Bible Paratexts and the Framing of an Ikwere National Identity

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343151310

Preprint · July 2020

CITATIONS READS 0 72

1 author:

Uchenna Oyali University of Abuja

26 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Uchenna Oyali on 04 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Bible Paratexts and the Framing of an Ikwere National Identity By Uchenna Oyali Department of English University of Abuja, Nigeria [email protected]

Introduction

This paper builds on the premise that, from a linguistic perspective, Ikwerre is a dialect of Igbo, a language spoken in the Southern part of Nigeria. However, the Ikwerre people do not accept the Igbo identity but rather prefer to be seen as a distinct people with a distinct language. Thus, despite the existence of eight Bible translations in Igbo, produced between 1860 and 2015, the Ikwerre people insist on having the Bible in Ikwerre. Consequently, two translations of the New Testament were published in Ikwerre in 2005 and 2010. The Old Testament of the 2005 version was published in 2017. Since Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo, this study considers the Ikwere translations as retranslations, or translations into a language of a text that has pre-existing translations in the same language. As such, the Ikwere translations stand in competition with the existing Igbo translations and the onus is on the agents involved in the new translations to make them appealing to the target Ikwere audience.

This study explores how paratexts are used to influence the perception of the Ikwere Bible translations. Paratext is defined by Batchelor (2018:142) as “a consciously crafted threshold for a text which has the potential to influence the way(s) in which the text is received.” In other words, paratexts are meant to introduce another text – the main text – and ultimately influence how it is received. These include prefaces, forewords, footnotes, and interviews.

Research Questions

The major question guiding this study is: How are paratexts used to frame the Bible translations into Ikwere? This question opens up further questions:

a. What topics are discussed in the paratexts? Here, the choice of topics discussed would be juxtaposed with the topics that are not mentioned but implied or are given scant attention. The assumption here is that the foregrounded topics are what the agents want the audience to be aware of while the backgrounded ones are avoided probably because of their potential to highlight aspects of the competing (earlier) translation(s) that may pitch them favourably against the new translation. b. How are these topics presented to give a positive impression of the given translations as against older translations? Focus here will be on the linguistic – content and style – features of the paratexts.

In providing answers to these questions, particular attention is given to the socio-historical contexts in which these retranslations were produced. Before the analysis proper, an overview of Bible translation into Igbo and how this enterprise contributed to the evolution of Standard Igbo as well as a pan-Igbo identity is presented. This is followed by a review of the argument whether Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo or a distinct language. The next section clarifies the concepts used in this study before the exploration of how they are employed in Ikwere Bible translation.

Bible Translation, Standard Igbo and the Pan-Igbo Identity

Bible translation into Igbo started in the mid-19th century with the arrival of Christian missionaries in Igboland in present-day Nigeria. To date, there are eight published translations of the Bible into Igbo.1 The first was a translation of portions of the New Testament in Isuama

1 Some Bible translations into Igbo were never published for political reasons (Oyali 2018). In effect, they are not included in the list of Igbo Bible translations presented below.

Igbo – Oku Omma nke Owu Matia: The Gospel according to St. Matthew (1860) and Ma Oru nke Apostoli: The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians (1866). These were followed by the first translation of the complete New Testament done in the Niger or Onitsha dialect of Igbo – Agba Ofu nke Dinwenu-Ayi na Onye-Nzoputa-Ayi Jesu Kristi n’Asusu Ibo (1900). Bible Nsọ: Union Version (1913) was the next translation, so called “Union” because it was translated into an amalgam Igbo dialect, with features drawn from five non-contiguous Igbo dialects. The second half of the 20th century saw the publication of five other translations – Baịbụlụ Nsọ (1988), published by the International Bible Society (IBS); Baịbụl Nsọ: Nhazi Katọlik (2000), by the Roman Catholic Church; Baibul Nsọ: Ndezighari Ọhụrụ (2007), published by the Bible League International; Baịbụl Nsọ: Nsughari Uwa Ohụrụ nke Akwụkwọ Nsọ (2007), by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; and Baịbụl Ofufe-Nro na Ọmụmụihe nke Rhapsody of Realities: Ogbụgbandụ Ọhụrụ, published by Christ Embassy Church, a Pentecostal church with headquarters in Nigeria. For ease of reference, I use the following terms for the different translations:2 Isuama Igbo Bible for the translations of portions of the New Testament into the Isuama dialect of Igbo (1860/66); Niger Igbo Bible for the first complete New Testament, done in the Onitsha or Niger dialect of Igbo (1900); Union Igbo Bible for Bible Nsọ: Union Version (1913) done in the Union Igbo dialect;3 Igbo Living Bible for Baịbụlụ Nsọ (1988), the source text of which was the Living Bible in English;4 Igbo Catholic Bible for

2 The translations done by the missionaries are identified by the dialects into which they were translated; as presented later in this article, Igbo had not evolved a literary standard when these translations were done. The translations by native Igbo agents were done when Igbo had evolved some literary standard and are thus identified by other yardsticks – their source texts, status as a revision of an earlier translation or the denomination that did the translation. 3 One is not clear about the source texts used for these translations by the missionaries. There is no evidence that John Christopher Taylor who translated the Isuama Igbo Bible had a good enough knowledge of Greek to have used it for the translations. The same goes for Henry Johnson, Isaac Mba, Thomas David Anyaegbunam and Julius Spencer who, at different stages, translated the Niger Igbo Bible, under the supervision of Henry Hughes Dobinson. Thomas John Dennis, who supervised the translation of the Union Igbo Bible, knew some Greek and Hebrew, but the actual translation was carried out by Igbo agents. These Igbo Christians, as far as can be told, had no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Thus, one could say that the main source text used by the missionaries in their translations was the King James Bible (c.f. Oyali 2018 for a detailed history of the different Bible translations into Igbo). 4 In an interview with Ogharaerumi, Jeremiah C. Okorie who spearheaded this translation stated that they used “a variety of sources” for the translation which included “English, Greek, Hebrew and indigenous texts” (1986:317). However, in a personal email exchange, Akibom Ofoegbu, an agent of the International Bible

Baịbụl Nsọ: Nhazi Katọlik (2000);5 Igbo Revised Edition for Baibul Nsọ: Ndezighari Ọhụrụ (2007), which is identified on its copyright page as Igbo Revised Edition and presented as a revision of the Union Igbo Bible of 1913; Igbo New World Translation for Baịbụl Nsọ: Nsughari Uwa Ohụrụ nke Akwụkwọ Nsọ (2007), whose source text is the English version of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; and Igbo Rhapsody Bible for Baịbụl Ofufe-Nro na Ọmụmụihe nke Rhapsody of Realities: Ogbụgbandụ Ọhụrụ (2015), translated from the English-based Rhapsody of Realities Devotional Bible.6 Some salient aspects of these translations – year of publication, dialects into which they were published, Bible sections published and the institutions that produced them are presented in Table 1.

Bible translation Year Dialect Bible sections Institutions translated Isuama Igbo Bible 1860/66 Isuama Igbo Portions of the Anglican New Testament Church Niger Igbo Bible 1900 Niger (Onitsha) Igbo New Testament Anglican Church Union Igbo Bible 1913 Union Igbo Old and New Anglican Testaments Church Igbo Living Bible 1988 Central. Igbo Old and New Living Bible Testaments International Igbo Catholic 2000 Standard Igbo Old and New Catholic Bible Testaments Church Igbo Revised 2007 Standard Igbo Old and New Bible Society Edition Testaments of Nigeria Igbo New World 2007 Standard Igbo Old and New Watch Tower Translation Testaments Bible and Tracts Society Igbo Rhapsody 2015 Standard Igbo New Testament Christ Embassy Bible Church

Society under the auspices of which the translation was done, states that the source text for the translation was the English version of the Living Bible. 5 In the Foreword to the Igbo Catholic Bible, Ifenatuora claimed that the translation was carried out from different source languages, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English (2000:vii). However, Ezeogu, who was also involved in the translation, submitted that the translation was done from English-based texts: “translation from the original languages had been ruled out from the outset, as this would make the project too time- consuming and too expensive” (2012:175). 6 This is actually the King James Bible interlaced with an introduction, several teachings and a concordance.

