literally rendered as: “his, her,
its sacred revered spirit” in Nahuatl (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and
Valdés 2000, 66). When it comes to the translations of God and Holy Spirit, it
is quite surprising that the respective SIL missionary linguists of the Mixtec
and Nahuatl New Testament do not opt for a consistent linguistic strategy. The
Nahuatl New Testament operates with the Spanish loanword Dios for God,
whereas Holy Spirit has received a generated Nahuatl translation. Conversely,
the Mixtec New Testament employs a Spanish-Mixtec compound word (neolo-
gism), Yandios, for God but a Spanish loanword for Holy Spirit.
Let us look at the Nahuatl constructed word (neologism) for the Holy Spirit:
Itiotonaltzi. The adjective tio can be translated as “sacred” (Brockway, Hershey
de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 208). Itonal, which derives from tonali, has sev-
eral different meanings: “spirit,” “puls,” “salary,” “soul,” “shadow,” and “birth-
day” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 66; Key and Key 1953,
162; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 135). The meaning of the concept of itonal as “spi-
rit” is contrasted with bad or evil spirits, of which there many words in contem-
porary Nahuatl (Brewer and Brewer 1971, 175, 249; Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 65, 227, 256 – 57, 291; Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 60v). It is
quite fascinating that the singular third-person possessive prefix i- is used with
the noun tonal because itonal, or “his/her spirit/soul,” refers to a substance in an
inalienable relation to another substance.
In the Nahuatl New Testament translation of Holy Spirit, the Spanish word
Dios is added, making the Holy Spirit literally belong to God. But this not always
the case. John the Baptist says in Mark 1:8 that baptism in the Holy Spirit is to be
undertaken by Christ: “I have baptised you with water; but he will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit.” The Nahuatl translation can be back-translated as “I

 Cf. the colonial Doctrina (Hernández, 1568, viii; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 155).
 The character of Jesus Christ translated 245

only sprinkled the head with water, and He will give the revered sacred spirit of
God” (nehhuatl san onamechcuatequi ica atl, huan Yehhuatzin mechmacalos in
Itiotonaltzin Dios). According to Acts 2:38—“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and
be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins
may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’”—the SIL trans-
lators attempted to convey a Nahuatl literal translation of the gift of the Holy
Ghost: “and God will give his/her/its sacred revered spirit” (huan ojcon mechma-
calos in Dios in Itiotonaltzin). But, as opposed to Mark. 1:8, Dios does not follow
“sacred revered spirit” (Itiotonaltzin) in Acts 2:28, which makes this SIL transla-
tion not only confusing but inconsistent theologically.

The character of Jesus Christ translated

The identity, person, and nature of Jesus Christ (Gr. Iēsous Christos) are translat-
ed in New Testaments through his many various designations and (metaphoric)
names.¹⁵ I will consider some of these designations: Christ is Man and God as
well as the Son of God related to the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. Christ is further-
more Lord and Logos, incarnated as the human Messiah, transfigured and resur-
rected.
The Gospel of Mark opens by introducing good news about “Jesus Christ, the
Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Unexpectedly, Christ as “the son of God” is not translated
literally, as “the son of God” in the Mixtec (Sehe Yandios) and Nahuatl New Tes-
taments (teconeu in Dios) (Madajczar (2011). As noted, God is translated in Mixtec
with a Mixtec-Spanish word, and in Nahuatl with a Spanish word. There are
proper Mixtec and Nahuatl words for what have been translated as “deities,”
so in their strategic attempt to avoid association with indigenous religion, SIL
missionary linguists make use of the Spanish loanword dios. Christ is therefore
translated as the Son of the monotheistic Christian God and not part of the poly-
theistic indigenous religious system (Murillo Gallegos 2010, 309 – 12). “The orig-
inal idea of the Son of God, later used in the New Testament, derives from the
vision of Daniel (Dan. 7) of the Old Testament, where it has connotation of a
being that God has given dominion over the world and all peoples, but this theo-
logical doctrine cannot be transmitted by SIL translators of the New Testament
without including an extensive commentary to the translated passage. Again, we

 The name of Jesus is preserved in Bible translations in various world languages, including
Mixtec (http://www.vision2025.org/resources_jesusinmylanguage_home.html). In Chalcatongo,
Jesus is, however, called Chuhchi, which signifies both Jesus and God in Mixtec (Pérez Jiménez
2008, 93).
246 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

see the predicament of not translating the interrelated Old Testament to indige-
nous languages.
The anointment, or consecration,¹⁶ of Christ by God in Luke 4:18, Acts 4:27,
and 10:38, and 2 Cor. 1:21 is translated with the word choose in Chol, a form of
Mayan language used in Chiapas (Aulie 1979, 123) because neither the Mixtec
nor Nahuatl language has an equivalent concept (Sp. ungir, “anoint”). Various
paraphrases are used in the SIL translations of the New Testament. Christ is
the Lord and the Messiah (Luke 2:11). The designation Christ, not Messiah, is
used in the Mixtec and Nahuatl translations.¹⁷ Lord (Sp. Señor) in the translation
of the Nahuatl New Testament is expressed by “our revered elder” (totecohtzin).
The SIL missionary linguist dictionary translates tecutli as “elder” (Sp. anciano)
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 198). An elder enjoys respect
in indigneous American cultures. But teuctli originally refers to a noble (Molina
[1571] 1977, 94v; Karttunen 1992, 237), a person of high rank (Lockhart 1992, 95,
102– 9; note 53, 506) in the pre-European Nahua society. Olmos make an early
translation of “our lord (Nuestro Señor)” Christ with totecuiyo (Olmos [1553]
1990). In the pre-European period, the Nahua used totecuiyo, “our Lord,” and
tlacatl to refer to non-Christian deities (Klaus 1999, 101n122, 145).
According to the SIL dictionary of Nahuatl from Sierra de Zacapoaxtla, Pue-
bla, tēcotzīn refers to “God” (Key and Key 1953, 219) Jitohyo is applied for “Lord”
in the Mixtec New Testament (K. Farris 2002, 18; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 19; Cab-
allero Morales 2008, 111). Toho and Yya were designations for aristocrats in
the pre-European period (Terraciano 2001, 134 – 37). Colonial religious texts
use dzaha stohondo Jesuchristo for “our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jansen and Pérez Ji-
ménez 2009a, 159). Christ is, according to another Catholic colonial religious
text, iya Rey andehui ñuu ñayehui, yya, “King of Heaven and Earth” (Terraciano
2001, 298). The Greek term kyrios (BDAG 2000, 576 – 77), as opposed to despotēs
(220), refers to a Divine Lord. As did their Catholic predecessors, the Protestant
missionary linguists employ secular aristocratic categories from pre-European
indigenous societies with the purpose of translating a distinguished title of
Christ. The SIL and Catholic missionaries thereby follow the same linguistic
strategy that prevailed in previous European translations of scripture.

 Gr. chriō, an anointing by God setting a person apart for special service under divine direc-
tion (BDAG 2000, 1091).
 Christos (Gr.) is “the deliverer, the Anointed one, the Messiah, the Christ. The personal name
ascribed to Jesus” (BDAG 2000, 1091).
 The character of Jesus Christ translated 247

In the mystifying opening passages of the Gospel of John, Christ is designed

as the Word (Gr. Logos)¹⁸: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). In Christian theological doctrine,
logos (Gr. “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) describes the cosmic role and preexis-
tence of Christ as the principle of God taking part in the creation and salvation
of humanity. The equivalence of Jesus with the logos is suggested in various pla-
ces in the New Testament. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Christ is the
incarnated Word—the Word made flesh. This identification of Jesus with logos is
founded upon Hebrew Bible concepts of revelation, such as in the frequently
used phrase “the Word of the Lord,” which emphasizes the redemptive character
of the person of Christ. Christian tradition employs the Hebrew Bible to legiti-
mize the gospel of Christ in the New Testament, positioning it as the natural ex-
tension of the Abrahamic covenant. But the Hebrew conception of God as omnip-
otent and omniscient, Lord of history, and Creator is not explicitly conveyed
because this scripture is not translated into Mixtec and Nahuatl.¹⁹ The Word in
John 1:1 (Sp. Verbo) is translated with jnuhun, where the initial letter is capital-
ized in order to underscore the particular significance of this notion. But in Mix-
tec jnuhun can also mean “advice” (Sp. consejo) (K. Farris 2002, 19). The use of
the polysemantic jnuhun—where advice substitutes for Word—might therefore
lead to various theological exegeses. This hermenutical ambiguity may persist
despite the fact that there is no literal Mixtec translation of John 1:1; instead
the SIL translators added a long, explanatory rendering of the passage in Mixtec.
The SIL translation of John 1:1 in Nahuatl reflects a quite different linguistic
strategem in that it does not substitute a supposed synonym from the indigenous
vocabulary or Spanish loanword for Word. This is remarkable because in general
the SIL translators of the Nahuatl New Testament attempt to find corresponding
indigenous words—it is the Mixtec translation that more frequently has difficulty
finding analogues for Christian theological concepts. The Nahuatl translation
makes use of paraphrases including the Spanish loan word for “God” (Dios) to
convey John 1:1’s concept of Word: “The revered good one to appear God” (Te-
cualnextzin in Dios) and “he is the certain God” (nele ilohuac in Dios). As in
the Mixtec example, the translators added an explanatory additon. Like many
civilizations of Mesoamerica, the Nahua (or the Aztecs) had a logosyllabic writ-
ing system and hence a sophisticated culture of literacy, so Mesoamerican vocab-
ularies do contain designations for writing, scribes, books, and word. But in con-

 Logos is the independent personified expression of God, the independent personified

“Word” (of God). This divine “Word” took on human form in a historical person, that is, in
Jesus (BDAG 2000, 598 – 601).
 Henry Wilbur Aulie of SIL warns against not translating the Old Testament (1979, 125 – 26).
248 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

trast with the Mixtec translation of the New Testament, the translators do not
make use of the Nahuatl term for word, tlahtoli. We also see this in the headline
of John 1:1– 18, which is translated as “The revered son of God makes himself
human,” or In Teconetzin Dios mochihua tlacatl in the Nahuatl New Testament.
The Mixtec New Testament emphasizes, on the other hand, the theological Chris-
tian concept of Word: “John the apostle announces who is to be the true Word”
(Cahan apóstol Juan nau cuu maa Jnuhun ndaa). We see the same in Rev 19:13:
“He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of
God.” The expression “word of God” is translated into Mixtec as Jnuhun Yandios,
whereas the Nahuatl has “the revered good to appear God” (in tecualnextzin
Dios).
The abstract metaphor of Christ as the Word intimately associated with God
is difficult to transmit without additional explanation. Christ is incorporated in
many indigenous American pantheons related to phenomena of the natural
world, where he is for instance equated with the sun or corn. These perceptions
of Christ are evidently not compatible with Protestant theology, but in the Gospel
of John, the Word is indeed said to become flesh on earth. Moreover, the embod-
ied Word is associated with glory (Gr. doxa), with grace (Gr. charis) and truth (Gr.
alētheia): “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his
glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). In
this section, there are accordingly four interconnected Christian theological con-
cepts associated with Christ. Flesh is translated in the Mixtec New Testament as
“man” or chaa (K. Farris 2002, 3), with the expounding addition “was the Word
which was from God” (chaa ni cuu Jnuhun ja ni cuncha undi nuu jiin Yandios un),
whereas in the Nahuatl New Testament, flesh is translated with the correspond-
ing word for man (tlacatl) and not with a word for flesh—like, for instance, nacatl
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 100). Also in this case the
SIL translators insert an explicatory addition: “and the revered to appear God
made himself man and he lived among us” (huan in tecualnextzin Dios omochi-
hualoc tlacatl huan onemohuayaya tohuan) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway,
and Valdés 2000, 63, 210). In both these translations, Christ is represented as
a divine being made human, but the SIL translators of the Nahuatl New Testa-
ment avoid a literal translation of Christ as the Word.
SIL missionary linguists have not included equivalent words for grace in the
Nahuatl translation, which completely rewords John 1:14. But the terms tehueyi-
listzin, “will become revered great,” and tohueyitahtzin Dios, “our great revered
God” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 40; Karttunen 1992,
86), might refer to the theological concept glory according to SIL simply because
quihuēyichihua, “make something great,” is translated as “glory” in a Nahuatl-
Spanish SIL dictionary (Key and Key 1953, 63, 188). So it may be that in the Mix-
 The character of Jesus Christ translated 249

tec translation, the SIL translators have not made use of a word for grace, appa-
rently opting instead for powerful (cuñahnu) (Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 11). Despite
the fact that glory is not used by SIL translators, it is quite remarkable that
this multifarious Christian theologcal concept exists as lexemes in various colo-
nial and postcolonial missionary-linguist dictionaries.
The Greek word doxa refers to “humans involved in transcendent circum-
stances, and also transcendent beings. The state of being in the next life is
thus described as participation in the radiance or glory” (BDAG 2000, 256 –
58). Glory (Sp. gloria) is translated into Nahuatl as the noun neluicac (Brockway,
Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 102), and the verb glorify becomes qui-
huēyichihua, quicualquetza (Key and Key 1953, 63, 186, 188). In addition, there
three words—papaquiliztli, ahauializtli, netimaloliztli (Molina [1555 and 1571]
1977, 3r; 66v; 70v; 80v)—that register as glory in the colonial Nahuatl dictionary.
Surprisingly, numerous SIL Mixtec dictionaries do not contain a lexeme for glory,
but the colonial Mixtec dictionary does include several long descriptive entries,
although there glory is associated with saints (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 116v).
(Divine) grace (Sp. gracia) has, as other theological concepts, numeours
meanings in the New Testament. Related to Christology it is the mercyful benev-
olence God gave to sinful human beings by the death of Christ, thereby giving
sinners the hope of salvation. The Greek word for grace in the New Testament
lexicon is charis. ²⁰ Because an equivalent concept do not exist in indigenous
American religions, SIL lexicographers record various glosses for grace in Na-
huatl. Tetlasohtlalis is recorded by Brockway and colleagues, where the root is
glossed as to “love,” “like,” “appreciate,” “estimate” (Brockway, Hershey de
Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 175, 230, 295). Another word is teicnēlīlis (Key and
Key 1953, 219), but it is associated with the condition of heaven (paradise),
eluīac. The Nahuatl New Testament uses another word, for instance in a passage
from Rom 1:17—“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ”—which is translated as “and may you receive the something made sacred
(bendection),” huan xicselican in tlatiochihualistli. SIL translators apply the Na-
huatl word tlatiochihualistli, “make something sacred,” or “benediction,” in
order to mean grace (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 232).
The Nahuatl colonial dictionary lists several lexemes linking the concept of
grace to aestethic of beauty and cleanness (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 21r,
66r, 85v, Karttunen 1992, 53, 59).

 Charis, a “sense (divine)…possession of divine favor as a source of blessing for the believer,
or upon a store of favor that is dispensed, or a favored status (i. e. standing in God’s favor) that is
brought about, or a gracious deed wrought by God in Christ, …” (BDAG 2000, 1079 – 81).
250 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

No entry for grace is recorded in the Mixtec dictionary of Yosondúa, but the
dictionary from San Miguel de Grande contains quite a long sentence with the
purpose of expressing the meaning of grace as “beautiful news, words, language,
theme, story; good news, words, language, theme, story inside; that one receives
gratuitous” (tūhun luu, tūhun vāha inɨ, ɨɨn jā ní cutahū-yō) (Dyk and Stoudt 1973,
87). The Mixtec New Testament uses “the compassion of God,” cundahu ini Yan-
dios (K. Farris 2002, 43). Thus the SIL translators apply the word for compassion
to mean “grace.” The colonial dictionary has tahui, which refers both to grace
and mercy (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 117v). A corresponding synonym is lacking sim-
ply because the theological concept of grace does not exist in indigenous reli-
gious systems.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they
will receive mercy” (Mt. 5:7), which in the Nahuatl New Testament is translated
as “Give joy to heart for those who are forgiven, because God also will forgive
them” (Quinyolpaquilismacalo in aquin tetlapohpoluiyahque, tleca Dios no quin-
tlapohpoluilos yehhuan). The key English words here are blessed (Sp. bienaventur-
ados), merciful (Sp. misericordiosos), and mercy (Sp. misericordia). The Nahuatl
Quinyolpaquilismacalo, “give joy to heart,” is used to express blessed, and the
Mixtec translation does not contain an equivalent word. The Mixtec translation
of Mt. 5:7 accentuate the fundamental role of God (yandios): “He will tell you
now be standing up with God people having compassion inside to comarade/rel-
ative, and also God himself have compassion inside toward them” (Cachi ri ja
candichi Yandios jiin yɨvɨ ca cundahu ini jnahan, ti suni cundahu ini Yandios
maa i. ca cundahu ini jnahan), where “compassion inside relative/friend” and
“compassion inside” (cundahu ini) express merciful and mercy, respectively. In
kunda’u…ini, the term ini (“heart”) is part of another religious word and also is
glossed as “to have love” or “to have esteem” (K. Farris 2002, 43; Dyk and Stoudt
1973, 10, 47, 97).
SIL missionary linguists make use of their chosen Nahuatl word for forgive-
ness (tlapohpolli) with the purpose of expressing the notions merciful and mercy.
Tetlapohpoluiyahque, “someone who are forgiven,” is analogous to merciful,
whereas quintlapohpoluilos, “will forgive them,” is intended to be compatible
with mercy. Forgiveness (tlapohpolli) has the literal sense of destruction, as in
eradicating someone’s sins, which is quite distinct from the Christian idea of
mercy, expressed in Greek New Testament lexicon as eleēmon, pertaining to
being concerned about people in their need, merciful, sympathetic, compassion-
ate, and eleos, kindness or concern expressed for someone in need, mercy, com-
passion, pity, clemency (BDAG 2000, 316). Given this incongruity, it is remarkable
that SIL and colonial missionary lexicographers have recorded various Nahuatl
words for mercy and compassion. The SIL dictionary from Sierra de Zacapoaxtla,
 The character of Jesus Christ translated 251

Puebla, has teicnēlīlīs, but the SIL dictionary from northern Puebla includes for
mercy the entry tlocoyalistli, which has antecendent words in Catholic colonial
dictionaries (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 239; Key and
Key 1953, 219; Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 34v, 86v, 95v, 109r; Olmos [1547]
1985, 217, 231, 248; Karttunen 1992, 286 – 87). Corresponding lexemes in Mixtec
are recorded in Alvarado’s dictionary (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 151v).
The theological concept of reconciliation (or expiation) is expressed in the
Greek New Testament by katallagē, a “reestablishment of an interrupted or bro-
ken relationship, reconciliation” (BDAG 2000, 521)—that relationship being with
God and Christ being the mode of reestablishment. Paul says in Rom 5:11, “But
more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have now received reconciliation.” The Nahuatl New Testament trans-
lates this idea of reconciliation with the paraphrase “and with Him [Christ] we
unite us with God” (huan ica Yehhuatzin timosetilihtoque tehuan in Dios). The Na-
huatl word quisetiliya (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 162),
“unite” constitutes the key word employed to connote the idea of a “reconcilia-
tion.” The same word, quītlasesiebīlīa, is defined in the context of the Tetelcingo
SIL dictionary’s Christian theology as “to reconcile with him” (Key and Key 1953,
209). “Him” presumably refers to Christ or God. There is no evidence that quise-
tiliya had a religious signifcance in pre-Christian Nahua religion. But colonial
missionary linguists used another word to describe a Christian religious reconci-
liation or atonement: tetlaceceuiliztli (“placation,” “soothing”; Molina [1555 and
1571] 1977, r108; Karttunen 1992, 253), where the root cēhuiā means to rest one-
self, to get someone else to rest, or to relieve someone (28).²¹ Since a religious
(Christian) semantics of reconcilation or atonement with God or Christ is un-
known in the Nahuatl language, the SIL translators apparently saw the need
to add “we unite us with God” (timosetilihtoque tehuan in Dios) when translating
Rom 5:11.
A precise theological idea of expiation through reconciliation with God is,
however, lacking in this translation. In the Mixtec New Testament, there is no
clear concept of atonement or reconciliation—evidently, there really is no con-
temporary Mixtec word for Christian atonement or reconciliation. Alvarado
gives the notion a Catholic theological significance by combining it with the
word for confession (yona nama) (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 179v). For Rom 5:11,
SIL missionary linguists again select to paraphrase the entire passage: instead

 In paragraph 27 of F.2v. of the Nahua manuscript Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca (c. 1550), we

find the following sentence: motlacecēhuiliah in tōltēcah īhuān in nonohualcah, “The Totlecs and
the Nonohualca reconciliate” (Kirchhoff, Odena Güemes and Reyes García [1976] 1989, 135).
252 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

of a direct translation using cognate concepts of reconciliation or atonement

from Mixtec, the SIL translator’s strategy is to explain through longer description
rather than literally rendering the original source text.
In what manner does SIL translators convey the interrelated theological
ideas of the human and divine body of Christ: incarnation, transfiguration,
and resurrection? Christ is perceived as a man (human being) and a deity in
the New Testament, where he is the incarnation (Latin caro, “flesh”) of God.
God becomes flesh and assumes the human nature and body of Christ; Jesus
is accordingly a bit of a hybrid whose natures are joined in a personal or hypo-
static union. The essence of the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Word of
the Hebrew Bible has been embodied in Christ, who is presented in John as
being in close personal union with God—Jesus even speaks God’s words when
he preaches the gospel. A terminological concept of incarnation does not, how-
ever, appear in the New Testament. The Incarnation of Christ as God and human
is outlined in the Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, where the apostle uses the con-
cept of “form” (Sp. forma) to explain Christ as both God and human: “who,
though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God . . . taking
the form of a slave being born in human likeness” (2:6 – 7).
The notion of form in reference to incarnation is not literally translated in
the SIL Mixtec New Testament; instead, equal and change into are supposed to
substitute for this idea: “Although He was equal with God, but He did not remain
animated in this manner” (Vasu unuu ya jiin maa Yandios co tu ni ndunihin ini ya
ja quendo ya siahan ni). This is followed by “He change into a manservant” (ti ni
nduu ya cuenta ɨɨn yɨvɨ junucuachi). In Nahuatl, we see the honorific verb be (ilo-
huac, from the honorific verb for “to go,” huilohua) (Brockway, Hershey de Brock-
way, and Valdés 2000, 42, 53) to describe the Incarnation of Christ as God: “how
be the our great revered father God also be his revered child Jesus Christ” (Quen
ilohuac in Tohueyitahtzin Dios noyojqui ilohuac Iconetzin Jesucristo). Moreover,
the honorific pronoun his(teyaxca) (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés
2000, 207) is used with reference to Christ. There apparently was a related Nahua
belief that deities and humans could share a common essence; a human could
accordingly have supernatural powers. López Austin (1973) has categorized this
intriguing pre-European/pre-Christian Mesoamerican religious phenomenon
hombre-dios (“man-god”) (Gruzinski 1992)—where divine force has penetrated
exceptional human beings (López Austin 1973, 121– 23). López Austin demon-
strates that some of the hombre-dios, or powerful historical individuals, actually
became deities through a later apotheosis, thereby changing their identities from
human into god and demonstrating a Mesoamerican classification for sentient
beings (López Austin 1973). To my knowledge, a concept for this religious phe-
 The character of Jesus Christ translated 253

nomenon is not identified in Mesoamerican languages, but that does not imply
that it, like the later Christian theology of incarnation, did not exist.²²
The Transfiguration (Sp. transfiguración) of Christ—occurring before Peter
and James and his brother John in a visionary experience on a mountain—is out-
lined in the Gospel according to Matthew “And he was transfigured before them,
and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white” (17:2).
The Greek term metamorphoō refers to a change in a manner visible to others,
but in this case Christ takes on form of heavenly glory and shows his divine na-
ture to selected disciples (BDAG 2000, 639 – 40). In the Nahuatl New Testament,
the concept is translated not with the perhaps expected mocuepa, meaning
“transform” or “metamorphosis,” but with omoixpatlaloc inixpa yehhuan, “he
changed appearance before them.” But this translation does not convey that
this is a divine appearance. The translators of the Mixtec New Testament make
this quite clear when they render Transfiguration with ni nasama nuu ya,
“changed into Him (God)” (K. Farris 2002, 51– 52).
The Resurrection (Sp.”resurrección) of the human form of Christ after cruci-
fication is expressed as anastasis in the Greek New Testament (BDAG 2000, 71–
72). On the day of the Pentecost, Peter and the eleven other disciples address a
crowd and speak about the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:31, “Foreseeing this,
David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned
to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption’”). The Nahuatl translation
sticks close to the original verse apart from the fact that the Holy Spirit is empha-
sized: quen oquinextililo in Itiotonaltzin Dios ica tlen panos ihxohualistzin in Cristo
can be back-translated as: “he demonstrated how your sacred revered spirit God
will proceed in the revered resurrection of Christ.” We remember the passage
from Heb 6:2 where “resurrection of the dead” (ihxohualistli den mijcamen)
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 50) is also used to convey
the idea of resurrection. But Acts 2:31 refers exclusively to Christ; therefore,
the honorific suffix –tzin is added.
The SIL translation of Acts 2:31 of the Mixtec New Testament conveys the res-
urrection of Christ with: “Christ will resurrect again by authority of the old man”
(nandoto tucu Cristo chaa tahu jniñu ñahnu un), where nandoto is applied for the
verb resurrect (K. Farris 2002, 60; Campbell et al. 1986, 32). The Mixtec transla-
tion of Heb 6:2 has nandoto ndɨyɨ, “resurrect (the) dead.” In these passages,
the SIL missionary linguists of the Mixtec New Testament do not therefore distin-
guish human resurrection from Christ’s as the Nahuatl translation does. Nahuatl
and Mixtec words for resurrect are given a new, constructed sense in that they

 There is no theological concept of transubstantiation in the New Testament (John 6:51).

254 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

both have the secular original meaning, “to get up.” Furthermore, the instigator
of the resurrection, God, is in Mixtec called ñahnu, “respected elder” (K. Farris
2002, 67). In the same translation, the SIL missionary linguists emphasize that
God—not Christ “is not to suffer in hell” (tu sndoo Yandios nihin nuu infiernu).
Another striking feature is that David of the Old Testament is included in the
SIL translations of Acts 2:31. As mentioned, the Old Testament is not translated
into Mixtec or Nahuatl. The indigenous reader is accordingly expected by the
missionary linguist translator to have knowledge of the history of the Bible,
not only the New Testament. This illustrates once more the inadequacy of not
translating interrelated scripture confusing the theological meaning, which SIL
intends to convey.

