The Use of History Speaking of God in Sanskrit-Derived Vocabularies by H. L. Richard

his paper presents a broad overview of a particular Bible translation issue in , where most vernacular languages are rich in Sanskrit- derived terms. Different Bible translations have adopted different SanskritT terms for key theological words, and this paper will focus on terms used for God in various vernacular Bibles. The purpose of the paper is not antiquarian, but to shed light on current translation concerns and in particular questions of best practices in communication in India today. Linguistic ques- tions are, of course, vitally important in every mission field, so this discussion has repercussions far beyond India.

Sanskrit is central to the project of Bible translation in almost all the major languages of India, as it was also central in the development of modern linguistic theory (see Trautmann 1997, 131–132 for example). William Carey (1761–1834) is a central person for discussions of Bible translation in India. Carey, widely recognized as the father of the modern mission movement, lived in Bengal during the heyday of the Asiatic Society (founded in Calcutta in 1784) which promoted the knowledge of Sanskrit texts and Indic traditions.

Carey had learned Bengali during his first six difficult years in Bengal (1794–1800) and in 1801 became teacher (later professor, in 1807) of Bengali and Sanskrit at Fort William College in Calcutta (founded in 1800 to pro- vide Indological education to Britons serving in India). Carey produced a Sanskrit grammar in 1806, followed by a translation of the New Testament into Sanskrit (1808) and then the Old Testament (1818). Specifics related to H. L. Richard has been involved in Carey’s choices of terms for God will be discussed below. ministry in the Hindu world for three decades and is one of the founders of Competing Terms across North and South the Rethinking Forum. He formerly directed the Institute of Hindu Despite the centrality of Sanskrit, the dominant languages of South India Studies and has published numerous belong to the Dravidian language family. The discovery of this Dravidian books and articles on the Christian encounter with Hinduism. linguistic family can be traced to F. W. Ellis in Madras in 1816, but his

International Journal of Frontier Missiology 33:1 Spring 2016•11 12 Speaking of God in Sanskrit-Derived Vocabularies theory remained virtually unknown Thus, Tamil Bible translation tells the rehabilitated. In this respect his Catho- lic predecessors in the South of India until the 1856 publication of Robert story of two Sanskrit-based terms, deva were far more bold and accommoda- Caldwell’s A Comparative Grammar of and ishwar, in reference to God. tive, since they simply added strings of the Dravidian or South Indian Family Despite a binary consideration of terms modifiers to deva, whenever they felt of Languages.1 Since the Dravidian throughout this translation history, this uneasy about it standing alone, so as family of languages borrowed a great paper would suggest that viewing deva to emphasize the transcendence of the deal of terminology from Sanskrit, and ishwar as right or wrong options God of the Christian faith over all the other devas whom the Hindus revere. many terms from South Indian Bible is not the proper frame of reference translations are relevant for this study. (Amaladass and Young 1995, 38—39; for considering this translation matter. italics in the original) The first Indian Bible translation William Carey, who is by far the domi- was into Tamil, the most important nant figure in translations into North It should be noted that the southern 6 of the Dravidian languages, so this Indian languages, rejected the option associations of these two authors un- survey will begin with Sanskrit- of deva and adopted ishwar in reference doubtedly impacted their analysis (as