Table 1: Salient Aspects of Igbo Bible Translation

The third column in Table 1 shows the different dialects of Igbo into which the Bible translations were made. The Igbo language did not have a written standard, at least not in the Roman script, prior to the Igbo encounter with the Christian missionaries. Indeed, the Bible was one of the first texts to be written (translated) in Igbo and the missionaries’ studies of Igbo to enable them to do the translations constitute the pioneer efforts in Igbo language studies. As many of the early missionaries came from Freetown, Sierra Leone, they did the first translation into the Isuama dialect, which was the dialect spoken among freed slaves of Igbo origin in Freetown.

The foregoing may give the impression that the missionaries came to a place called Igboland, the inhabitants of which saw themselves as Igbo. However, this was not the case. Indeed, pre- colonial Igbo society was decentralized and politically fragmented. There was no central religious or political banner under which the people known as Igbo today rallied (c.f. Oyali 2014). According to Oguagha and Okpoko, “[t]he largest political unit is the village group (the town) which the Igbo call obodo, ala or mba. This is composed of a number of contiguous villages which believe that they are the collective descendants of a common ancestor” (1993:124). In other words, the people were not collectively known as, nor did they see themselves as, Igbo people. In an intelligence report written in 1931, M. D. W. Jeffreys observed that “none of the peoples described today as Igbo by the European will admit the term as descriptive of his race or language nor will he use it of himself” (quoted in Bersselaar1998:53).7 Based on an 1876 report by Samuel Crowther, Bersselaar adds that “[a]lthough the missionaries claimed that their first station, Onitsha, was situated in Igboland, and that its population was Igbo, the Onitsha people repeatedly told the missionaries that they were not Igbo at all” (1998:68).8 The earliest record of a community that identified as “Igbo”

7 NAE; CSE 1/85/4596A M. D. W. Jeffreys, Awka Division Anthropological Report 1931. 8 Samuel Crowther in the Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record (September 1876) 536; see also his letter in

was of ex-slaves in Sierra Leone in the first half of the 19th century (Bersselaar 1998:61). Yet this acceptance of an Igbo identity was not pervasive as some supposedly Igbo people denied that identity:

In Sierra Leone certain natives who have come from the Bight are called '-Ibos. In speaking to some of them respecting this name, I learned that they never had heard it till they came to Sierra Leone. In their own country they seem to have lost their general national name, like the Akus [Yoruba], and know only the names of their respective districts or countries. (Koelle 1854:7, quoted in Bersselaar 1998:62)

What all of this indicates is that pre-colonial Igbo society did not identify collectively as Igbo and that it was the missionaries and colonialists who ultimately succeeded in creating this unified identity. The driving force for this was the notion, prevalent in 19th century Europe, that a nation is determined by its language and the boundaries of a nation are determined by the areas where the language is spoken. Thus, when the missionaries started their activities in Africa, they

relied on this equation of language and nation as a tool with which to understand and organize the African continent. In their perception Africa consisted of tribes, and each tribe was thought to have its own language. By finding out who spoke the same language, the ethno-political map of Africa could be drawn. Those who shared the same language belonged to the same tribe. (Bersselaar 1997: 275)

This explains why the groups and individuals who denied the Igbo identity were ignored by the missionaries. In an 1872 letter, Crowther writes about the Osomari in present-day Anambra: “This people speak the Ibo language as Onitsha, so we have to do with the same people” (quoted in Bersselaar 1997:275).9

the Church Missionary Intelligencer (February 1873) 49. 9 Letter, Bishop Crowther (16 November 1872), in The Church Missionary Intelligencer (1873), p. 49.

So, it was the missionaries who “created” the Igbo nation in their attempt to bring together speakers of the different dialects of Igbo under one banner. This practice was reinforced by colonial officers and anthropologists. For instance, C. K. Meek, a colonial anthropologist, writes: “The Ibo are not strictly homogenous. They may be described as a ‘tribe’ because they speak a common language, occupy a common territory, and on the whole share a common culture and common outlook on life” (Meek 1937:1). Indeed, the early missionaries were given the directive to collect the names of the communities around them and “to ascertain as much as possible their relative positions to each other, as well as their distance” (Bersselaar 1998:67).

As expected, when the missionaries arrived and settled among the coastal people, they had no idea of the boundary of the area where Igbo was spoken. Their knowledge was so limited that, as recorded in Walker (1847), J. F. Schoen, one of the first missionaries that came during the 1841 Niger expedition, used the term “Igbo” specifically to refer to the people of Aboh, with expressions like “the creek leading to Ibo” (p. 474), “the King of Ibo” (pp 474-475), and “Ibo people” (p. 477). There was limited road access into the hinterlands and so they knew very little about the people known today as Igbo, a situation that improved overtime.

Meanwhile, although the missionaries did their earliest writings and translations into the Isuama dialect used in Freetown, they could not locate the area in the Igbo homeland where this dialect was spoken. They also observed that the Isuama dialect was markedly different from the dialects spoken on Igbo soil. Consequently, while they kept searching for the area where Isuama was spoken, they also decided to translate into the home dialects, which explains why the first complete New Testament of 1900 was done in the Niger or Onitsha dialect, Onitsha being the first site and headquarters of the missions in Igboland.

However, as Igbo has many dialects, some of which pose problems of mutual intelligibility, the missionaries decided to create a dialect of Igbo which, it was hoped, would be intelligible to all Igbo speakers irrespective of their dialect areas. This gave birth to Union Igbo, created from features of five non-contiguous dialects of Igbo. The Union Igbo Bible of 1913 was done in this dialect. It should be noted that the Igbo agents in the missions resisted this decision but were overruled by the European overlords. Attempts to test this dialect for intelligibility in different

dialect areas, including present-day Ikwereland, also showed that the people had difficulties comprehending the Union dialect.10 The Union Igbo project has also received a lot of biting criticism (Achebe 1979, 1999). Nevertheless, the Union Igbo Bible was imposed on the Igbo Christian faithful in all parts of Igboland. Indeed, it remained the only complete Bible translation into Igbo until the second half of the 20th century.

Subsequently, in 1939, the colonial government commissioned Ms Ida Ward to do a survey of the dialects of Igbo and suggest a possible natural dialect to be adopted as standard. At the end of her survey, Ward recommended that the dialect of the Old Owerri province, which she describes as “the central area of Ibo country” (Ward 1941:11), be adopted. This gave birth to the concept of Central Igbo, into which the Igbo Living Bible (1988) was translated. Nevertheless, Central Igbo was not accepted in some quarters. Emenanjo (1975), for example, argued that its identity was fuzzy as its proponents did not seem to know the actual location where it was spoken. Secondly, it did not have a pan-Igbo acceptance as it was used mainly by the Protestants and people from the old Owerri province. Emenanjo thus introduced what he initially called “Modern Igbo,” which later emerged as the accepted standard. Modern Igbo is the dialect that emerged in urban areas among Igbo speakers from different dialect regions. This is the dialect that was codified and elaborated as Standard Igbo. The Igbo Catholic Bible (2000), Igbo Revised Edition (2007), Igbo New World Translation (2007) and Igbo Rhapsody Bible (2015) were all translated into this dialect of Igbo.

In sum, although the early Christian missionaries may not have embarked on creating a collective identity for the different communities that speak what is today generally accepted as Igbo, their translation activities ultimately engendered the mapping of the place known as Igboland today. Expectedly, while many of the communities so grouped under this new structure have accepted the collective Igbo identity, others still resist the new identity (c.f. Oyali 2014). The Ikwere belong to the latter group.