Translations of moral-eschatological Christology

The transference and imposition of a Christian moral dualism and of moral-es-

chatological Christology are important features of the endeavor to translate so-
teriology in an evangelical way. Manichaean, and later Christian, moral theology
features dualistic contrast or conflict between opposites, where there is a strong
dichotomy or radical opposition between good and evil. Conversely, the notion of
a complementary dualism characterizes indigenous religious thinking, which
posits reciprocity in its sacred order and conception of divine beings in the nat-
ural world.
In Luke 5:32, Christ sets up the “righteous” (Sp. justos, Gr. dikaios, which is
associated with redemptive actions) (BDAG 2000, 246 – 48)—and the “sinners” as
oppositional by saying to the Pharisees and their scribes, “I have come to call not
the righteous but sinners to repentance.’” In the Nahuatl translation, the adjec-
tive righteous is rendered with cualten (“the good ones”), and sinners becomes
the expected tlahtlacolyohque (“the damaged someones”). In the Mixtec SIL
translation, the righteous is translated as those “clean with sin” (ndoo jiin cua-
chi), whereas sinners are “people recognized with sin” (yɨvɨ ca nacuni nuu cua-
chi).
The Nahuatl and Mixtec words for “righteous” and “sinners” are clearly con-
structed by given existing words: the Nahuatl term for sinners and the Mixtec
terms for righteous and sinners are compounded, a novel semantics that has
no foundation in their linguistic and philosophical systems. Let us see whether
SIL translators used the same strategies in their translation of the moral dualism
of Christ versus the devil and the antonyms good versus evil.
 Moral dualism: Christ versus the Devil 255

Moral dualism: Christ versus the Devil

Battle against evil makes up a fundamental part of Christian salvation theolo-

gy.²³ The New Testament relates tales of Christ exorcizing the evil and disease
caused by his adversary the devil whom personify temptation and malevolence.
The Christian moral dualistic concept of evil and the devil, as opposed to the
good of Christ and God, was one of the foremost theological doctrines in the col-
onial missionary enterprise of the Americas (Báez-Jorge 2003, 17). Admittely, in
Historia de los indios de la Nueva España, the Franciscan missionary fray Toribio
de Motolinía confounded the word teotl with both ‘god’ and ‘devil’ in translating
the hallucinogenitc mushroom teunanacatl (‘the flesh of god/devil’) from Na-
huatl to Spanish. But after some years of the Franciscan evangelization at the
first half of the 16th century, the missionaries gradually commenced to diabolize
indigenous religions. The local deities were not just “idols” but became devils
(Cervantes 1994, 14– 16).
Due to the variety of influences bearing on the Greek and Hebrew apocalyp-
tic traditions, the identity of the devil in the New Testament is not a consistent
one. In his analysis of Mesoamerican indigenous religions of the colonial period,
Felix Báez-Jorge has identified common traits of the devil unknown to the Amer-
ican indigenous concept of a supernatural being: he is a fallen angel, leader of
the demonic sources, prince of evil, cause of physical diseases and injuries, and
instigator of sin who accuses human in front of God and punishes them in hell
(Russell 1988, 43 – 45; Báez-Jorge 2003, 125). As opposed to God and Christ, the
devil is associated with temptation, the material world, natural disasters,
flesh, darkness, death, the underworld, and things that hinder access to divine
realm (Báez-Jorge 2003, 126 – 27).
The Devil has many designations in the Greek New Testament (Gr. Daimōn;
Daimonion, Diabolos, Satan),²⁴ and he is the principal transcendent evil and hos-
tile adversary (BDAG 2000, 210, 226, 916). A radical dichotomy between the devil
(Sp. Diablo) and sin, on the one hand, and Christ and salvation, on the other, is
related in 1 John 3: “Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the
devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for

 For instance, Meyer’s study of evangelization of the Ewe in Ghana emphasises the transla-
tion of the concept of the devil as fundamental for the Pietistic missionaries and later in Pente-
costal churches in the conversion effort (Meyer 1999, xxiii; 108 – 11).
 The devil has quite a few appellations in the New Testament where the identity of Lucifer
with Satan is not clearly established (Báez-Jorge 2003, 125 – 26): Satan, devil, Belzebub, the
evil (Mt. 6:13; Efesos 6:16), prince or arconte (Mt. 12:14; John 12:311, 4:30, 16:11; Efesos 2;2), Belial
(2Cor. 6 – 15), Abadón (Apolión) (Rev. 9:11), etc.
256 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). The SIL Mixtec trans-
lators employ the noun cuihna here, whereas in the SIL Nahuatl New Testament
the constructed compounded neologism “the no-good man” (ahmo cuali tlacatl)
is used. 1 Corinthian 5 expresses a similarly radical contrast between Satan (the
devil) and Christ: “you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (5:5.). The SIL
missionary linguists translating the New Testament into Mixtec employ the same
translation stratagem, substituting for Satan the Mixtec word jahuhu (K. Farris
2002, 13), the name of the devil who lives in the cave Yau Vehe Kihin in Yoson-
dúa, housing bodies and souls of dead people devoted to him during life (Sán-
chez Sánchez 2004, 43). In the Nahuatl New Testament, the SIL translators add
the Spanish word for Satan (Sp. Satán, Satanás) to the collocation for the devil,
“the no-good man Satan” (in ahmo cuali tlacatl Satanás).
Since the Christian European arrival to the Americas, many designations for
the Devil or Satan (used interchangably with Demon as names for the adversary
of God and Christ) have been recorded in Nahuatl and Mixtec. SIL dictionaries
record the following appellations in Nahuatl: Xolophtli,²⁵ Ahmo cual tlacatl, Mox-
icoönī, and Moxicojcötlöcatl,²⁶ other Nahuatl names for the devil appear in Guer-
rero.²⁷ The colonial missionary linguist also registered various lexemes with the
purpose of conveying the semantic meaning of Devil into Nahuatl, where Tzit-
zime ²⁸ and, in particular, Tlacatecolotl stand out (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
24r, 116av, 153r).
Sahagún translates Tlacatecolotl (“man-owl”) as “devil” (Sp. diablo). Tlaca-
tecolotl was also outlined to be a diviner or a soothsayer. The “soothsayer” (tla-
catecolotl) was born under the ominous day-sign One Rain according to the 260-
day calendar (Sahagún [1565] 1959 – 1982, IV, 41). He gave advice about rain and
prophesied the times of famine and plague. But Tlacatecolotl could also bewitch
people and cast spells for destruction (Sahagún [1560] 1997, 116 – 17, 212– 14). Tla-
catecolotl was identified with the devil by Olmos ([1553] 1990; Báez-Jorge and

 Xolopihtli, originally meant “idiot” in Classical Nahuatl (Kimball 1980, 69). Cf. Nepmuceno
Vázquez and Lascano (1982, 241).
 Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 5, 253, 286; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 34,
108, 126, 162, 240; Key and Key 1953, 45, 141; Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 161r.
 Cha:neh, the Devil (in Ameyaltepec, by extension, some speakers might simply say ostó:k ,
with this same sense). Ostó:k is a trope for the devil based on where he lives; more completely,
he is referred to as ostó:k cha:neh (Amith, “Home,” Nahuatl Learning Environment, http://www.
balsas-nahuatl.org/).
 See Cecelia F. Klein (2000), “The Devil and the Skirt: An Iconographic Inquiry into to Prehis-
panic Nature of the Tzitzimime,” Ancient Mesoamerica 11 (1): 1– 26.
 Moral dualism: Christ versus the Devil 257

Gómez Martínez 2001, 429 – 31) and as the devil or Lucifer by the evanglizers in
doctrinal texts and postconquest indigenous books of the Nahua (Burkhart 1989,
40 – 44; Báez-Jorge 2003, 302– 3). Tlacatecolotl is lord of the complementary du-
ality of good and evil according to belief of the contemporary Chicontepec in the
region of Huasteca, northeastern Veracruz (Báez-Jorge and Gómez Martínez
2001). He is a revered and feared deity. People pray and offer food to Tlacateco-
lotl in order to obtain peace and equibrilium. He is associated with the sun and
moon and with agriculture but also conjured by religious specialists called tet-
lahchihuianeh (Báez-Jorge 2003, 465 – 522).
Nahua of San Pedro Jícora of Durango call the devil Tlahualilok, the deity of
the world of the dead (Tlahualilon) according to Nahua-texte aus San Pedro Jícora
in Durango. Erster Teil: Mythen and Sagen. He is not particularly evil like the devil
but is an ambivalent trickster deity (Báez-Jorge 2003, 386 – 89). Signorini and
Lupo have observed that in Santiago Yaucuictlalpan of the municipal Cuetzalan
in Sierra Norte de Puebla, Tacatecolome (“owl-person”) and the tzopilome (“vul-
ture” or “buzzard”) is associated with the “devil” called Tein amo cualtia (“he
who does not serve, the Devil”). This devil attacks both good and bad people
(Báez-Jorge 2003, 425, 427– 30). Apart from several synonyms for devil in Na-
huatl, Kimball also record Tlacatecolotl as a “demon” in the present-day Huaza-
linguillo Dialect of Nahuatl, Hidalgo (Kimball 1980, 42, 59, 61, 69). Contrary to
colonial missionaries, SIL missionaries avoid translating the local supernatural
being Tlacatecolotl as the devil into New Testaments of various contemporary
Nahua dialects.
SIL dictionaries have recorded the following appellations for devil, or Satan,
in dialects of the Mixteca Alta: ja’u’u, kui’na and chaa xaa (K. Farris 2002, 13, 39,
116, 139; Campbell et al. 1986, 12; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 9, 18, 81, 108). Mixtec and
non-Mixtec linguists not affilated with the SIL have also recorded various desig-
nations for devil (Caballero Morales 2008, 204, 493, 531; Macaulay 1996, 238;
Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 61, 108): apart from kui’na and ja’u’u, the Catholic col-
onial, SIL and non-SIL Mixtec have different appellations. Alvarado equates the
devil with demons, for which he includes various glosses (Alvarado [1593] 1962,
69r, 80r): ñuhu cuina literally means “deity who robs and tricks” (Terraciano
2001, 304). It is interesting that tiñumi ñaha (Sp. diablo) combines tiñumi
(“owl”) and ñaha (“person”) but with the Spanish loanword diablo (Terraciano
2001, 303), making tiñumi ñaha a Mixtec translation of Nahua Tlacatecolotl.
The colonial missionaries thereby used a Mesoamerican philosophical concept
of an evil being: el hombre-búho, which is teñumi ñaha in Mixtec and corre-
sponds to tlacatecolotl in Nahuatl (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 217). In
the Mixtec Doctrina by Hernandéz, the devil—tiñomi ñaha Diablo (“owl person
devil”) in the Vocabulario recorded as teñumi ñahi (“owl-person”)—corresponds
258 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

to the Nahua concept tlacatecolotl. The Spanish word demonio is rendered in the
Vocabulario as ñuhu cuina, “deity who robs or tricks.” Diablo was adopted as
loanword at the end of the sixteenth century (Terraciano 2001, 303 – 4).
The concept of the devil or Satan did not exist in pre-Christian/pre-Europan
indigenous religions of the Americas. Influenced by Christian doctrine, many
Mesoamerican cultures associate the devil with a wealthy foreigner (Báez-Jorge
2003, 436 – 38, 577– 83). Flanet claims that in Jamiltepec Mixtec, the head of
the demons is called Cui’na, whereas Ráñávaha (rá-ñá-vaha, “he-not-good”) rep-
resents the devil and is portrayed to be very wealthy (Flanet 1978, 91– 92). The
Mixtec Ja Uhu (“Pain” in Ñuu Ddeya) or Xa Cuina (“He who assaults and
robs,” Atoco region) is likened with El Gachupin, “the Spaniard,” who is also
the devil (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2007, 195). Nahua in the pueblo Tlayacapan
in the Mexican state of Morelos call the devil Moxicuani, which means “envy” in
Nahuatl and is the name of the deity who embodies greed (Ingham 1986, 105,
108, 120 – 21). Among Nahua, the devil as the “Dueño de la riqueza” (“Lord of
wealth”) has become associated or combined with the indigenous “Dueño de
la cerro o naturaleza” (“Lord of the mountain or nature”) (Báez-Jorge 2003,
588 – 609). “Dueño de la riqueza” buys souls for money or other goods in
order to satisfy personal ambitions, whereas “Dueño de la cerro o naturaleza”
is an autochthonous supernatural being who exchanges offerings for natural
products. He satisfies needs and benefits communities and individuals. In addi-
tion, “Dueño de la cerro o naturaleza “punish transgressions of morality and dis-
turbances of equilibration (Báez-Jorge 2003, 595).
Intimately related to the Christian idea of the devil, the demons of the New
Testament present an interesting translation problem for the missionary lin-
guists. In the Gospel according to Matthew, Christ explains to the Pharisees,
“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of
God has come to you” (Mt. 12:28). The SIL Nahuatl New Testament translates de-
mons (Gr. Daimonion) as ahmo cuali yehyecamen, “no-good wind spirits.” The
same concept in the Mixtec New Testament is tachi xaan, or “sharp wind spi-
rit.”²⁹ Revelation describes demonic spirits within a eschatological prophetic vi-
sion: “These are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of
world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev
16:14). The SIL Mixtec translation applies cuu tachi uhu tachi quini, or “harm
wind spirit ugly wind spirit,” (K. Farris 2002, 78; Campbell et al. 1986, 53; Mac-
aulay 1996, 233; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 34), whereas in SIL Nahuatl employs ahmo
cuali yehyecamen, or “no good winds” (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and

 Tova Yuko (Sp. aire maligno) in Yosondúa (Sánchez Sánchez 2009a, 21).
 Moral dualism: Christ versus the Devil 259

Valdés 2000, 256 – 57). They are also described as aquin cuali quichihuahque
hueyi tlachiuten, “someone who can do great bewitchment” (Karttunen 1992,
260). Demons were translated with the Spanish demonios in colonial doctrinal
literature in Mixtec (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 147), and the pronominal
suffix -si is used for demon (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 250).
By employing the Mixtec tachi and the Nahuatl yehyecamen, both concepts
for “winds” (Sp. aires), the SIL translators appropriate indigenous religious vo-
cabulary. Aires (“winds”) are either good or bad according to the beliefs of indig-
enous peoples. For the Mixtec, Tachi has many representations, but he is also the
destructive wind (Monaghan 1995, 137– 38). Tachi, or the ya’vi/ya u’vi demon (yaa
constitutes the prefix for sacredness and u’vi is a synonym for yatuni), is associ-
ated with envy in Santiago Nuyoo. Envy (Sp. envidia) in Santiago Nuyoo is called
yatuni (Monaghan 1995, 131). Tachi is “sacred envy” and acts badly (nduva’a), en-
viously (yatuni), and sinfully (kuachi), whereas Jesus was truthful (nijia), virtuous
(va’a), and good (Monaghan 1995, 136 – 37).
But no normative action or crime is attributed to a no-good or evil aire
among the Nahua. The term aire—called yeyécatl in the western Nahua region
and ehécat in the east—means “wind” or an atmospheric phenomena, invisible
etheric entities around human beings and diseases provoked by aires (Báez Cu-
bero 2004, 10 – 14). Ehecatl (“wind”) was one of the designations or aspects of
Quetzalcoatl in the pre-European period. In Santiago Yaucuictlalpan of the mu-
nicipal Cuetzalan in Sierra Norte de Puebla, Signorini and Lupo registered the
expression amo cuali ehécatl (“bad wind”) to describe demon spirits and so-
called animas de nahualme (“spirits of the nagual”). Ehecame are spirits of the
dead before going to the place in the place of the dead and away from the
place of the living (Báez-Jorge 2003, 425, 427– 30).
There are two types of aires among the Nahua of Chicontepec: Cuallieheca-
meh (Sp. aires buenos, “good winds”) called Xochiehecameh (Sp. vientos floridos
o sagrados, “flower or sacred winds”) and Axcualliehecameh (Sp. aires malos o
nefastos, “evil winds”) or Tlasolehecameh (Sp. vientos de basura, “garbage
winds”). The evil aires, of which in some traditions Tlacatecolotl is said to be
the lord (dueño), are believed to bring disease (Báez-Jorge 2003, 535 – 53). Be-
cause of previous superficial missionary influence, Tlasolehecameh are associat-
ed with the devil (Báez-Jorge 2003, 547). Ehecameh (Sp. aires) can be extranormal
spirits connected to various natural phenomena, dead human beings, or living
witches (Sp. brujos) (Báez-Jorge 2003, 558 – 64).
In the radical moral dualism of the New Testament, one of Christ’s adversa-
ries is the so-called antichrist—a theological concept that might appear rather
strange to people outside the Christian religion. 2 John 1:7 reads, “Many deceivers
have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Christ has come in
260 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” In the Greek New
Testament, this negative being is called antichristos, an adversary to the Messiah
who appears in the last days of the world (BDAG 2000, 91). Neither the SIL Mixtec
or the SIL Nahuatl New Testament operates with the Spanish loanword anticris-
tos. Instead, the missionary translators attempt to explain the idenity and func-
tion of antichrist by constructing compound neologisms. The Mixtec New Testa-
ment translates it with Uhu Christo, or “hurt Christ,” whereas the Nahuatl version
employs teixnamiquis in Cristo, “someone whose appearance will incur a penalty
under the law Christ.”
In many indigenous communities, Semana Santa (Easter) represents the bat-
tle between the solar force and heat, symbolized by Christ of the pueblo, and the
terrestrial forces of the devil threating nonindigenous society (Navarrete Linares
2008, 89 – 90). The devil is therefore integrated into indigenous philosophy of
the natural and does not embody the evil that eventually leads to eternal dam-
nation.

Moral dualism of good versus evil

The antonyms good (Gr. agathos) (BDAG 2000, 3) and evil (Gr. ponēros) (501, 851–
52) reflect the dual moral system of the Christian New Testament. In the Gospel
according to Matthew, Christ says to the Pharisees, “The good person brings good
things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil
treasure” (Mt. 12:35).
The Mixtec New Testament translates good man (Sp. hombre bueno) with
chaa vaha, where they also explain this good man as one who has a “clean
heart/soul” (ndoo añu). The word for good (Sp. bueno) is translated with vaha
in contemporary Mixtec (K. Farris 2002, 86; Campbell et al. 1986, 86 – 87; Pen-
singer 1974, 49; Dyk and Stoudt 1973, 48; Caballero Morales 2008, 667) and is
also used along with other words in the colonial dictionaries (Alvarado [1593]
1962, 39v; Reyes [1593] 1962, 112). The evil man (Sp. hombre malo) is rendered
with the negative of vaha, which is ndevaha (“no good” or “evil”) (Caballero Mo-
rales 2008, 305). This type of human being is “someone who talk absolutely no
good” (cahan ndevaha cuɨtɨ) and “there is no cleanness inside his/her soul/
heart” (iyo ndoo ini añu). An emphasis upon the use of “cleanness of heart”—
that is,having no sin—is added by the SIL missionary linguists with the purpose
of making theological explanation of the dual moral Christian concepts “good”
 Moral dualism of good versus evil 261

and “evil.”³⁰ The colonial Doctrina distinguishes between the good, sa huaha,
and the bad, sa ñahuahua, and against the “evil in the world,” sa ñahuahua
caa ñuu ñayehui (Terraciano 2001, 305; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 160).
Moreover, the Doctrina express a fundamental difference betweeen good people
(tay huaha) who go to heaven (Andevui) and evil people (tay dzana) who go to
hell (Andaya) (Hernández 1568, xcvii; Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 153 –
54, 221, 234).
The SIL Nahuatl translation of Mt. 12:35 operates with in cuali tlacatl for “the
good man,” where the missionary linguists have added: “he says all that is good
because all good exist in his heart” (quihtohua nochin tlen cuali tleca nochin cuali
ca ipan iyolo). Good is translated with the term cuali in both contemporary
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 24; Brewer and Brewer
1971, 120; Key and Key 1953, 21, 147) and colonial Nahuatl (Molina [1555 and
1571] 1977, 85v; Karttunen 1992, 58 – 59, 338, 341); it carries not only a moral-se-
mantic meaning but also an aesthetic quality. As there is no Nahuatl term for
evil, either amo cualli or ácualli is used (Launey 1992, 55n28). SIL translators con-
vey evil with the negative ahmo cuali (“no good”). They find it necessary to add:
“the no good man he say that is no good” (in tlacatl ahmo cuali yehhua quihtohua
in tlen ahmo cuali), followed by “because he have no good in his heart” (tleca in
ahmo cuali quipiya ipan iyolo). SIL (Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés
2000, 167, 303; Brewer and Brewer 1971, 61, 108, 164, 231; Key and Key 1953, 80,
141, 208), non-SIL (Kimball 1980, 26), and colonial (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977,
4v, 7r, 81v, 144v) lexicographers alike record various lexemes for evil in Nahuatl,
and the constructed word for sin (tlahtlacolli) is one of them. Wickedness, or per-
version, was rendered as tlahuelilocayotl or tlahuelioc by colonial missionary lin-
guists. The root tlahuelli signifies anger, so no abstract word for evil exists in Na-
huatl. Good was translated as cualli, from the passive of cua, “to eat.”³¹ Yēctli
connotes “good” or “right,” but literally means something finished or complet-
ed. Acualli and ayectli negate these words; they are meant to signify the opposite.
The devil was called amo cualli by the Franciscans (Burkhart 1989, 38 – 39; Pury
Toumi 1994, 117– 19). Michel Launey maintains that cualli refers to a certain ex-
terior quality, whereas yēctli designates an inner moral quality (Launey 1992,
158n5). It is remarkable that the missionary linguists did not choose the latter
concept in order to convey Christian moral doctrine.

 Apart from ndevaha there are other words registered for evil in contemporary and colonial
Mixtec dictionaries (Farris 2002, 38; Campbell et al. 1986, 37, 53; Pensinger 1974, 100; Dyk and
Stoudt 1973, 93; Caballero Morales 2008, 32, 194; Pérez Jiménez et al. 2009, 94, 142; Alvarado
[1593] 1962, 143r, 144v).
 Cua, “to eat”; “to bite” (Signorini and Lupo 1992, 90).
262 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

“Metaphors” (Sp. metáforas) compiled by Olmos ([1547] 1985) sometimes re-

flect elegant literary tropes or couplets of Aztec courtly speech. These were writ-
ten by the indigenous speakers, although under dictation and supervision by
Olmos—they are rightly understood, then, as autochthonous and nondoctrinal
(Maxwell and Hanson 1992, 1). The metaphors suggest that the concept of
being morally “good” existed in pre-Christian Nahua philosophy. “I cause some-
one to be good” (in nictequaltia) is stated as a metaphor about punishment and
correction (Maxwell and Hanson 1992, 87– 88, 173; Olmos [1547] 1985, 218). The
category of “good” exists, but in indigenous American moral philosophies, the
dualism of abstract concepts is reciprocial and not oppositional (Kidwell,
Noley, and Tinker 2001, 46). Deities are ambivalent personalities. They have ei-
ther constructive (benevolent) or destructive (malevolent) qualities (Jansen and
Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 247). Indigenous philosophies harbor a principle of equi-
brilum between humans and nature such that obligatory rituals are crucial
(Báez-Jorge 2003, 577). Among the Nahuas of Chicontepec, good and bad are
not considered absolutely opposite ethical positions but have positive or nega-
tive connotations depending upon the context and conduct of the practitioners.
This thinking reflects how Tlacatecolotl is explained (Báez-Jorge 2003, 577; Báez-
Jorge and Gómez Martínez 2001, 393 – 94).
In Sierra de Puebla, hostile or morally negative supernatural beings—of
which there are many categories and subcategories—are classified as amo cualli,
just as the devil is. This is not an abstract designation but refers to concrete ex-
perience, which is attested by the etymology of amo cuali: it is a negation of cuali
(“edible,” from cua, “eat” or “bite”), which also has the expression tein amo
cualtiya (always used to refer to the devil), literally “he who does not serve.”
Evil is a pragmatic concept (Lupo 2001, 353 – 54; Signorini and Lupo 1989, 82–
89, 137n18).³²
The nature of evil in indigenous American and Christian philosophies can be
categorized as in the following theoretical model:

Mesoamerican philosophy Christian doctrine

Duality of the deities. Antagonistic entities.
Rupture of natural and personal equilibrium. Demonic presence.
Transgression of sacred order. Transgression of ethical order (sin).
No concrete configuration. Concrete configuration and fetichizada.
Associated with sorcerey. Associated with socerery.
(Báez-Jorge , ).

 Another concept for “evil” in Nahuatl is chahuitz (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 208 – 9).
 Moral dualism of good versus evil 263

The dual Indo-European linguistic concepts of evil/devil and good/god of Chris-

tianity are not separated entities but integrated in Mesoamerican intellectual
thought. There was not a monotheistic exclusive theology of “total goodness
and absolute sovereignity.” The deities were ambivalent – benevolent and ma-
levolent, creators and destructors – indispensable forces of harmony and
chaos in the universe. This characterized a model combining structure/order
and anti-structure/disorder and not a universal combat between good and evil
(Burkhart 1989, 37; Cervantes 1994, 40 – 43).³³
Moral dualism within a Christian theology depends on a dichtomy between
God and Devil, good and evil, heaven and hell, and immortal soul and mortal
body. The abstract concepts of good and evil are not personified as God and
the devil in indigenous philsophies. Among the contemporary Nahua of Santiago
Yancuictlalpan of Sierra of Puebla, there is an ambiguity in evil; it is not an ab-
solute quality held by antithetical entities. Clearly this does not correspond to
Christian dualism. The religious specialist called a nagual (who has extraordina-
ry powers and can transform him- or herself into animals and/or natural phe-
nomena) is both a destructive sorcerer and a constructive healer (Signorini
and Lupo 1992). The nagual make use of the infernal powers: amo cualime,
where tacatecolome (“owl-human”) and tzopilome (“vulture”) are metonymic
represenations of the devil (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 143). The nagual is predes-
tined by being born on a special time and day (either Tuesday or Friday), thus
there is no free will as in Christian theology. Being a nagual is believed to be
“a gift…an authorization from God” (Signorini and Lupo 1992, 87, 89 – 90). In
Naupan, only the mopatlani, who acts as a guardian of the community, can
transform to a nawal (Nagual) because according to the ritual calendar that
power is a gift from God bestowed at the time of birth (Velásquez Galindo
2006, 42– 43).
Evil refers to something negative that challenges the physical and psycholog-
ical state of the community and the individual in American indigenous thinking
and practices. In nearly all Maya languages, one term for good is uutz. It is there-
fore interesting that the term ma (yu)tzil (“not-goodness”), where ma acts as the
negative particle (like amo in Nahuatl), is attested in the logosyllabic writing sys-
tem of the postclassic codices before the European Christian invasion. But these
concepts do not make a moral dichotomy between good and evil but refer to
“ominous gods and times of scant food and drink” (Houston and Inomata
2009, 31– 32). God and the devil still today have the same ambiguity as of the
pre-Christian deities that were propitious or unpropious, but not good or evil.

 Cf. Pharo (2016) about moral categories in American indigenous languages.

264 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

This also applies to the saints—for example, John the Baptist is the provider of
rain and destructive floods (Signorini and Lupo 1992, 90 – 91).
Nahua religion (and indigenous American religions in general) is what Jorge
Klor de Alva categorizes as apotropaic—having a desire to avert evil and not con-
cerned with transcendent salvation. It is a religion of the natural world that deals
with avoiding sickness, poverty, natural calamities, bad luck, and so forth. As are
other indigenous practitioners, the Nahua are occuped with balance in the sa-
cred order (Klor de Alva 1997, 182 – 85). There is no absolute evil versus absolute
good—as there is in Christian dualism, where the world and human beings are
imperfect as opposed to the harmony and good of the transcendent heaven—
but a complementary opposition that seeks equilibrium. The moral focus is
upon the life of earth, not salvation or punishment in the next world (López Aus-
tin 2004, 125 – 26). The SIL-translated New Testament intends therefore to lingus-
tically transform indigenous moral philosophies, replacing the ambivalent per-
sonfied forces of nature with abstract, metaphysical, instrumental dual
concepts that associate evil with eternal perdition and good with eternal salva-
tion in transcendental realms.

