Philology-Religious Doctrine, Strife on Translation

Marius Golea, PhD Student, West University Timisoara

Abstract
Translating Christian religious texts it has been bringing serious conflicts ever since the beginning of
Christendom. It is known the fact that the first Christian principles was uttered in Aramaic language, it has
been rendered as teaching in Hebrew language, it initially took its theological expression in the Greek
language – from which it borrowed the main terms for crafting its own concepts - and then it has been
translated in Latin language. Both main languages users - Greek and Latin – fiercely opposed the
translation of the content of Christian faith in vernacular languages. Translating the Holy Scripture on
vernacular languages was deemed as a crime and the perpetrators were excommunicated and in some cases
burnt at the stake. English Protestants were the first to translate the Bible from Latin and they also were the
first victims of the persecutions. Given the importance of the domain, issuing guidance and rules it has been
a necessity since the translation of the Bible in vernacular languages has started, but it has never found yet
a general consensus. In the present paper we are presenting some of the main aspects related to the Vatican
issued document, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam, and the reaction that linguistics Professor Jean Delisle
had to it. The research method we have used is the qualitative method (Dörnyei 2011). The conclusions we
have drawn are: the regulations is necessary; equilibrium is there necessary between linguistics and
dogmatics, but this balance it has not been reached yet; the translation activity needs guidance at both
micro (lexeme, collocations) and macro (parts of text, style etc.) levels; the purpose the translations are
made on, it must be the conveying of the unity of meaning, but without totally changing the source text and
also without using a linguistic equivalence when the results are odd and no longer possible to be perceived
and understood by the target public.

Key words: dogmatic consequences, Christendom, conflict, translation, rules,

I. Main Rules Ligurgiam Authenticam Has Laid Down for Translators

Translating the Christian religious texts it is a very complex and important activity, facing
controversies, and being far from having set up, once and for all, its theoretical and practical
apparatus. Despite all the shortcomings, the volume of rendered texts in target vernacular languages
is continuously rising up, and, despite opposition on theological motifs, the keen need of translation
is always there:

“It would be difficult to highlight even more the important of the translation for
studying religion. The translation is central to the trans-cultural and comparative nature
of this discipline, and it is a theme that cannot be avoided in the theory of the religion,
where it is necessary to characterize the relation between the religious language and the
common language. Though, the problems of the translation still benefit of little attention
from the researchers in the domain of the religion.” (Basnett at alia 2004, 107)

The main problem of translating Christian religious texts is the fact that these texts are
considered as being of divine inspiration, so that by translating them their sacred nature would be
lost. Therefore, any other equivalence used by translator except the formal/linguistic/literal one, it
would be damaging the source unity of meaning.
Facing a broad range of problems, especially after the “relaxation” in translation, introduced
by the documents issued by Vatican Council II (1963) (abbreviated further as V-II-CSL) –
Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy, Pope Francis promulgated a document intended to once more
settle down the translation activity, a document entitled Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) (abbreviated
further as LA) .
Depending on the Christian denomination’s doctrine, the approach differs sometimes very
much. The Catholic vision on translation, as we are going to see bellow, it is one that focuses
especially on lexeme level, while the Protestant approach on translation goes in the opposite
extreme, condemning the Catholic approach and considering that there is only one possibility for
conveying the unity of meaning: the use of the functional/pragmatic equivalence. The main
representative of the Protestant philologist researchers, prominent especially on translation studies,
Professor Eugene E. Nida said:

“It is true that in certain languages there are idols of the words, like there are idols made
of wood, and the translation of the religious texts it constitutes a good means of tasting
the limits of the possibility of translation.” (2004, 152)

Whilst Vatican Council II intended to adapt, more adequately to our times, those institutions
which are subject of change (V-II-CSL 1963, n. 1), and carefully reviewing the rites in the light of
a sound tradition, in order the rites to be given a new vigor in facing the circumstances and the
need of the modern times (V-II-CSL 1963, n. 4), Liturgiam Autenthicam bounces back the so called
relaxation in translating the religious texts, and, under the pressure coming especially from its high
clerics, it comes to establish very detailed rules concerning the publishing of the books of the
Roman Liturgy in the vernacular languages. It must be mentioned here that the rules do not only
aim the texts used in celebrating the Liturgy, but they take in account all the translations done upon
the Christian religious texts.
An interesting argument brought by the authors of Liturgiam Authenticam in favor of their
focusing on preserving the original words, even in cases when the considered terms have not direct
equivalence in the vernacular languages, is that they consider the target language benefits from the
linguistic processes as impropriating neologisms, coinages and calques, forming new collocations,
extending the paradigms of the words by attributing them new meanings, and all of these might lead
to the development of that particular language.
A first general rule is that of submitting the languages the translation is intended to be done
in, to the approval of the Apostolic Chair. The responsibility for determining the languages
acceptable for the translation to be done in, it falls to the Conference of the Bishops (LA 2001, 17).
The vision on translating the religious texts is presented, on short, in the followings:

“(…) it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical
texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of
rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While
it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to
prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original
text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner,
without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or
glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular
languages is to be sober and discreet” (LA 2001, 20)

As strategy of translation, the adaptation was mentioned by V-II-CSL, but VA 2001 restricts
the general meanings of this term and specifies that adaptation:

“(…) to be considered on the basis of true cultural or pastoral necessity, and should not
be proposed out of a mere desire for novelty or variety, nor as a way of supplementing
or changing the theological content of the editiones typicae.” (LA 2001, 22)

On the lexemes level LA (2001, 31) issues rules like the followings:

“- the gender of the word God and of the phrase Holy Trinity, they must be preserved;
- ‘the Son of Man’ is an expression that cannot be changed;
 - the term ‘fathers’ it to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into
vernacular languages, insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of
the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church;
- Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun,
rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church;
- Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as
‘brother’, ‘sister’, etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context,
are to be maintained as such in the translation;
- The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according
to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular.”

LA 2001 also mentions the aspects of translating by using a hypo-name (monosemantic, for it
is mono-referential, Lungu-Badea, 2003, 14), or a hyper-name (polysemantic, for it is poly-
referential, Lungu-Badea, 2003, 14), respectively the use of a word of the same nature but on and
inferior or on a superior generality level. The problem noticed here is that of preserving the
textuality of the text, namely the characteristic of being coherent, because numerous words are used
in diverse verses, and changing the word in a place it brings consequences at least upon the
coherence of that fragment (LA 2001: 32).
LA even mentions about a Catholic style of formulating, so that the translator must pay
attention to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of
speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or of other religions (2001, 40). Also regarding the
translation style LA identified the necessity of finding a balance between the historicity of the
biblical text and the applicability of the respective translated text in the daily life of the believers,
namely the translator must preserve the historicity but with the condition that he renders a text
possible to be understood by the contemporary believers, so that the perlocutionary effect of the
translation to be achieved (2001, 42).
The lexemes level in translation regards, it must have as characteristic, in the vision LA
presents to us, the fact that is a coagulated / settled down:

“(…) a coherent system of words and templates of speech, consecrated by the books of
the Holy Scripture and by the ecclesial tradition, and through the writing of the Holy
Fathers. (…) when translating such texts, the translator must guide himself according to
the manner of expressing characteristic to the approved version of the Holy Scripture.
(…) In the same time the translator must avoid to render a burdensome target text, by
clumsily supra-elaborating the more delicate biblical allusions.” (LA 2001, 49)

The thorough approach LA adopted for establishing translations rules it has taken in
consideration also the syntax and the literary genre the translated texts belong to. Thus, the notable
feature of the Roman Rite, namely the direct, concise, and compact manner of expressing, it must
be preserved (2001, 57). In order to achieve such a requirement, the rules to be followed are:
maintaining as much as possible the expressions and their presence in the main or in the subordinate
clauses; preserving the same person, number, and gender; the theological significance of words
expressing causality, purpose or consequence is to be maintained, though different languages may
employ varying means for doing so etc. The literary genre the translated texts belong to, it is to be
preserved.
LA approaches also the paralinguistic aspects (the tone of the voice, the rhythm of the speech,
the specific accent, the laying down of the words on the page) and the extra-linguistic elements (the
closeness between the speaker and the listeners, the type of publication, the publishing house etc.).
As one can see from the aspects presented above, Liturgian Autenticam aimed to lay down
rules covering all the possible to consider aspects, of the translation activity, regarding the Christian
religious texts. The mentioned document is considered by Professor Jean Delisle as a veritable
treaty on translation (2001, 831). In the following sub-chapter we are going to present Professor
Jean Delisle’s view on Liturgiam Autenticam.