10 c.f. Ogharaerumi 1986, Bersselaar 1997, Fulford 2002, and Oyali 2018 for a detailed history of the Union Igbo Bible project.

Ikwere: A Distinct Language or a Dialect of Igbo?

According to Williamson’s survey of studies of Ikwere (1993), early studies conducted during the colonial period categorized Ikwere as a dialect of Igbo (Thomas 1914, Forde & Jones 1950, Westermann & Bryan 1952). The first study that considered Ikwere as a distinct language was Clark’s (1971), which was based on a 100-word list of three languages of the Niger Delta gathered in 1966. These languages are Ekpeye, Ogba and Ikwere. Interestingly, although Clark’s Ikwere-speaking informants maintained that their lect had “a fairly high degree of mutual intelligibility with Igbo,” Clark yet wondered whether Ikwere could justifiably be considered a dialect of Igbo (cited in Williamson 1993:157). For her part, Williamson reports that in her study to establish whether Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo or not, she

compiled lists of 100 standard words, intended to reflect the basic vocabulary of any language, in the 17 lects (i.e. languages or dialects) included in my study, and calculated for each pair of lists the number (and thus the percentage) of words which appear to be cognate (i.e. to have a common origin). The argument is that the higher the percentage of cognates, the closer the relationship between the lects. I found that the agreed dialects of Igbo had higher percentages with each other than they had with Ikwere dialects; rather surprisingly, I also found that the agreed dialects of Ikwere also scored much lower with each other than did the dialects of Igbo with each other, suggesting that Ikwere was a less closely knit language than Igbo. It was also clear that there was a shading off rather than an absolute break between the two clusters of dialects, as, indeed, was the case with the other outlying lects. (1993:158)

For one, the identity of the persons who agreed that specific dialects are clearly of Igbo and others clearly of Ikwere is not clear. Yet Williamson is unambiguous in stating that the “agreed Igbo dialects” share some cognates with the “agreed Ikwere dialects.” She further submits that

“we are dealing with…a language cluster containing Igbo, Ikwere, Ogbah and other languages” (Ibid., 159). She explains the concept of language cluster thus:

In a language cluster we distinguish languages where there are weaknesses in the lines of communication without claiming that there is a total break in mutual intelligibility, that is, the ability of speakers from one group to understand speakers from another group. Within a language cluster the number of languages distinguished will normally depend upon those recognised by the speakers themselves and by official bodies.

Thus, Ikwere is recognised firstly because its speakers clearly do so, as evidenced by the activities of the Ikwere Language Committee, Ogbako Ikwere, and the Ikwere Development Association; and secondly because it is recognised by the Rivers State Government through the use in the media and in education, and by the National Language Centre (now the Language Development Centre) of the Federal Government, which has commissioned and published an official statement of the orthography. (Williamson 1993:159)

From Williamson’s definition of language cluster, one would observe a linguistic criterion and a socio-political one. Indeed, the linguistic criterion does not deny that the lects are varieties of the same language, but that the degree of intelligibility between them may be less. In other words, from a purely linguistic perspective, Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo. However, from a socio- political viewpoint, it is not since the Ikwere speakers choose not to recognize it as such and, overtime, have attracted some recognition by the Rivers State Government and the Federal Government.

It is significant to note that the studies that identify Ikwere as a distinct language were published after the creation of Rivers State in 1967 from the then Eastern region. The impact of state creation on the identity of members of the new state, especially members of minor ethnic and linguistic groups within the old regions, is enormous. In the words of Agheyisi ,

[f]or members of these groups, the new concept of ‘statism’ provided a basis for the development of new identities and loyalties over and above the more

constraining and generally negative status of ‘minority’ […] many of the languages previously neglected in the regions soon started to acquire new significance as they became recognized for use in new networks and for new functions. (1984:242)

For the Ikwere people who were grouped as part of the Igbo nation by the missionaries and colonial government, the fortune of being a majority group within the new Rivers State provided the impetus to reinforce the clamour for distinction from the Igbo. The impact of the creation of Rivers State in the allocation of language status to Ikwere and other lects of the state is demonstrated in Kari (2019:3), who presents the following as state languages, in alphabetical order: Abuan, Aḅureni (Mini), Baan-Ogoi, Ḅille, Defaka, Degema, Egbema, Echie, Ẹkpẹyẹ, Eleme, Ẹngẹnnị, Gokana, Ịḅanị, Ikwere, Kalaḅarị, Kana, Kịrịkẹ, Kụgbọ, Ndọkị, Ndọnị, Nkọrọọ, Obolo, Obulom, Oḍual, Ogbah, Ogbogolo, Ogbronụagum (Ḅukuma) and Tẹẹ. From this list, at least four – Abuani, Echie, Ikwere and Ndoni – are mutually intelligible with Igbo. The following is then presented as the yardstick for distinguishing a language from a dialect:

What I consider Rivers State languages in this paper are speech forms that are mutually unintelligible, such as Degema and Kalaḅarị, and those that have some degree of mutual intelligibility with other speech forms in other parts of the country but which by virtue of their being geographically located in Rivers State are deemed languages of the state. […] As noted earlier, the attitudes of speakers of a given speech form are sometimes factored into what is considered a language or dialect, especially from a sociolinguistic point of view. (Kari 2019: 7)

The key factors considered here are less linguistic and more socio-political – how a group sees itself being the overriding factor in this distinction. Which explains why lects that are related like Ikwere and Ndoni are classified as separate languages because the people see themselves as distinct. This socio-political consideration has prevailed in most of subsequent studies of Ikwere. As demonstrated in the present study, it is a key factor in the enterprise of Bible translation into Ikwere.

Paratexts as Tools for Framing: Conceptual Clarifications

Studies of the phenomenon of retranslation have demonstrated that there are subtle links between first translation and subsequent ones (Koskinen and Paloposki 2015). Retranslations may then be seen as reactions to the first translation, often motivated by the desire to correct perceived shortcomings of the first translation, or a reflection of changes in the socio-political climate of the target culture. Of course, there is the possibility of having passive retranslations, or retranslations that are “produced without any direct contact with or even knowledge of an existing earlier translation” (Ibid., 25-26). In the case of the Bible translations carried out into Ikwere, the agents involved are much aware of the existing translations in Igbo and have been using or made to use the same, which makes non-tenable the potential argument of their being passive. In other words, these Bible retranslations were made in reaction to the earlier ones, thereby making them ideological statements by the agents of the retranslations vis-à-vis the earlier translations.

One site where these ideological statements could be deciphered is the paratexts of the individual Bible translations. Although the concept of paratexts was first developed by Genette (1987/1997), his model has received a lot of critical attention and has been greatly revised and expanded, especially within the discipline of Translation Studies. For one, Genette’s focus is on literary texts and translations of these are seen as part of the paratexts of literary texts. However, as noted above, the current study adopts Batchelor’s definition of paratexts (2018:142), which calls for some clarifications. Firstly, unlike Genette’s model which sees translations as paratexts of literary works, Batchelor’s definition extends the concept of a text to include both original texts and translated texts. Its use in this study is for translated texts whereby the Bible translations are seen as texts in their own right and not in relation to some original texts. Secondly, the threshold for a text may be peritexts, texts published as part of the main text, such as prefaces, glossaries, etc., or epitexts, texts produced independent of the main text, such as reviews and interviews. Thus, it encompasses paratexts produced by the

agents involved in the creation of the text such as authors, translators, and publishers, as well as those produced by persons not involved in the text-production such as independent reviewers and academics. Focus in the current study is on paratexts that are produced by the agents involved in the Ikwere Bible translations. This restriction is implemented because the views of these agents would provide evidence of the motivation for the translations and their attitude towards existing translations of the same text in the language. This focus also reinforces the idea of paratexts as being consciously crafted as against a happenstance.