Translation of Christ as savior

The return of Christ as savior at the end of time³⁴ is dominant in the theology of
contemporary North American Evangelical Protestantism (Stoll 1990, 63 – 65,
215 – 17; Martin 1990; Cox 2001). WBT’s doctrinal statement of the Second Coming
of Christ reads in this way:

We believe all who repent and trust in Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Savior are, by the
grace of God, declared to be right with Him, receiving forgiveness and eternal life. We be-
lieve the Lord Jesus Christ will return personally in glory, raise the dead, and judge the
world. We believe all people will rise from the dead, those who are in Christ to enjoy eternal
life with God, and those who are lost to suffer eternal separation from Him.³⁵

SIL and WBT endeavor to bring the translated Bible to the bibleless of all lan-
guages before it is too late for salvation. The Lord (savior) is waiting for the com-

 “Apocalypse” (Gr. apokalupsis, “revelation”) designates a literary genre related to the Apoc-
alypse of John, also named the book of Revelation, in the New Testament. Eschatology (Gr. es-
chatos, “last”; eschata “the last things”) denotes “the science or teachings concerning the last
things.”
 “About Us,” Wycliffe Global Alliance, http://www.wycliffe.net/AboutUs/DoctrinalStatement/
tabid/64/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
 Translation of Christ as savior 265

pletion of universal Bible translation in fulfillment of Mt. 24:14. Accordingly, eter-

nal salvation through Christ comes only after receiving the Word (Hvalkof and
Aaby 1981, 11).
The agentive noun savior (Sp. salvador) is sōtēr in the Greek New Testament,
meaning “one who rescues; savior; deliverer; preserver” (BDAG 2000, 985). A
concept analogous to savior does not exist in indigenous languages of the Amer-
icas because a comparable theological idea is not part of the related religious
systems.
The prophecy that Christ would become the Messiah and savior is given by
an angel to Joseph and Mary after she has delivered a son in Bethelem (Luke 2:1–
14). The angel says to them, “to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior,
who is the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11). The SIL translation of the Nahuatl New
Testament conveys savior in this passage with namotemaquixticahtzin (“your re-
vered savior”). Later in the New Testament some Samaritans in the Gospel ac-
cording to John say, “and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world”
(John 4:42). “Savior of the world” is translated into Nahuatl as Temaquixtilistli
den tlalticpac. The word for savior in Nahuatl, temaquixtiyani, according to the
SIL missionary translators, which was also used by the colonial missionary lin-
guists (Molina [1555 and 1571] 1977, 97r, 107r; Karttunen 1992, 222), means both
“advocate” and “savior” in contemporary spoken Nahuatl from northern Puebla
(Brockway, Hershey de Brockway, and Valdés 2000, 199; Key and Key 1953, 220;
Brewer and Brewer 1971, 89). The colonial ethnographer missionary (Dominican)
fray Diego de Durán writes that every city and village had a particular deity who
was, according to him, the “abogado del pueblo con mayores ceremonias y sac-
rificios honraban” (advocate of the village whom was honored by major ceremo-
nies and sacrifices).³⁶
In Nahuatl this patron deity was called intéouh (“its deity”) or calpultéotl
(“deity of the calpulli”) (López Austin 1973, 47; Durán 1951, II, 118).³⁷ Temaquix-
tihqui literally means “someone who has escaped or freed himself from danger or
harm,” “someone who has relieved himself from dependency,” or “someone who
takes away something with the hand.” This maybe a neologism constructed by
the original colonial missionary linguists and adapted by SIL translators and lex-
icographers since the concept Temaquixtiani, translated as “savior,” is not

 Codex Telleranio Remensis (lám.vii) uses the term abogado for this category of deities (López
Austin 1998, 62).
 Relaciones geográficas de Yucatán explains that the pre-Hispanic Maya pueblos had a “ídolo
a quien tenían por abogado” an “abogado del pan” (“an idol they have as an advocate” an “ad-
vocate of bread”). This was the patron deity, protector of, and provider for the community (López
Austin 1998, 79).
266 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

known in the sources from the pre-European period (Klaus 1999, 100n120). An-
other possible theory is that the colonial missionaries may originally have taken
the concept from the description of the patron deities of the indigenous com-
munities in the course of trying to replace them with Christ. The pre-European,
pre-Christian hombre-dios, or “man-gods,” were patron deities of the community
or the people (López Austin 1973, 109); the Catholic missionaries in the colonial
period later (tried) replaced them with the likewise divine human beings of
saints and the Virgin Mary. I hypothesize that with the translation temaquixtihqui
(“advocate”) Protestant missionaries intend to replace the indigenous hombres-
dios (patron deities) and Catholic saints as protectors of the local community
with Christ who is also human and God.
No term for savior or salvation is recorded in the SIL Mixtec translation of
the New Testament; the noun appears not to exist in the contemporary language
at all. According to the Mixtec perception of crucifixtion, Christ is thought of not
as a victorious savior but as one who suffers and dies—and in this way resembles
the present life conditions of many indigenous peoples. The practice of Cuares-
ma, or fast, on the Thursday of holy week, not the resurrection or Pascua (Eas-
ter), ends Semana Santa in the Mixteca Alta according to the local the Capuchin
priest (pers. comm. 2010; Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas. Símbolos del
Mundo, 36 – 37). Easter is the time where Christ redeems humanity of sin through
his self-sacrifice on the cross and later resurrection, but in the Mixtec pueblo Ja-
miltepec his resurrection and his role as savior are not emphasized in Easter rit-
uals. His death is actually more important (Flanet 1977, 89 – 91). This “theology of
the cross” practiced in the Mixteca Alta emphasizes indigenous crucifixion, not
Catholic resurrection. It is the image of the blood (imagines sangrientes) as dis-
playing oppression and suffering of indigenous people that is preached. More-
over, a theological message of a metaphysical or transcendent salvation, as Prot-
estant missionaries want to evangelize, cannot reach the hearts of the
indigenous people simply because they do not find it interesting or relevant to
their lives. Stories about Christ in many Mixtec pueblos are named shemblu (“ex-
amples”), giving moral lessons (Monaghan 1995, 121; cf. Taggert 1983, 161). Moral
lessons of exemplary practices (natuvi in Mixtec, according to Monaghan) em-
phasize the natural world and not salvation to a metaphysical afterworld.
The SIL translation of Luke 2:11 rephrases with the transitive verb to save
(nama) and a threat that one will “perish” (naa ra) without salvation. Moreover,
this can be appreciated in John 4:42, where the SIL translators use ya ni nacaji
Yandios ja nama ya sɨquɨ yɨvɨ ñuyɨvɨ, or “He God chose to save the people of
the world.” The agentive noun savior is conveyed with the verbal construction
“nama de Yandios” (“God saves”), according to one of the indigenous Mixtec
translators in Yosondúa who is collaborating with SIL, because the verb nama
 Translation of Christ as savior 267

has different meanings (pers. comm. 2010). Conversely, colonial missionaries ap-
plied the following construction for the agentive noun savior: iya yotavui ñaha;
iya tavui ndodzo ñaha; iya yodza cacu ñaha (Alvarado [1593] 1962, 187v). But iya
(“lord”), tahui (“mercy”), and ñaha (“person”) do not have the meaning of “sav-
ior.” The Doctrina by Hernandéz rely on Spanish loanwords: Stohondo Jesu xpo
Nuestro Señor Jesucristo (“Our Lord Jesus Christ”), yya nitahui ñaha sindo nues-
tro salvador (“our savior”) (Jansen and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 205 – 6).
The Greek word for salvation alludes to being preserved from damnation in
an afterlife or some further existence. Sōtēria is understood as “deliverance,
preservation with focus on transcendent aspects” (BDAG 2000, 983 – 84). As
Max Weber has observed, Christ is “a personal, divine or human-divine savior
as the bearer of salvation, with the additional consequence that the religious re-
lationship to this personage become the precondtion of salvation” (Weber [1920]
1993, 102).
However, Christ represents the sun, maize, or some other natural element in
many contemporary indigenous religions in the Americas. Since the Dominican
Catholic mission of the sixteenth century, the Chamula Tzotzil Maya have had a
concept of Christ as the sun and Virgin Mary as the moon, an assignment that is
still incorporated into contemporary stories and practices (Gossen 1972, 1974).
Burkhart maintains that the Catholic missionaries of the sixteenth century rep-
resented Christ as a solar deity in doctrinal scriptures translated into Nahuatl.
This image originally derived from old-world cults of the sun (Burkhart 1988).
Christ is in the Gospel according to John (8:12) lux mundi (Latin; “light of the
world”) (Burkhart 1988, 236). He therefore symbolizes the enlightment and sal-
vation of the sun as opposed to darkness of the devil. Tonaitiuh (“he goes shin-
ing and shedding warmth”) was the name for the sun as a celestial body and for
the sun deity in Nahua religion before the European invasion. However, the sun
was not a model for morality or salvation in Nahua philosophy but instead was
associated with organization of space, (calendar) time, and agriculture (Burkhart
1988, 238 – 39). It is remarkable that the Augustinian friar Juan de la Anunciación
constructed an analogy of the Trintiy with the sun—where God is the sun, the
Holy Spirit is the warmth, and Christ the illumination—in order to explain mon-
otheism (Burkhart 1988, 250). In several contemporary Mesoamerican commun-
ities, including the Nahua, Christ is the sun deity but can also be a culture hero
who creates plants and animals (Burkhart 1988, 235; Hunt 1977; Lupo 2001, 348 –
49; Taggart 1983; Vogt 1969). Quite a few Nahua view him as a remote deity dis-
tant from daily affairs (Sandstrom 1991, 236, 248; 2010, 31– 32). In Sierra Norte de
Puebla, he is associated with the sun and is called Toteco, “our lord God.” Some-
268 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

times he is called San Manuel (Stresser-Péan 2005, 447).³⁸ Corpus Christi is a

solar fiesta in Naupan, where totecotzi is the name for tortilla before it is
made by maize (a divine sustenance). San Francisco is the dueño (“lord”) of
maize who is also some places considered be associated with the sun (Báez Cu-
bero 2008, 225 – 26). The sun is the principal deity many places. He is “our fa-
ther,” nuestro padre, or totecotzi, which also refers to Christ in Nahuatl. In Huaut-
la, Christ is called Totiohtzih (classical Nahuatl toteotzin, “our (honorific) god”)
(Kimball 1980, 58).
Among the Mixtec, Christ can symbolize the sun or maize. Christ is identical
to the sun in Santiago Nuyoo. The sun can be called Sakramentu (“Sacrament”),
which is an allusion to Holy Communion, when bread and wine are transformed
into the blood and body of Christ. The communion wafers are related to the sa-
cred heart of Christ and to the sun (“the ánima of God”). That body, Corpus Chris-
ti, is called Viko Nkanii, “the fiesta of the Sun.” Christ and sun represent truth,
purity, and goodness (Monaghan 1995, 46). Christ is considered to be Sun be-
cause he dies and comes back to life, just as the Sun sets in the west, goes
under the earth, the place of the dead, and rises in the east in Santiago
Nuyoo (Monaghan 1995, 118 – 19). He is represented by images and (agricultural)
rituals of Santo Niño, Misericordia, Santa Cruz, and Santo Entierro in Santiago
Nuyoo, which represents stages in his life and various times of the year (Mona-
ghan 1995, 119 – 30). Christ, as the Sun and the ánima of God, is called “the man
of yɨɨ,” potency, vitality, or fecundity—Mixtec religious concepts used to describe
Christ and economics (Monaghan 1995, 127– 28).
Christ (Chuchi) signifies and represents maize or corn according to people in
Chacaltongo (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 113 – 14; 2008, 119 – 21; Witter 2011, 34– 41, 47–
49). Maize is fundamental (is life itself) according to liturgy and fiestas. On
Jueves Santos of Semana Santa in Chalcatongo, a large tortilla is made with
maize in the shape of a “tlayuda” representing the grain and the sun. Maize cor-
responds to bread and pulque takes wine’s place to symbolically represent the
body and blood of Christ, respectively, in the liturgy of the Eucharist (Jansen
and Pérez Jiménez 2009a, 468; Witter 2011, 35).³⁹ Crecéncia Jiménez Queiroz of
Chalcatongos make this clear by saying, “this maize is Jesus Christ (Jesucristo);
it is sacred” (Anders and Jansen 1994, 128; Witter 2011, 35 – 35). Christ is therefore
not perceived as eschatological prophet or savior of humanity in indigenous
American philosophy.

 In Sierra Norte de Puebla, the precursor of Christ is Quetzalcoatl 9 Wind (Ehecatl), an agri-
cultural deity among the Nahua (Stresser-Péan 2005, 470 – 74).
 Hans-Jörg Witter (2011) argues that Koo Sau (Quetzalcoatl) is associated with Christ in con-
temporary Mixtec religion.
 Translation of Christ as savior 269

Christ can be conceived as a savior in American indigenous cultures, but not

exactly as in Christian theological doctrine. According to the contemporary
Nahua of Sierra de Puebla, Christ is the savior—called Temaquixticatzin (in
Nahua-invocation)—from illness in this world and not the redeemer of souls
who deals with the afterlife of a metaphysical world. One invocation contains
the exhortation Axcan tehuatzin notemaquixtihcatzin Jesucristo (Sp. Ahora Tú,
mí salvador Jesucristo, “Now you, my savior Jesus Christ”) (Signorini and Lupo
1989, 208 – 211).⁴⁰ He is invoked, for instance, in the supplication against ehecat
(“bad winds”): Señor Jesucristo, nechtapohpolhui miac (Sp. perdóname mucho,
“forgive me much”). Nimitztatauhtiti itech nehin tonal (Sp. Te voy a suplicar en
ese día, “I will invoke you on this day”), itech nehin cemilhuit (Sp. en esa fiesta,
“in this ritual”) (Signorini and Lupo 1989, 248 – 49). Furthermore, Christ is not
the only or most important deity (savior), as there are other indigenous deities
and saints, as the plural in this invocation makes clear: Ay Dios, notemaquixtih-
catzitzin (¡Ay! Dios, mis salvadores, “Ah deities, my saviors”) (Signorini and Lupo
1989, 224– 25).
Nor is Christ the only savior from disease: Pérez Jiménez explains how Jesus
is invoked in a Mixtec curing ceremony in Chalcatongo, where also there is an
offering to the sacred beings called Toba (Pérez Jiménez 2003, 188). The SIL
scriptural translation of salvation and savior imply the transfer of a distinct con-
ceptualization of the human body. Many indigenous peoples practice medical
knowledge of pre-European/pre-Christian origin in diagnosing and curing and
in symbolic healing ceremonies. Protestant missionary linguist translations of
the New Testament challenge traditional medicine, where physical and psycho-
logial treatment are combined in order to restore equilibrium of the universe and
the individual by the healers (Sp. curanderos/curanderas). Such diagnosis and
therapy are intimately related to the various sacred forces and the souls of the
human body and not to salvation of the soul or an eternal afterlife.
With the objective of religious, cultural, and linguistic conversion, Catholic
and Protestant missionaries introduce not only European-American Christian
theology but also alien medical services (human aid)—in so doing they defy in-
digenous therapeutic philosophies, symbols, and practices. “Salvation,” a lin-
guistic-theological (metaphysical) idea, is also intimately related to medicine
and healing of the human body. The Greek verb sōzō has the connotations of
“to heal” and “to save,” just as Christ is both the savior and healer (Sōtēr) ac-
cording to the New Testament. Significant passages from SIL New Testament

 The people of Sierra de Puebla are not concerned with the final judgment but believe instead
in various cataclysms (Stresser-Péan 2005, 390 – 91).
270 V Moral Philosophy of Translated Christology

translations redefine indigenous terminology or apply nonindigenous terminol-

ogy in order to replace traditional medical knowledge with Protestant Christian
theology and European-American health care—in so doing, the missionary lin-
guists reconceptualize curing and salvation in a “politics of missionary medical
scripture.” Local medical institutions, meaning, and practices are to be “ration-
alized” and transformed through the translation process of missionary linguis-
tics.
Conceptualization of missionary linguistic
scriptural translations
I have presentend an extensive argument conceptualizing and theorizing (the en-
counter of) systems of meaning (structures of terminologies) through explicating
missionary linguistic scriptural translations. By concentrating on the terminolo-
gy of conversions of core and key ideological and philosophical concepts, I have
demonstrated an alternative theory and methodology that differs from previous
studies undertaken by linguists and anthropologists. Based on extensive evi-
dence from the colonial and postcolonial periods, I have established theoretical
and analytical models of US Protestant missionary-linguistic translations of the
New Testament into indigenous American languages. These paradigms can be
applied either subtly or directly for future (translation) studies in the fields of re-
ligion, philosophy, law, economics, politics, and science.
Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) has made a case for the conceptions of heteoroglossia
or a “multiplicity of language” and diaglossia or polyphony or a “variation of
styles, voices and points of view” as phenomena of a linguistic system. These
may be applicable as analytical models in contact zones of translation where
there is an encounter between languages and ideologies (Schieffelin 2007, 141).
But I have put forward the theory that there are also pivotal concepts signifying
linguistic-philosophical (religious) incompatibility in the confrontation between
entirely different cultures – manifested by the respective language system. A lin-
guistic conversion process entails the introduction of loanwords, calques, neolo-
gisms although most importantly semantic extension of concepts – accordingly
an innovation of existing indigenous nomenclature and lexicon. Intercultural
and interlinguistic contact through translation instigates a semantic transforma-
tion of not only the particular lexeme but also the taxonomic structure. This
means that the lexeme acquires new meaning and referents, which also applies
to interrelated semantic categories (cf. Basso 1990: 16; 20 – 22). But missionary
linguistics does not only imply semantic and lexical change of existing words
but also obsolescence or loss of vocabulary of the target culture, which should
merit a study of its own.
In the case of fundamental incompatibility between the terminologies of lin-
guistic-philosopical systems it does not matter whether the translated mission-
ary linguist concept is a neologism, loan word, and calque or derive from the re-
ligious or everyday domain of the target language. The end result is the same:
final conversion of vernacular semantics and thereby total acceptance of a
new religious, ideological or philosophical terminology.

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-007
272 Conceptualization of missionary linguistic scriptural translations

As the evolution of the history of missionary linguistics attest there is no

‘missionary missionized’ (cf. Burkhart 1989), where the missionary linguists ad-
just the translated vernacular categories to the ideas and epistemology of the tar-
get culture. This reflects only the early Christian Church and the primary colonial
stage of missionary linguistic in cultural contexts where they did not enjoy po-
litical and linguistic power and had to reform to accommodate the target culture.
The Apostels of the New Testament adapted to the non-Jewish culture of the so-
called Gentiles according to Acts 15. The gospel was promoted in a non-Jewish
context as written Acts 14:8 – 18 and 17:22– 34.¹
The primary missionary linguists and translators had a considerable advant-
age because there was no intial language problem as Koiné Greek was a regional
lingua franca in the Hellenstic cultures. Although within the next centuries scrip-
ture were translated into Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Syriac etc. But there
was no agreement among the first Christian missionaries in understanding the
difference of “cultural and religious values” according to v.29. Moreover, Gal 2
exhibits early disputes of “inculturation” according to Gunther Renck (Renck
1990, 1– 2; note 3, 188; note 10, 189). Furthermore, Jesuit missionaries in China
and India undertook adaption or “accommodation” in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Mateo Ricci adjusted Christianity to Confuciansim in China whereas Robert de
Nobili became an India guru (sanyassi). They mastered Chinese and Sanskrit,
Tamil and Telugu respectively. But in particular the Dominican and Franciscan
orders did not accept this practice of acculturation and “The Rites Controversy”
ensued culminating with the prohibition of “accommodation” by Pope Benedict
XIV in 1742 (Renck 1990, 1– 2; note 8, 189. Cf. Latourette 1939; Mulders 1960;
Rosenkranz 1961).²
In the field of mission and missionary linguistic translation, there is accord-
ingly not a Bakhtian “contact zone” or “middle ground” where different cultures
exchange compromises with a non-existent coercive authority (cf. White 1991,
52– 53) but instead (asymmetrical) radical confrontation where there is no agree-
ment.
The terminology (nomenclature) of key and core concepts of conversion de-
rives from Christian moral philosophy of the New Testament. I have systematical-
ly explained how Protestant theological doctrines affect indigenous languages,
philosophies, cultural traditions, and rituals (fiestas) as well as social, economic,

 Cf. Oepke, Albrecht. Die Missionspredigt aus Apostels Paulus. Leipzig. J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buch-
handlung. 1920.
 Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of the Expanison of Christianity, Vol. III. New York & Lon-
don: Harper and Brothers. 1939; Mulders, Alphons. Missionsgeschicthe. Regensburg: Friedrich
Pustet. 1960; Rosenkranz, G. Ritenstreit. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart V: 1112– 1113. 1961.
 Conceptualization of missionary linguistic scriptural translations 273

and political systems. These are profoundly interrelated, particularly in small

tight-knit communities, so the missionary politics of language and power of
texts affect social textures. Translating scriptures have religious and linguistic
but in addition social, political, economical and cultural consequences given
if indigenous communities appropriate those volumes. The power transfer inher-
ent in this culturally transformative process reveals the impact of conversion of
missionary linguistics.

The mission endeavor—which seeks to fulfill the ‘Great Commission’ by bringing (evangel-
ical) Christianity to all people—is thus, we argue, irreconcilable with the principle of self-
determination, because it brings about change according to terms largely determined out-
side the community itself. These cultural changes may in turn engender the deep feeling of
loss in subsequent generations. Furthermore, such cultural change is closely linked to the
loss of linguistic styles, registers, genres, varieties, and …. ritual language (Epps and Ladley
2009, 645).

Apart from pointing out sociopolitical and cultural aspects of missionary linguis-
tic translation, this analyzis has pulled out the intended religious and linguistic
effect of missionary organizations’ industry to transform the significance of in-
digenous language and philosophy. I contend that linguistic self-determination
and autonomy are threatened by missionary-linguistic language manipulation,
which then contributes to culturcide—the destruction of cultural identity and as-
similation into a majority culture.
Linguistic extinction is a real threat for quite a few indigenous cultures in
contemporary postcolonial nation-states. Missionary linguists and their academ-
ic supporters assert that they counter linguicide, but this book shows that they
instead manipulate indigenous languages, causing injury to intellectual and re-
ligious traditions. The missionary linguist, who has an instrumental motivation
for producing scriptural translations, grammars, and dictionaries, tends to mo-
nopolize the written record of indigenous communities. The missionary’s objec-
tive is a standardized communication system, so indigenous peoples must have
considerable agency in order to defend the philosophical concepts that belong to
their vocabulary.
The dichotomy of a salvation and perdition/damnation philsophy engender
the practice of communicating (gospel) “truth” by mission. As I have established
this theological principle differentiate missionary and soteriological religious
systems from non-missionary and non-soteriological systems. Let us then finally
look at a quite famous quotation from the Gospel of John. Jesus said to the Jews
that had faith in him: “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you
free” (Joh. 8:32). The Mixtec New Testament acknowledges “truth” as “inner good
274 Conceptualization of missionary linguistic scriptural translations

word or advice” (vaha ini jnuhun).³ But instead of “truth will make you free”, i. e.
salvation, the translator paraphrase that the “pure and precious word of truth”
(mani jnuhun ndaa) will “judge” (cahan) us. Otherwise we are to be destroyed
(natava) and punished (nundoho), e. g. persish, for sin (cuachi). This is under-
lined as being said directly by God (ni cachi ya). Also in the Nahuatl New Testa-
ment is “word”, in this case emphasized by the honorific suffix –tzin, included to
translate “truth”; “revered true word” (in tlahtoltzin melahuac).⁴ But here it is
stated by the missionary linguists that it will save or escape the believers (mech-
maquixtisque), although from the “dependency” of the “no good” or devil (ima-
joc in ahmo cuali). The translators accordingly accentuate an avoidance of a po-
tential negative, but not positive, outcome by having belief in Jesus. Moreover,
truth is indeed an abstract category in Mixtec and Nahuatl but not as a doctrinal
religious reality, required to be missionized. It is remarkable that the translated
conveyed meaning of truth is both in the Mixtec and Nahuatl New Testament
combined with word. This is simply due to the fact that the Gospel of John has
already promulgated that God was with and was Word (Joh.1). This is exactly
the gospel truth, unfamiliar to non-Christian cultures, that has to be missionized.
In general, indigenous religions in the Americas operate as open, inclusive
systems where novel ideas, symbols, concepts, and practices can be easily
adopted and incorporated. This is in stark contrast with the missionary and so-
teriological religions, which represent closed, or exclusive systems. The doctrine
of sola scriptura practiced by Protestant missionary linguists crystallizes these
priorities. The missionary linguist’s political strategy of a so-called inculturation
of Christian theology—or the decontextualization of European-American Christi-
an religion in order to “adapt” to indigenous philosophical worldview—is merely
“newspeak” for acculturation. And that is the ultimate transformation of indig-
enous religious, philosophical, linguistic, and cultural systems.
Analyzing translation is a rewarding and indispensable method not only in
the study of missionary linguistics and the encounter between cultures with dif-
ferent philosophical, judicial, economical, political and religious (ideological)
systems but also in how a cultural-linguistic system undergo evolution. The latter
is particular interesting because indigenous and minority peoples are producting
translations of various subjects from politics, law, economics, natural sciences,
information technology etc. into their own language. Explicating translations of
non-fictional subjects undertaken by native speakers should therefore be given

 Jnu’un, palabra, consejo (Farrris et al. 2002: 19). Jnu’un ndaa, verdad (Farrris et al. 2002: 19).
Ndaa, verdaderamanete, de verdad; exactamente (Farrris et al. 2002: 53).
 -melahuac, (suffix) verdaderamente (Brockway et al. 2000: 78). Melahuac, something straight,
true, genuine, honest (Karttunen 1992: 143).
 Conceptualization of missionary linguistic scriptural translations 275

far more attention. A moral and excellence requirement of an analytic study is

equal cooperation between native and non-native reseachers.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, Thomas. A. 1998. Pathways of Memory and Power. Ethnography and History
among an Andean people. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin.
Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, Bryan S. Turner. 1986. Sovereign individuals of
capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin.
Adams, Abigail E. 1999. The Word, Work, and Worship: Engendering Evangelical Culture
between Highland Guatemala and the United States. PhD diss., University of Virginia.
— 2001. Making One Our Word: Protestant Q’eqchi’ Mayas in Highland Guatemala.
205 – 233. Dow, W. James and Alan R. Sandstrom (eds.). Holy Saints and Fiery
Preachers: The Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America (Religion in
the Age of Transformation).
Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. 1970. El proceso de acculturación y el camibo sociocultural en
México. Universidad Iberoamericana, Editorial Comunidad, Instituto de Ciencias Sociales.
Mexico City.
Aland, Barbara and Kurt, eds. 2005. Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland). 27th ed.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Alavez Chávez, Raúl. 1997. Ñayiu xindeku nuu ndaa vico nu’u: Los habitants del lugar de las
nubes. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología
Social and Instituto Oaxaqueño de las Culturas.
Albanese, Catherine L. 1977. Corresponding Motion: Transcendental Religion and the New
America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Aldridge, Frederick. 2012. The Development of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and the
Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1934 – 1982. Ph.D. diss., University of Stirling.
Alexander, Ruth Mary. 1981. Gramática Mixteca, mixteco de Atatlahuca. El Instituto Linguistico
De Verano. Mexico: Proceso.
Alva, Don Bartolomé de. (1634) 1999. A Guide to Confession Large and Small in the Mexican
language, 1634. Edited by Barry D. Sell and John Frederic Schwaller, with Lu Ann Homza.
Norman: University of Oklahama Press.
Alvarado, Fray Francisco de. (1593) 1962. Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca por Fray Francisco
de Alvarado: Reproducción facsimilar con un studio de Wigberto Jimenez Moreno y un
apéndice con un Vocabulario sacado del Arte en Lengua Mixteca de Fray Antonio de los
Reyes. Mexico City: Insitituto Nacional Indigensita e Insitituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia S. E.P.
Ammerman, Nancy T. 1991. North American Protestant Fundamentalism. 1 – 65.
Fundamentalisms Observed. The Fundamentalism Project. Vol. 1. Edited by Martin E.
Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Amith, Jonathan. D. 2012. “Electronic Nahuatl Dictionary.” Unpublished manuscript. Sierra
Norte de Puebla. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 1992. 6 vols. Edited by David Noel
Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Anders, Ferdinand, and Maarten Jansen. 1994. Códice Laud. Con commentario de Ferdinand
Anders y Maarten Jansen. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
— 1996. Libro de la Vida. Texto explicativo del llamado Códice Magliabechi. Colección
Códices Mexicanos. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Anderson, Arthur. J. O. (1950) 1982. “Sahagún: Career and Character.” In General History of
the Things of New Spain: Florentine Codex, by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, 1: 29 – 41.