II. Considerations of Professor Jean Delisle on Liturgiam Authenticam

Opposing to almost the entirety of the LA’ content, Professor Delisle affirms about it that:

“It is a veritable straitjacket imposing constraining rules. It would be desirable the translators
to apply it word by word, but the particularities and the subtleties of the text would impede
them. One cannot perform his art without a certain freedom of expression, without employing
the indispensable resources of creating again. Translation isn’t a banal process of
substitution.” (2004, 837)

Continuing his reasoning on the necessity and especially on the utility of such translations
treaties, issuing rules and principles for translation, Professor Delisle expresses his deep conviction
that they are not of a practical benefit. He considers the translator has to have a great degree of
freedom, both in what concerns the micro level and the macro level of his translation, mainly based
in his work and choices and on his experience and practice (2005: 837). Thus:

“That’s why all the rules established in the treaties of the art of translation, quite few of
them really had a practical use. No translator, as far as we as we are aware of, never
shown that he applied all the rules of a translation treaty in his work. A rule of
translation it won’t ever be a grammatical rule; a translation treaty won’t ever be an
instructions textbook. ‘Translation is an activity in which you observe the rule without
having rule for applying the rules’, attentively wrote Christian Berner (1999: 18). The
rules composing these treaties are exposed a posteriori and they reflect a sometimes
very persona conception regarding the mode of translating, when they do not simply
cipher generalities or consecrated practices.” (2005: 837)

As general view on translation presented by LA, Professor Delisle shows that the authors of
the mentioned document recommend the literary/formal/linguistic translation, in order to
thoroughly avoid the doctrinal / dogmatic errors to occur in the target text (2005, 838). The
translation, as he says, it is perceived more or less as a “non-deforming” report (Delisle 2005: 838):

“Thus, since the beginning, the authors show their intentions: they declare themselves
followers of the literal translation and they maintain the illusion that this type of
translation is possible, when a translator renders from a language to another, in order to
realize ‘copies conform to the original’, without any deformation, change, or
transformation.” (Delisle 2005: 838)

Professor Delisle’ considerations reflect the need for reinterpreting the text, for re-expressing
the understood meaning by using more or less consecrated formulas, which are a given in the target
language (2005, 838-839). In accordance to the affirmations of Professor Deslile, there are diverse
descriptions of the translation process by mentioning its stages, such as: “analyzing and reducing
the text to semantic nuclei, transfer, restructuring, testing” (Nida 2004, 18); “reading,
understanding, de-verbalizing, re-verbalizing, and reformulating (Lungu-Badea 2003, 52, apud
Hurtado, Albir and Durieux).
Professor Delisle disagree the affirmations of some of the important philologists who consider
the formal translation as possible. So he expresses himself as opposing the views of Chateaubriand,
Babokov, and Newmark, about whom he says that they manifest a veritable obsession regarding
the exactness (Delisle 2005, 839):
 “(…) their error is that of searching for the exactness in words instead of searching for
the meaning emanated by the discourse.” (Delisle 2005, 839) and,

“(…) in the biblical translation one cannot spare the poetic of the texts if he really wants
to translate them (…)” (Delisle 2005: 839)

Another aspect - of what usually is called the intra-lingual translation - it is also noticed by
Professor Delisle in his article. He refers to the fact that, by forbidding any creativity and by forcing
the translator to adopt the formal equivalence, the outdated and archaic words are maintained in the
target text, regardless they are becoming increasingly obscure in their meanings to the today’s
perceiver. And this cannot be avoided, not even by employing explicative notes, paraphrases, or
glosses – because LA forbids that (Delisle 2005, 839).
Professor Delisle quotes F. Boyer who sees the Bible as an undergoing creativity process, a
process that manifests thoroughly especially when translating the biblical text:

“The Bible was the crucible of an intense linguistic and literary activity, of wordplays
made necessary by the complex task of conveying the polyphonic writings – veritable
tomes of the religious and cultural expression -, of experiencing the meaning. Wanting
today to stop this creativity, denouncing the work of ‘translation’, it means in reality to
speak about hypocrite embalmers, who pretend they admire and want to transmit this
activity.” (Delisle 2005, 840, apud Boyer 2002: 41)