based Tamil terminology. The Tamil to God, which has been followed across the more northern associations of the New Testament was completed by most of North India. Amaladass and present author have impacted mine). Bartholomew Ziegenbalg in 1714. Young summarize Carey’s approach: Two word lists of Sanskrit terms are Ziegenbalg seems to have followed the The uniformity of terminology in available that gauge the terminologi- great in referring Carey’s translations of the Bible is far cal diversity for God, and both dem- to God as a neologism saruvēsuran, onstrate the basic North-South split compounding sarva (all) and ishwar 2 between deva and ishwar. In 1957, J. (god). This aligns with the standard S. M. Hooper published a compara- usage in North Indian languages, as tive list of Indian terms for signifi- will be discussed below. However, cant Greek theological words. Under Philip Fabricius, in his long-esteemed The choice of theos (God) he indicated that seven translation published in 1798 (NT in languages used ishwar or a derivative 1772), abandoned the pattern of de deva or ishwar thereof (Assamese, Bengali, Hindi, Nobili and Ziegenbalg and introduced Oriya, Panjabi, Santali, and Sindhi). He parāparan, another Sanskrit-derived is not just an option of likewise indicated that six languages neologism developed from para-apara right or wrong. used deva or a derivative thereof (Gu- (remote-not remote), suggestive of 3 jarati, Kanarese, Malayalam, Marathi, transcendence and immanence. Sinhalese, and Telugu).7 As discussed The 1871 Union Version of the Tamil above, Tamil has translations using Bible adopted deva as the fundamental both. Muslim-related languages used 4 from always evident on the surface, khudā (Urdu and Pashtu, as well as in word for God. The earlier translators for there are numerous inconsisten- had used deva in various compounds some Panjabi and Sindhi versions) and cies, but the terms he chose to denote English translations used God. These but avoided the term alone as an other gods as opposed to the God of comprise the seventeen languages in inadequate word for God. The 1854 the Christian faith are invariable in the Telugu Bible (NT, 1818) also used deva. Dharmapustaka [Carey’s Sanskrit Bi- Hooper’s survey (Hooper 1957, 86–87). The use of deva is now standard across ble] and elsewhere. Whereas theos in Secondly, in 1904, 1930, and 1965, South India and has also appeared in the Greek New Testament is used both the British and Foreign Bible Society in the singular and the plural either in Marathi and Gujarati Bibles; see below published selections from languages affirmation of the unitary existence of for analysis of this term. To complete in which they were distributing por- God or in denial of the existence of the survey of translations into Tamil, many gods, in the Sanskrit Bible the tions of the Bible. Appendix three of the 1956 Revised Version and 1995 cognate deva always differentiates the 1965 version listed the terms for Common Language Version (Tiru- false gods from the true God, Iśvara God in the various languages. In this viviliyam) shifted to using a non-San- (or in the Old Testament Yihuha for list deva is indicated as being used in skrit-based Tamil term, kadavul, which the proper name Yahweh or Jehovah). fifteen languages, including five in did not find favor with most Tamil Iśvara in the Dharmapustaka never oc- Indonesia and the major South Indian Christians (cf. Hooper and Culshaw, curs in the plural. True to his evangelical languages of Kanarese, Malayalam, “the Union Version [deva for God] instincts, Carey could not bring himself Tamil, and Telugu with Sanskrit-based continues to serve a large section of the to believe that the polytheistic conno- Marathi an outlier. Ishwar is indicated Tamil-speaking church,” 1963, 78).5 tations of the term deva could ever be as being used in thirty-four languages,