DOI 10.1515/9783110497915-008
 Bibliography 277

Translated by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. V. Anderson. Santa Fe: School of American
Research; Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
Anonymous translator. 1979. In Yancuic Monotzalistli ica Totecohtzin Jesucristo. El Nuevo
Testamento de nuestro Señor Jesucristo. Náhuatl del norte de Puebla. Liga Biblica
Mundial del Hogar. Las Sagradas Escrituras Para Todos. Mexico City: La Biblioteca
Mexicana del Hogar, A.C.
Anonymous translators. 1988. Nuevo Testamento en Mixteco de Yosondúa y en Español.
Mexico City: America Latina por W.H.B.L y Liga del Sembrador A.C. y Liga Biblica
Mundial del Hogar. A.C.
Anonymous. n.d. Fiestas y ritos en las tierras Mixtecas. Símbolos del Mundo.
Arana, Evangelina and Mauricio Swadesh. 1965. Los Elementos del Mixteco Antiguo. INI-INAH,
México.
Aramoni Burguete, María Elena. 1990. Talokan Tata, Talokan Nana: Nuestras Raíces.
Hierofanías y testimonios de un mundo indígena. México: Consejo Nacional para la
Cultura y las Artes. Dirección General de Publicaciones. Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia.
Arthur, Eddie. 2010. Why Bible Translation Is Important. http://www.wycliffe.net/Missiology/
BibleTranslationandMission/tabid/94/Default.aspx?id=1243 2010-05-26).
Ascensión Hernández de León-Portilla, comp. 1998. Obras clásicas sobre la lengua náhuatl.
Madrid: Fundación Histórica Tavera. Electronic resource.
Asensio, E. 1960. La lengua compañera del imperio. Historia de una idea de Nebrija en
España y Portugal. Revista de Filología Española XLIII. 1960. 399 – 413.
Astås, Reider. 1989. Kirkelig/skolatisk terminologi i et morsmålsverk fra middelalderen. Oslo.
Novus Forlag.
Aulie, Henry W. 1979. The Christian Movement among the Chols of Mexico, with Special
Reference to Problems of Second Generation Christianity. PhD diss., Fuller Theological
Seminary.
Axtell, James. Natives and Newcomers: The Cultural Origins of North America. Oxford
University Press, USA. 2000.
Báez Cubero, Lourdes. 2004. Nahuas de la Sierra Norte de Puebla. Del Pueblos Indígenas del
México Contemporáneo. Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas.
http://www.cdi.gob.mx.
— 2008. “El oficio de tejer la vida. Rituales del ciclo vital entre los Nahuas de la Sierra
Norte de Puebla.” In La religión de los pueblos Nahuas, edited by Silvia Limón Olvera,
219 – 46. Encicopedia Iberoamericana de Religiones. Madrid: Editoral Trotta.
Báez-Jorge, Félix. 2003. Los disfraces del Diablo. Ensayo sobre la reinterpretación de la
noción cristiana del Mal en Mesoamérica. Xalapa, Ver., Mexico: Biblioteca Universidad
Veracruzana.
— 2010. Los nuevos avatares de Homshuk (inculturación litúrgica y transfomración
simbólica de una deidad mesoameridana del maíz, en el marco de la teología del la
liberación). 196 – 247). San Juan Diego y la Pachamama: Nuevas vías del catolicismo y
de la religiosidad indígena en América Latina. Alessandro Lupo and Félix Báez-Jorge
(Ed.). Veracruz, MX: Editorial de la Universidad Veracruzana,
Báez-Jorge, Félix, and Arturo Gómez Martínez. 2001. “Tlacatecolotl y el Diablo: La
cosmovisión de los nahuas de Chicontepec.” In Cosmovisión, ritual e identidad de los
278 Bibliography

pueblos indígenas de México, edited by Broda, Joanna and Felix Báez-Jorge, 391 – 451.
Serie historia y antropologia. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Bakhtin, Mikail M. 1981. Discourse in the Novel. 259 – 522. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin.
University of Texas Press.
Barnhart, 1988. Robert K (ed.) and Sol Steinmetz (managing ed.). The Barnhart Dictionary of
Etymology. The H.W. Wilson Company.
Barnwell, K. (1975) 1986. Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles.
Dallas: SIL.
— 1987. Teacher’s Manual to Accompany Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in
Translation Principles. Dallas: SIL.
Bartholomew, Doris A. 2001. The Impact of Bilingual Dictionaries in Mexican Indian
Languages. Notes on Linguistics 4 (3): 145 – 49.
Bartholomew, Doris A., and Louise C. Schoenhals. 1983. Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous
Languages. Mexico City: Summer Institute of Lingusitics.
Basso, Keith H. 1990. Western Apache Language and Culture. Essays in Linguistic
Anthropology. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Baudot, Georges. 1990. Introduction to Tratado de Hechiceriás y Sortilegios (1553), ix–xxvii.
Facsímiles de Lingüstica y Filología Nahuas 5. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones
Históricas Centro de Estudios Mexicanos Y CentroAmericanos, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
— 1995. Utopia and History in Mexico: The First Chronicles of Mexican Civilization,
1520 – 1569. Mesoamerican Worlds: From the Olmecs to the Danzantes. Denver:
University Press of Colorado.
Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich (BDAG). 2000. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Beals, Ralph L. 1953. Acculturation. 621 – 641. Alfred L. Kroeber. Anthropology today
encyclopedic inventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beekman, J., and Callow, J. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General System Theory. Foundations, Development, Applications.
New York: George Braziller. 1973.
Bertonio, Ludovico. [1612] 1879.Vocabulario De La Lengua Aymara. B.G. Teubner. Leipzig.
Beyer, Peter. 2006. Religions in global society. London: Routledge.
Bierhorst, John. 1992a. Codex Chimalpopoca. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
— 1992b. History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Bjorvand, Harald and Fredrik Otto Lindeman. 2007. Våre arveord: etymologisk ordbok.
Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning / Serie B Skrifter. Oslo: Novus.
Black, Matthew. 1970. “The Biblical Languages.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible: Vol.I:
From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, 1 – 11.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1970.
Bleeker, C. J. 1973. “Man and His Salvation in the Ancient Egyptian Religion.” In Man and His
Salvation: Studies in the Memory of S. G. F. Brandon, edited by Eric J. Sharpe and John
R. Hinnells, 65 – 74. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Boas, Franz. 1982. A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1983 – 1911.
George W. Stocking Jr. (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
 Bibliography 279

Bonilla, Oiara. 2009. The Skin of History: Paumari Perspectives on Conversion and
Transformation. 127 – 166. Vilaça, Aparecida and Robin M. Wright. Native Christians.
Modes and Effects of Christianity among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Aldershot.
Ashgate.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill. 1998. “Pictorial Documents and Visual Thinking in Postconquest
Mexico.” In Native Traditions in the Postconquest World, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone
and Tom Cummins, 149 – 99. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
— 2000. Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
— 2011. “Ruptures and Unions: Graphic Complexity and Hybridity in Sixteenth-Century
Mexico.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian
America, ed. Elizabeth H. Boone and Gary Urton, 197 – 225. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Boone, Elizabeth H., and Gary Urton, eds. Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and
Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
Bowen, Kurt Derek. 1996. Evangelism and Apostasy: The Evolution and Impact of Evangelicals
in Modern Mexico. McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion 23. Montreal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Brekke, Torkel. 2006. “Mission Impossible? Baptism and the Politics of Bible Translation in
the Early Protestant Mission in Bengal.” History of Religions 45 (3): 213 – 33.
Brewer, Forrest, and Jean G. Brewer. 1971. Vocabulario mexicano de Tetelcingo, Morelos.
Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Bricker, Victoria R. 2004. “Linguistic Continuities and Discontinuities in the Maya Area.” In
Pluralizing Ethnographies: Comparison and Representation in Maya Cultures, Histories
and Identities, edited by Edward Fischer and John Watanabe, 67 – 93. Santa Fe: School
of American Research.
Briggs-Cloud, Marcus. 2010. “The United States as Imperial Peace: Decolonization and
Indigenous Peoples.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion 1 (13): 1 – 28.
Brockway, Earl. 1979. “North Puebla Nahuatl.” In Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar 2: Modern
Aztec grammatical sketches, edited by Ronald W. Langacker, 141 – 98. Summer Institute
of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 56. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and
the University of Texas at Arlington.
Brockway, Earl, Trudy Hershey de Brockway, and Leodegario Santos Valdés. 2000. Diccionario
Náhuatl del norte del estado de puebla. Serie de vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas
Mariano Silva y Aceves 42. Coyoacán, Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano and
Universidad Madero.
Bruno, Daniel and Néstor Míguez. 2016. Conquest and Evangelisation: The Bible in Colonial
America (1450 – 1750). Cameron, Euan. (ed.). The New Cambridge History of the Bible.
The Bible from 1450 to 1750. Vol. 3. 828 – 842. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burgoa, fray Francisco de. [1674]1989. Geográfica Descripción (I, II). Publicaciones del AGN
25, 26. Mexico City: Reimpresión Editorial Porrúa.
Burke, Kenneth. 1961. The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies on Logology. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burkhart, Louise M. 1988. “The Solar Christ in Nahuatl Doctrinal Texts of Early Colonial
Mexico.” Ethnohistory 35:234 – 56.
280 Bibliography

— 1989. The Slippery Earth: Nahua-Christian Moral Dialogue in Sixteenth-Century Mexico.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
— 1992. “The Amanuenses Have Appropriated the Text: Interpreting a Nahuatl Song of
Santiago.” In On the Translation of Native American Literatures edited by Brian Swann,
339 – 55. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
— 1996. Holy Wednesday: A Nahua Drama from Early Colonial Mexico. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
— 2014. The “Little Doctrine” and Indigenous Catechesis in New Spain. Hispanic American
Historical Review 94, no. 2: 167 – 206.
Caballero, Juan Julián. 2008. “The Mixtec Language in the Globalization Era: Challenges and
Struggles.” In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de Ñuu Dzaui, edited by Maarten E.
R. G. N. Jansen and Laura N.K. van Broekhoeven, 391 – 405. Amsterdam: Kominklijke
Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Press.
Caballero Morales, Gabriel. 2008. Diccionario del Idioma Mixteco: Tutu Tu’un Ñuu Savi.
Huajuapan de León, Oaxaca, México: Universidad Tecnológica de la Mixteca.
Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques. Paris: Payot.
Campbell. R. Joe. 1985. A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl: A Morpheme Index
to the Vocabulario en lengua mexicana y castellana of fray Alonso de Molina. Madison:
Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native
America. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Campbell, Lyle and Martha Muntzel. 1989. 181 – 196. The structural consequences of
Language Death. Investigating obsolescence, ed. by Nancy Dorian, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cannell, Fenella. Reading as Gift and Writing as Theft. 2006. 134 – 162. The Anthropology of
Christianity. Fenella Cannell (ed.). Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Carlsen, Robert S., ed. 2001. “Transculturation.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican
Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco, 3:
257 – 60. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carochi, Horacio. Grammar of the Mexican Language with an Explanation of its Adverbs
(1645). By Horacio Carochi, S.J. Edited and translated by James Lockhart. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2001.
Carpenter, Joel. 1997. Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Carrasco, Davíd. 1999. “Uttered from the Heart: Guilty Rhetoric among the Aztecs.” History of
Religions 39 (1): 1 – 31.
— 2001. Preface to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of
Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco, 1:ix–xvii. New York: Oxford
University Press.
— 2004. “Jaguar Christians in the Contact Zone: Concealed Narratives in the Histories of
Religions in the Americas.” In Beyond Primitivism: Indigenous Religious Traditions and
Modernity, edited by Jacob K. Olupona, 128 – 38. New York: Routledge, 2004.
— 2005. Human Sacrifice: Aztec Rites. 4185 – 4197. Lindsay Jones. Editor-in-Chief.
Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Thompson Gale. Macmillian Reference.
 Bibliography 281

Carrasco, Pedro. 1961. “The Civil-Religious Hierarchy in Mesoamerican Communities:

Pre-Spanish Background and Colonial Development.” American Anthropologist 63 (1961):
483 – 97.
Caso, Alfonso. 1962. “Vocabulario sacado del Arte en Lengua Mixteca de fray Antonio de los
Reyes.” In Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca por fray Francisco de Alvarado (1593), by
Wigberto Jimenez Moreno, 107 – 53. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigensita e
Insitituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, S. E. P.
Castillo Hernández, Mario Alberto. 2007. Mismo mexicano pero diferente idioma: Identidades
y actidudes lingüísticas en los maseualmej de Cuetzalan. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Certeau, Michel de. 1985. “What We Do When We Believe.” In On Signs, edited by Marshall
Blonsky, 192 – 202. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cervantes, Fernando. 1994. The Devil in the New World. The Impact of Diabolism in New
Spain. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Chalcatongo de Hidalgo. 2009. Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México: Estado de Oaxaca.
http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/Oaxaca/municipios/20026a.htm.
Chance, John K. 2001. “Civil-Religious Hierarchy.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd
Carrasco, 1:223 – 25. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chance, John K., and William B. Taylor. 1985. “Cofradias and Cargos: An Historical
Perspective on the Mesoamerican Civil-Religious Hierarchy.” American Ethnologist 12 (1):
1 – 26.
Chesnut, R. Andrew. 1997. Born Again in Brazil: The Pentecostal Boom and the Pathogens of
Poverty. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñon. 1965. Relaciones
Originales de Chalco Amaquemecan. Paleografiadas y Traducidas del Náhuatl. Mexico
City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
— 1997. Codex Chimalpahin, edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Susan Schroeder. 2 Vols.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
— 2001. Diferentes Historias Originales, Edited and translated by Elke von Ruhnau. Fuentes
Mesoamericanas. 2 vols. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein, 2001.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Janua linguarum 4. The Hague: Mouton.
— 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics Special
Technical Report 11. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christensen, Mark Z. 2013. Nahua and Maya Catholicisms: Texts and Religion in Colonial
Mexico. American Academy of Franciscan History and Stanford University Press.
— 2012. The Use of Nahuatl in Evangelization and the Ministry of Sebastian. Ethnohistory
59:4 (Fall 2012).
— 2014. Translated Christianities: Nahuatl and Maya Religious Texts. Penn State University
Press.
Cleary, Edward L., and Timothy J. Steigenga. 2004. “Resurgent Voices: Indians, Politics, and
Religion in Latin America.” In Resurgent Voices in Latin America: Indigenous Peoples,
Political Mobilization, and Religious Change, edited by Edward L. Cleary and Timothy J.
Steigenga, 1 – 24. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Colby, Gerard. 1995. Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon; Nelson Rockefeller and
Evangelism in the Age of Oil. With Charlotte Dennett. New York: HarperCollins.
282 Bibliography

Collier, George A. 1999. Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. With Elizabeth
Lowery Quaratiello. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.
Cowan, George. 1979. The word that kindles. Chappaqua, NY: Christian Herald Books.
Crocker, J. Christopher. 1977. “The Social Functions of Rhetorical Forms.” In The Social Use of
Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric, edited by Sapir, David J. and J.
Christopher Crocker, 33 – 66. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cysouw, Michael, and Bernard Wälchli. 2007. “Parallel Texts: Using Translational Equivalents
in Linguistic Typology.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60 (2): 95 – 99.
Dahlgren, Bárbro. 1954. La Mixteca: Su cultura e historia prehispánicas. Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Darwin, Charles. (1859) 1985. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. Penguin Books.
Dedenbach‐Salazar Sáenz, Sabine. Introducción. 1 – 17. Sabine Dedenbach‐Salazar Sáenz,
(ed.). 2016. La transmisión de conceptos cristianos a las lenguas amerindias: Estudios
sobre textos y contextos de la época colonial. (Collectanea Instituti Anthropos 48.).
Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1988. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
— 2003. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
de Vries, L. J. (Lourens). 2007. “Some Remarks on the Use of Bible Translations as Parallel
Texts in Linguistic Research.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60 (2):
148 – 57.
Dobrin, Lise M. 2009. “SIL International and the Disciplinary Culture of Linguistics:
Introduction.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 85 (3): 618 – 19.
Dobrin, Lise M., and Jeff Good. 2009. “Practical Language Development: Whose Mission?”
Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America. 85 (3): 619 – 29.
Doesburg, van Sebastián, and Michael Swanton. 2008. “La Traduccion de la Doctrina
Cristiana en Lengua Mixteca de fray Benito Hernández al Chocholteco (Ngiwa).” In
Memorias del Coloquio Francisco Belmar: Conferencias sobre lenguas otomangues y
oaxaquñeas, edited by Ausencia López Cruz and Michael Swanton, 2:81 – 117. Mexico
City: Biblioteca Francisco de Buroa, UABJO.
Dorian, Nancy C. 1993. A response to Ladefoged’s other view of endangered languages.
Language 69. 575 – 579.
Dow, James W., 2001. “Protestantism in Mesoamerica: The Old within the New.” In Holy
Saints and Fiery Preachers: The Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central
America, edited by Dow, James W. and Alan R. Sandstrom, 1 – 23. Religion in the Age of
Transformation.
— 2005. “The Expansion of Protestantism in Mexico: An Anthropological View.”
Anthropological Quarterly 78 (4): 827 – 50.
Dow, James W., and Alan R. Sandstrom, eds. 2001. Holy Saints and Fiery Preachers: The
Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America. Religion in the Age of
Transformation. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dozier, Edward P. 1956. “Two Examples of Linguistic Acculturation: the Yaqui of Sonora and
Arizona and the Tewa of New Mexico.” Language 32:146 – 157.
 Bibliography 283

— 1958. “Cultural Matrix of Singing and Chanting in Tewa Pueblos.” International Journal of
American Linguistics 24:268 – 72.
Durán, fray Diego. (1581) 1967. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de Tierre
Firme. 2. Vols. Mexico City: Editora Nacional.
Durán, Juan Guillermo, ed. 1984 – 1990. Monumenta catechetica hispanoamericana: Siglos
XVI—XVIII. 2 vols. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Teología de la Pontificia Universidad
Católica Argentina.
Durston, Alan. Pastoral Quechua: The History of Christian Translation in Colonial Peru,
1550 – 1650. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 2007.
Duverger, Christian. 1987. La conversion des Indiens de Nouvelle Espagne. Avec le texte des
COLLOQUES DES DOUZE de Bernardino de Sahagún (1564). Seuil. Paris. France.
Dyck, Carrie. 2011. “Should Translation Work Take Place? Ethical Questions Concerning the
Translation of First Nations Languages.” In Born in the Blood: On Native American
Translation, edited by Brian Swann, 17 – 42. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Dyk, Ann, and Betty Stoudt. 1973. Vocabulario mixteco de San Miguel el Grande. Mexico City:
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Early, John D. 2006. The Maya and Catholicism: An Encounter of World Views. University
Press of Florida.
Edgerton, Samuel Y. 2001. Theaters of Conversion: Religious Architecture and Indian Artisans
in Colonial Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Elizondo, Virgilio. 2001. “Meaning and Reception.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd
Carrasco, 1:446 – 47. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elson, Benjamin, ed. 1986. Language in a Global Perspective: Papers in Honor of the Fiftieth
Anniversary of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Enfield, Nicholas J. and Stephen C. Levinson. 2006. Roots of Human Sociality. New York:
Berg.
— and Jack Sidnell. 2012. Language Diversity and Social Action. Current Anthropology 53
(3):302 – 333
England, Nora. 1996. The role of language standardization in revitalization. 178 – 194. Maya
Cultural Activism in Guatemala. Edward F. Fischer and R. McKenna Brown (eds.).
University of Texas. Austin.
Epps, Patience, and Herb Ladley. 2009. “Syntax, Souls, or Speakers? On SIL and Community
Language Development.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 85 (3):
640 – 46.
Ermine, Willie. 2007. “The Ethical Space of Engagement.” Indigenous Law Journal 6 (1):
193 – 203.
Ernout, Alfred, and Antoine Meillet. 1951. Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Latine:
Histoire des Mots. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Errington, J. Joseph. 2007. Postscript: Making contact between consequences. 216 – 226.
Makihara, Mika and Bambi, B. Schieffelin (eds.) Consequences of contact: Language
ideologies and sociocultural transformations in Pacific societies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Espeja, Jesús (coord.). 1993. Inculturación y teología indígena. Facultad de Teologia de San
Estaban. Glosas 21. Salamanca: Editorial San Esteban.
284 Bibliography

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1967. Nuer Religion. Oxford. Clarendon Press.

Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã Another
Look at the Design Features of Human Language. Current Anthropology, Vol. 46, No. 4
(August/October 2005), The University of Chicago Press. 621 – 646.
— 2008. Don’t Sleep There Are Snakes. Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle.
Vintage Departures. Vintage Books. A Division of Random House, INC. New York.
Fabian, Johannes. 1986. Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in the
Former Belgian Congo,1880 – 1938. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, Hjalmar og Alf Torp. 1991 [1903 – 1906]. Etymologisk ordbog over det norske og det
danske sprog. Oslo: Bjørn Ringstrøms antikvariat. Faksimileutg. Originalutg. Kristiania:
Aschehoug.
Farris, Edwin R. 1988 – 1992. “A Syntactic Sketch of Yosondúa Mixtec.” In Studies in the
Syntax of Mixtecan Languages, edited by C. Henry Bradley and Barbara E. Hollenbach, 4:
3 – 171. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Texas
Farris, Kathryn Beaty de. 2002. Diccionario Básico del Mixteco de Yosondúa, With Mixtec
collaborators Pablo García Sánchez, Rubén García Sánchez, Jesús Ojeda Sánchez,
Augustín San Pablo García, and Apolonio Santiago Jiménez. Oaxaca: Instituto Lingüístico
de Verano.
Farriss, Nancy M. 1984. Maya Society under Colonial Rule. The Collective Enterprise of
Survival. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Fawcett, Peter. D. 1997. Translation and Language (Translation Theories Explored). Routledge.
Feinberg, Benjamin. 2003. The Devil’s Book of Culture: History, Mushrooms, and Caves in
Southern Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1968. Language Development. 27 – 35. Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A.
Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.). Language Problems of Developing Nations.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fernandez, James W. 1977. “The Performance of Ritual Metaphors.” In The Social Use of
Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric, edited by David J. Sapir and J.
Christopher Crocker, 100 – 131. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Flanet, Véronique. 1977. Viviré, si Dios quiere: Un estudio de la violencia en la Mixteca de la
Costa. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
Flinn, Frank K. 1999. “Conversion: Up from Evangelicalism or the Pentecostal and Charismatic
Experience.” In Religious Conversion. Contemporary Practices and Controversies, edited
by Christopher Lamb and M. Darrol Bryant, 51 – 72. London: Cassell.
Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2009. “Aspects of the Lexicographer’s Vocation in Alonso de
Molina’s Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana
(1555/1571).” In Missionary Linguistics IV/Lingüística misionera IV: Lexicography;
Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Missionary Linguistics,
Mérida, Yucatán, 14 – 17 March 2007, edited by Otto Zwartjes, Ramón Arzápalo Marín
and Thomas C. Smith-Stark, 107 – 27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foster, George. 1944. “Nagualism in México and Guatemala.” Acta Americana 2:85 – 103.
French, Brigittine M. 2003. The Politics of Mayan Linguistics in Guatemala: Native Speakers,
Expert Analysts, and the Nation. Pragmatics 13 (4): 483 – 498.
Fürer-Haimendorf, Christoph von. 1974. “The Sense of Sin in Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Man
9:539 – 56.
 Bibliography 285

Galarza, Joaquín, and A. Monod-Bequelín. 1992. Códices testerianos: Catecismos indígenas.

Mexico City: Tava.
Gallaher, Carolyn. 2007. “The Role of Protestant Missionaries in Mexico’s Indigenous
Awakening.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 26 (1):88 – 111.
García, fray Gregorio. (1607) 1981. Origen de los Indios del Nuevo Mundo. Mexico City: Fondo
de Cultura Económica.
García de León, Antonio. 1969. “El universo de lo sobrenatural entre los nahuas de Pajapan,
Veracruz.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 8:279 – 311.
García González, Javier. 2002. El rostro indio de Jesús. Hacia una teología indígena en
América, México. Diana.
García-Ruíz, Jesús. 1992. El misionero, las lenguas mayas y la traducción: Nominalismo,
tomisimo y etnolingüística en Guatemala. Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions
(= “Arrachés au Diable”, l’évangélisation de l’Amérique espagnole) (École des Hautes
Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris) 77/1:83 – 110.
Garma, Carlos. 2001. “Religious Affiliation in Indian Mexico.” In Holy Saints and Fiery
Preachers: The Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America, edited by
James W. Dow and Alan R. Sandstrom, 57 – 72. Religion in the Age of Transformation.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Garrard-Burnett, Virginia. 1990. Positivismo, liberalism, e impulse misionero: Misiones
protestantes en Guatemala 1880 – 1920. Mesoamérica 19 (June): 13 – 31.
— 1996. Resacralization of the profane: Government, religion and ethnicity in modern
Guatemala. 96 – 116. Questioning the Secular State: the worldwide resurgence of religion
in politics. David Westerlund (ed.). Hurst: London.
— 2004. “‘God Was Already Here When Columbus Arrived’: Inculturation Theology and the
Mayan Movement in Guatemala.” In Resurgent Voices in Latin America: Indigenous
Peoples, Political Mobilization, and Religious Change, edited by Edward L. Cleary and
Timothy J. Steigenga, 125 – 53. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gennep, Arnold van. 1909. Les Rites de passage. Paris: E. Nourry.
Gentzler, Edwin, and Maria Tymoczko. 2002. Introduction to Translation and Power, edited by
Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler, xi–xxviii. Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press.
Gibson, John Arthur. 1992. Concerning the League: The Iroquois League Tradition. As dictated
in Onondaga by John Arthur Gibson. Edited and translated by Hanni Woodbury. With
Reg. Henry and Harry Webster. On the basis of A. A. Goldenweiser’s manuscript.
Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics.
Glass. John B. 1975. “A Census of Middle American Testerian Manuscipts.” In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, edited by Howard F. Cline. Vol. 14 of Guide to Ethnohistorical
Sources, part 3, 281 – 96. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Goetz, J. 1960 “Le péché chez les Primitifs: Tabou et péché.” In Théologie du péché, edited
by P. Delhaye, J. C. Didier, and P. Anciaux, 125 – 88. Bibliothèque de Théologie, 2nd ser.,
7. Paris: Desclée & Cie.
Gónzalez Holguín, Diego de. [1608] 1952. Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Perú
llamada lengua Qquichua o del Inca. Lima. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Gossen, Gary H. 1972. “Temporal and Spatial Equivalents in Chamula Ritual Symbolism.” In
Reader in Comparative Religion: An Antropological Approach, edited by William A. Lessa
and Evon Z. Vogt, 135 – 49. New York: Harper and Row.
286 Bibliography

— 1974. Chamulas in the World of the Sun: Time and Space in a Maya Oral Tradition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
— 1986. “Mesoamerican Ideas as a Foundation for Regional Synthesis.” In Symbol and
Meaning beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas, edited by Gary
H. Gossen, 1 – 8. Studies on Culture and Society 1. Albany: State University of New York.
Gow, Peter. 2006. Forgetting Conversion. The Summer Institute of Linguistics Mission in the
Piro Lived World. 211 – 239. The Anthropology of Christianity. Fenella Cannell (ed.).
Durham, N.C. : Duke University Press.
— 2009. Christians: A Transforming Concept in Peruvian Amazonia. 33 – 52. Vilaça,
Aparecida and Robin M. Wright. Native Christians. Modes and Effects of Christianity
among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Aldershot. Ashgate.
Graham, William A. 2005. “Scripture.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones,
12: 8194 – 8205. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thompson Gale.
Greenfield, Sidney M., and André Droogers, eds. 2001. Reinventing Religions: Syncretism and
Transformation in Africa and the Americas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gruzinski, Serge. 1989. “Individualization and Acculturation: Confession among the Nahuas
of Mexico from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century.” In Sexuality and Marriage in
Colonial Latin America, edited by Asunción Lavrin, 96 – 117. Latin American Studies.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hale, Kenneth. 1992. On endangered languages and the safeguarding of diversity. Language
68.1 – 3.
— 1998. On endangered languages and the importance of linguistic diversity. 192 – 216.
Endangered languages: Language loss and community response, ed. by Lenore
Grenoble and Lindsay Whaley, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hallowell, Irving. 1939. “Sin, Sex and Sickness in Saulteaux Belief.” British Journal of
Medical Psychology 18:191 – 97.
Handman, Courtney. 2007. Access to the Soul: Native Language and Authenticity in Papua
New Guinea Bible Translation. 166 – 188. Miki Makihara and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.).
Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in
Pacific Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
— 2009. “Language Ideologies, Endangered-Language Linguistics, and Christianization.”
Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 85 (3): 635 – 39.
— 2010. Events of Translation: Intertextuality and Christian Ethno-Theologies of Change
among Guhu-Samane, Papua New Guinea. American Anthropologist 112 (4): 576 – 588.
— 2015. Critical Christianity. Translation and Denominational Conflict in Papua New Guinea.
University of California Press.
Hanke, Lewis. 1959. Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the
Modern World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hanks, William F. 2000. Intertexts. Writings on Language, Utterance and Context. Rowman &
Littlefield Publisheres Inc.
— 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Anthropology of Christianity.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Berkeley.
— and Carlo Severi. 2014. Translating Worlds. The Epistemological Space of Translation.
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4 (2): 1 – 16.
Hansen, Magnus Pharao. 2008. “Huitzilopochtlis genkomst i Hueyapan: Sammenhænge
mellem sprog- og samfundshistorie i et nawa-samfund i det centrale Mexio.” In De
 Bibliography 287

Mange Veje til Mesoamerika. Hyldetsskrift til Una Canger. Afdelingen for Indianske sprog
og kulturer, edited by Jesper Nielsen and Mettelise Fritz Hansen, 131 – 46. Copenhagen:
Institut for Tværkulturelle og Regionale Studier.
— 11. June 2014. Report from the 7th Pastoral Workshop on Nahuatl Language and Culture.
http://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.mx
Harder Horst, René, 2004. “Breaking Down Religious Barriers. Indigenous People and
Christian Churches in Paraguay: Indigenous People and Christian Churches in Paraguay.”
In Resurgent Voices in Latin America: Indigenous Peoples, Political Mobilization, and
Religious Change, edited by Edward L. Cleary and Timothy J. Steigenga, 65 – 92. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Harrison, K. David. 2007. When languages die. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, Regina. 1992. True Confessions: Quechua and Spanish Cultural Encounters in the
Viceroyalty of Peru. Latin America Studies Center 5. College Park: University of Maryland.
— 1993. “Confesando el pecado en los Andes: Del Siglo XVI hacia nuestros días.” Revista
Crítica de Literatura Latinoamericana 19 (37): 169 – 85.
— 1995. “Cultural Translation in the Andes: The Pregnant Penitent.” Latin American Indian
Literatures 11 (2): 108 – 27.
— 2002. “Pérez Bocanegra’s Ritual formulario.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting and
Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton, 266 – 90. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
— 2008. “Doctrinal Works.” In Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies,
1530 – 1900, edited by Joanne Pilsbury, 1:217 – 34. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press: Norman.
— 2014. Sin & Confession in Colonial Peru. Spanish Quechua Penitential Texts, 1560 – 1650.
Joe R. And Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture.
University of Texas Press. Austin.
Hartch, Todd. 2006. Missionaries of the State: The Summer Institute of Linguistics, State
Formation, and Indigenous Mexico, 1935 – 1985. Birmingham: University Alabama Press.
Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation.
London: Croom Helm.
Herrera, Antonio de. (1580). Relaciones geográficas.
Herz, Robert. 1922. “Le pécheé et l’expiation dans les sociétés primitives.” Revue de
l’Histoire Religions 86:1 – 60.
Hill, Jane H., and Kenneth C. Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: The Dynamics of Syncretic
Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
— and Bruce Mannheim. 1992. Language and World View. Annual Review of Anthropology
21: 381 – 406.
Hinton, Leanne. 2002. Commentary: Internal and external language advocacy. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 12.150 – 56.
Houston, Stephen D., and Takeshi Inomata. 2009. The Classic Maya. Cambridge World
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howe, Leopold E. A. 1981. “The Social Determination of Knowledge: Maurice Bloch and
Balinese Time.” Man: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (2): 220 – 34.
Hull, Kerry. 2006. An Analysis of Translation Strategies in the Creation of a Ch’orti’ Maya New
Testament. Unpublished manuscript, last modified May 22.
288 Bibliography