Another role of paratexts is that they provide information on the socio-historical climate of the temporal and spatial settings in which texts are produced. In the words of Ciotti & Lin, paratexts “are ‘settings’ for the textualisation both of historical events and, at times, of the intimate impulses and emotions of individual people” (2016:vii) The period in history when a (re)translation is done has a great influence on not only the need for the translation but also on the agents involved in the translation. Thus, it is pertinent to consider the role of history in the use of these Ikwere Biblical paratexts as sites for framing the Ikwere Bible translations.

Framing refers to the act of influencing how a given audience receives a given phenomenon. Kuypers stresses the fact that framing “induce[s] us to filter our perceptions of the world in particular ways, essentially making some aspects of our multidimensional reality more noticeable than other aspects […] making some information more salient than other information” (2009:181). The result is that certain aspects of the given phenomenon are foregrounded to the receiving audience and other aspects backgrounded. The audience is thus influenced to interpret the subject as framed by the agents.

According to Naude, the process of framing events

involves setting up structures of anticipation that guide others’ interpretation of events, usually as a direct challenge to dominant interpretations of the same events. This discursive work of framing events for a particular set of addressees is important because it undermines the dominant narrative. (2012:311)

In effect, framing presupposes the existence of a dominant interpretation of events which the new frame aims to subvert. In relation to the current study, the retranslations of the Bible into

Ikwere have to contend with the narrative already provided by the earlier translations into Igbo; and the paratexts of the Bible retranslations are thus framed to subvert this dominant image of the existing translations in order to create a better impression of the new translations.

It should be emphasized that paratextual analysis reveals “the mediating features of the paratexts and show[s] how translations are presented but not how they are” (Tahir-Gürçağlar 2011:115). This implies the possibility that some of the frames presented in the paratexts may not necessarily be validated by a textual analysis of the different Bible translations. Such findings do not invalidate the results from the paratextual studies; rather they authenticate the paratextual studies by reinforcing the ideological inclinations of the paratexts. What people do may not be what they claim they do. Their decision to present themselves in a given way that does not tally with how they actually behave, indicates how they want to be perceived by their audience. The current study focuses on that perception of the Ikwere Bible which the agents of the translations want the audience to have, through their framing in the paratexts, and not so much on the actual features of the Biblical text itself.

Bible Translation into Ikwere

The history of Bible translation into Ikwere can be traced to a chance meeting in 1994 between Tony Enyia, an Ikwere nationalist and trained development economist working at the time with the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, and Elechi Amadi, a scholar, writer and the former President of Ogbako Ikwere, the pan-Ikwere cultural organization.11 On an official visit to Amadi’s office, Enyia saw the Ikwere translation of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer on the bookshelf and was excited because, according to Enyia, “in the church I was attending, I was made to buy the Igbo Bible and I didn’t like it because the Pope, in Vatican II, after the war,

11 Tony Enyia was the founder of the Ikwere Christian Literature Trust under the auspices of which one of the Bible translations into Ikwere had been carried out. This version of the history of the Ikwere Bible translation was obtained in the frame of a personal interview with Enyia, conducted by Oyali on May 14, 2019.

had said that every community should speak its own language in the church.” Enyia inquired further about this text and

was told that he [Amadi], Dr. Obi Wali, Revd Green Enyinda and some other names he mentioned were responsible for packaging that [the Ikwere translation of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer] but something was missing, and that is the Psalms. The Anglican Prayer Book has the Book of Psalms as the only Bible book in the Prayer book. So, they wanted to do that [translation of the Psalms] for completeness. (Personal interview)

The point here is that the Ikwere translation of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer did not include the Book of Psalms, as is the case with the English version of the Book. Consequently, Amadi wanted the Book of Psalms to be translated into Ikwere in order to have a complete Anglican Book of Common Prayers in Ikwere. On hearing this, Enyia protested and insisted that the complete Bible be translated into Ikwere instead of just the Book of Psalms. This birthed the collaboration between Enyia and the Ikwere Language Committee of the Ogbako Ikwere to start work on having the Bible translated into Ikwere. Incidentally, events took a downturn some years later and Enyia severed relations with the Ogbako Ikwere and then embarked on a separate translation of the Bible into Ikwere under the auspices of the Ikwere Christian Literature Trust (ICLT), which he founded and heads. Enyia and his team produced their translation of the New Testament in 2005, entitled Baịbulu Nfọ N’Ọnu Iwhnurọhna (Ọgbanjehni Ikne): Holy Bible in Ikwerre Language (New Testament) and the complete version of the Old and New Testament in 2017, entitled Baịbulu Ọnu Iwhnurọhna: Ọgbanjehni Ọknani nụ Ọgbanjehni Ikne. The Ogbako Ikwere published its New Testament version in 2010, entitled Tesitamenti Ikne n’Onu Ikwerre.12 The complete translation of both testaments is still in progress.

Considering that Enyia and his team were in conflict with Amadi and his team, this account of the history of the Ikwere Bible should call for some caution. For one, it is possible that Enyia presented a narrative that fronts him as the driving force behind the idea of an Ikwere Bible in

12 This translation is also published online, here: https://ebible.org/ikwNT/copyright.htm

order to amplify his efforts as against those of the Ogbako Ikwere. After all, having translated the Book of Common Prayer into Ikwere, it is difficult to imagine that the pan-Ikwere cultural organization did not consider having the Bible translated into Ikwere, even if this was kept as a future project. Whatever the case may be, this study does not delve into the politics and rivalry between both groups.

That notwithstanding, the bulk of the analysis that follows is based on the translation carried out by the Ikwere Christian Bible Trust, for two main reasons: 1) it is a complete version of the Old and New Testament; and, very importantly, 2) unlike the Ogbako Ikwere version, which has only a very short introduction that contains very little background information on the translation, this translation, both the New Testament and the complete version, contains a lot of paratextual data which help in reconstructing the perceptions that the agents want the audience to have of the translation. For instance, the New Testament of this translation contains 1) a dedication page, signed by Tony Enyia, where the Bible translation is dedicated to Prof. Kay Williamson. The page extols Williamson’s pioneering studies of Ikwere and her definition of what constitutes Standard Ikwere; 2) a “validated history” of the Ikwere nation, which suggests that there are histories of the Ikwere nation that may be seen as unreliable; 3) a preface which presents Ikwere as a distinct language and also highlights some features of the Ikwere language and its writing system. This too is signed by Enyia. The complete translation (2017), for its part, has 1) a Foreword, signed by Enyia, highlighting some political motivations for the translation as well as linguistic features that supposedly distinguish Ikwere from Igbo; 2) a history of the Ikwere; 3) a glossary of Ikwere words used in the Bible translation; and 4) Ikwere numerals. The glossary and numerals appear after the text of the Book of Revelations. From these paratextual data, the impression the agents involved in the translation of the Ikwere Bible want the target audience, invariably the Ikwere people, to have of the Ikwere Bible translation could be summarized as a) that the Bible in Ikwere would engender the rise of a politically and economically viable Ikwere nation; b) that Ikwere is a language distinct from Igbo; and c) that the Ikwere Bible could function as a reference book for Standard Ikwere.