International Journal of Frontier Missiology H. L. Richard 13 including a few in Tibetan-related and tribal languages, as well as in the major ranslations with more linguistic sensitivity were North Indian languages of Bengali, rejected in favor of the now-familiar deva, which Gujarati, Hindi, and Panjabi. A further was a marker of Protestant community identity. ten languages are listed for parmesh- T word “God” by this term. Moreover, war (param-ishwar, supreme ishwar), Another reason to particularly advocate including Oriya (British and Foreign Bhagwan has sexual overtones. Be- the Sanskrit word deva, rather than sides these four languages, no other Bible Society 1965, 184, 185, 188). the Tamil kadavul, was that everyone North Indian language uses Bhag- It is easy to find fault with both ishwar in India could use the same term for wan in the Bible. Even in hymns and and deva as terms for the God of the God (Israel 2011, 108). As this paper prayers, this term is strictly forbidden. Bible. In the case of deva, Hopper’s shows, that did not happen. Once deva (Rai 1992, 444) word list and editorial analysis sup- became a distinctly Protestant term in South India, translations with more Tiliander, however, after careful analy- ported Carey’s position, indicating linguistic sensitivity and those using sis of the associations of bhagwān, “devan was considered unworthy, being kadavul (as in the Tamil Revised Ver- concludes that normally used in Hinduism for any mi- sion of 1956 and Common Language It is a very expressive term to be used nor deity” (Hooper 1957, 86). Tiliander, Version of 1995) were rejected in favor in presenting Christ to Hindus. It also in his outstanding study of Hindu and of the now-familiar deva, which was deserves a proper place in the Christian Christian terminologies, comments that seen as a marker of Protestant Chris- vocabulary. It is too dignified a word the change to deva in the Tamil Union tian community identity (113–114). to be reserved for the devotees of version of 1869 “was in fact a retrogres- Vishnu and Buddha alone. (1974, 125) sive step on account of the polytheistic When such controversy and opposing taint attached to it” (1974, 132). views about these terms developed, it The eccentric intellectual Nirad C. is no surprise that other terms were Chaudhuri shared a striking perspec- In the case of ishwar, a great historian also considered. As early as the 17th tive on bhagwān as well. of in India, Julius Richter, century, the Jesuit Roberto de Nobili The One God to which I am referring presented a different perspective as to actually used sivan (Shiva) for some here is a Hindu form of the Christian why this term did not appeal to South time, due to a root meaning of “good- and Islamic. The most common name Indian translators. ness” (Tiliander 1974, 91), and William under which he is referred to is Bhaga- “Isvara,” “lord,” is also common Carey flirted with the use of om to rep- van. Though he is a personal God, he to all the Indian languages, and resent Yahweh (Amaladass and Young is never thought of or spoken about is found in many compounds, but 1995, 39).9 But these were fleeting as an anthropomorphic God in a phys- in philosophical terminology it is a ical form. Actually, no physical form is experiments that took no root. More much used technical expression for a ever assigned to him, though he is a phase of the lower Brahma in union substantial suggestions of alternative full anthropomorphic psychic entity. with Avidya, i.e. it describes God as terms included brahman and bhagwān. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and caught in the toils of Maya [illusion, omnipresent. He is personified com- contingent reality]; for Christian pur- Exploring Alternative Terms passion and justice at the same time. poses, therefore, the word is useless. for God The Hindus always turn to him when (Richter 1908, 270) In 1992, Benjamin Rai in an analysis they are in trouble, in all their sor- Hephzibah Israel provides another of words for God in North Indian rows and suffering, but never when perspective on the terminological is- languages suggested three options prosperous. They would say to others, God will show you mercy, God will sues in Tamil in her outstanding study for translating God: deva, ishwar (or judge your actions, or God will not al- param-ishwar), and bhagwān.10 Rai Religious Transactions in Colonial low this. No particular, individualized, South India: Language, Translation, pointed out that “in North India Chris- anthropomorphic god of the old Hin- and the Making of Protestant Iden- tians never use Deva to refer to the du pantheon ever fulfilled this role 8 tity (2011). She shows that a major God of the Bible” (1992, 444). How- with any Hindu. To the other gods of motivation in the Tamil terminology ever, he also asserted that bhagwān as Hinduism, even when thought of as a discussions was finding a term that an alternative is an even worse option. supreme god, the Hindu looked with was unfamiliar to Hindus. Deva was Perhaps because of this close associa- some confidence based on his right to a happy choice because no Hindus tion of the term Bhagwan with Ram ask for divine help, since through wor- used it for the almighty God, thus the and Krishna, none of the Bible trans- ship he was performing his part of the Protestant biblical associations would lators in any of the four languages contract and giving the god his quid be attached to that term (108–110). I am considering has translated the pro quo. But to this God, Bhagavan,