Hunt, Eva. 1977. The Transformation of the Hummingbird: Cultural Roots of a Zinacantan
Mythcial Poem. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hvalkof, Søren, and Peter Aaby. 1981. “Introducing God in the Devil’s Paradise.” 9 – 21. Is
God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on the Missionary Work of the
Summer Institute of Linguistics, edited by Søren Hvalkof and Peter Aaby,. IWGIA
document 43. Copenhagen: International Workgroup for Indigenous Affairs/Survival
International.
Hvalkof, Søren, and Peter Aaby (eds.). 1981. Is God an American? An Anthropological
Perspective on The Missionary Work of The Summer Institute of Linguistics. Edited by
Søren Hvalkof and Peter Aaby. IWGIA document 43 Copenhagen: International Workgroup
for Indigenous Affairs/Survival International.
Hvalkof, Søren, and David Stoll. 1984. On The Summer Institute of Linguistics and Its Critics.
Current Anthropology 25:124 – 26.
Hvidtfeldt, Arild. 1958. Teotl and *Ixiptlatli: Some Central Conceptions in Ancient Mexican
Religion. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Hyland, Sabine. 2014. Ply, Markedness, and Redundancy: New Evidence for How Andean
Khipus Encoded Information. American Anthropologist, 116: 643 – 648.
— 2017. Writing with Twisted Cords: The Inscriptive Capacity of Andean Khipus. Current
Anthropology. Vol. 58, Number 3, June.
Ingham, John. M. 1986. Mary, Michael, and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico. Latin
American Monographs 69. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of
Texas Press.
Irarrázaval, Diego. 2008. Inculturation: New Dawn of the Church in Latin America. Wipf &
Stock Pub.
Irvine, Judith T. When talk isn’t Cheap: Language and Political Economy. American Ethnologist
16 (1989): 248 – 267.
Jackson, Michael. 2002. The Politics of Storytelling. Violence, Transgression, and
Intersubjectivity. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen.
Jansen, Maarten E. R. G. N. 2008. “Social and Religious Concepts in Ñuu Dzaui Visual Art.”
In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de Ñuu Dzaui, edited by Maarten E. R. G. N.
Jansen and Laura N. K. van Broekhoeven, 197 – 215. Amsterdam: Kominklijke
Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Press.
Jansen, Maarten E. R. G. N., and Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez. 2003. El Vocabulario del
Dzaha Dzavui (Mixteco Antiguo) hecho por los padres de la orden Orden de
Predicadores y acabado por fray Francisco de Alvarado (1593). Leiden University.
— 2007. Encounter with the Plumed Serpent: Drama and Power in the Heart of
Mesoamerica. Mesoamerican Worlds: From the Olmecs to the Danzantes. Denver:
University Press of Colorado.
— 2009a. La lengua señorial de Ñuu Dzaui: Cultura literaria de los antiguos reinos y
transformación colonial. Mexico City: CSEIIO, México.
— 2009b. Voces del Dzaha Dzahui (Mixteco Clásico): Análisis y conversión del Vocabulario
de Fray Francisco de Alvarado (1593). Las palabras del origen. Colegio Superior para la
Educación Integral Intercultural de Oaxaca.
— 2010. “Mixtec Cultural Vocabulary and Pictorial Writing.” In Linguistics and Archaeology
in the Americas: The Historization of Language and Society, edited by Eithne B. Carlin
and Simon van de Kerke, 45 – 82. Leiden: Brill.
 Bibliography 289

Jenkins, Philip. 2002. The Next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto. 1962. “Estudios Mixtecs.” In Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca por
fray Francisco de Alvarado. Reproducción facsimilar con un studio de Wigberto Jimenez
Moreno y un apéndice con un Vocabulario sacado del Arte en Lengua Mixteca de fray
Antonio de los Reyes, by fray Francisco de Alvarado, 9 – 105. Mexico City: Insitituto
Nacional Indigensita e Insitituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia S. E. P.
Josserand, J. Kathryn. 1983. Mixtec Dialect History. PhD diss., Tulane University.
Karttunen, Frances. 1992. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Karttunen, Francis, and James Lockhart. 1977. Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact
Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. Publications in Linguistics 85. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Keane, Webb. 2007, Christian Moderns: Freedom and Fetish in the Mission Encounter. The
Anthropology of Christianity. University of California Press.
Key, Harold, and Mary Ritchie de Key. 1953. Vocabulario Mejicano de la Sierra de
Zacapoaxtla, Puebla. Mexico City: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Kidwell, Claire Sue, Homer Noley, and George E. Tinker. 2001. A Native American Theology.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Kietzman Dale W. 1977. Field Training Programs. 69 – 83. Ruth M. Brend and Kenneth L. Pike
(eds.). 1977. The Summer Institute of Linguistics. Its Works and Contributions. Mouton &
Co. B.V. Publishers. The Hague.
Kimball, Geoffrery. 1980. A Dictionary of the Huazalinguillo Dialect of Nahuatl: With
Grammatical Sketch and Readings. Latin American Studies Curriculum Aids New Orleans:
Center for Latin American Studies, Tulane University.
Kirchhoff, Paul. 1943. “Mesoamérica: Sus límites geográficos, composición étnica y
caracteres culturales.” Acta Americana 1:92 – 107.
Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odena Güemes, and Luis Reyes García. (1976) 1989. Historia
Tolteca-Chichimeca. Colección Puebla. Mexico City: CIESAS.
Kirk, Peter. 2005. “Holy Communicative? Current Approaches to Bible Translation Worldwide.”
In Translation and Religion: Holy Untranslatable? edited by Lynne Long, 89 – 101. Topics
in Translation 28. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Klaus, Susanne. 1999. Uprooted Christianity: The Preaching of the Christian Doctrine in
Mexico, Based on Franciscan Sermons of the Sixteenth Century Written in Nahuatl.
Bonner Amerikanistische Studien Bonn: Seminar für Völkerkunde, Universität Bonn,
Anton Saurwein.
Klor de Alva, J. Jorge. 1982. “Spiritual Conflict and Accommodation in New Spain: Toward a
Typology of Aztec Responses to Christianity.” In The Inca and Aztec States 1400 – 1800:
Anthropology and History, edited by George A Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D.
Wirth, 345 – 66. Studies in Anthropology. New York: Academic Press.
— 1997. “Aztec Spirituality and Nahuatized Christianity.” South and Meso-american Native
Spirituality: From the Cult of the Feathered Serpent to the Theology of Liberation, edited
by Gary H. Gossen, in collaboration with Miguel León-Portilla, 173 – 97. Vol. 4 of World
Sprituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest. New York: Crossroad.
Knab, Timothy. 1979. Talocan Talmanic: Supernatural Beings of the Sierra de Puebla. Actes
du XLII Congrès International des Américanistes 6. Parios: Sociéte des Américanistes.
290 Bibliography

— 1991. “Geografía del inframundo.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 21:31 – 57.

Koerner, Konrad. 2004. “Notes on Missionary Linguistics in North America.” In Missionary
Linguistics [I] / Lingüística misionera [I]: Selected Papers from the First International
Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13 – 16 March 2003, edited by Otto Zwartjes
and Even Hovdhaugen, 47 – 80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kray, Christine. 2004. “The Summer Institute of Linguistics and Politics of Bible Translations
in Mexico: Convergence, Appropriations and Consequence.” In Pluralizing
Ethnographies: Comparison and Representation in Maya Cultures, Histories and
Identities, edited by Edward Fischer and John Watanabe, 95 – 126. Santa Fe: School of
American Research.
Kirsch, Thomas G. 2007. Ways of reading as religious power in print globalization. American
Ethnologist 34.509 – 20.
Kroneman, Dick. 2004. The LORD is my shepherd: An exploration into the theory and practice
of translating biblical metaphor. PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Kroskrity, Paul. V. 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant
Language Ideology. 103 – 122. Language ideologies: Practice and theory. 3 – 50. Bambi B.
Schieffelin, Kathryn Ann Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
— Regimenting Languages: Language Ideological perspectives. 1 – 34. Paul V. Kroskrity,
(ed.). 2000. Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. School of
American Research Press. Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Kuipers, Joel C. 1998. Language, identity, and marginality in Indonesia: The changing nature
of ritual speech on the island of Sumba. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Köhler, Ulrich. 2001. Debt-Payment’ to the Gods Among the Aztec: The Misrendering of a
Spanish Expression and its Effects. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 32: 125 – 133.
Ladd, John. 1957. The Structure of a Moral Code: A Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse
Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1992. Another view of endangered languages. Language 68.809 – 11.
Larson, Mildred L. 1991. “The Summer Institute of Linguistics and Translation.” TBT 42 (2a):
27 – 34.
— 1998 (1984). Meaning-Based Translation. A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Laszlo, A and S Krippner. 1998. Systems Theories: Their Origins, Foundations and
Development. J Scott Jordan (eds.). Systems Theories and a Apriori Aspects of
Perception. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 47 – 74.
Laughlin, Robert M., and John B. Haviland. 1988. The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo
Domingo Zinacantán. With Grammatical Analysis and Historical commentary.
(Smithsonian contributions to Anthropology, no. 31.) 3 vols. Washington D.C.
Launey, Michel.1992. Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura Náhuatl. Mexico City: Instituto
de investigaciones antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónom de México.
Leavitt, John. 2010. Linguistic Relativities: Language Diversity and Modern Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leavitt, Robert M. 2011. “Reading a Dictionary: How Passamaquoddy Language Translates
Concepts of Physical and Social Space.” In Born in the Blood: On Native American
Translation, edited by Brian Swann, 43 – 60. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
 Bibliography 291

Leibsohn, Dana. 2001. “Testerian Manuscripts.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican

Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco,
3:214 – 15. New York: Oxford University Press.
LeVine, Robert A. 1969. Culture, Personality, and Socialization: An Evolutionary View.
503 – 541. Edted by David A. Goslin. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
León-Portilla, Miguel. 1991. Introduction to Huehuehtlahtolli: Testimonios de la Antigua
palabra (1600), edited by Miguel León-Portilla, translated by Librado Silva Galeana,
7 – 45. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
— 1997. “Those Made Worthy by Divine Sacrifice: The Faith of Ancient Mexico.” In South
and Meso-American Native Spirituality: From the Cult of the Feathered Serpent to the
Theology of Liberation, edited by Gary H. Gossen, in collaboration with Miguel
León-Portilla, 41 – 64. Vol. 4 of World Sprituality: An Encyclopedic History of the
Religious Quest. New York: Crossroad
— 2000. Prologue to Diccionario Náhuatl del norte del estado de puebla, edited by Earl
Brockway, Trudy Hershey de Brockway, and Leodegario Santos Valdés, vii–viii. Serie de
vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas Mariano Silva y Aceves 42. Mexico City: Instituto
Lingüístico de Verano and Universidad Madero.
Lewis, Hywel D. 1973. “Sin and Salvation.” In Man and His Salvation: Studies in the Memory
of S. G. F. Brandon, edited by Eric J. Sharpe and John R. Hinnells, 149 – 70. Manchester:
Manchester University Press / Rowman & Littlefield.
Levinsion, Stephen C. 2003. Language and Mind: Let’s get the Issues Straight!, Language
and Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, edited by Dedre Gentner
and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 25 – 46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, Oscar. 1972. Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlán Restudied.
Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the
Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Long, Lynne. 2005. “Introduction: Translating Holy Texts.” In Translation and Religion: Holy
Untransable? edited by Lynne Long, 1 – 15. Topics in Translation 28. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
López Austin, Alfredo. 1973. Hombre-Dios: Religión y política en el mundo nahuatl. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
— 1980. Cuerpo humano e ideología: Las conceptiones de los antiguos nahuas. 2 vols.
Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México.
— 1988. The Human Body and Ideology: Concepts of the Ancient Nahuas. 2 vols. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
— 1997. Tamoachan, Tlalocan: Places of Mist. Mesoamerican World. Denver: University of
Colorado Press.
— 2004. “Guidelines for the Study of Mesoamerica Religions Traditions.” In Beyond
Primitivism: Indigenous Religious Traditions and Modernity, edited by Jacob K. Olupona,
118 – 27. New York: Routledge.
López García, Ubaldo. 2007. Sa’vi: Discurso ceremoniales de Yutsa To’on (Apoala). PhD diss.,
Leiden University.
292 Bibliography

— 2008. “Sa’vi, el lenguaje ceremonial.” In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de Ñuu
Dzaui, edited by Maarten E. R. G. N. Jansen and Laura N. K. van Broekhoeven, 407 – 21.
Amsterdam: Kominklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Press.
Lubeck, John. 1996. E ojroner xe’ imb’utz tua’ Cawinquirar Jesucristo / The New Testament in
Chorti, Guatemala. Wycliffe Bible Translators.
Lupo, Alessandro. 1995. La tierra nos escucha. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura
y las Artes, Institutio Nacional Indigenista.
— 2001. “La cosmovisión de la Sierra de Puebla.” Cosmovisión, ritual e identidad de los
pueblos indígenas de México, edited by Joanna Broda and Felix Báez-Jorge, 335 – 89.
Biblioteca mexicana. Serie historia y antropologia. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la
Cultura y las Artes, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lucy, John A. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic
Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macaulay, Monica. 1996. A Grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
MacCormack, Sabine. 1991. Religion in the Andes: Vision and Imagination in Early Colonial
Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Madsen, William. 1960. The Virgin’s Children. Austin: University of Texas Press.
— 1967. Christo-Paganism: A Study of Mexican Religious Syncretism. New Orleans: Literary
Licensing.
Madajczar, Julia. 2011. “Holy Family: The Nahuatl Kinship Terms in the Context of
Christianity.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 42:109 – 38.
Makihara, Mika and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2007. Cultural Processes and Linguistic Mediations.
Pacific Explorations. 3 – 29. Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and
Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies, Miki Makihara and Bambi B.
Schieffelin, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mannheim, Bruce. 1991. The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Markowitz, Harvey. 1996. “Bible Translations.” Encyclopedia of North American Indians:
Native American History, Culture, and Life from Paleo-Indians to the Present, edited by
Frederick E. Hoxie, 67 – 69. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Martin, David. Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America.
Wiley-Blackwell. 1993.
Mathes, Miguel. 1982. Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco: La primera biblioteca académica de las
Américas. Mexico City: Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano.
Maxwell, Judith M., and Craig A. Hanson. 1992. Of the Manners of Speaking That the Old
Ones Had: The Metaphors of Andrés de Olmos in the TULAL Manuscript; Arte para
Aprender la Lengua Mexicana 1547. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
McCleary, Rachel M., and José de Jesús Pesina. April 2011. Religious Competion, Protestant
Syncretization, and Conversion in Guatemala since the 1880s. Handout. Harvard
University.
McCleary, Rachel M. Forthcoming 2017. Protestant Innovative Evangelizing to Oral Cultures in
Guatamala. David T. Orique and Susan Fitzpatrick Behrens (eds.). Oxford Handbook of
Latin American Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCune, Marianne. 2009. The Zapotec Bible. Homelands Productions. http://homelands.org/
worlds/zapotec.html.
 Bibliography 293

McKeever Furst, Jill Leslie. 1997. The Natural History of the Soul in Ancient Mexico. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
— 1998. “The Nahualli of Christ: The Trinity and the Nature of the Soul in Ancient Mexico.”
RES Anthropology and Aesthetics 33:208 – 24.
McMaster, Gerald, and Clifford E. Trafzer. 2004. Native Universe: Voices of Indian America.
NMAI in association with National Geographic Society.
Medina Hernández, Andrés. 2008. “La cosmovisión Nahua actual.” La religión de los pueblos
Nahuas, edited by Silvia Limón Olvera, 193 – 218. Encicopedia Iberoamericana de
Religiones. Madrid: Trotta.
Meyer, Birgit. 1994. Beyond Syncretism: Translation and Diabolization in the Appropriation of
Protestantism in Africa. 45 – 67. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw (eds.),
Syncretism/Anti- syncretism. The Politics of Religious Synthesis. London: Routledge.
— 1999. Translating the devil: religion and modernity among the Ewe in Ghana. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press. 1999.
Míguez, Néstor and Daniel Bruno. 2015. The Bible in Latin America. 427 – 460. John Riches
(ed.). The New Cambridge History of the Bible. The Bible from 1750 to the Present.
Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Robert J. 2008. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis &
Clark, and Manifest Destiny. University of Nebraska Press.
Mindrek, Dubravka. 2003. Mixtecos del los Pueblos Indígenas de México contemporáneo. CDI.
http://www.cdi.gob.mx.
Mitchell, William P., and Barbara H. Jaye. 2008. “Pictographic Catechisms.” Guide to
Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, 1530 – 1900, vol. 1, edited by Joanne Pillsbury,
265 – 71. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press in collaboration with the Center for
Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge Language
Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molina, fray Alonso de. (1555 and 1571) 1977. Vocabulario en la lengua Castellana y
Mexicana, y Mexicana y Castellana. Mèxico, 1571. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, S. A.
Monaghan, John. 1987. “‘We Are People Who Eat Tortillas’: Household and Community in the
Mixteca.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
— 1995. The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revelation in Mixtec
Sociality. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Montoya Briones, José de Jesús. (1964) 2008. Atla: Etnografia de un pueblo Nahuatl. Mexico
City: Departamento de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia Mexico.
Moore, Bruce C. Translation Theory. 1977. 147 – 164. Pike, Kenneth L. Preface. v-vii. Ruth M.
Brend and Kenneth L. Pike (eds.). The Summer Institute of Linguistics. Its Works and
Contributions. Mouton & Co. B.V. Publishers. The Hague.
Moore, Thomas H. 1996. “Human Rights and Christian Missions in the Emerging Global
Culture.” In “Missionaries, Anthropologists, and Human Rights,” edited by Thomas N.
Headland and Darrel L. Whiteman. Special issue, Missiology: An International Review 24
(2): 201 – 11.
Motolinía, fray Toribio de Benavente. 1971. Memoriales o libro de las cosas de la Nueva
España y de los naturales de ella. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México.
294 Bibliography

Mühlhaüsler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in
the Pacific Region. New York: Routeledge.
Murillo Gallegos, Verónica. 2010. “En Nahuatl y en Castellano: El Dios Cristiano en los
Discursos Franciscanos de Evangelización.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 41:297 – 316.
Navarrete Linares, Federico. 2008. Los Pueblos Indígenas de México. CDI. http://www.cdi.gob.
mx.
Needham, Rodney. 1972. Belief, Language, and Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Nepmuceno Vázquez, Feliciano, and Noé López Lascano. 1982. Tla’tolpamit nauatl
kojchinankokayotl uan kaxtilantla’toli. Pátzcuaro, Michoacan: Programa de
etnolinguistica, S. E. P. CIESAS. INI.
Nettle, Daniel and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s
languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nevins, M. Eleanor. 2010. The Bible in Two Keys: Traditionalism and Evangelical Christianity
on the Fort Apache Reservation. 19 – 32. Language & Communication 30.
Nevins, Thomas J. and M. Eleanor Nevins. 2009. “We Have Always Had the Bible”. 11 – 34.
Christianity and the Composition of White Mountain Apache Heritage. Heritage
Management. Vol. 2, Iss. 1. Spring.
Nicholls, David. 2010. “Why We Translate the Bible.” http://www.wycliffe.net/Missiology/Bi
bleTranslationandMission/tabid/94/Default.aspx?id=1108.
Nicholson, Henry B. 1971. Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. 395 – 446. Robert
Wauchope (ed.). Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 10. Austin. Texas.
— 2001. “Sahagún, Bernardino De.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures:
The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco. 3:105 – 13.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nida, Eugene A. 1959. “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating.” On
Translation, edited by R. Brown, 11 – 31. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
— 1960. Message and Mission.
— 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
— 1974. Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedure. New York: American
Bible Society.
— 1991. “Trends in Bible Translating within the United Bible Societies: An Historical
Perspective.” TBT 42 (2a): 2 – 5.
— 1995. “Translators’ Creativity versus Sociolinguistic Constraints.” In Translators’
Strategies and Creativity, edited by A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Kralova, and B. Moser-Mercer,
127 – 36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
— 1998. “Bible Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by M.
Baker, 22 – 28. London: Routledge.
Nida, Eugene A., and William D. Reyburn. 1981. Meaning Across Cultures. American Society of
Missiology 4. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden:
United Bible Societies by E.J. Brill.
Norget, Kristin. 2004. “‘Knowing Where We Enter’: Indigenous Theology and the Popular
Church in Oaxaca, Mexico.” In Resurgent Voices in Latin America. Indigenous Peoples,
Political Mobilization, and Religious Change, edited by Edward L. Cleary and Timothy J.
Steigenga, 154 – 86. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
 Bibliography 295

Nutini, Hugo G. 1976. Syncretism and Acculturation: The Historical Development of the Cult of
the Patron Saint in Tlaxcala, Mexico (1519 – 1670). 301 – 321. Ethnology 15, no. 3.
— 2001. “Acculturation.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The
Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco, 1:1 – 3. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nutini, Hugo G., and Barry L. Issac. 1974. Los pueblos de habla Nahuatl de la région de
Tlaxcala y Puebla. Antropología Social 27. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista y
Secretaría de Educación Pública,
Nuttall, Zelia. (1903) 1983. The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexican Containing an Account
of Their Rites and Superstitions: An Anonymous Hispano-Mexican Manuscript Preserved
at the Bibloteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence Italy (Codex Magliabecchiano), edited by
Elizabeth Hill Boone. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ojeda Morales, Gerardo, Liborio Torres Benavides, and Judith F. Williams, eds. 2003.
Diccionario mixteco de San Andrés Yutatio, Tezoatlán, Oaxaca, vol. 1 Mexico City:
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Olivier, Guilhem. 2003. Mockeries and Metamorphoses of an Aztec God: Tezcatlipoca, “Lord of
the Smoking Mirror.” Mesoamerican Worlds: From the Olmecs to the Danzantes. Denver:
University Press of Colorado.
— and Roberto Martínez. Translating Gods: Tohil and Curicaueri in Mesoamerican
Polytheism in the Popol Vuh and the Relación de Michoacán. Ancient Mesoamerica 26
(2015), 347 – 369.
Olmos, fray Andrés de. (1547) 1985. Arte de la lengua mexicana y vocabulario, edited by
Thelma D. Sullivan. Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Gramáticas y Diccionarios 4.
Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.
— (1553) 1990. Tratado de Hechiceriás y Sortilegios. Paleografía del texto náhuatl, version
española, introducción y notas de Georges Baudot. Facsímiles de Lingüstica y Filología
Nahuas 5. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas Centro de Estudios
Mexicanos Y CentroAmericanos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Olson, Kenneth S. 2009. “SIL International: An Emic View.” Language: Journal of the
Linguistic Society of America 85 (3): 646 – 52.
Orta, Andrew. 1995. From theologies of liberation to theologies of inculturation: Aymara
catechists and the second evangelization in highlands Bolivia. Organized religion in the
political transformation of Latin America. Ed. Satya R. Pattnayak. Lanham, Maryland:
University Press of America, 97 – 124.
— 2004. Catechizing Culture: Missionaries, Aymara and the “New Catechizing Culture:
Missionaries, Aymara and the “New Evangelization”. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Ortiz, Fernando. 1947. Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. New York: Vintage Books.
Orwell, George. 1961. 1984. Signet Classic.
Ostler, Nicholas. 2004. “The Social Roots of Missionary Linguistics.” Missionary Linguistics /
Lingüística misionera. Selected Papers from the First International Conference on
Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13 – 16 March 2003, edited by Otto Zwartjes and Even
Hovdhaugen, 33 – 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oxtoby, Willard G. 1973. “Reflections on the Idea of Salvation.” In Man and His Salvation:
Studies in the Memory of S. G. F. Brandon, edited by Eric J. Sharpe and John R. Hinnells,
17 – 37. Manchester: Manchester University Press / Rowman & Littlefield.
296 Bibliography

Padley, G. A. 1985 – 1988. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500 – 1700: Trends in
Vernacular Grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagden, Anthony. 1982. The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of
Comparative Ethnology. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Parker Gumucio, Cristián. 2002. “Religion and the Awakening of indigenous People in Latin
America.” Social Compass 49 (1): 67 – 81.
Pennycook, Alastair and Sinfree Makoni. 2005. The modern mission: The language effects of
Christianity. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 4.137 – 55. Rappaport, Joanne.
2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation, and Ethnic
Pluralism in Colombia. Duke University Press.
Pensinger, Brenda J. 1974. Diccionario Mixteco: Mixteco del este de Jamiltepec, pueblo de
Chayuco. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Pérez Jiménez, Gabina Aurora. 1988. “Sain Sau, introducción al mixteco de Chalcatongo.” In
Continuity and Identity in Native America: Essays in Honor of Benedikt Hartmann, edited
by Maarten Jansen, Peter van der Loo and Roswitha Manning, 132 – 55. Leiden: Brill.
— 2003. Sahìn Sàu: Curso de Lengua Mixteca (variante de Ñuù Ndéyá) compilado por
Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez. Leiden: Faculdad de Arqueología, Universaidad de Leiden.
— 2008a. “Leyendo los Códices en Sahin Sau.” Mixtec Writing and Society. Escritura de
Ñuu Dzaui, edited by Maarten E. R. G. N. Jansen and Laura N. K. van Broekhoeven,
217 – 31. Amsterdam: Kominklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Press.
— 2008b. Sahìn Sàu: Curso de Lengua Mixteca (variante de Ñuù Ndéyá). Oaxaca, Mexico:
CSEIIO.
Pérez Jiménez, Gabina Aurora, Mónica Pérez Jiménez. 2009. Diccionario Sahin Sau (Mixteco
de Chalcatongo). With Maarten E. R. G. N. Jansen y Michael W. Swanton. Unpublished
manuscript. Leiden: Universidad de Leiden.
Pettazzoni, Raffale. 1929. La Confessione dei Peccati, Parte Prima: Primitivi, America Antica,
Giappone, Cina, Brahmanesim, Gianismi, Buddhismo. Storia Delle Religion 8. Bologna :
Nicola Zanichelli.
— 1931. La Confession de péchés, edited by R. Monnot. Primitifs—Amérique ancienne 1.
Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux.
— 1953. “La Confession de péchés.” Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique
46:257 – 68. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
— 1954. Essays on the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill.
Pharo, Lars Kirkhusmo. 2007. “The Concept of ‘Religion’ in Mesoamerican Languages.”
Numen 54: 28 – 70.
— 2009. “Translating Non-Denominational Concepts in Describing a Religious System: A
Semantic Analysis of Colonial Dictionaries of Nahuatl and Yucatec.” Historigraphia
Linguistica 36 (2/3): 345 – 60.
— 2011. “A Methodology for a Deconstruction and Reconstruction of the Concepts
‘Shaman’ and ‘Shamanism.’” Numen 58:1 – 65. Leiden: Brill.
— 2012. “Tonalism: Name, Soul, Destiny and Identity Determined by the 260-Day Calendar
in Mesoamerica.” In Names and Identities: Papers Read at Two Conferences in Oslo
(16.11. 2007 – 21. 11. 2008), edited by Botolv Helleland. Oslo Studies in Language (OSLa).
Oslo: University of Oslo.
— 2013. The Ritual Practice of Time: Philosophy and Sociopolitics of Mesoamerican
Calendars. Leiden: Brill.
 Bibliography 297

— 2016. “Transfer of Moral Knowledge in Early Colonial Latin America.” 53 – 94.