Towards a Viable Ikwere Nation

The Foreword to the complete Ikwere Bible translation (2017) starts with the following words:

We thank the Almighty God for making the dream of producing the Bible in Ikwere Language a reality. Started in 1994, the efforts to birth the Ikwere Language Bible (Baibulu Onu Iwhnurohna) has succeeded against all odds, persecutions, blackmails, and direct vicious oppositions. But like a light shining in darkness which cannot be comprehended, the first ever Ikwere New Testament Bible (Ogbanjehni Ikne) was published in 2005. This marked a new dawn for Iwhnurohna history, hoping to be like other nations that embraced the Word of God. (Enyia 2017:iii)

The odds, persecutions, blackmails and oppositions refer to the rivalry between the Ogbako Ikwere and the Enyia-led Ikwere Christian Literature Trust.13 The last sentence in the excerpt, however, emphasizes the goal the Bible translation is hoped to achieve for the Ikwere people – to mark a turning point in Ikwere history just as other nations that have had the Bible translated into their languages have experienced. No doubt, Bible translation has had tremendous impact on many languages and cultures. What is striking in the Ikwere example is the focus on power and dominance. For in expatiating on the features of the nations that embraced the Word of God, Enyia cites three “nations” – Great Britain, Yorubaland and Igboland – said to have dominated other territories as a result of having the Bible translated into their native languages:

Britain became, by the grace of God, Great Britain ruling France and Ireland and Defender of the Faith effectually from 1611 when King James published the Authorized Version (KJV) of the Bible, which was put in the hands of the colonial

13 Enyia made a lot of allusions to this conflict in his interview with me. It is also the thrust of his 2011 publication entitled Answer to Ogbakor Ikwere Blackmails.

adventurers and missionaries that conquered 87 countries by building schools and churches alongside the imperial government, and empirically declared that: “The sun never sets in the British Empire”.

The Yoruba race began its unassailable dominance of Nigeria in all spheres of life; social, economic, political and religious, etc when God started speaking Yoruba in 1886 from the Yoruba Language Bible (Bibeli Yoruba) translated and published by Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther, 131 years ago, (sic) The popularity of Bibeli Yoruba among Yoruba elite and the generality of the people remains legendary. Similarly, the Igbo nation ruled all tribes in the east of the Niger and the Niger Delta from when the Union Igbo Bible Nso was published in 1906. Like the British, the Igbo nation dominated the language, culture, polity and commerce of the South-East and South-South [regions] with imperial authority before the Civil War by trying to make Igbo the lingua franca. And the legacy of the imposition of Igbo as the vernacular of the communities in the Niger Delta is still there till today.

This is why the Ikwere Christian Literature Trust (ICLT) spared no resources to see that Iwhnurohna joins the rest of the world where God speaks the language of the people through the Bible translated in their mother tongue. (Enyia 2017:iii)

Several observations could be made from this passage. Firstly, the Yoruba and Igbo Bible translations mentioned were apparently the first complete translations of the Bible into these languages, albeit with some error in dating. The translation of (portions of) the Bible into Yoruba started in 1850 and the Old and New Testaments were completed in 1884, not 1886 as presented by Enyia. However, they were not published in one single volume but existed as separate texts until 1900, when both testaments were combined and published as one book (Hargreaves 1965, Kolawole 2013). For the Igbo, the first published translation of (portions of) the Bible was in 1860 and the first complete translation of the entire Bible was the Union Igbo Bible of 1913 (Oyali 2018), and not 1906 as claimed by Enyia. However, it was in 1906 that the

decision was made to have a Union Igbo Bible and the New Testament of this version was published in 1908. Furthermore, Crowther did not singlehandedly translate and publish the Yoruba Bible as suggested by Enyia. Crowther’s efforts were complemented by those of other Yoruba church leaders who include Thomas King, James White, William Morgan, Samuel Pearce, D. 0. Williams, T. B. Macaulay, and Nathaniel Johnson, as well as some European (German) agents such as J. F. Schoen, C. A. Gollmer, D. Hinderer and A. Mann (Hargreaves 1965).

Secondly, while the Igbo and Yoruba translations were the first complete translations in these languages, the King James Bible (KJV) was not the first English version of the Bible. Prior to the publication of the KJV in 1611, the following Bible translations were carried out into English: the Wycliffite Bible (1382; 1388), Tyndale New Testament (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535), Mathew’s Bible (1537), Taverner’s Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), Edmund Becke’s Bibles (1549; 1551), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops’ Bible (1568) and the Rheims-Douay Bible (1582- 1610) (c.f. Metzger 2001; Gabel and Wheeler 1986). The implication of this is that the fact of having the Bible in one’s language per se does not empower the speakers of the language to politically dominate other nations; if it were so, the older translations into English would have been credited with that and not the KJV, a late-comer in the enterprise of Bible translation into English, on which Enyia builds his argument. Indeed, other factors would need to be considered for the dominance or expansion of the British Empire and the possible role of the KJV in the phenomenon.

Thirdly, the Yoruba and Igbo Bible translations referred to were both carried out under the auspices of the Church Missionary Society (CMS), a society of the Anglican Church, which at the time was headed by Bishop Crowther. Crowther was somewhat involved in Bible translation activities in both languages. It is then curious how the Yoruba translation ensured “the unassailable dominance of Nigeria” by the Yoruba while the Igbo translation made the Igbo dominate the South-East and South-South parts of Nigeria, as claimed by Enyia. Again, this indicates that the so-called domination, if it ever happened, could be traced to some other factors and not the fact of Bible translation in these languages per se.

Fourthly, the argument for the Yoruba domination of Nigeria and Igbo domination of the South- East and South-South of Nigeria may be seen as sensational and an exaggeration of history in order to score an ideological point. What the translation of the Bible into these languages engendered was more a delineation of linguistic and ethnic or national boundaries, a promotion of a pan-Yoruba and -Igbo identity and a contribution towards the evolution of a standard variety of these languages. Prior to their encounter with Christian missionaries and the colonists, there was hardly any pan-Yoruba or pan-Igbo ethnic consciousness. For instance, according to Ajayi,

when Crowther started translating the Bible into Yoruba, the Yoruba people did not exist as a cultural unit. There were several sub-groups and dialects-Oyo, Egba, Egbado, Ijebu, Ife, Ijesa, Ekiti, Owo, Ondo, and others... It was in the process of translating the Bible into Crowther's Oyo dialect, which he and his colleagues standardised into a written form of the language, that Yoruba nationalism or ethnicity was born. (1999:1-2)

The view that a pan-Yoruba consciousness was born in the 20th century is shared by several other Yoruba scholars (Ogunbiyi 2003, Balogun 2019). As presented above, the Igbo also had a similar history – there was no collective Igbo identity and the Bible translation activities of the early missionaries engendered the unification of the different communities under one collective Igbo ethnicity. Ikwere is one of such Igbo-speaking communities that were brought under the single banner of Igbo ethnicity, and the Ikwere people resist the new identity to this day.

However, put in perspective, Enyia’s statement suggests that, just like the Yoruba and Igbo, Bible translation into Ikwere would reinforce the already existing collective Ikwere consciousness.14 In doing so, it aims to unify the different sub-dialect groups of Ikwere and it is hoped that, in some future period, the unity so engendered would result in an Ikwere nation that is politically and economically strong. This would also ensure that the Ikwere distinguish

14 C.f. Ihemere 2007:21-32 for a review of Ikwere traditions of origin and the fact of the existence of a collective Ikwere cultural consciousness.

themselves as a nation and not an appendage to Igbo. It is not a happenstance that Enyia puts some emphasis on the Union Igbo Bible by giving it a bold font in the excerpt above. The conception and execution of the Union Igbo Bible project indeed marked the beginning of the recognition of Ikwere as a sub-Igbo nation and their lect as a dialect of Igbo. Enyia’s statement above may then be seen as a call for Ikwere people to take pride in their Ikwere nationality and work towards possibly dominating other neighbouring languages and people via the empowerment promised by having the Bible in the Ikwere language.

The Ikwere Language Is Distinct from the Igbo Language

The comments made in the Bible paratexts that distinguish Ikwere from Igbo could be summarized as 1) an attempt to prove how distinct Ikwere is from Igbo, and 2) an argument that the Igbo terms or cognates that are found in Ikwere are an adulteration of the Ikwere language.