33:1 Spring 2016 14 Speaking of God in Sanskrit-Derived Vocabularies

he appealed when he was wholly continue to be heard. Yet the lesson which became evident in a particular without any resource, yet he did so “church language” moulded by trans- from this historical review is not that with complete faith in his mercy. lations of texts from foreign languages one or the other was right or wrong. as well as by the creativeness of Tamil Nevertheless, this Bhagavan has nev- Rather the lesson is that alternative for ecclesiastical purposes. (1990, 257) er been worshipped, nor has he even choices were made in a complex lin- become an object of regular prayer. guistic environment, and neither choice A similar reality developed from St. Paul said to the Athenians that was ideal. Yet in the end there are He whom they worshipped as the William Carey’s pioneering work, as dynamic Christian bodies using these Unknown God was being proclaimed diagnosed by Sisirkumar Das. to them by him. To the Hindus the alternative terminologies, indicating Bengali Christians are bilingual. They Unknown God was fully known, but that in one sense it did not matter use standard Bengali both spoken and never worshipped. In the whole reli- which term was used. The context and written in domestic, occupational and gious literature of the Hindus there content of the Bible contributed to the non-religious situations; but the lan- is no discussion of the nature of this refining of the meaning of these terms guage they hear in sermons and use in God. Yet in one sense this undis- in their usage by followers of Christ.12 religious discourse is in the idiom we cussed God is the only real God of An immediate corollary of this conclu- have called Christian Bengali, the fa- Hindu faith. (Chaudhuri 1996, 149) sion is that there needs to be greater ther of which was Carey. Christian Ben- gali literature is little read outside the freedom of expression—more linguis- Despite Rai’s adamant comments religious community in which it was tic diversity—in continuing to speak of born, but it must be noted that except above against bhagwān, an English- God than is present in much of Indian Hindi glossary of theological terms in- where comprehension fails because of its sectarian content non-Christian cluded bhagwān, although it was oddly Bengalis are able to understand it. Its listed as an acceptable theological peculiar style, however, has had little term for “Lord” rather than for “God” influence on other streams of prose lit- (Clark and John 1969, 47). Interest- erature, beyond the initial impulse that ingly, for God an acceptable alternative Carey’s Bible gave to prose writing in term in Clark and John’s glossary was There are dynamic the Bengali language. (Das 1966, 68) paramātman (supreme spirit).11 Christian bodies using Robin Boyd’s expertise was in Guja- Paul and Frances Hiebert present a case these alternative rat, but he generalized this linguistic study in speaking of God in Sanskrit- principle to all of India. derived vocabularies, and the options terminologies. The Biblical vocabulary with which presented are deva and brahman (1987, people are familiar from childhood 155–157). The bias of the paper is tends to become firmly entrenched in for deva, as brahman is too abstract a their minds, and any move to change philosophical term. But Robin Boyd it is resented. So it comes about that promoted the use of brahman, rightly in each language area Christians are (and other international) Christian prone to use a “language of Canaan” stressing the need to speak in the highest 13 of transcendent terms (1975, 233–236). thought and speech. which non-Christians find difficult to understand and often positively mis- Yet brahman is hardly used in normal The sad reality is that there remains leading. (2014, 160) speech, as Hindus are not nearly so a great linguistic gap between Hin- philosophically inclined as some populist dus and Christians in most of India’s This amounts to a conundrum far descriptions suggest. (Note how this languages. To a large extent, this is due beyond the focus of this paper, raising point undermines Richter’s criticism of to narrow views of translation and to multiple questions and challenges. ishwar quoted above. Richter focused on restrictive terminological choices in But a conservative approach to ter- the technical philosophical meaning of vernacular Bible translations. No Indian minology related to God has cer- the term, but this is very different from language has as illustrious a Christian tainly contributed to a situation where its common usage.) Paramātman carries history as Tamil, where geniuses of the Christians in India developed dialects some of the highest philosophical weight likes of Constanzo Beschi and Fabri- that differ markedly from the heart while also being more commonly used. cius experimented and innovated. Yet in languages of Hindus. A significant concluding his survey of Tamil church start towards better communication of Affirming Linguistic Diversity history Hugald Grafe pointed out that biblical ideas to Hindus can be made To this day, criticisms of the North In- Interaction between Christianity and by moving beyond the narrow confines dia-biased ishwar and/or South-India Tamil culture certainly issued in a sort of deva or ishwar as the only accept- biased deva translations for God of Christian subculture in Tamilnadu, able choices for speaking of God. IJFM