Proceedings from the Conference “Transfer of Knowledge in the Iberian Colonial World”
September 4 – 6, 2013 at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, edited by
Jürgen Renn, Sergio Toledo, and Helge Wendt. Studies of the Max Planck Research
Library for the History and Development of Knowledge. Berlin. Max-Planck-Institut für
Wissenschaftsgeschichte.
— 2017. “Multilingualism and Linguae Francae of Indigenous Civilizations of America.”
471 – 522. Crossing Boundaries: Studies in Multilingualism, Lingua Franca and Lingua
Sacra, edited by Mark Geller and Jens Braarvig. Multilingualism, Lingua Franca, and
Listenwissenschaft. Berlin. Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.
Pike, Kenneth L. 1977. Preface. v-vii. Ruth M. Brend and Kenneth L. Pike (eds.). 1977. The
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Its Works and Contributions. Mouton & Co. B.V.
Publishers. The Hague.
Pike, Kenneth L. 1999. “Etic and Emic Standpoints for the Description of Behavior.” In The
Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion, edited by Russell T. McCutcheon,
28 – 36. New York: Cassel.
Poole, Stafford. 2001. “Guadalupe, Nuestra Señora de.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd
Carrasco, 1:444 – 46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, John Wesley. 1877. Introduction to the study of Indian languages, with words,
phrases, and sentences to by collected. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. Routledge.
Premawardhana, Devaka. 2011. “Christianity Becomes Unfamiliar: World Christianity Is
Changing the Study of World Religions.” Harvard Divinty Bulletin 39 (1 – 2): 29 – 34.
Preuess, Kontrad Theodor. 1903. “Die Sünde in der mexikanschen Religion.” Globus (Berlin)
83: 253 – 57, 268 – 73.
Priest, Robert J. 1997. “Christian Theology, Sin, and Anthropology.” In Explorations in
Anthropology and Theology, edited by Frank A. Salamone and Walter Randolph Adams,
23 – 27. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Prieto, Andrés I. 2011. Missionary Scientists: Jesuit Science in Spanish South America,
1570 – 1810. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Provost, Paul Jean. 1980. “The Fate of the Soul in Modern Aztec Religious Thought.”
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 90:80 – 85.
Pury Toumi, Sybille de. 1984. Vocabulario mexicano de Tzinacapan, sierra norte de Puebla.
Chantiers Amerindia, supplément 3 au, núm. 9, Francia, CNRS, AEA.
— 1992. Sur les traces des Indiens nahuatl, mot à mot. Aubenas: La penseé sauvage.
— 1997. De palabras y maravillas: Ensayo sobre la lengua y la cultura de los nahuas
(Sierra Norte de Puebla). Translated by Ángela Ochoa, with Haydée Silva. Mexico City:
C.E.M.C.A., y Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.
Rafael, Vicente L. 2001. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in
Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
Rambo, Lewis R. 1993. Understanding Religious Conversion. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Ramírez, Susan E. 2005. To Feed and Be Fed: The Cosmological Bases of Authority and
Identity in the Andes. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
298 Bibliography

Ramírez de Alejandro, Cleofas, and Karen Dakin. 1979. Vocabulario náhuatl de Xalitla,
Guerrero: Cuadernos de la Casa Chata 25. Mexico City: Centrode Investigaciones
Superiores del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Rappaport, Joanne. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation,
and Ethnic Pluralism in Colombia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rappaport, Roy A. 1979. Ecology, Meaning and Religion. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Rasmussen, Knud. 1929. Intellectual Culture of the Iglulik Eskimos. Report of the Fifth Thule
Expedition, 1921 – 24. Vol. 7, no. 1. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk
Forlag.
Redfield, Robert. 1949. Tepoztlan: A Mexican Village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Renck, Gunther. 1990. Contextualization of Christianity and Christianization of Language: A
Case Study from the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Erlanger Monographien aus
Mission und Ökumene; Bd. 5 Erlangen: Verlag der Evang.-Luth. Mission.
Resines, Luis. 2007. Catecismos pictográficos de Pedro de Gante, incompleto y mucagua.
Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, Madrid.
Reyes, fray Antonio de los. (1593) 1976. Arte en Lengua Mixteca. Vanderbilt University
Publications in Anthropology 14. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Ricard, Robert. The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico. 1966. University of California Press. Berkely
and Los Angeles, California. USA.
Rincón, Antonio De. 2004. Arte Mexicana Compuesta por el Padre Antonio Del Rincón De la
Compañía de Jesús: Dirigido al ilustrísimo y reverendísmo señor don Diego Romano,
Obsipo de Tlaxcala y del Consejo de su Majestad, &c. En México en Casa de Pedro Balli,
1595. Prosjekt: OsProMil. Oslo 2004.
Rindal, Magnus. 1996. Frå heidendom til kristendom. 9 – 19. Rindal, Magnus (ed.).
Frahedendom til kristendom. Perspektiver på religionsskiftet i Norge. Ad Notam Gyldenal
AS.
Rivet, Paul, and Georges de Créqui-Montfort. Bibliographie des langues aymará et kičua.
1951 – 1956. 4 vols. Travaux et Mémoire de l’Institut d’Ethnologie 51. Paris: Institut
d’Ethnologie, Université de Paris.
Robinson, Dow F. 1969. A Manual of Bilingual Dictionaries. Santa Ana, CA: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Robles U., Carlos. 1964. “Problemas que se presentan en la expresión de los conceptos
filosófico-religiosos del cristianismo en las lenguas indígenas de América.” In XXXV
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Mexico, 1962. Actas y Memorias 2, 615 – 34.
Rowe, John H. 1946. “Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest.” Handbook of South
American Indians, vol. 2, edited by Julian H. Steward, 183 – 330. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Rubel, Paula G., and Rosman, Abraham. 2003. Translating cultures: Perspectives on
translation and anthropology. New York: Berg.
Rubial García, Antonio. 2006. “Icons of Devotion: The Appropriation and Use of Saints in
New Spain”. Local Religion in Colonial Mexico, edited by Martin Austin Nesvig. 37 – 62.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando. (1629) 1984. Treatise on the Heathen Superstitions That Today
Live among the Indians Native to This New Spain, 1629, translated and edited by J.
Richard Andrews and Ross Hassig. Civilization of the American Indian 164. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
 Bibliography 299

Rus, Jan, and Robert Wasserstrom. 1981. “Evangelization and Political Control: The SIL in
Mexico.” In Is God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on The Missionary Work
of The Summer Institute of Linguistics, edited by Søren Hvalkof and Peter Aaby, 163 – 72.
IWGIA document 43. Copenhagen: International Workgroup for Indigenous Affairs /
Survival International.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. 1988. The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in
History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sachse, Frauke. The Expression of Christian Concepts in Colonial K’iche’ Missionary Texts.
93 – 116. Sabine Dedenbach‐Salazar Sáenz, (ed.). 2016. La transmisión de conceptos
cristianos a las lenguas amerindias: Estudios sobre textos y contextos de la época
colonial. (Collectanea Instituti Anthropos 48.). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Sahagún, fray Bernardino de. (1564) 1986. Coloquios y Doctrina Christiana con que los doce
frailes de San Franscisco enviados por el papa Adriano V y por el emperador Carlos V,
convirtieron a los indios de la Nueva España. Facsimile edition with introduction and
notes by Miguel León-Portilla. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de
Investigaciones Históricas, Facisimiles de Lingüistica y Filosofía Nahuas, 4. Mexico City.
— (1565) 1950 – 1982. General History of the Things of New Spain: Florentine Codex. 13
vols. Translated by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. V. Anderson. Santa Fe: School of
American Research & University of Utah.
— (1565) 1969. Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espana. Edited by Angel Maria
Garibay K. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Fundada en la documentacion en lengua mexicana recogica
por los mismos naturales/la dispuso para la prensa. Mexico City: Porrúa.
— [1560] 1997. Primeros Memoriales. Paleography of Nahuatl text and English translation
by Thelma D. Sulivan. Completed and revised, with additions, by H. B. Nicholson, Arthur
J. O. Anderson, Charles E. Dibble, Eloise Quiñones Keber, and Wayne Ruwet. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, Patriomonio Nacional, and the Real Academia de la
Historia, Madrid, Spain.
Salamone, Frank A., and Walter Randolph Adams, eds. 1997. Explorations in Anthropology
and Theology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Salomon, Frank, and George Urioste, eds. 1991. The Huarochiri Manuscript: A Testament of
Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Samson, C. Mathews. 2007. Re-enchanting the World. Maya Protestantism in the Guatemalan
Highlands. The University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.
Samuels, David. 2006. “Bible Translation and Medicine Man Talk: Missionaries, Indexicality,
and the ‘Language Expert’ on the San Carlos Apache Reservation.” Language in Society
35:529 – 57.
Sánchéz Sánchez, Ernesto L. 2004. Santiago Yosondúa, Oaxaca: Historia y rescate de
tradiciones. Mexico City: Impresos Santiago.
— 2009a. Cuentos, Mitos y Leyendas en Mixteco de Santiago Yosondúa, Oaxaca (Kuentu,
Jnhun Vii Ti Ja Jini Jnuni Jiin San Sau Ñuu Santiago de Yosondúa, Oaxaca). Mexico City:
Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas.
— 2009b. El cazador de venados y otros cuentos en Mixteco de Santiago Yosondúa,
Oaxaca. Mexico City: Impresos Santiago.
— 2009c. El patrón Ndoso. In Cuentos, mitos y leyenda, collected by Ernesto L. Sánchez
Sánchez. http://www.yosondua.com/2009/07/10/el-patron-ndoso/.
300 Bibliography

Sandstrom, Alan R. 1991. Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary
Aztec Indian Village. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
— 1992. “Ethnic Identity and the Persistence of Traditional Religion in a Contemporary
Nahua Village.” Journal of Latin American Lore 18:37 – 52.
— 2010. “The Nahua.” The Nahua Newsletter 49:22 – 37. http://www.nahuanewsletter.org/.
Sanmark, Alexandra. 2004. Power and conversion: a comparative study of Christianization in
Scandinavia. Occasional papers in archaeology – (bind-/heftenr. 34. Uppsala: Societas
Archaeologica Upsaliensis.
Sanneh, Lamin. 1989. Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis.
— 1992. “Gospel and Culture: Ramifying Effects of Scriptural Translation.” In Bible
Translation and the Spread of the Church the Last 200 Years, edited by Philip C. Stine,
1 – 23. Studies in Christian Mission 2. Leiden: Brill. Leiden.
— 1993. Encountering the West: Christianity and the Global Cultural Process. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis.
— 2003. Whose Religion Is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Sapir, David J. 1977. “The Anatomy of Metaphor.” The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the
Anthropology of Rhetoric, edited by David J. Sapir and J. Christopher Crocker, 3 – 32.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1949. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality.
Berkely: University of California Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) 1972. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2000. Introducing Kaluli Literacy: A Chronology of Influences. 293 – 327.
Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Languages: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities. Sanfa
Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
— 2002. Marking time: The dichotomizing discourse of multiple temporalities. Current
Anthropology 43.5 – 17.
— 2007. Found in translating: Reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, Papua
New Guinea. 140 – 165. Makihara, Mika and Bambi, B. Schieffelin (eds.) Consequences of
contact: Language ideologies and sociocultural transformations in Pacific societies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schultze Jena, Leonhard. 1938. Indiana III: Bei den Azteken, Mixteken und Tlapaneken der
Sierra Madre del Sur von Mexiko. Jena: Gustav Fishcer.
Schwaller, John Frederick. 2006. “The Ilhuica of the Nahua: Is Heaven Just a Place?”
The Americas 62 (3): 391 – 412.
Scollon, Ron and Suzanne. B.K. Scollon, 1981. Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic
Communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scotchmer, David G. 1986. “Convergence of the Gods: Comparing Traditional Maya and
Christian Maya Cosmologies.” In Symbol and Meaning beyond the Closed Community:
Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas, edited by Gary H. Gossen, 197 – 222. Albany: State
University of New York, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.
Shorter, Aylward. 1989. Toward a Theology of Inculturation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Siems, Monica L. 1998. “How Do You Say ‘God’ in Dakota? Epistemological Problems in the
Christianization of Native Americans.” Numen 45 (2): 163 – 82.
 Bibliography 301

Signorini, Italo, and Alessandro Lupo. 1989. Los tres ejes de la vida: Almas, cuerpo,
enfermedad entre los nahuas de la Sierra de Puebla. Xalapa: Universidad Veracruzana.
— 1992. “The Ambiguity of Evil among the Nahua of the Sierra (México).” Etnofoor 5 (12).
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Translation, Transduction, Transformation: Skating “Glossando”
on Thin Semiotic Ice. 75 – 105. Paula G. Rubel, and Abraham Rosman (eds.). Translating
Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and Anthropology. New York: Berg.
Siméon, Rémi. (1885) 1997. Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl ou mexicaine. Diccionario de la
lengua náhuatl o mexicana. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education, or worldwide diversity and
human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, Richard Chase. 1981. The Summer Institute of Linguistics: Ethnocide disguised as a
blessing. 121 – 132. Is God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on the
Missionary Work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, edited by Søren Hvalkof and
Peter Aaby,. IWGIA document 43. Copenhagen: International Workgroup for Indigenous
Affairs/Survival International.
Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 2009. “Lexicography in New Spain (1492 – 1611).” In Missionary
Linguistics IV/Lingüística misionera IV: Lexicography; Selected Papers from the Fifth
International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Mérida, Yucatán, 14 – 17 March 2007,
edited by Otto Zwartjes, Ramón Arzápalo Marín, and Thomas C. Smith-Stark, 3 – 82.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sousa, Lisa, Stafford Poole, James Lockhart, and Miguel Sánchez, trans. and eds. 1998. The
Story of Guadalupe: Luis Laso de la Vega’s Huei Tlamahuiçoltica of 1649. UCLA Latin
American studies 84; Nahuatl studies 5. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sparks, Garry. 2011. Xalqat B’e and the “Theologia Indorum”: Crossroads between Maya
Spirituality and the Americas’ First Theology. Ph.D. Diss. University of Chicago.
— 2014. The Use of Mayan ’Scripture’ in the Americas’ First Christian Theology. Numen
(International Review for the History of Religions) 61, no. 4 (August 2014): 396 – 429.
— 2016. How ’Bout Them Sapotes: Mendicant Translations and Maya Corrections in Early
Indigenous Theologies. CR: The New Centennial Review (issue on translation in the
global humanities) 16, no. 1 (Spring 2016).
Stackhouse, Max L. 2005. “Missions: Missionary Activity.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited
by Lindsay Jones, 9:6068 – 76. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thompson & Gale.
Stark, Sharon (Sara) C., Audrey (Andrea) Johnston P., and Benita González de Guzmán. 2005.
Diccionario Básico del Mixteco de Xochapa, Guerrero. 2002 El Insituto Lingüístico de
Verano. Accessed April. http://www.sil.org/mexico/mixteco/xochapa/P004-DiccXochapa-
QMX.htm.
Stasch, Rupert. 2007. Demon Language: The Otherness of Indonesian in a Papuan
Community. 96-–124. Makihari, Miki, and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.). Consequences of
contact: Language ideologies and sociocultural transformations in Pacific societies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steinsland, Gro. 1996. Fra Yggdrasils ask til korsets tre – tanker om trosskiftet. 20 – 30.
Rindal, Magnus (ed.). 1996. Fra hedendom til kristendom. Perspektiver på religionsskiftet
i Norge. Ad Notam Gyldenal AS.
Stoll, David. 1982. Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible Translators in
Latin America. London: Zed Press.
302 Bibliography

— 1990. Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
— (ed.). 1993. Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stresser-Péan, Guy. 2005. Le Soleil-Dieu et le Christ: La christianization des Indiens du
Mexique vue de la Sierra de Puebla. Amériques latines. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Suess, Paulo, Juan F. Gorski, M. M., Beat Dietschy, Fernando Mires, José Luis Gómez-
Martínez. 1998. Desarrollo histórico de la teología india. Quito: Editorial Abya Yala.
Sullivan, Thelma D. 1966. “Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Deification of the Women Who
Died in Childbirth.” In Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 6:63 – 95. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México-Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas.
Swann, Brian, ed. 2011. Born in the Blood: On Native American Translation. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Taggart, James M. 1983. Nahuat Myth and Social Structure. Austin: University of Texas.
Taube, Karl Andreas. 1995. Aztec and Maya Myths. Legendary Past Series. University of Texas
Press.
Tavárez, David. 2000. “Naming the Trinity: From Ideologies of Translation to Dialectics of
Reception in Colonial Nahua Texts, 1547 – 1771.” Colonial Latin American Review 9 (1):
21 – 47.
— 2011. The Invisible War: Indigenous Devotions, Discipline, and Dissent in Colonial
Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Taylor, Gerald, ed. 1987. Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirí. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos and the Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Taylor, William B. 1999. Magistrates of the Sacred: Parish Priests and Indian Parishioners in
Eighteenth-Century Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terraciano, Kevin. 2001. The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Nudzahui History, Sixteenth through
Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
— 2008. “Sources and Methods for the Study of Mixtec History.” In Sources and Methods
for the Study of Postconquest Mesoamerican Ethnohistory, edited by James Lockhart,
Lisa Sousa, and Stephanie Wood. Provisional version e-book. Eugene: Wired Humanities
Project, University of Oregon. http://whp.uoregon.edu/Lockhart/index.html.
Tinker, George E. 1993. Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural
Genocide. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1982. La Conquête de l’Amerique. La Question de l’Autre. Paris: Éditions du
Seuil.
Turner, Victor W. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
— 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2010. “Translation, Resistance, Activism: An Overview.” In Translation,
Resistance, Activism, edited by Maria Tymoczko, 1 – 22. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Tymoczko, Maria, and Gentzler, Edwin 2002. Translation and power. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Umberger, Emily. 2015. Tezcatlilpoca and Huitzilopochtli: Political Dimensions of Aztec
Deities. 83 – 112. Baquedano, Elizabeth (ed.). Tezcatlipoca: Trickster and Supreme Deity.
University Press of Colorado.
 Bibliography 303

UNESCO. 2009. Relations with International and Non-Governmental Organizations,

Foundations and Similar Institutions. Paris: UNESCO. Accessed January 27. http://un
esdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001384/138477e.pdf.
Urbano, Alonso. (1605) 1990. Arte breve de la lengua otomí y vocabulario trilingüe:
Español-náhuatl-otomí. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: René Acuña.
Urton, Gary. 1997. The Social Life of Numbers: A Quechua Ontology of Numbers and
Philosophy of Arithmetic. With the collaboration of Primitivo Nina Llanos. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
— 2002. “Recording Signs in Narrative-Accounting Khipu.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting
and Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton, 171 – 96.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
— 2008. “Andean Quipu: A History of Writings and Studies on Inca and Colonial
Knotted-String Records.” In Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies,
1530 – 1900, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 1:65 – 86. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, in collaboration with the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National
Gallery of Art
— 2009. “Sin, Confession, and the Arts of Book and Cord-Keeping: An Intercontinental and
Transcultural Exploration of Accounting and Governmentality.” Comparative Studies in
Society and History 51 (4): 801 – 31.
Valdeón, Roberto A. 2014. Translation and the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Benjamins
translation library; vol. 113EST subseries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Velásquez Galindo, Yuribia. 2006. El camino del Mictlan: Continuidad y cambio cultural en
los ritos escatológicos y la cosmovision de los nahuas de Naupan, Puebla, México.
Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London.
Routledge.
Villalón, Maria Eugenia. 1999. “De/Recentring the Native Text: Contemporary Discourse
Strategies in Christianising Latin America.” In La lengua de la cristianización en
Latinoamérica: Catequización e instrucción en lenguas amerindias [The language of
Christianization in Latin America: Catechization and instruction in Amerindian
Languages], edited by Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Lindsey Crickmay, 313 – 28.
Bonn Americanist Studies 32; Centre for Indigenous American Studies and Exchange, St.
Andrews, CIASE Occasional Papers 29. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein.
Vogt, Evon Z. 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Waard, Jan de, and Nida, Eugene. 1986. From One language to Another: Functional
Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Nelson.
Walls, Andrew F. 1992. “The Translation Principle in Christian History.” Bible Translation and
the Spread of the Church the Last 200 Years, edited by Philip C. Stine, 24 – 39. Studies
in Christian Mission 2. Leiden: Brill.
Weber, Max. (1920) 1993. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.
— 1969. “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Polity” In The Methodology of the Social
Sciences, 49 – 112. New York: Free Press.
Werhane, Patricia H. 2008. Mental Models, Moral Imagination and System Thinking in the
Age of Globalisation. Journal of Business Ethics. 78 (3): 463 – 474.
304 Bibliography

White, Leslie A. A. 1944. “Ceremonial Vocabulary among the Pueblos.” International Journal
of American Linguistics 10 (4): 161 – 67.
White, Richard. The middle ground: Indians, empires, and republics in the Great Lakes
region, 1650 – 1815. Cambridge studies in North American Indian history. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press. 1991.
Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality; Selected Writings. Edited by J. B. Carrol.
Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Williams, Judith Ferguson de. 2006. Gramática popular del mixteco del municipio de
Tezoatlán. Gramáticas de lenguas indígenas de México 9. Mexico City: Instituto
Lingüístico de Verano.
Wilt, Timothy, ed. 2003. Bible Translation Frames of Reference. Northampton, MA: St. Jerome.
Witter, Hans-Jörg. 2008. “Koo Sau—Quetzalcoatl: Mixtec Religious Symbolism in Past and
Present.” In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de Ñuu Dzaui, edited by Maarten E. R.
G. N. Jansen and Laura N. K. van Broekhoeven, 423 – 35. Amsterdam: Kominklijke
Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Press.
— 2011. Die gefiederte Schlange und Christus: Eine religionshistorische Studie zum
mixtekisch-christlichen Synkretismus. PhD diss., Leiden University.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953) 1967. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wolf, S. 1999. Toward a Systemic Theory of Informed Consent in Managed Care. Houston Law
Review 35. 1631 – 1681.
Woolard, Katherine. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. 3 – 50.
Language ideologies: Practice and theory, ed. by Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn Ann
Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yri, Kjell Magne. 1998. My Father Taught Me How to Cry, but Now I Have Forgotten: The
Semantics of Religious Concepts with an Emphasis on Meaning, Interpretation, and
Translatability. Acta Humaniora 29. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Zuidema, R.T. 1982. Bureaucracy and Systematic Knowledge in Andean Civilsation. 419 – 495.
The Inca and Aztec States: 1400 – 1800: Anthropology and History, edited by George A.
Collier, Renato A. Rosaldo and John D. Wirth, New York: Academic Press. 1989. At the
King’s Table: Inca Concepts of Sacred Kingship in Cuzco. History and Anthropology 4:
249 – 274.
Zwartjes, Otto. 2014. The Missionaries’ Contribution to Translation Studies in the Spanish
Colonial Period. The mise en page of Translated Texts and its Functions in Foreign
Language Teaching. 1 – 50. Otto Zwartjes, Klaus Zimmermann, and Martina
Schrader-Kniffki (eds.). Missionary Linguistics V/Lingüística Misionera V: Translation
Theories and Practices; Selected Papers from the Seventh International Conference on
Missionary Linguistics, Bremen, 28 February–22 March 2012. Amsterdam Studies in the
Theory and History of Linguistic Science 3; Studies in the History of the Language
Sciences 122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
— Ramóm Arzápalo Marín, Thomas C. Smith-Stark, eds. 2009. Missionary Linguistics IV:
Lexicography; Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Missionary
Linguistics, Mérida, Yucatan, 14 – 17 March 2007. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and
History of Linguistic Science 3; Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 114.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Bibliography 305

Field Interviews

Chalcatongo de Hidalgo and Santiago de Yosondúa (01. 03 – 03. 03, 2010). 2010.
Naupan and Tlaxpanyolo (17. 03 – 20. 03, 2010). 2010.
Chalcatongo de Hidalgo and Santiago de Yosondúa (20. 03 – 23. 03, 2011). 2011.
Index
academic 13, 37, 60 f., 115 f., 172, 182, 273 assistant to missionary 14, 25, 37 f., 40, 68,
Academy of Maya Languages of Guatemala 75, 79, 98, 102, 141 – 144, 152, 155, 159
113 asymmetrical 33 f., 104, 114, 144, 184, 272
acculturation 6, 8, 33 f., 88, 103 f., 107, 112, asymmetry 33, 99, 102
169, 172, 218, 272, 274 Athabaskan 23
agency 59, 113 f., 126, 145, 149, 169 f., 173, atonement 78, 95, 251 f.
176 f., 273 audio-visual 61, 103, 153, 156, 163 f.
agglutinative 87, 97 Augustinian 18, 156, 267
Amazonas 147 Aymara 105, 162, 166, 187, 189 f.
America 1, 4, 7 – 9, 12, 15 – 18, 20 – 23, 29 f., Ayuujk 119, 151
34, 36 f., 41, 45, 50 f., 56, 60, 72 f., 77, Aztec 18, 44 f., 66, 91, 137 – 140, 192, 232,
88, 90 f., 96 – 99, 102, 104 – 109, 111 – 238, 247, 262
113, 115, 118, 121, 123, 130 f., 136, 140,
145, 161 f., 167 – 170, 172, 175, 177 f., bad 191 – 193, 206, 220, 223, 229, 244,
180, 183, 185, 194, 200 – 204, 206 – 210, 257, 259, 261 f., 264, 269
221 f., 226, 230, 233 f., 239 f., 246, baptism 57 f., 70, 78, 113, 129, 209, 234,
248 f., 255, 262 – 264, 268 f., 271 243 f.
Americas 4, 7 – 9, 23, 30, 33, 37 f., 44 f., 47, Baptist 57, 134, 137, 145, 152, 157 – 159, 197,
51, 53, 63, 68, 97, 106, 116, 119, 122, 213, 244, 264
128, 141 – 143, 146 f., 149, 154, 161 – 163, belief 8 f., 11, 16 f., 30, 33 – 35, 37, 43 f.,
166, 171, 175, 186, 188 f., 194 f., 198, 52 – 54, 56, 58 f., 62, 70, 78, 87, 92, 96,
201 f., 210, 222, 234 – 236, 242, 255 f., 105, 125 f., 128, 130, 133, 142, 144, 177,
258, 265, 267, 274 184, 195 – 197, 199, 203, 209, 218,
Andean 10, 29, 45, 70, 105, 123 f., 142, 187, 220 f., 223, 227 f., 234, 243, 252, 257,
189 f., 203, 211 259, 274
„animistic entities“ 128, 178, 215, 218 – 221 Bible passages 20, 31 f., 37, 53, 56, 63,
Anisomorphism 33, 99 78 f., 82, 84, 93 – 96, 98, 148, 179,
anoint 78, 95, 246 185 f., 195, 197, 199, 207, 210 – 213,
anthropology 5 f., 35, 44, 96, 105, 178 f., 224 f., 231 f., 237, 245, 247, 249, 251 –
215 f. 253, 265, 269 f.
Anthropology of Christianity 5, 280, 286, Bible 7, 9 – 15, 21, 23, 25 f., 30 – 32, 34, 41,
289 48, 61 – 63, 66, 70 – 78, 80 – 83, 86 f.,
Anthropology of religion 5 93, 100, 103, 108 – 111, 120, 124 – 126,
Antichrist 78, 95, 259 f. 130, 140, 144 f., 147 – 161, 163, 165 – 167,
antonym 31 f., 49 f., 123, 205, 254, 260 170, 186, 195, 224, 233 – 235, 245, 247,
Apache 126, 144, 147 – 149, 170 252, 254, 264 f.
apocalyptical 255, 264 bilingual 11, 20 – 22, 38, 41, 74 f., 82, 86,
apostle 131, 167, 231, 243, 248, 252 150, 154 – 156, 158, 164, 215
appropriation 4, 22, 46, 50, 97, 109, 145 f., blasphemy 78, 89, 94 f.
149 f. blessed 4, 78, 95, 134, 222 f., 225, 250
Aramaic 165 f., 241 blessing 58, 108, 224 f., 231, 249
Arte 11, 39, 64, 66, 193, 206
assistant-informants 98, 141 f.
 Index 307