Proof that Ikwere is distinct from Igbo

Still from the Foreword to the 2017 complete Ikwere Bible, Enyia states that

we have used the Ikwere Language orthography (alphabet) as approved by the National Language Centre, Federal Ministry of Education, Lagos in 1987. The alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. They are arranged in a fixed order and used when writing a language. The Ikwere alphabetical system comprises 37 symbols or letters written in the Roman symbols which are used in Anglophone countries. They are:

a b ch d e ẹ f g gb gh gw h i ị j k kp kw l m n nw ny ń o ọ p r s t u ụ v w wh y z [Table 2: The Ikwere Alphabet] (2017:iii-v)

Although there is no mention of Igbo in this presentation of the Ikwere orthography, it is evident that the writer is covertly reacting to the Igbo alphabet, which has been taught and used among the Ikwere since the mid-20th century. For one, the emphasis on the Ikwere alphabet having 37 letters is to distinguish it from the Igbo alphabet which has 36. Putting the statement in bold font may be seen as an attempt to subvert the dominant image of 36 letters. And the statement that the letters are in the Roman script “used in Anglophone countries” places Ikwere on the same level as these recognized countries. In other words, Ikwere qualifies to be recognized as a country in its own right, and not as an appendage to Igbo. Reiterating the date this orthography was approved also gives it legitimacy as an old document.

What Enyia also does not say is that the Ikwere orthography is a revision of the Standard Igbo orthography, domesticated to include certain phonological features which might be distinctive in Ikwere but not in Igbo. At best, in Igbo they would be seen as allophones of other Igbo phonemes. Table 2 presents the letters of the Igbo alphabet.

a b ch d e f g gb gh gw h i ị j k kp kw l m n ṅ nw ny o ọ p r s sh t u ụ v w y z Table 3: The Igbo Alphabet

Both the Igbo and Ikwere alphabets are phonemic, which means that each grapheme should represent a distinct phoneme in the language. The difference between them is that the Ikwere alphabet drops the grapheme sh which represents the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative, and adds two graphemes ẹ and wh which represent allophones of /e/ and /w/. Interestingly, the grapheme ṅ representing the velar nasal in Igbo is dropped in the Ikwere orthography. However, the grapheme ń is placed between ny and o in the Ikwere alphabet. It is not clear why the position of this grapheme is moved and what sound it represents in the Ikwere. Indeed, there is no evidence that this grapheme is used in the Ikwere Bible. All of this notwithstanding, the Ikwere alphabet is also aimed at subverting the image of the dominant Igbo alphabet.

Enyia further presents vowel harmony and nasalization as distinct features of Ikwere. Vowel harmony is the phonetic influence of one vowel on another. For instance, Igbo has eight vowels which are grouped into an A-set comprising a, ị, ọ, ụ and an E-set made up of e, i, o, u. According to Ubahakwe , “[a]s a general rule, when vowels combine with consonants to form syllables in a word, the vowels of the A-set harmonize, that is to say, they go together just as the E-set also go together” (2002:254). For example, in ọrụ (work) and olu (voice), it is seen that the vowel sounds in each word belong to the same set. Ubahakwe thus asserts that vowel harmony is “a very important spelling principle in Igbo language” (Ibid.). In effect, this phonological feature does not distinguish Ikwere from Igbo.

On nasalization, Enyia submits that it “is a very typical feature of the Ikwere language and its presence or absence makes a difference to the meaning of words in the language. More importantly, it distinguishes Ikwere language from Igbo language” (2017:iv). Interestingly, although Standard Igbo may not have nasal sounds, some Igbo dialects do and in some of these dialects nasalization is a distinctive feature.15 Therefore, in effect, Enyia’s bold declaration that nasalization distinguishes Ikwere from Igbo, emphasized by the bold font, may not be the case.

It is worth reiterating that Ikwere is not the only dialect of Igbo with features that are not captured in Standard Igbo orthography. Indeed, speakers of some dialects with features that are not captured in the Standard Igbo orthography have been agitating for a review of Standard Igbo orthography and inclusion of these features in the revised orthography.16 This goes to show that Standard Igbo, a by-product of the Union Igbo experiment, does not capture the features of all Igbo dialects, yet it is the favored dialect used in official written communication in Igbo. What is more, the fact that Ikwere has certain features not accommodated in Standard Igbo does not prove that it is a distinct language.

15Uguru (2015:213) submits that the Ika dialect of Igbo features nine nasal vowels. Emenanjo (2015:96) also demonstrates that nasalization is a feature of the Ngwa dialect of Igbo. Furthermore, Emenanjo (2015:97) cites other studies of nasalization in Igbo dialects, viz Nwachukwu (1976) on the Ezinaihite Mbaise dialect and Carnochan (1948) on Lorji, another Mbaise dialect. 16 C.f. Ohiri-Aniche 2007, Uzochukwu 2010.

Just like the Ikwere orthography, the Ikwere numerals presented in the Ikwere Bible also show clear similarities with the Igbo numerals. To demonstrate this, Table 3 juxtaposes numbers 1 to 10 in Ikwere and Standard Igbo. The Ikwere numerals are taken from the Ikwere Bible (2017) while the Igbo numerals are taken from Ahamefuna (2013).

Numerals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ikwere otu (nnịm) ẹbo ẹto ẹno ịsne ịsnumu ẹsawu ẹsatọ tolu nri Igbo otu abụọ atọ anọ ise isii asaa asatọ itoolu iri Table 4: Ikwere and Igbo Numerals

The similarities between both numerals are glaring. The only difference seen is phonological; otherwise the terms are the same.

Similarly, the glossary contains words which have clear cognates in Igbo and some of which are distinct. The major differences in some of these terms are grapho-phonological. In other words, the Ikwere audience is encouraged to use the distinctly Ikwere terms where such exist and the Ikwere pronunciation where there are cognates. This way, the Igbo influence would be minimized and, perhaps overtime, become insignificant thereby giving Standard Ikwere a distinct outlook. In other words, what the Ikwere Bible translators are doing may then be seen as a conscious ideological move to give the Bible translation’s audience an impression of being distinct, albeit with non-factual data.

Resisting the Influence of Igbo

Beyond reinforcing the agitation for Ikwere to be seen as a distinct language, the Ikwere Bible translation project also aims at purging the Ikwere language of the supposed overbearing influence of Igbo. This is seen in the definition of Standard Ikwere attributed to Williamson (1998), which has two parameters: 1) form most widely used and understood; and 2) form which is distinctive for Ikwere as opposed to Igbo (Enyia 2005:ii, 2017:iii). Enyia further attributes the following statement to Kay Williamson:

There has been a tendency, in suggesting standard forms [of Ikwere], to give more weight to the Southern dialects [than the Northern dialects]. One reason for this is that in a number of respects they appear to be more conservative (i.e. closer to the original forms). A second reason is that it is assumed that the Southern dialects, and particularly Ọbio, will exert a constant influence on people who come from other areas to live or work in the Port Harcourt area. (2017:iii)

In my interview with Enyia, he threw more light on these parameters for identifying the Standard Ikwere dialect, which ultimately suggests a choice of forms that look as distant from Igbo as possible. Commenting on the Williamson’s paper mentioned above, which was presented at a seminar on Ikwere literacy and Bible translation, Enyia states that Williamson

showed us that Ikwere has been divided into North and South, and that North is far more adulterated with Igbo language than the South; that the South also has some Igbo content but they have the proto-Ikwere language words more. Secondly, that we should use the dialect spoken in Port Harcourt because every Ikwere man must come to Port Harcourt in his lifetime.