International Journal of Frontier Missiology H. L. Richard 15

Endnotes 12 Howard K. Moulton stressed this Christianity in India vol. 4 part 2. 1 point by quoting the Bible Society’s Rules Bangalore: Church History Trautmann indicts Caldwell for not for the Guidance of Translators: “Every Association of India. sufficiently acknowledging the work of Ellis, care should be taken to select the highest Hiebert, Paul D. and Frances F. contributing to the continued neglect of the term for God that a language affords. The 1987 Case Studies in Missions. Grand latter (2006, 74–75). Rapids: Baker Book House. 2 teaching of the Bible will by degrees purify Hephzibah Israel suggests the pos- and raise the ideas associated with the word Hooper, J. S. M. sibility that Ziegenbalg chose this term used” (1962, 71, italics in the original). 1957 Greek New Testament Terms in without influence from de Nobili based 13 The reflections that led to the Indian Languages: A Comparative on his own understanding of Tamil Saivite Bangalore: The Bible research and writing of this paper were Word List. usage (2011, 90). Society of India and Ceylon. spurred by debates about Bible translations 3 Hooper, J. S. M. and Murray Culshaw For a discussion of parāparan and into Muslim languages. Some have sug- 1963 various theories related to the term see gested that an erroneous term for “father” or Bible Translation in India, Paki- stan and Ceylon. Second edition. Tiliander 1974, 127 and Israel 2011, 92ff. “son” could have devastating consequences, London: Oxford University Press. De Nobili had at times used parāparavastu but the story outlined in this paper suggests Israel, Hephzibah and was followed in this by Ziegenbalg; that linguistic diversity and flexibility are vastu indicates something that is real and 2011 Religious Traditions in Colonial the rule, and such a focus on a single term is South India: Language, Transla- substantial (see Amaladass and Clooney linguistically misguided. 2000, 223–4 and Jeyaraj 2006, 198–207). tion and the Making of Protestant 4 Identity. Palgrave Studies in In Tamil there is a neuter signifier References Cited Cultural and Intellectual History. with the Sanskrit root deva, and the word Amaladass, Anand and Francis X. Clooney New York: Palgrave Macmillan. is often used in the plural for many lesser 2000 Preaching Wisdom to the Wise: Jeyaraj, Daniel gods. For Protestants, the term was changed Three Treatises by Roberto de Nobili, 2006 Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg: The to masculine singular, a use only found S. J.; Missionary, Scholar and Saint Father of Modern Protestant Mis- among Tamil Christians. in 17th Century India. St. Louis: sion, an Indian Assessment. Delhi: 5 See below for further comment on The Institute of Jesuit Sources. Indian Society for Propagating this. Israel 2011 is a major study of Tamil Amaladass, Anand and Richard Fox Young Christian Knowledge and - Bible translation and gives detailed analysis 1995 The Indian Christiad: A Concise An- kul Lutheran Theological College on this point. thology of Didactic and Devotional and Research Institute, Chennai. 6 Carey’s translations were of poor Literature in Early Church Sanskrit. Moulton, Howard K. quality; I have analyzed this in a sister paper Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash. 1962 “The Names and Attributes of to this one, “Some Observations on William Boyd, Robin H. S. God.” The Bible Translator, vol. 13, Carey’s Bible Translations,” forthcoming 1975 An Introduction to Indian Chris- no. 2 (April 1962): 71–80. in the International Bulletin of Mission tian Theology. Madras: Christian Rai, Benjamin Research. For a broad statement supporting ———. 1992 “What is His Name: Translation this, see Hooper and Culshaw 1963, 20. 2014 Beyond Captivity: Explorations of Divine Names in Some Major North Indian Languages,” The 7 I believe it is an error that this list in Indian Christian History and Theology. Bangalore: Centre for Bible Translator, vol. 43, no. 4 indicates Gujarati using deva; see the Contemporary Christianity. (October 1992): 443–446. contradictory opinion in the list in the British and Foreign Bible Society Richter, Julius next paragraph. In a discussion with the 1965 The Gospel in Many Tongues: Spec- 1908 A History of Missions in India. Rev. Nicolas Parmar at the Bible Society of imens of 872 Languages in Which Tr. Sydney H. Moore. New York: India, Gujarat, at Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad the British and Foreign Bible Fleming H. Revell. on March 13, 2013, Rev. Parmar indicated Society has Published or Circulated Schmitthenner, Peter L. to me that deva was once in Gujarati Bibles Some Portion of the Bible. London: 2001 Telugu Resurgence: C. P. Brown but was subsequently replaced with ishwar. British and Foreign Bible Society. and Cultural Consolidation in 8 See my analytical review of this Chaudhuri, Nirad C. Nineteenth-Century South India. outstanding work at ijfm.org, IJFM 32:4 1996 Hinduism: A Religion to Live By. New Delhi: Manohar. (Winter 2015): 211. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tiliander, Bror 9. Technically, om is not a word but a Clark, Robert M. and Shantwant John 1974 Christian and Hindu Terminology: mystical or liturgical syllable. It can and has 1969 An English-Hindi Glossary of A Study in Their Mutual Relations been invested with meanings reaching liter- Theological Terms. Revised and with Special Reference to the Tamil ally from nothing to everything. edited by M. R. Robinson and Area. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 10 Benjamin Rai, “What is His Name: C. W. David. Bareilly: The Hindi Trautmann, Thomas R. Theological Literature Committee. Translation of Divine Names in Some 1997 Aryans and British India. Berke- ley: University of California Press. Major North Indian Languages,” The Bible Das, Sisirkumar Translator, vol. 43 no. 4 (1992): 443–446. 1966 Early Bengali Prose: Carey to ———. 11 Vidyasagar. Calcutta: Bookland 2006 Languages and Nations: The Dra- A new Hindi New Testament under Private Ltd. vidian Proof in Colonial Madras. translation is introducing both paramātma Grafe, Hugald New Delhi: Yoda Press. and bhagwān into the text along with other 1990 Tamilnadu in the Nineteenth and designators for God. Twentieth Centuries. History of

33:1 Spring 2016