calques 26, 39, 44, 60, 77, 79, 85, 88, 95, Classic Maya 29, 222
97, 110, 222, 271 code 1, 4, 44, 46, 50, 59, 62, 115 f., 122,
capitalism 116 130, 162, 168, 171, 186
Capuchin 107 f., 126, 145, 157 f., 266 codeswitching 26, 78 f., 88 f.
catechism 10 f., 143, 146, 151, 161 f., 189, cognitive 3 f., 6, 8 f., 15 f., 22 – 25, 27 – 30,
193, 223, 226 33 f., 37, 43 f., 46, 63, 77, 93, 96, 100,
category 1, 4, 17, 34, 43 f., 50 f., 59, 62, 68, 111 f., 146, 172, 186, 194, 204
71, 79, 105, 107, 110, 126, 147, 168, collaborator to missionary 30, 37, 46, 64,
201 f., 242, 262, 265, 274 68, 102, 121, 141 – 144, 156, 159 f.
Catholic 4 – 6, 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 16, 21 f., 30, colloquial 93, 112, 154, 187, 195
34, 36 – 41, 53, 55 – 58, 63 – 69, 75, 80, colloquialism 91
86 f., 89, 93, 97, 103 – 109, 113, 116 – colonial 4 – 6, 8, 11 f., 15 – 19, 22, 25, 33,
121, 125 – 128, 130 – 132, 134 – 137, 140 – 36 – 41, 45, 50, 53, 55 – 57, 61, 63 – 65,
143, 148, 151 f., 154, 156 – 160, 162, 67 – 70, 74 – 76, 86 f., 89, 93, 96 f., 102,
166 – 170, 172, 175, 177, 180 – 182, 185, 104, 110 f., 113 f., 116, 118, 125, 127, 130 –
187, 189, 193, 195, 197 – 199, 202 – 207, 133, 135, 137 – 143, 146, 149, 160 – 162,
210 – 214, 217 f., 220 f., 223 – 229, 237, 166 – 169, 171 f., 175, 177, 180, 182, 185,
241, 243, 246, 251, 257, 266 f., 269 187, 189, 192 – 195, 197, 202, 204 – 207,
Chalcatongo de Hidalgo 19, 108 209 – 214, 217 f., 220, 222 – 226, 229,
Chol 74 f., 131, 151, 156, 246 235, 237, 240 – 242, 244, 246, 249 – 251,
Ch’orti’ 26, 79, 88, 94 255 – 257, 259 – 261, 265 – 267, 271 f.
Christ 16, 25, 30 – 32, 34, 52 f., 58, 82, 94 f., colonialism 4, 63, 90, 103 f., 144, 168
98, 107 f., 112, 123 f., 126, 128, 132, 134, commensurability 22, 37
136 – 141, 159, 161 f., 165, 167, 178, 183, communitarian 30, 204, 210
185, 188, 198 – 200, 205, 208, 210, communitas 117, 121 f., 203
212 f., 215 f., 219, 223 – 225, 231, 234 – communities 4 f., 13, 30, 37, 46, 50, 68,
241, 244 – 256, 258 – 260, 264 – 269 85 f., 90, 107, 109, 111, 113 f., 117, 119 f.,
Christian 1, 3 f., 6, 9 – 12, 14 – 18, 20, 23, 122, 126, 128, 132, 142, 144, 146 f., 149 –
26, 28 – 32, 34 – 38, 40, 44 – 59, 62, 65 – 151, 153 f., 157, 159 f., 166, 168, 172 – 176,
70, 72, 77 – 80, 85 – 100, 102 f., 105 – 189, 196, 199, 204, 212, 219, 221, 223,
108, 110 – 114, 116 f., 121, 123 – 136, 138 – 237 f., 258, 260, 266 f., 273
141, 143 – 149, 155 f., 159, 162 – 170, community 5, 13, 31, 33, 36, 44 f., 53, 58,
177 – 180, 184 – 190, 192 – 196, 198 – 62, 77, 85, 91 f., 108 f., 111 f., 116 – 124,
202, 204 – 223, 225 f., 228 – 231, 233 – 126, 129 – 131, 143 f., 147 – 150, 152 f.,
235, 237 – 256, 258 – 264, 266, 269 f., 155 f., 168, 170 f., 173 – 175, 203 f., 208,
272, 274 223, 234, 243, 263, 265 f., 273
Christian devil 30 comparative 1, 3, 5 – 7, 15, 17, 21 – 23, 25,
Christianity 3 – 5, 9 – 11, 14 – 17, 22, 28, 30 – 29, 31, 35 – 37, 45 – 48, 92, 113, 115, 157,
37, 44 – 51, 53, 56 f., 63 f., 66, 77, 90, 177, 186, 201 f.
100, 102, 105 – 108, 110 – 114, 124, 136, compassion 78, 95 f., 98, 250
141, 143, 145 – 149, 164 – 166, 169, 185, compound word 53, 57, 69, 78 f., 87 f., 244
195, 200 f., 203, 210, 215, 218, 223, 226, concept 14, 16, 22 – 24, 27 – 29, 33 f., 38,
230 f., 236, 263, 272 f. 41, 45, 48 f., 51, 53 f., 56 f., 65, 69 – 71,
Christian morality 215, 220, 222 83, 87 – 90, 93, 95 f., 105, 111 – 114, 117 –
christology 30 f., 108, 116 f., 202, 234, 236, 119, 122 f., 130 f., 135, 138, 140 f., 167,
249, 254 177 – 184, 186 – 204, 206, 209, 214,
chronology 178, 215 216 – 223, 225 f., 228 – 231, 236 – 239,
308 Index

241, 243 f., 246 – 253, 255, 257 – 259, 109 – 117, 119, 122, 125 – 128, 130, 142,
261 f., 265 – 267, 271 144, 146 f., 149 f., 160 – 163, 165, 167 –
concepts 1 – 6, 8 f., 16, 18, 20, 22 – 41, 43 f., 177, 199 f., 202 f., 206, 211, 217, 222 f.,
46 f., 52 f., 55 f., 60, 63 – 67, 69 f., 75 – 231 f., 246 f., 258, 267, 269, 271 – 274
80, 82, 85 – 96, 98 – 100, 103 f., 110, Cuzco 45, 166
112 – 115, 122, 127, 129 f., 135, 141, 144 –
146, 154, 156, 167, 169 f., 176 – 180, 185, Dakota 28, 100, 239
187, 193 f., 197, 199 – 202, 204 – 206, damage 93, 123, 172, 181 f., 185, 188, 190 –
209 – 211, 215, 224, 227, 231, 233, 239, 192
241, 247 – 249, 252, 259 f., 262 – 264, damnation 4, 30, 50, 78, 95, 146, 179, 205,
271, 273 f. 209, 222 f., 267, 273
Conceptualization 269, 271 debt 29, 51, 183 – 186, 190, 193, 203
confess 89, 181, 188, 211 – 213, 259 decontextualize 34, 106, 109
confession 11, 35, 58, 78, 89, 91, 123, 128, deities 17, 45, 49, 51, 100, 107, 112 f., 117 –
178, 180 f., 210 – 213, 215, 226, 251 119, 121, 123 f., 128 – 134, 151, 156, 168,
confessional 11, 161 f., 190, 210 f., 218 184 f., 189, 191 – 193, 200 f., 203, 208,
confessor 190, 211 210, 213, 216, 219, 226 – 228, 230 f.,
connotation 7, 25 f., 29, 40, 48 f., 54 f., 65, 236 – 243, 245 f., 252, 255, 262 f., 265 f.,
67, 69, 78, 90, 94, 97, 111, 180 f., 183 f., 269
187, 190, 194 f., 206 f., 212, 216, 226, deity 45, 91 f., 100, 105, 108, 131 – 137,
231 f., 245, 262, 269 139 f., 181, 185, 191 f., 196, 202 f., 207,
contextualize 80 211, 213, 227, 232, 236 – 242, 252, 257 f.,
conversion 1 f., 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 22 – 24, 265, 267 – 269
26, 28 – 32, 34, 39, 41, 43 – 58, 62 f., demon 78, 86, 89, 97, 132, 229, 244, 255 –
69 f., 75 – 78, 81, 88 f., 94, 96, 99, 102 f., 259, 262
106, 114, 116, 120, 122, 125, 127, 130, demonology 69
141, 143, 145 – 147, 149, 159, 161 – 165, deus otiosus 100
167, 175, 177 – 179, 183, 189, 194, 200, devil 30, 48, 51, 67, 69 f., 78, 87, 92 f.,
204, 234, 243, 255, 269, 271 – 273 123 f., 196, 229, 240, 254 – 263, 267, 274
convert 1, 4, 9, 12, 21, 26, 28, 36, 41, 43 f., devotion 35, 78, 87, 95, 161
53 – 55, 57, 59, 64, 91, 95, 102, 113, 120 – „diabolization“ 30
122, 125, 127, 141, 143, 151 f., 154 f., 157 – diachronic 36
160, 170, 177, 189, 204, 228 dialect 5, 18 f., 39 f., 53, 62, 86, 98, 158 f.,
core concept 4, 25 f., 30, 50, 82, 98, 190, 172, 189 f., 195, 242, 257
234, 272 dichotomy 4, 16, 23, 30, 72, 80, 99, 123,
cosmology 35, 48, 113, 178, 215, 220, 222, 147, 149, 192 f., 254 f., 263, 273
224, 229 f. dictionary 38 – 40, 53, 55 – 57, 73, 75, 87 –
costumbres 14, 17, 19, 57, 69 f., 94, 108, 90, 95, 98, 101, 117, 126, 136, 138, 157,
117 f., 120 f., 125, 133, 159, 170, 175 – 177, 159, 169, 180 – 182, 184 f., 187 – 191,
243 196 f., 206, 212, 214, 224 f., 229, 233,
crime 29, 49, 83, 180 – 182, 186, 188 – 192, 235, 239 f., 246, 248 – 251
194, 199 f., 202, 208, 220, 259 difrasismo 66, 69, 127 f., 207, 220
criminal 194 discourse 23 – 26, 28, 31, 33, 50, 58, 63,
cultural anthropology 35 67 f., 72, 127, 129, 148, 170
culture 2 – 11, 13, 15 – 18, 23 f., 27 f., 30 f., distant creator 100
33 – 35, 37, 43 – 51, 59 – 61, 63, 66 f., divine 45, 51 f., 66, 71, 79 – 81, 85, 89, 91 f.,
70 f., 75 f., 85, 88, 97, 99 f., 102 – 107, 94, 102, 108, 113, 117, 139 f., 161, 165,
 Index 309

179, 185, 191 f., 199 – 203, 208, 210 f., 144, 148, 151, 155, 157, 161, 169, 172,
216, 219, 237 – 239, 241 – 243, 246 – 177, 233 f., 254, 273
249, 252 – 256, 266 – 268 evil 30, 32, 48, 66, 78, 94, 122 f., 180 – 182,
doctrinal 10, 36 – 38, 64, 68, 70, 86, 106, 190 f., 193, 202 – 205, 227, 229, 244,
114, 135, 143, 147, 149, 180, 185 f., 196, 254 f., 257, 259 – 264
207, 257, 259, 264, 267, 274 Ewe 30, 255
domain 16, 26, 48 f., 59, 90 – 92, 110, 187, exclusive 4, 15, 25, 34, 36, 45, 107, 126,
190, 192, 194, 196, 198, 271 128, 130, 160, 187, 190, 204, 221, 239,
Dominican 18, 38 f., 50, 64, 68, 127, 169, 263, 274
220, 223, 225, 265, 267, 272 exegesis 4, 15, 23, 36 f., 41, 52, 68, 70 f.,
dynamic equivalence 14, 71 f., 80 80, 100, 103, 126, 150, 183, 193
Dzaha Dzavui 19 expiation 78, 95, 123, 201, 251

ecclesiastical 31, 65, 68, 70, 155 faith 14, 28, 43, 50 – 54, 56 – 58, 69, 78,
ecology 124, 174, 230 96, 105 f., 111, 113, 125, 149, 156, 159,
economics 7, 176, 268, 271, 274 165, 175, 234, 243, 273
emic 6, 69 faithful 78, 95, 125, 164
English 11, 20 f., 26, 29, 41, 55, 62, 64, 76, fault 89, 180 – 182, 185 – 192, 203, 208
78, 97, 100, 104, 145, 148, 158, 166, forgive 25, 84, 181, 183, 214, 245, 250, 269
169, 171, 175, 179, 185, 194, 205, 207, forgiveness 31, 57, 69, 78, 83 f., 88 f., 92,
243, 250 94, 112, 126, 209 – 211, 213 – 215, 230,
entry 7, 53 f., 58, 95, 98, 182 f., 211, 218, 250, 264
225, 242, 250 f. Franciscan 10, 18, 38 f., 51, 64, 70, 127, 151,
epistemologies 15, 22, 35 f., 115 157, 169, 240, 255, 261, 272
epistemology 2, 5, 7, 15, 27, 33, 36, 46, 59, fundamentalism 14, 71, 80
111, 114, 116, 130, 168, 234, 272
escape 48, 83, 194 – 197, 199, 212, 274 gentile 56 f., 78, 95, 183, 242, 272
eschatology 32, 113, 202, 220, 230 f., 264 geocentric 112, 123, 178, 199, 215, 222, 230
„EspaNahuatl“ 171 Ghana 30, 255
eternal 31 f., 34, 78, 135, 200, 202, 205 – global 4, 9 f., 31 – 33, 35, 41, 53, 73, 81,
210, 214 f., 221, 223, 226, 228, 231, 101 f., 111, 115, 136, 148 f., 155, 164,
264 f., 269 169 f., 236, 264
eternal damnation 89, 207 – 210, 260 globalized 168, 170
eternal perdition 30, 179, 200, 205, 208 – gloss 78, 142, 166, 180 – 183, 188 f., 196 f.,
210, 213, 264 209, 233, 249, 257
ethics 29, 112, 123, 185 God 19, 23, 25, 31 f., 38, 45, 48 f., 51, 55 f.,
ethnographer missionary 265 58, 69 – 72, 76, 78, 82 – 84, 86 f., 89, 91,
ethnography 35, 135 94 – 96, 98 f., 107 f., 110 – 113, 118, 123,
Ethnologue 13, 19, 115 125, 131 f., 135, 137, 139 f., 148, 152, 156,
etic 6 164 f., 167, 178, 182, 184, 187, 194, 197,
etiology 208 201 f., 208, 210, 212, 214 f., 221, 223 –
European-American 16, 34 f., 63, 72, 78, 80, 226, 228, 231, 234 – 242, 244 – 256, 258,
87, 112, 239, 269 f., 274 263 f., 266 – 268, 274
European-Christian 16, 25 good 32, 48 f., 60 f., 78, 84, 87, 94, 115 f.,
Evangelical 6, 10 – 15, 21, 47 f., 53, 59, 68, 122 f., 138, 174, 188, 190 f., 193, 203,
79 – 81, 99, 102 f., 117, 120, 125, 141 – 205, 220, 222 – 225, 227, 235, 245,
247 f., 250, 254 – 264, 273 f.
310 Index

gospel 9, 53, 60 f., 80, 85, 89, 95, 99 f., holy 78, 99, 125, 131 f., 188, 192, 236, 238,
105 f., 110, 112, 116, 120, 134, 142, 162, 243 – 245, 266, 268
164 f., 225, 231, 235, 245, 247 f., 252 f., homogenization 107, 110
258, 260, 265, 267, 272 – 274 huaca 45, 190, 193
grace 31, 35, 48 f., 78, 93, 95 f., 98, 101, Huauchinango 18, 153
123, 131, 197, 200, 248 – 250, 264 human rights 168, 174
grammar 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 13, 24 – 27, 33 f., hybrid 78, 150, 162, 252
36 f., 39 f., 44, 46, 59 – 61, 64, 73 – 77,
81 f., 91, 97 – 99, 101, 110 f., 113 – 116, iconography 106, 161, 222
126, 141, 155, 157, 159 f., 169, 181, 193, identity 9, 23 f., 33, 35, 52, 59, 71, 109 f.,
196, 206, 273 113, 115, 118 – 122, 131, 143, 147, 149 f.,
grammatical 23, 25 – 27, 37, 39, 72 f., 76, 168, 170, 173 – 175, 204, 216 f., 220, 236,
79 – 81, 97 f., 113, 116, 142, 193, 206, 245, 255, 273
242 ideologies 3, 5, 43, 46, 58 – 60, 64, 82,
Greek 20 f., 31, 41, 47, 52, 55, 58, 73 f., 78, 102, 104, 145, 148, 170, 201, 271
80, 134, 140, 165 f., 183, 185, 194, 198 f., ideology 2, 5 f., 8 f., 24, 28 – 30, 32 – 34, 37,
206, 214, 216, 223 – 225, 231, 234, 246, 43 f., 46 – 48, 76, 80, 102 f., 105, 110,
249 – 251, 253, 255, 260, 265, 267, 269, 114, 123, 130, 144, 149, 166, 169, 214,
272 230 f., 233
Grundbegriffe 29 idiom 26, 57, 62, 86, 149
Guatemala 11, 18, 64, 68, 113, 118, 151 f., „idol“ 45, 131, 255, 265
163, 171, 217 „idolatry“ 15, 50, 67, 79, 125, 127, 192, 214
Guerrero 18 f., 45, 88, 128, 153, 188, 225, immortal 178, 215, 218, 221, 263
256 immortality 69, 92
guilt 29, 49, 51, 76, 78, 180 – 182, 185 – 187, inclusive 4, 25, 34, 51, 146, 234, 274
190 – 193, 199 f., 213 f. incommensurability 4 – 6, 16, 27, 30, 37, 64
inculturation 6, 34, 61, 80, 103 – 109, 112,
Haudenosaunee Confederacy V, 140 114, 167, 177, 204, 272, 274
heart 53 – 56, 70, 84, 87, 90 f., 96, 111, 156, indigenous 1 f., 4 – 20, 22 f., 25 f., 29 – 41,
164, 198, 211 – 213, 218, 220 f., 231, 234, 43 – 47, 50 – 53, 55 – 61, 63 – 65, 67 – 75,
241, 250, 260 f., 266, 268 77 – 82, 85 f., 88 – 94, 96 – 100, 102 –
heart language 86, 164 132, 134, 138, 140 – 147, 149 – 163, 166 –
heathen 56, 67, 78, 95 180, 182 f., 185 – 190, 192 – 196, 198 –
heaven 38, 78, 92, 94, 123, 137, 193, 201 f., 200, 202 – 210, 212 f., 215 – 217, 221 –
205, 209, 215, 218 – 220, 222 – 225, 223, 226, 228, 230, 233 – 235, 239 f.,
227 – 229, 241, 246, 249, 261, 263 f. 242 – 250, 254 f., 257 – 260, 262 – 274
Hebrew 31, 74, 108, 125, 140, 152, 155, indigenous intellectual systems 5, 143, 149,
165 f., 194, 233, 235, 247, 252, 255 174, 177, 263, 273
hell 66, 69 f., 78, 86, 89, 92 f., 96, 146, indigenous philosophies 15 f., 58, 60, 123,
188, 201 f., 205 – 207, 215 f., 218, 220, 192, 195, 215, 262
222, 225 f., 228 f., 254 f., 261, 263 indigenous philosophy 60, 112, 121, 123,
history 3 – 5, 10 f., 15, 17, 22, 26, 38, 41, 43, 186, 226, 229, 233, 260
45 – 47, 63, 91 f., 109, 115 f., 119, 124, indigenous theology 105 f., 108, 137
129 f., 142, 148, 151, 173 f., 230, 239, Indo-European 4, 36, 73, 76, 78 – 80, 83,
247, 254, 272 88, 90, 96, 113, 263
history of ideas 35 f. infidel 56, 78, 95
history of religions 6, 35 – 37, 44
 Index 311

informant to missionary 14, 25, 37, 40, 68, 239, 241 – 243, 245 f., 250 f., 253, 263 –
74 f., 79, 90, 98, 102, 121, 141 – 144, 152, 266, 271 – 274
155, 159, 169, 229 „language expert“ 126, 144
Inka 44 f., 70, 123 f., 162, 166, 189, 203, 211 „language experts“ 141, 144, 169
inside 34, 83, 88 – 90, 143, 226, 250, 260 language ideology 36, 58 – 60, 64, 168, 173
institution 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 17, 35 f., 38, Latin 8, 11, 28, 31, 39, 47, 52, 64, 66, 68 f.,
46, 64, 92 f., 99, 103, 107, 116 – 122, 124, 86, 128, 142, 146, 151, 162, 165 f., 179,
143 – 145, 154, 170, 172 f., 175 – 177, 270 239, 252, 267
interconnected 2, 28 f., 31, 50, 116, 118, Latin America 1, 8, 10 f., 13, 15, 17, 21, 32,
178, 248 41, 44, 86, 97, 102 – 104, 106, 109, 113,
interculturality 174, 177 116 – 118, 124, 131, 134, 169, 172, 174 f.,
intersemiotic 78, 150, 161 f. 177, 223
Iroquois Confederacy 140 law 2, 7, 50, 84, 91, 98, 116, 121, 140, 176,
183, 203, 208, 260, 271, 274
Jesuit 18, 64, 70, 112, 143, 166, 208, 272 lexeme 25, 38 – 40, 65, 68 f., 85, 87, 89 f.,
Jesus 57, 82 – 84, 105, 124, 135, 139, 148 f., 97, 138, 193, 195, 197, 212, 214 f., 239,
165, 178 f., 199 f., 235, 245 – 247, 252, 249, 251, 256, 261, 271
259, 269, 273 f. lexical 24, 26, 53, 55, 63, 69, 72, 77 f., 81,
Jesus Christ 4, 22, 31, 54, 78, 86, 95 f., 98, 88, 90, 97, 110, 127, 142, 179 f., 182 f.,
123, 131 f., 157, 165, 195, 208, 219, 234 – 185 f., 189 f., 195, 233, 271
236, 245 f., 249, 251 f., 264, 267 – 269 lexicography 7, 34, 38, 40, 111 f., 114, 116,
Jesus Film 153, 156, 164 197
Judaism 4, 55, 201 lexicon 23, 58, 73, 81, 94, 97, 144, 169,
judge 79, 84, 264, 274 176, 183, 199, 206, 214, 216, 223 f., 231,
judgment 30, 76, 78, 95, 179 f., 190, 202, 249 f., 271
205 – 210, 222, 225, 230, 241, 269 liberal 34, 82, 106, 116
judicial 1 – 3, 7, 92, 116, 122, 177, 200, 206, liberate 48, 137, 195 – 197, 239
274 lingua franca 9, 18, 37, 41, 44, 86, 159 f.,
justification 78, 95 166 f., 171, 177, 189, 272
linguistic anthropology 5, 14, 22, 36, 44,
kenning 69, 207, 220 50, 64, 147
key concept 1 – 4, 16, 22, 24, 28 – 30, 44, linguistic purism 85
46, 48 – 50, 67, 176, 178, 194 linguistics 4 f., 8, 23, 33, 61, 63, 81, 102,
khipu 162, 190, 211 116
King James 21, 26, 41, 83, 94 literacy 5 f., 12 f., 17, 22 f., 33, 43 f., 46 – 48,
knowledge 1, 3 f., 6 f., 23 – 28, 32, 35, 37, 61, 102, 109 – 111, 113 – 116, 141, 145,
46, 59, 81, 83, 97, 114 f., 130, 142 – 144, 150, 154, 158, 160 f., 163, 168, 172 f.,
153, 156, 168, 174, 186, 202, 213, 252, 175, 177, 189, 247
254, 269 f. literal (fundamentalist) 14, 23, 36, 39, 54,
65 f., 71, 74 – 76, 79 – 85, 95, 147, 183,
La Mixteca 19 185, 199, 232, 237, 245, 247 f., 250
language 1 – 21, 23 – 31, 33 – 41, 43 – 53, literalism 71, 95
55 – 94, 97 – 100, 103 – 107, 109 – 117, loan word 48 f., 60, 79, 82, 85 f., 117, 247,
119, 122, 124, 126 – 130, 134 f., 140 – 142, 271
144 – 157, 159 – 177, 179 f., 183, 185 – 187, logos 78, 95, 245, 247
189 f., 193 – 197, 200 – 203, 206, 208 f.,
213, 215, 221 f., 224, 230 f., 233 – 235,
312 Index

manifest destiny 102 Mexico City 18 f., 21, 38, 136 f., 140, 151 f.,
Mapuche 208 237
Marianism 134 missiology 63, 106 f., 179
market economy 116 mission 5, 8 – 15, 17, 28 f., 41, 45, 47, 58,
Maskoke 111 f., 170 61, 68, 81, 85, 102, 105, 107 – 111, 114,
Maya 18, 26, 45, 57, 64, 68 – 70, 75, 79, 116, 126 f., 148 f., 151, 155, 157, 159 f.,
87 f., 94, 112 f., 118, 120, 131, 141, 151 f., 162, 164 f., 169 f., 173 f., 183, 212, 267,
154, 156, 171, 177, 187, 223, 242, 246, 272 f.
263, 265, 267 missionary 1, 4 f., 8 – 10, 12 f., 16, 22 f., 27 –
meaning 1 f., 4, 6, 10, 18, 20, 22, 24 – 26, 41, 43 f., 47, 51 – 53, 55 f., 58, 60, 64 f.,
28 – 31, 33 f., 37 f., 41, 43 f., 46 – 50, 52, 70, 77, 79 f., 85, 88 f., 92, 94, 96, 99,
54 – 59, 62 – 65, 67, 69, 71 – 79, 81 – 85, 101 – 105, 107 – 111, 114 f., 125, 127, 134,
87, 90 – 99, 104 f., 107, 110, 114, 126 f., 142 – 147, 149, 155 f., 158, 161, 164, 166,
130 f., 134, 141, 146, 148 – 150, 167, 168 – 170, 174, 178 f., 183, 190, 198,
169 – 171, 175, 179 – 181, 183 – 187, 189 – 220 f., 229, 234, 236, 249 f., 255, 259 f.,
191, 193 – 197, 203, 205 – 207, 209 – 216, 265, 270 – 274
226, 233 f., 242, 244, 249 f., 253 f., 256, missionary linguist 1, 4 f., 9 – 16, 20, 24 –
261, 265, 267, 270 f., 274 28, 30, 33, 35 – 37, 39 – 41, 43 – 46, 49 –
meaning-based translation 71 f., 76, 79 – 51, 53, 55, 57, 59 – 62, 64 f., 68 – 71, 73,
82, 84 75 f., 78 – 80, 82, 85, 87 f., 90 f., 93 – 97,
media 108, 126, 161 – 164, 166, 170, 177 99 f., 103 f., 110 – 114, 116, 125, 127, 129,
mercy 48 f., 69, 78, 92 f., 95 f., 197, 250 f., 132, 135, 138, 141 – 144, 146, 149 – 153,
267 155 – 157, 159 – 164, 167, 169 f., 173 f.,
Mesoamerica 10, 18, 45, 57, 66 – 69, 87, 90, 176 – 178, 180 – 183, 185 – 187, 189, 192,
108, 118 f., 124, 127 f., 153, 161 f., 167, 194 – 200, 203 – 205, 207 – 214, 216 –
196, 201, 214 – 217, 221, 223, 227, 230, 218, 221, 223 – 225, 231, 233, 239, 242,
232, 240, 247, 252 f., 255 – 258, 262 f., 244 – 246, 248, 250 f., 253 f., 256, 258,
267 260 f., 265, 269 – 274
Messiah 78, 179, 215, 235, 245 f., 253, 260, missionary linguistic 2 – 6, 9, 12, 15, 25 f.,
265 30, 36, 44, 46 f., 50, 59, 62 – 64, 77 f.,
metaphor 23, 26, 65 – 67, 69, 74, 78, 90, 102 – 104, 106, 110, 113, 116, 130, 143,
96, 127 – 130, 135, 167, 182, 189, 193, 145 f., 153, 156, 166, 168 f., 172, 197, 215,
208, 214, 248, 262 234, 244, 271 – 273
metaphorical 80, 90, 92, 132 missionary linguistics 1, 5 – 8, 10, 27, 46,
metaphysic 117, 178 61, 64, 99, 102 f., 107, 109 f., 113, 168 f.,
metaphysical 43, 52, 90, 98, 100, 107, 113, 270 – 274
124, 179 f., 190, 198 – 200, 202 f., 215, Mixe 119, 151, 217
222 f., 226, 230, 264, 266, 269 Mixe-Zoque 105
metaphysical world 123, 199, 269 Mixtec 4, 14, 16 – 22, 36 – 41, 52, 54 – 58,
metonym 78 65, 67, 69, 73 – 76, 79, 82 – 91, 93 – 99,
metonymic 63, 99, 263 101, 107 f., 121 – 123, 127, 129, 131, 133 –
metonymous 90 135, 138 – 140, 142 f., 145, 153 f., 156 –
Mexico 4 f., 9, 11, 13 f., 17 – 20, 25, 37, 39, 159, 161, 167, 170, 175, 178 – 183, 185 –
65, 82, 90, 98, 105, 109, 115, 117 f., 120, 190, 194 – 200, 203 f., 206 – 209, 211 f.,
124, 132, 136, 138, 151 – 154, 159, 164, 214 – 217, 220 f., 224 – 226, 229, 231 f.,
166, 169, 171, 174 – 177, 205, 217, 232, 235 – 237, 241 f., 244 – 254, 256 – 261,
243 266, 268 f., 273 f.
 Index 313