In other words, the idea that Southern Ikwere dialects are conservative, as mentioned above, simply means that they are geographically more distant from Igboland and thus exhibit less shared cognates with Igbo. Secondly, the dialect of Ọbio in Port Harcourt is favoured because, in addition to being in the Southern Ikwere region, Port Harcourt is a cosmopolitan city that attracts Ikwere speakers irrespective of their dialect regions. Enyia went further in the interview to clarify what Williamson means by “form which is distinctive for Ikwere as opposed to Igbo” in these words: “take out all Igbo words as much as you possibly can. What you cannot replace you can leave it there. In any case, Ikwere is regarded in Linguistics as Igboid, meaning it is related to Igbo”. The point here is that this move to purge the Ikwere dialect of the Ikwere Bible of forms that have clear cognates in Igbo is an ideal, a goal that may not be achieved considering that Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo from a linguistic perspective. However, the shared

cognates that could not be done away with should be endured and explained as an outcome of the status of Ikwere as an Igboid language.

This ideological move has its shortcomings, one of which is that it suggests that Ikwere people from the Northern axis are not pure Ikwere considering that their dialects reflect a closer affinity with Igbo. In another interview, with the linguist Annette Weje, I learnt that she and her colleague Roseline Alerechi were contacted to carry out the Ikwere Bible translation by Enyia at Williamson’s request. Weje is from Igwuruta while Alerechi is from Omuegwna, both categorized as Northern Ikwere and thus their dialects are seen as adulterated forms of Ikwere.17 The Bible translation project thus became extra onerous for both linguists. In Weje’s words, “it was difficult because we’re trying to speak a language that didn’t exist, that didn’t have speakers.” Weje also clarifies that in instances where the favoured dialect uses same terms for concepts as does Igbo, they were asked to forgo the use of that term and scout for terms from another dialect that are different from the Igbo terms. In fact, Alerechi was said to have withdrawn from the Ikwere Bible translation project and Weje herself could not do much on the project partly because of this choice of dialect.

Charting the Future of the Ikwere Language

The point made by Weje reveals that the Ikwere dialect used in the Ikwere Bible is different from the living Ikwere dialects. It is a new dialect invariably aimed at influencing the future of the Ikwere language. Enyia and his team have been making concerted efforts to have this Bible translation approved for use by the Ikwere. When this is achieved, the Ikwere Christian faithful would be regularly exposed to the dialect of the Ikwere Bible, considering that the major religion of the Ikwere is Christianity. By using this translation, the Ikwere would get to know the dialectal words used in place of the already pervasive Igbo words. Overtime, these dialectal

17 C.f. Enyia 2017:iii.

terms would likely be given centre stage and emerge as the Standard Ikwere terms for the concepts involved.

The glossary, which contains about 1000 Ikwere words with their equivalents in English, has given these words prominence. It would act as a mini dictionary for the Ikwere language. What is more, the English equivalents provided would give the Ikwere terms standard meanings which would compete with the Igbo ones. Overtime, the words with their distinct Ikwere pronunciation and spelling conventions may replace the overtly Igbo terms, pronunciation and spelling.

Concluding Remarks

This study has demonstrated that the people known today as Igbo people did not have that collective consciousness prior to their encounter with the Christian missionaries and colonialists. It was the missionaries and colonialists who created the collective Igbo identity and foisted the same on these people, and, over time, it became accepted by the majority. However, the Ikwere and a few other communities reject this new collective identity, which is why the Ikwere embarked on the Ikwere Bible translation project to reinforce their rejection of the Igbo identity and affirm their distinctiveness.

From the analysis above, the agents involved in the translation of the Ikwere Bible were not only aware of the existence of the Igbo translations but also poised to resist the imposition of the Igbo Bible on them. Enyia, the major champion of the translation carried out by the Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, pointedly declared that he “was made to buy the Igbo Bible and [I] didn’t like it”. Thus, he resolved to oversee the translation of the Bible into Ikwere. His dislike and resistance of the Union Igbo Bible is reflected in the paratexts of the Ikwere translations, most – if not all – of which were written by him. And in actualizing the translation, he and his team went extra mile to ensure that the Igbo cognates are reduced to the barest minimum. In his words, “the Ikwereness of the Ikwere people was being lost and they needed to discover

themselves” (personal interview). In effect, the Ikwere Bible translation was not just an effort to have the word of God in the Ikwere language, but also an ideological move, the Ikwere Bible thus becoming an index of Ikwere national identity.

Several observations have been made in this study which were not further explored here as they fall outside the scope of the current article. One is the rivalry between the Ogbako Ikwere and the Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, which has resulted in two separate Bible translation projects. It is necessary to further explore the nature of this conflict and how it has resulted in two translation products. This is particularly significant considering that both parties worked together at some point, which raises another question: How similar are the two New Testament versions?

Furthermore, expanding the functions of a language by using it in a new domain usually has the challenge of a dearth of terms in the language for concepts in the new domain. Thus, translating the Bible into a language for the first time always has the challenge of creating new terms in the language for Christian concepts used in the Bible.18 The Ikwere case is rather complex as the Ikwere have been introduced to the Bible through the vehicle of the Igbo language. With this use of the Bible ideologically to front an Ikwere national identity, how did the Ikwere Bible translators deal with the distinctly Christian concepts? Did they create new terms for these, or did they adopt the terms created and spread via the translations in Igbo?

Lastly, what people do and what they claim they do are not always the same. The present study has focused mainly on the paratexts of the Ikwere Bible, which means that it is an investigation of the impression the agents of the translations want the audience to have of the translation product. Although there are attempts at validating some of the claims in the paratexts, there is need for a more in-depth investigation of the translation products in comparison with the claims made in the paratexts. Further exploring these would enrich the discourse on Bible translation into Ikwere in particular and, indeed, Igbo language in general.

18 C.f. Oyali 2018 for an investigation of this phenomenon in Igbo.

References

Achebe, Chinua. Echi Di Ime: Taa Bu Gboo. Owerri: Achidayọsis Katọlik Nke Owerri, 1999. Print.

Achebe, Chinua. "The Bane of Union: An Appraisal of the Consequences of Union Igbo for Igbo Language and Literature." Añụ Magazine 1979: 33-41. Print.

Agheyisi, R. N. "Minor Languages in the Nigerian Context: Prospects and Problems." Word 35.3 (1984): 235-53. Print.

Ahamefuna, Ndubuisi Ogbonna. "Igbo Numerals, Measurement System and Pedagogy." The Numeral Systems of Nigerian Languages. Ed. Ozo-mekuri Ndimele and Eugene S. L. Chan. Port Harcourt: M and J Grand Orbit Communications, 2013. 141-47. Print.

Ajayi, Jacob F. Ade. "Crowther and Language in the Yoruba Mission." Henry Martyn Lectures. University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 25-25 Oct. 1999. Lecture.

Balogun, Adeyemi. Being a "Good Muslim": The Muslim Students' Society of Nigeria (MSSN), Islamic Reform and Religious Change in Yorubaland, 1954 - 2014. Thesis. Bayreuth: BIGSAS, University of Bayreuth, 2019. Print.

Batchelor, Kathryn. Translation and Paratexts. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group., 2018. Print.

Bersselaar, Dmitri Van Den. "Creating ‘Union Ibo’: Missionaries and the Igbo Language." Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 67.2 (1997): 273-95. Print.

Bersselaar, Dmitri Van Den. In Search of Igbo Identity: Language, Culture and Politics in Nigeria, 1900-1966. Leiden: Universiteitsdrukkerij Universiteit Leiden, 1998. Print.

Baịbulu Nfọ N’Ọnu Iwhnurọhna (Ọgbanjehni Ikne): Holy Bible in Ikwerre Language (New Testament). Port Harcourt: Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, 2005. Print.

Baịbulu Ọnu Iwhnurọhna: Ọgbanjehni Ọknani nụ Ọgbanjehni Ikne. Port Harcourt: Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, 2017. Print.

Carnochan, J. "A Study in the Phonology of an Igbo Speaker." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12.2 (1948): 417-26. Print.

Ciotti, Giovanni, and Hang Lin. "Preface." Tracing Manuscripts in Time and Space through Paratexts. Ed. Giovanni Ciotti and Hang Lin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Vii-Xii. Print.