III. Conclusions
There will always be disagreement between philology scholars and the representatives of the
clergy, in what regards the most appropriate way to translate the Christian religious texts, especially
the books of the Holy Scripture and the books of the rite. The main difficulty comes from the fact
the mentioned texts are considered as instilled by the Holy Ghost to saint people, and therefore each
word is regarded as sacred.
On the other hand, the philology scholars rightly argue that the Bible is actually a metatext,
for it was not directly written while Jesus Christ was unfolding his mission on earth, but at least
around decades later and it first language was Greek, and by no means Latin. So, even the Vulgata
Bible is a translation itself, coming at least from two sources: Greek and Hebrew. During the
nineteen century, the Middle East was the place where some British scholars discovered probably
the most ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and on those manuscripts can be seen several corrections
written over the initial words, probably because the translator or the later users considered the new
words as better conveying the intended - or what was seen like that - right meaning.
Being about the same reality, one could believe that, at least amongst Christians, there
wouldn’t be any problems in translating the religious texts; but, just on the opposite, a great deal of
disagreements and differences are expresses by using different terms concerning certain subjects.
These terms include the doctrinal differences, and the translator must pay thorough attention while
proceeding to his work. In a way, the doctrinal differences are reflected in the general conception on
translation each Christian denomination has it.
Although a too strict regulation can be counterproductive, some rules are still needed.
Liturgiam Authenticam is a first step in regulating the domain of the translation of the religious
texts. Also, Professor Eugene E. Nida widely exposed his own vision upon the domain. Further
steps are needed yet, in order to find a middle way, which to allow the use of all types of
equivalences, ranging from formal / literal / linguistic one to the functional / pragmatic one. It
seems that a flexible approach can be the most appropriate approach, when it comes about so
sensitive activity as translating the religious texts it is.
Works Cited
BAKER, Mona, In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation, 6th ed. London: Routledge, 2006.
DÖRNYEI, Zoltán. Research Methods in Applied Linguistic. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011.
LUNGU BADEA, Georgiana, Mic dicționar de termeni utilizat în teoria, practica și didactica
traducerii, Timișoara: Orizonturi Universitare, 2003.
NIDA, Eugene A., Traducerea sensurilor, stud. introd., interviu, trad. și note de Rodica Dimitriu.
Iași: Institutul European, 2004.
NIDA, Eugene A., TABER, Charles R. 1982. (Helps for Translators, Prepared under the Auspices
of the United Bible Societies, volume III) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden:
Published by E. J. Brill.
NORD, Christiane. 1997. Translation as Purposful Activity. Suffolk: St Edmundsbury Press Ltd.
BASTIN, Georges L. 2014. „Adaptation, the Paramount Communication Strategy” în
Linguaculture, Vol. 2014 Issue 1, p73-87. 15p.
ENGLER, Steven; BASSNETT, Susan; BRINGHURST, Robert; DIGIACOMO, Susan M. 2004.
„Consider Translation: a Roundtable Discussion.” în Religious Studies Review, Vol. 30,
Issue 2/3, p107-120. 14p.
EYL, Jennifer. 2014. “Semantic Voids, New Testament Translation, and Anachronism in The Case
of Paul’s Use of Ekklēsia.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 26 Issue 4/5,
p315-339. 25p.
NIDA, Eugene A. 1996. “Translation: Possible and Impossible”, in Marilyn Gaddis Rose (ed.),
Translation Perspectives, IX, Binghamton: Center for Research in Translation, 1996, pp. 7-
23.).
NG, Su Fang. “Translation, Interpretation, and Heresy The Wyclifite: Bible, Tyndale’s Bible, and
the Contested Origin.” Studies in Philology. Summer (2001), Vol. 98 Issue 3, p 315. 24 p.
ROBERTS, Erin. 2014. “Reconsidering Hamartia as “Sin” in 1 Corinthians” in Method & Theory
in the Study of Religion, Vol. 26 Issue 4/5, p340-364. 25p.
ROBERTSON, Paul. 2014. “De-Spiritualizing Pneuma. Modernity, Religion, and Anachronism in
the Study of Paul” in Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 26 Issue 4/5, p365-383.
19 p.
VERMEER, Hans. 1992. „Is Translation a Linguistic or a Cultural Process?” în Ilha do Desterro,
pp. 37-49.
*** Adoremus, „Holy See Issues a Major Translation Document”, 2001.
https://adoremus.org/2007/12/31/holy-see-issues-major-translation-document/
*** Fifth Instruction “For the Right Implementation of the Constitution on The Sacred Liturgy of
the Second Vatican Council” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Art. 36), Liturgiam Authenticam
on the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books Of the Roman Liturgy,
*** Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum
Concilium Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963
DELISLE, Jean. 2005. „Les nouvelles règles de traduction du Vatican”, Meta, L. 3.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ; (consulted on 03.07. 2020);
LUNGU BADEA, Georgiana, Echivalența: definiție și tipologie, www.academia.edu (consulted on
10. 08. 2020)
POPE FRANCIS. 2017. „Letter Addressed to Cardinal Sarah”, in Catholic Herald.
www.dex.ro (consulted on 28.03. 2020).