Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
An Introductory Inquiry
It has been observed with some frequency that Bible translation is based in
the theological doctrine of Incarnation.1 However, this is usually remarked up
cursorily, without elaboration, possibly with the assumption that the connection is
self-evident. From the viewpoint of a systematic theology, the link can actually be
demonstrated, but before that, we should examine the more primary and
fundamental stages of God’s revelation.
According to Barth’s analysis, the revelation occurs as an act of God’s self-
disclosure through His Word. This Word of God can be construed in three levels or
forms. Initially, on the first level or as the first “form,” it is understood as pure
1
See BT 53, 3 (2002): 304, 312–313, 333, 352, Walls 1996: 26–30. Walls’ treatment goes
somewhat further than others, but still lacks proper theological argumentation; its theology is
vague and imprecise and does not pay attention to the complexities and paradoxes of the doctrine
of Incarnation.
Theology of Translation
2
Theology of Translation
historical, uncreated and created, limitless and limited, perfect and sinful. It is
precisely at the point of collision, intersection or interaction between these
radically different or even opposing spheres that revelation occurs. Revelation
means crossing a barrier far more difficult than the differences of cultures,
languages or media. In fact, every occurrence of the Word of God has
conceptually an incarnational nature, since as soon as it is expressed in speech
and discourse, it comes clothed in the contingent realities of human language
and culture. And these contingencies coexist in dire tension with the wholly-
otherness of God; the latter is not diminished by them but rather reinforced or
radically reintroduced, since it is obvious that God becomes revealed in what He
is not. To quote Dionysius the Areopagite: “He is hidden, even after the
manifestation, or to speak more divinely, even in the manifestation” (Letter III).
And Karl Barth, in a rare and remarkable agreement with Dionysius, affirms this is
his chapter on “The Speech of God as the Mystery of God” (CD I.1,162ff.): “The
speech of God is and remains the mystery of God supremely in its secularity. …
This means, however, that we have it in a form which as such is not the Word of
God” (165). The revelation is “an act of God in the reality which contradicts God,
which conceals Him, and in which His revelation is not just His act but His
miraculous act, the tearing of an untearably thick veil, i.e., His mystery” (168).
This mediation, this manifestation of the Word of God in something which It is
not, which originates in the free and gracious act of God, can be seen as the
ground and an archetype of any mediation that occurs within the human sphere,
since the human sphere was created in the same inherently relational form,
characterized and constituted by discoursive communication and reciprocal
identification – and this includes all kinds of translation as well. But, more
importantly, it also has an immediate reenactment and expression in the act of
the translation of the written word of God.
Bible translation can be conceived as a link or a typical element in a series of
acts that constitute the divine revelation and which all take a form of a
discoursive mediation: from the groundlessness of the Wholly Other, to
revelation, to Scripture and on to proclamation. According to Barth’s model, we
could assign the Bible translation (as text) a place exactly between the second
and the third form of the Word of God: being both one and the other and a link
between the two. It belongs to the form of the written word of God, since it draws
from its originals and since its product itself can be considered a written word of
God in a given language. However, it belongs to the form of the word of God as a
Church proclamation as well, since in its process it is influenced by the past
proclamation, but, even more crucially, it defines its basic parameters, modes of
discourse and patterns of expression in the future of that language. Every Bible
translation is an act of (re)constitution of the fundamental paradigmatic space,
or, to use the words of Stefano Arduini4 about the relationship of a translation to
its source, “rebuilding of the conceptual world” in which all subsequent
proclamation, or even assessment of proclamation, can take place. It should be
noted that especially in cases of the translation of the whole Bible, this
constitution or rebuilding can have an almost absolute force, since it encodes a
totality of cultural and linguistic situations. If theology is concerned with the
correctness and adequacy of the Church proclamation, its highest interest should
lay precisely in the translation of the written word of God.
On the same ground, the possibility and even the inevitable necessity of Bible
translation can also be established. In the perspective of Barth’s theology of
God’s self-election as this God in Jesus Christ,5 God’s revelation becomes a loving
summoning of the whole of mankind in Christ, which is realized as a discourse
4
Quoted from his presentation Concepts, Cognitive Linguistics and Translation in the Nida
School, Misano, Italy, September 2009.