Clark, D. J. "Three 'Kwa2 Languages of Eastern Nigeria." Journal of West African Languages 8.1 (1971): 27-36. Print.

Emenanjo, E. Nolue. A Grammar of Contemporary Igbo: Constituents, Features and Processes. Part Harcourt: M and J Grand Orbit Communications, 2015. Print.

Emenanjo, E. Nolue. "Central Igbo: An Objective Appraisal." Igbo Language and Culture. Ed. Frederick Chidozie. Ogbalu and E. Nolue. Emenanjo. Ibadan: Oxford UP, 1975. 114-37. Print.

Enyia, Tony. Answer to Ogbakor Ikwere Blackmails. Port Harcourt: Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, 2011. Print.

Enyia, Tony. "Dedication." Baịbulu Nfọ N’Ọnu Iwhnurọhna (Ọgbanjehni Ikne): Holy Bible in Ikwerre Language (New Testament). Port Harcourt: Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, 2005. Ii-Iii. Print.

Enyia, Tony. "Foreword." Baịbulu Ọnu Iwhnurọhna: Ọgbanjehni Ọknani Nu Ọgbanjehni Ikne. Port Harcourt: Ikwere Christian Literature Trust, 2017. Iii-Iv. Print.

Enyia, Tony. "On Bible Translation into Ikwere." Personal interview. 14 May 2019.

Ezeogu, E. M. The politics of Bible translation in Africa: The case of the Igbo Catholic Bible. Postcolonial perspectives in African biblical interpretations. Eds M. W. Dube, A. M. Mbuvi, & D. Mbuwayesango. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. 171-183). Print.

Forde, Daryll, and G. I. Jones. The Ibo and Ibibio-speaking Peoples of South-eastern Nigeria. London: International African Institute, 1950. Print.

Fulford, Ben. "An Igbo Esperanto: A History Of The Union Ibo Bible 1900-1950." Journal of Religion in Africa 32.4 (2002): 457-501. Print.

Gabel, John B., and Charles B. Wheeler. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. New York: Oxford UP, 1986. Print.

Genette, Gérard.Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.

Genette, Gérard.Seuils . Paris: Editions Du Seuil, 1987. Print.

Hargreaves, John. "The Story of the Yoruba Bible." The Bible Translator 16.1 (1965): 39-44. Print.

Ifenatuora, C. A. Baịbụl: Akwụkwọ Chineke na mmadụ dere dịka ndị Katọlịk sịrị hụ ya. Baịbụl Nsọ: Nhazi Katọlịk. Ibadan: St. Paul Publications, 2000. vi-vii. Print.

Ihemere, Kelechukwu U. A Tri-generational Study of Language Choice and Shift in Port Harcourt. Boca Raton: U, 2007. Print.

Kari, Ethelbert Emmanuel. "The Languages of Rivers State of Nigeria: An Overview." Marang: Journal of Language and Literature 31 (2019): 1-22. Print.

Kolawole, Samuel Oladipo. "Functionalist Theories and Their Relevance to Yoruba Bible Translation." Time Journals of Arts and Educational Research 1.3 (2013): 13-20. Print.

Koskinen, Kaisa, and Outi Paloposki. "Anxieties of Influence: The Voice of the First Translator in Retranslation." Target. International Journal of Translation Studies Target Voice in Retranslation 27.1 (2015): 25-39. Print.

Kölle, Sigismund Wilhelm. Polyglotta Africana; or a Comparative Vocabulary of Nearly Three Hundred Words and Phrases in More than One Hundred Distinct African Languages. Graz: Akad. Druck- Und Verlagsanstalt, 1854/1965. Print.

Kuypers, Jim A. "Framing Analysis." Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Plymouth, UK: Lexington, 2009. 181-204. Print.

Meek, C. K. Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe: A Study in Indirect Rule. London: Oxford UP, 1937. Print.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.

Naude, Jacobus A. "Metatexts and the Regulation of Reader Responses in the Translation of Sacred Texts." Folia Orientalia 49 (2012): 339-55. Print.

Nwachukwu, Philip Akụjuobi. Noun Phrase Sentential Complementation in Igbo. Thesis. London: SOAS, University of London, 1976. Print.

Ofoegbu, Akibom. "Source of Baịbụlụ Nsọ." Personal interview. 4 May 2016.

Ogharaerumi, Mark Onesosan. The Translation of the Bible into Yoruba, Igbo and Isekiri Languages of Nigeria, with Special Reference to the Contributions of Mother-tongue Speakers. Thesis. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1986. Print.

Oguagha, Philip Adigwe, and Alex Ikechukwu Okpoko. "The Igbo People." Some Nigerian Peoples. Ed. Bassey W. Andah, Caleb Adebayo Folorunso, and Alex Ikechukwu Okpoko. Ibadan: Rex Charles, 1993. 103-31. Print.

Ogunbiyi, Isaac Adejoju. "The Search for a Yoruba Orthography since the 1840s: Obstacles to the Choice of the Arabic Script." Sudanic Africa, 14 (2003): 77-102. Print.

Ohiri-Aniche, Chinyere. "Stemming the Tide of Centrifugal Forces in Igbo Orthography." Dialect Anthropol 31 (2007): 423-36. Print.

Oyali, Uchenna. Bible Translation and Language Elaboration: The Igbo Experience. Thesis. Bayreuth: BIGSAS, University of Bayreuth, 2018. Print.

Oyali, Uchenna. "Bible Translation and the Reconceptualization of the Universe: Negotiating the Christian and Traditional Igbo Conceptualizations of Life after Death." Reframing Realities through Translation. Ed. Ali Almanna and Juan José Martínez Sierra. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2020. 233-55. Print.

Oyali, Uchenna. "Olu and Igbo I Salute You: An Ethno-linguistic and Historical Study of the Identities of the Igbo Peoples." Critical Issues in the Study of Linguistics, Languages & Literatures in Nigeria: A Festschrift for Conrad Max Benedict Brann. Ed. Ozo-mekuri Ndimele, Imelda Icheji Lawrence Udoh, and Ogbonna Anyanwu. Muenchen: LINCOM Europa, 2014. 133-48. Print.

Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. "Paratexts." Handbook of Translation Studies. Ed. Yves Gambier and Luv Van Doorslaer. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. 113-16. Print.

Tesitamenti Ikne n’Onu Ikwerre. Port Harcourt: The Nigeria Bible Translation Trust and Ogbako Ikwere, 2010. Print

Thomas, Northcote Whitridge. Specimens of Languages from Southern Nigeria. London: Harrison and Sons, 1914. Print.

Ubahakwe, Ebo. "The Language and Dialects of Igbo." A Survey of the Igbo Nation. Ed. G. E. Ofomata. Onitsha: Africana First, 2002. 252-71. Print.

Uguru, Joy Oluchi. "Ika Igbo." Journal of the International Phonetic Association 45.2 (2015): 213- 19. Print.

Uzochukwu, Sam. "Igbo Orthography: Let Sleeping Dog Lie." Journal of Igbo Studies 5 (2010): 27-32. Print.

Walker, Samuel Abraham. The Church of England Mission in Sierra Leone; including an Introductory Account of That Colony, and a Comprehensive Sketch of the Niger Expedition in the Year 1841. London: Seeley, Burnside and Seeley, 1847. Print.

Ward, Ida Caroline. Ibo Dialects and the Development of a Common Language. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1941. Print.

Weje, Annette. "On Bible Translation into Ikwere." Personal interview. 14 May 2019.

Westermann, Diedrich, and M. A. Bryan. The Languages of West Africa. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1952. Print.

Williamson, Kay. "Linguistic Research on the Ikwerre Language." Studies in Ikwerre Language and Culture. Ed. Otonti Nduka. Vol. 1. Ibadan: Kraft, 1993. 154-62. Print.

View publication stats