Mixteca Alta 16 f., 19, 30, 41, 54, 98, 107 f., 230, 232, 235, 238 – 240, 242, 246 f.,
126, 128, 147, 150, 157 f., 170, 172, 194, 251 f., 257 – 259, 262 – 264, 267 – 269
198, 205, 229, 237, 257, 266 Nahuatl 17 – 22, 26, 36, 38 – 41, 44, 51 – 58,
Mixteca Baja 159 65 – 70, 73 – 76, 79, 82 – 84, 86 – 90,
Mixteca de la Costa 19 93 – 98, 117, 119, 122 f., 127 – 129, 131 –
Mixteca-Puebla 45 136, 138, 140 f., 143, 145, 153 f., 156,
monastic order 18, 169 166 f., 171 f., 177 – 188, 190 – 200, 204 –
monolatery 44 206, 208 f., 212 – 214, 216 – 219, 221 –
monolingual 11, 19 – 22, 27, 115, 117, 128, 226, 231 f., 235, 237, 239 – 242, 244 –
143, 150, 157, 166 f. 263, 265, 267 f., 274
monovalence 95 natural world 3, 60, 100, 121, 123, 184, 190,
moral 1, 3, 29 f., 32, 36, 43, 46, 48, 51, 198, 200, 202, 207 f., 215, 222 f., 229 f.,
53 f., 58 – 60, 90 f., 96, 112 f., 116 f., 122 – 239, 244, 248, 254, 264, 266
124, 129 f., 138 f., 141, 148 f., 174 f., 177 – nature 7, 31, 40, 49, 59, 113, 117, 119, 122 –
187, 189 – 194, 200 – 203, 206 – 208, 124, 129, 132 – 134, 165, 168, 193, 200 f.,
211 f., 214 – 216, 220 – 225, 229 f., 234, 223, 226 f., 230, 232, 236 f., 240, 245,
240, 242, 244, 246, 254 f., 257, 260 – 252 f., 256, 258, 262, 264
264, 266, 272, 275 Naupan 18 f., 74, 93, 121, 131 f., 137 f., 154,
moral dualism 32, 123, 193, 254 f., 259 f., 156, 158, 176, 217 f., 220, 222, 227, 230,
263 239, 263, 268
moral-eschatological 234, 236, 254 Navajo 28, 186
moral evil 193, 200 neologism 26, 34, 38, 40, 44, 56, 60, 65,
moral failure 194, 199, 204 f., 208, 210 69, 78 f., 84 – 88, 94 f., 97 f., 110, 154,
morality 29, 35, 59, 67, 123, 185 f., 203, 169, 171, 176, 189, 217, 219, 222 f., 236,
258, 267 241, 244, 256, 260, 265, 271
moral-soteriological 31, 56, 178 f., 210 neutral religious concept 92
moral-spatial 222 Newspeak 104, 107, 169 f., 274
moral system 32, 36, 191 f., 200 – 202, 206, New Testament 3 f., 9, 11 – 22, 26, 30 f., 33 –
208, 260 35, 38 – 41, 52 – 58, 69 – 71, 73 – 76, 78 –
moral-temporal 230 91, 94 – 98, 101, 107, 114, 117, 120, 122 f.,
moral transgression 200, 203 f., 208, 211 125 f., 131, 134 f., 138, 140 f., 143, 145,
morphology 25 f., 77, 98, 111, 202 147 f., 151 – 161, 164, 166 f., 169, 178 –
multilingual 22, 88, 97, 109, 128, 147, 165 – 183, 185 f., 189 f., 195 – 197, 199 f., 204 –
167, 189 207, 209, 211 – 218, 221, 223 – 226, 230 –
multilingualism 41, 165 f., 177 237, 239, 241 f., 244 – 260, 264 – 266,
multimedia 101, 103, 161, 164, 177 269, 271 – 274
multiple 34, 39, 59, 147, 179, 186 New Tribes Mission 12, 109
mundane 184, 190, 205 nomenclature 1 f., 4, 24, 88, 91, 93, 200,
mundane world 48, 118, 202, 222, 227 271 f.
nonreligious concept 34, 78, 92
Ñähñu 120, 243 nonsoteriological religion 34, 179, 194,
Nahua 4, 16 – 19, 37 f., 53, 57 f., 65 f., 68, 201 f., 210
70, 75, 82, 86, 88, 91, 93 f., 97, 108, 117, non-Western 35, 179, 200, 210
122 – 124, 128 f., 131 f., 135 – 137, 139, Norse 31, 47 – 49
141 – 143, 153 f., 156, 161, 171, 180 f., North American Evangelical 9, 12, 102, 264
184, 190 – 193, 196 f., 199, 201, 204 –
207, 211 – 213, 217 – 221, 224 f., 227 f.,
314 Index

northern Puebla 16 – 18, 39, 41, 53, 74 f., philosophy 1 f., 4 – 8, 15 f., 24, 28, 30, 33,
86, 107 f., 121, 137, 147, 150, 154, 156, 43, 46, 51, 53, 58, 70, 72, 78, 91, 99 f.,
171, 180, 233, 240, 251, 265 103, 107, 110 – 113, 117, 123 f., 126, 130,
Norwegian 6, 31, 47 – 50, 110, 140 132, 168, 170, 174 f., 178, 187, 190 f.,
notion 28 f., 32, 35, 44, 51 f., 55 f., 58, 65, 193, 198, 203, 216 – 218, 221 f., 224,
67, 69 f., 76, 81, 86 f., 90, 92, 94 f., 99, 226, 230 f., 233 f., 236, 240, 262, 267 f.,
103 – 105, 112, 122, 126, 140, 144, 170, 271 – 273
178 – 180, 183 – 187, 189 f., 193 – 195, phonology 2, 21, 25 f., 74, 77, 98, 111, 113,
206 – 208, 210, 214 f., 218 f., 221, 223, 116
225, 227, 232, 240, 247, 250 – 252, 254 pictorial-logographic 160 – 162, 193
NRSV 41, 76 pietistic 30, 255
Ñuu Dzavui 19 piety 78, 95
Ñuu Sau 19 Pirahã 27, 62, 115
Ñuù Sàu 19 political 1 – 9, 12, 17, 19, 24 f., 27 f., 32 f., 37,
Ñuu Savi 19, 189 43 – 45, 58 f., 63, 91, 95, 102, 104 f., 109,
116, 118 – 120, 122 – 124, 128, 130, 143,
Oaxaca 18 – 20, 38, 40, 45, 118, 120, 137, 150, 160, 169, 171 f., 174 f., 177, 203, 211,
151, 153, 156 f., 166, 174, 217 224, 234, 272 – 274
Ojibwa 208 politics 2, 7 f., 10, 15, 23, 32 f., 35 f., 38,
offense 132, 179, 181 f., 186 f., 189, 202 f., 40 f., 56, 58, 60, 63, 78, 90, 95, 99, 102,
214 126, 129 f., 168, 174, 176, 178, 183, 186,
Old Testament 9, 11, 13, 31, 101, 165 – 167, 270 f., 273 f.
180, 233, 235, 245 – 247, 254 polysynthetic 18, 87, 97, 195
omission 51, 66, 77, 95, 187, 233 polytheistic 44 f., 48, 112, 234, 243, 245
oral tradition 114, 126 postcolonial 4 – 6, 8, 12, 18, 22, 33, 35 f.,
oral traditions 33, 124 40, 50, 55, 64, 87, 89, 97, 103 f., 106,
otherworldly 90 127, 147, 149, 162, 168 – 170, 174 f., 180,
Otomangue 19 183, 189, 194, 235, 249, 271, 273
Otomí 18, 25, 69, 100, 181, 243 power 1, 7 f., 33, 40, 49, 59, 63, 102, 104,
outside 5, 23, 28, 33 f., 36, 50, 103 f., 121, 108, 113 – 115, 130, 136, 146, 149, 151 f.,
143, 147, 151, 158 f., 171, 173 – 175, 177, 164, 169, 171, 186, 201, 243, 252, 263,
179, 186, 201, 207, 259, 273 272 f.
pre-European 6, 29 f., 65, 67, 87, 91, 94,
paradise 78, 94, 146, 199, 215, 219, 222 – 122, 126 f., 129, 132, 135 f., 138, 194,
225, 228 f., 249 219, 222, 224, 246, 252, 259, 266, 269
paraphrase 31, 39, 55, 65, 69, 78 – 80, 82, pre-Hispanic 17 – 19, 108, 119 – 121, 131,
89 f., 96, 101, 246 f., 251, 274 133, 190, 240 f., 256, 265
patron deity 18, 139, 265 Presbyterian 159
Pentecostal 10 f., 14, 32, 119, 150 – 152, 154, priest 10 f., 16, 30, 35, 37, 68, 70, 85, 97,
157, 159, 163, 202, 243, 255 100, 107 – 109, 120 f., 126, 128, 142 f.,
perdition 4, 29 – 31, 48 – 50, 78, 95 f., 199, 146, 151, 154 – 158, 160, 169, 172, 175,
202, 205, 209, 214 f., 222, 229 f., 273 193 f., 198, 204, 210, 227, 266
philosophies 1 f., 6 f., 9, 15 f., 29, 36, 90, primera scriptura 125
92, 98, 103, 107, 111 – 113, 116, 124 f., proselytism 33, 156
144, 161, 168 f., 177 – 179, 196, 215, 234, proselyte 33, 53, 58, 61, 109, 156, 164, 199
262, 264, 269, 272 Protestant 1, 4 – 12, 15 f., 21, 30, 34 – 36,
38 – 41, 50 f., 55 f., 58 f., 64, 66, 77, 79 f.,
 Index 315

86 f., 94, 98, 102 f., 106 f., 109, 116 – 126, 62, 64, 68 f., 92, 96, 98 – 100, 104 f.,
130 f., 134, 140 f., 143, 145, 148, 150 – 107, 109, 112 f., 117, 121, 130 f., 133 f.,
154, 156 – 163, 167 – 170, 172, 175, 178 – 149, 161, 168 f., 177, 186, 198, 201 f.,
180, 182 f., 189, 198 f., 210 – 212, 218, 204, 207, 210, 212, 216 f., 223, 226, 230,
221, 227, 230 f., 234, 239, 243, 246, 233 f., 240, 242 f., 249, 255, 258, 264,
248, 266, 269 – 272, 274 267, 274
Puebla 18 – 21, 30, 40, 53, 128, 132, 139, religious concept 9, 26, 28, 30 f., 34 f., 37 f.,
153, 156, 171, 180, 195, 217 – 220, 227 f., 63, 70, 78, 91 – 93, 97, 99, 127, 161,
237 f., 240, 246, 251, 257, 259, 262 f., 190 f., 198, 201 f., 268
267 – 269 religious conversion 6, 22, 34, 43, 48, 51 f.,
Pueblo 10, 85, 129, 139, 170 54, 56, 116, 186, 205
pueblo 19, 83, 85, 118 – 122, 131, 138, 150 – religious morphisms 26, 168
152, 154, 157 – 159, 176, 194, 217, 219 f., religious specialist 45, 51, 97, 100, 122,
258, 260, 265 f. 128, 132, 148, 181, 184, 190, 192, 204,
punish 132, 206, 208, 240, 255, 258 213, 227, 238, 243, 257, 263
punishment 66, 69, 78, 92, 124, 199, 201 f., religious system 2, 4, 9, 15 – 17, 24, 28 f.,
204 – 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 225, 227, 32 – 37, 44, 48, 52 f., 57, 71 f., 90, 92 f.,
262, 264 100, 112, 124, 131, 140, 167, 170, 178 –
purification 58, 78, 95, 193, 212 180, 185 f., 200, 204, 210 f., 239, 245,
purify 54, 57 f., 78, 95, 99, 135, 144, 171, 250, 265, 273
187, 190, 192 f., 212, 226, 268 repent 31, 53, 55, 84, 211, 231, 234, 245,
264
Q’eqchi’ 68, 151 f. repentance 31 f., 34 f., 39, 51 – 58, 78, 84,
Quechua 26, 29, 44, 99, 142 f., 156, 162, 88, 94, 161, 178, 183, 211, 218, 222,
166, 177, 180, 187, 189 f., 194 234, 254
resurrection 52, 69, 78, 92, 95, 108, 198,
rancherías 19, 157 209, 231, 234 – 236, 252 – 254, 266
reception 4, 102, 117, 150, 153 f. rhetoric 17, 23 f., 26, 35, 52, 64, 67 f., 91,
receptions 3, 5, 22, 36, 44 f., 68, 145 – 147, 103, 112, 115, 126 f., 129 f., 141, 161, 164,
150, 159 191, 199, 211
reconciliation 31, 78, 95, 251 f. righteousness 78, 95
redeem 32, 108, 123, 137, 199, 210, 266, rites de passage 32, 93
269 Roman Catholic Church 10 f., 14, 85, 102,
redemption 32, 52, 78, 95, 199 f., 202, 211, 125, 136, 143, 151, 169, 172
215
rejection 4, 22, 46, 50, 145 f., 151, 208 sacred 17, 34, 51, 56 f., 70, 82 f., 86 f., 92 f.,
religion 4 – 8, 10, 15 f., 22, 24, 28, 33 – 35, 96, 103, 117 – 119, 124 – 126, 129 – 132,
38, 43 – 45, 47 – 52, 54, 56, 60, 66 – 71, 134, 136, 139, 152, 156, 161, 163, 165 –
80, 85, 87, 90, 92 – 94, 99 f., 103 f., 106, 167, 191 f., 202 – 204, 210, 214, 216, 223,
108, 110 – 113, 116 – 118, 120 – 122, 124 – 227, 237 f., 241 – 245, 249, 253 f., 259,
129, 135, 143 – 145, 147 – 151, 156, 159, 262, 264, 268 f.
161, 164 f., 167 – 170, 174 f., 178, 190, saints 107 f., 113, 117 f., 124 f., 128, 130 –
200 – 202, 204, 213, 218, 225, 228, 134, 137, 143, 157, 161, 168, 204, 219,
231 f., 234, 239 f., 244 f., 251, 259, 264, 228, 238 f., 241, 243, 249, 264, 266,
267 f., 271 f., 274 269
religions 1 f., 4 – 6, 9 – 12, 14 – 17, 22 f., 25, salvation 4, 9, 16, 29 – 32, 34, 39, 43, 48 –
30, 32, 34 – 37, 41, 43 – 46, 50 – 53, 60, 50, 52, 78 f., 88, 93, 95 f., 98, 103, 106,
316 Index

109, 112 f., 117 f., 120, 122 – 124, 126, semiotics 4 f., 59, 161
140, 146, 148, 161, 165, 178 f., 183, 185, Semitic 36, 41, 166
194 – 206, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219, 221 – sermons 10 f., 43, 66 – 68, 142, 149, 151,
223, 225, 227, 229 – 231, 234, 243, 247, 181, 189, 208
249, 255, 264 – 267, 269 f., 273 f. Sierra de Norte de Puebla 53, 128, 132, 139,
San Carlos Apache 126, 145, 170 153, 156, 171, 180, 195, 217, 219, 227 f.,
Santiago de Yosondúa 19 f., 54, 89, 121, 237 – 240, 257, 259, 262 f., 267 – 269
124, 133 f., 142, 154, 157 – 159, 175, 229 SIL 4, 6, 12 – 22, 24 – 27, 30 – 37, 39 – 41,
Sapir-Whorf 27 51 – 55, 57 – 64, 69 – 76, 79 – 82, 84 – 90,
satan 78, 87, 255 – 258 94 – 98, 100 – 103, 106 f., 109 – 111, 113,
save 48, 79, 83, 98, 179, 195 – 197, 199, 115 – 117, 121 f., 126, 129, 131, 134 f., 138,
235, 266, 269, 274 140, 142 f., 147 – 153, 155 – 161, 164,
savior 4, 25, 30 – 32, 34, 78, 88, 95 f., 98, 167 – 169, 172 – 174, 178 – 183, 185, 187,
108, 123, 137, 139 f., 149, 178, 195, 210, 189 f., 195 – 200, 205 – 207, 209 f., 212,
219, 234 f., 264 – 269 214 – 218, 220 f., 223 – 226, 230 – 233,
science 3, 6 f., 28, 35, 61, 107, 176, 264, 235 – 237, 239 – 242, 244 – 254, 256 –
271, 274 261, 264 – 266, 269
scriptural 7, 9, 12, 14 f., 23, 26 – 28, 32, sin 4, 29 – 32, 34 f., 39, 48 f., 51 – 53, 55 –
34 f., 41, 44, 59, 103, 107, 109, 111, 114 – 58, 66 f., 69, 74, 78, 83 f., 89, 92 f., 95 f.,
117, 126, 130, 145, 150 f., 160, 162, 164, 98 f., 112, 123 – 126, 140 f., 161, 178 –
168, 174, 177, 179, 183, 198, 210, 239, 194, 199 – 204, 208 – 215, 221 f., 227 f.,
269, 271, 273 231, 234 f., 240, 245, 250, 254 f., 260 –
scripture 1, 3, 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 17, 23 – 26, 28, 262, 266, 274
33 f., 36 f., 43 f., 48 f., 53, 56, 61, 67 – 71, skopos 31, 80, 82
73, 77, 79 – 82, 85 f., 88, 91 – 94, 96, social 1 f., 7 – 9, 12 f., 15 f., 28 f., 32, 35 – 37,
99 – 103, 106, 109 – 114, 116, 124 – 127, 46, 57 – 59, 62 f., 91, 93, 102, 105, 107,
130, 134, 140 – 143, 145 – 148, 150 – 156, 109, 114, 116 f., 120, 122 – 124, 130, 135,
158 – 167, 169 f., 172, 176, 179, 183, 186, 143 f., 150, 155, 157, 160, 171, 173 – 175,
204, 212, 215, 221, 233, 236, 242, 246 f., 190, 200, 203, 208, 210 f., 218, 225,
254, 267, 270, 272 f. 234, 272 f.
Second Coming of Christ 14, 32, 264 social anthropology 240
Second Vatican Council 11, 104, 106, 151 society 7, 23, 33, 35, 72, 92, 102, 104,
secular 5, 35, 37, 55, 60 f., 78, 90 f., 93, 113, 106 f., 112, 117, 119, 124 f., 137, 140, 156,
115, 121, 140, 144, 170, 180, 182 f., 185, 171, 191, 200, 203, 211, 228, 234, 246,
187, 189, 218, 246, 254 260
self-determination 102, 160, 173 f., 176, 273 sociocultural 1, 59, 62, 65, 102, 116, 150
semantic 1 f., 4, 6, 8, 20, 25 – 27, 29, 34, sociology 6, 35
38, 40 f., 46 – 48, 50, 52, 56, 65, 72, 77 – sociopolitics 116
79, 84 f., 92, 97 f., 105, 110, 114, 116, sola scriptura 34, 103, 124 – 126, 129 – 131,
135, 146, 172, 179, 183, 186, 188, 194 – 161, 274
196, 205 – 207, 210, 213, 237, 256, 261, soteriological 1, 9, 23, 29 f., 34, 37, 48, 60,
271 98, 100, 103, 107, 113, 125, 146, 149,
„semantic purification“ 99, 144 178 f., 198 – 201, 204, 210, 223, 273 f.
semantics 3, 23, 25, 29, 35, 38, 46 f., 52, soteriology 1, 32, 88, 202, 221, 234, 254
60, 64, 72, 77, 99, 111, 142, 179, 197, soul 34, 51, 69, 78, 86 – 88, 90 f., 93, 96,
213 – 215, 251, 254, 271 178, 190, 194, 199, 215 – 222, 225 – 227,
semiotic ideology 58 – 60 229 f., 244, 256, 258, 260, 263, 269
 Index 317

source text 20 f., 31, 41, 53, 63, 71, 73 – 76, Tao 85, 171
80 – 82, 84 f., 89, 96, 99, 101, 144, 212, target culture 3, 5, 7, 22, 24, 28, 30, 37,
231, 252 40 f., 43, 56, 58, 76 f., 79 f., 85, 90, 93,
South America 10, 27, 70, 105, 118, 156, 99, 106, 110, 114, 116, 126, 130, 141 f.,
161, 174, 189 144 – 147, 150, 164, 170, 186, 195, 204,
space 16, 23, 35 f., 92, 99, 108, 112 f., 118, 233, 271 f.
161, 178, 215, 222, 226, 230 – 233, 267 target text 20
Spanish 8, 10 f., 17 f., 20 – 22, 26, 37 – 41, temptation 78, 95, 255
44 f., 50, 55 f., 64 – 70, 74, 76, 78, 82, Tenochtitlan 18, 136, 140
85 – 90, 97 f., 101, 108, 116 f., 122, 124, terminology 1 – 4, 6, 22, 24, 47, 49, 67, 79,
128 f., 132 – 135, 141 – 143, 152, 154, 91, 93, 108, 110, 141, 145, 176 f., 270 –
156 – 159, 163, 166, 168, 171 f., 175, 177, 272
179 – 182, 185, 187, 189 f., 196, 203, 206, Tewa 85, 115, 171
209, 215, 217 – 220, 224 f., 228 f., 235 – Textus Receptus 20 f., 41
237, 239 – 242, 244 f., 247 f., 255 – 260, The Holy Ghost 87, 89, 108, 209, 214, 236,
267 245
spirit 14, 54 f., 78, 86 – 88, 90, 92 f., 100, The Holy Spirit 58, 86, 125, 134, 139, 152,
120, 125, 132 f., 199, 216 – 221, 223, 166, 179, 199, 213 f., 236, 243 – 245,
236 f., 243 – 245, 253, 256, 258 253, 267
spirits 30, 51, 89, 129, 132, 137, 152, 197, The New Revised Standard Version 20, 41
220, 223, 226 f., 229, 237, 239, 241, theology 3, 5, 8 – 10, 15 f., 20, 28 – 30, 32,
243 f., 258 f. 34 – 37, 45 f., 51 f., 58, 64, 68, 70, 72,
„spiritual destiny“ 102, 200, 219 f., 223, 76 – 80, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96 – 98, 100,
229 103, 105 – 110, 116 f., 123 – 127, 130 f.,
standard 5, 41, 78, 115, 183 134, 139 – 141, 146, 150 f., 161, 165, 167,
structure 1 f., 23 f., 26, 39, 69, 72 f., 80, 169, 178 – 180, 183, 186, 188 f., 198,
99 f., 102, 113, 115, 120, 123 f., 129, 162, 202, 204 f., 212, 215 f., 220 f., 223, 228,
168, 172, 190, 203, 210 f., 216, 227, 234, 230 f., 234 f., 239 f., 243, 248, 251, 253 –
263, 271 255, 263 f., 269 f., 274
structures 1, 5, 81, 92, 99, 104 f., 141, 271 „theology of the cross“ 198, 266
Summer Institute of Linguistics 12, 14, 72 time 2, 22 f., 26, 35 f., 51, 56, 62, 69, 77,
synchronic 36, 92 92, 104 f., 111 – 113, 134, 152 f., 165 – 167,
synecdoche 26, 127 169, 173, 175, 177 f., 181, 184, 190 f., 193,
synonym 26, 67, 70, 77 – 79, 90, 95, 97, 99, 196, 206 f., 214 f., 217, 219 f., 227, 230 –
107, 135, 181, 201, 207, 215, 224 f., 235, 233, 238, 256, 263 f., 266 – 268
241, 247, 250, 257, 259 Tlapanec 18, 45
syntax 23, 25 f., 74, 79, 84, 98 f., 144 Tlaxiaco 19, 40
system 1 – 6, 8 f., 11, 15 f., 22 – 30, 32 – 35, Tlaxpanaloya 18, 227
37 f., 42 – 46, 50 – 53, 57 – 60, 64, 66, 77, tonal 19, 97, 137, 217 – 219, 244, 269
85, 90 – 93, 98, 100 – 103, 109 f., 112 – traditions 6, 9, 11 f., 17, 23, 31, 34, 66, 70 f.,
114, 116 – 121, 123 – 125, 128, 130, 142 – 99, 103 f., 107 – 109, 116 – 121, 126, 128 –
144, 146 f., 150, 158, 161 f., 169 – 171, 130, 138, 140, 147 f., 154, 162, 168 – 170,
174 – 179, 185 f., 193 – 195, 201, 203 f., 173 – 177, 210 f., 230, 255, 259, 272 f.
206, 209, 211, 220 – 223, 230, 234, 242, transculturation 6, 34, 103 f.
254, 271, 273 f. transfiguration 70, 78, 95, 252 f.
system approach 2 transformation 1 f., 6, 22 – 24, 33, 43 f., 46,
system theory 2 48, 50, 52, 54, 58 f., 62, 64 f., 81, 99,
318 Index

103, 105, 110, 114, 144, 147, 172, 174 f., virgin 134 – 140, 179, 238
186, 200, 221, 271, 274 Virgin Mary 78, 107 f., 117, 130 – 132, 134 –
transgression 7, 32, 52, 123, 179 f., 183, 140, 157, 161, 166, 193, 199, 220, 236,
185 – 187, 189 – 192, 200 – 203, 208, 211, 238 f., 266 f.
213, 230, 258, 262 Virgin Mary of Guadalupe 109, 136, 138,
translatability 25, 41, 44 f., 77, 165 167
translation 1 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 28, 30 – 37, visual 103, 161, 163 f.
39 – 41, 43 – 46, 48 – 53, 56 – 59, 61 – 67, visual culture 35, 161
70 – 87, 89 f., 92, 94 – 104, 106 f., 109 – vocabulary 2, 16, 24, 26, 35, 39, 44, 56, 70,
112, 114 – 117, 126 f., 130 f., 134, 140 – 78, 80, 86, 99, 114, 141, 154, 160, 169 f.,
147, 149 – 153, 155 – 160, 163 – 170, 172 – 179, 190, 193, 199 f., 209, 217, 222, 233,
174, 176 – 183, 185, 187, 189, 192, 194, 247, 259, 271, 273
197 – 200, 204 f., 207, 209, 211 – 216,
220 f., 224 – 226, 231, 233 – 237, 239 – WBT 12 – 17, 20, 30 – 33, 35, 41, 73, 75, 81,
242, 244 – 258, 261, 264 – 266, 269 – 100, 103, 106 f., 109, 111, 142, 155 f.,
274 163 – 165, 167, 169, 172, 264
translation strategies 20, 31, 62 – 65, 85, witchcraft 30, 69, 94, 122
89, 200, 209 world 7, 9, 11, 13, 22, 28, 34, 59, 61, 76,
translation strategy 14, 72, 74, 80, 217 89, 95, 98, 100, 111, 115, 122 – 125, 132,
trilingual 38, 150, 181 136, 147, 151, 161, 164 f., 167 – 169,
trinity 70, 112, 132, 236 – 239, 243 173 f., 178, 190 f., 196 – 198, 201 f., 208,
truth 9, 43, 49, 54, 60, 78, 95, 98, 114, 125, 210, 222 f., 226 – 228, 230 – 233, 238,
138, 165, 186, 248, 268, 273 f. 241, 245, 255, 257 – 261, 264 – 267, 269
Tzeltal 69, 171 world christianities 167
Tzotzil 69, 171, 267 world christianity 109, 165
worldview 9, 23, 33 f., 43 – 45, 52, 56, 80,
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 92, 100, 106 f., 118, 127, 170, 174, 198,
Peoples 174 227, 230, 239, 274
unicity 95 writing 19, 39, 65, 87, 132, 154, 162, 166,
„Unified Nahuatl“ 97, 172 173, 180, 247
United States 8, 10, 12, 18, 20, 75, 85, 100, writing system 69, 97, 109, 161, 222, 247,
136, 152, 170, 172, 175, 192 263
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 174 Wycliffe Bible Translators 4, 12, 59, 80, 117,
US 4 f., 8 – 10, 12, 14 – 16, 19, 41, 46, 64, 149, 165, 236
102 f., 107, 117, 141, 143, 145, 156, 169 f., Wycliffe Statement of Doctrine 15, 32
174 – 176, 182, 239, 271
U.S. Protestant 35 Yucatán 131, 154, 171, 265
Uto-Aztecan 18 Yucatec 25, 64, 68 f., 141, 152, 154, 187, 242

vernacular 4, 53, 61, 64, 70, 72, 100, 106, Zapotec 18, 69, 120, 137, 152, 174, 217
109 f., 113 – 116, 126, 146, 151, 160, 165 –
167, 271 f.
verse 80, 82 f., 88 f., 96, 200, 253