3
Theology of Translation
b. The Incarnation
As we have noted above, the peak of God’s revelation is the event of the
Incarnation of the Word of God; this is affirmed by almost all major Christian
theological syntheses. There the drastic paradox of mediation between two
radically different or even opposing spheres or natures reaches its dramatic
climax, which challenges human notions and capabilities. But precisely this is an
archetype of translation. The personality of this communication is now at the
forefront, the wholly divine Word is now expressed through sarx, through the
5
In the discussion of doctrine of election, Barth starts another series of movements that
originate in the Wholly Other and progress towards man. The doctrine of election, which can have a
dimension of exclusivity in the traditional Reformed theology, receives a completely new treatment,
since it concerns in the first place God Himself. It is understood as a free choice that God makes
about Himself, or more precisely, about his nature (thus God’s freedom even transcends His
nature). This choice is then mediated through Christ to all humankind. Barth summarizes this as
follows: “… God … in Himself, in the primal and basic decision in which He wills to be and actually is
God, in the mystery of what takes place from and to all eternity within Himself, within His triune
being, God is none other than the One who in His Son or Word elects Himself, and in and with
Himself elects His people” (CD II.2, 76). “… in Jesus Christ God has from all eternity loved and
summoned mankind” (CD II.2, 347).
6
See Paul Ellingworth’s discussion of this in BT 53, 3 (2002): 305.
4
Theology of Translation
5
Theology of Translation
6
Theology of Translation
amended with less extreme or less scandalous modes of expression. (Of course,
this may be achieved very dynamically, provided that the impetus of the original
is preserved.)
The same could be argued regarding the more concrete question of
understandability. In general, strategies that achieve maximum understandability
should be employed, because this seems to be “the way of Christ” and the ruling
principle of the communication recorded in Scripture. But at the same time, there
should be sensitivity and appreciation of elements and situations that do not fit
this general paradigm. Here, with discretion, even a more literal or formally
correspondent rendering might be in order. Or, language that is used to express
mystery in a given culture might be functionally applied – it could be a
symbolism, poetry, or some other ecstatic speech. Simon Crisp describes such
translation as an “icon of the ineffable” (2002: 73). Here too we are faced with a
creative tension which presses and stimulates the translator from two opposite
sides: from the need to be understandable and from the need to keep a sense of
mystery and awe before realities that transcend speech.
If, therefore, on theological grounds a substantially equifunctional approach
should be argued for, it should have an important modification: such a functional
equivalence that is aware of occasions where exactly nonequivalence is at the
forefront is desired. Moreover, a general understandability is of the text is sought,
which is capable of making understandable that some details of the text are
precisely not intended to be such.
7
Theology of Translation
used these passages and the manifestation of glossolalia itself to support their
conviction that Scriptures (and the whole liturgy) must be translated into the
vernacular.9 At first glance, such interpretation today seems naïve and
ideologically motivated. But a closer examination of the Pauline text does reveal
some important issues: that intelligibility is preferred and should be a norm in the
Church, and that Holy Spirit is actively involved in bringing about this
understandability. It is important to note that this gift (together with “prophecy”)
is now used to build up the Church as the body of Christ and the temple of God
(cf. 1 Corinthians 14:5). This might be a New Covenant equivalent of the “spirit of
wisdom” of Exodus 28:3, which was needed to build the holy tabernacle. That
such gifts are crucial for the Church is obvious from its nature as a logical entity
(in the original sense of logikos), or, according to Martin Luther, as a creature of
the Word of God. Thus, by way of an exegetical reflection, we can recognize in
the Scriptures above an important analogy for understanding the role of
translation in the divine economy in the New Covenant. In a broader sense, the
“gift/charisma of translation” may be understood to be applicable also to Bible
translation, as it both provides the basis for and represents the primary form of
the Church proclamation.
If we accept that Incarnation is the foundation of “translation principle in the
Christian history” (Walls, 1996: 26ff), we should also affirm that Pentecost is its
outward manifestation, whereby it is made explicit that the Christian message
should be – with the authority and help of the Holy Spirit – communicated in
different languages of the world, with the implicit affirmation of different cultures
that are obviously capable of receiving the Gospel in their own linguistic (and
possibly other sociological) terms. The Christian message is not tied to a certain
language or cultural expression.
9
One can find this in texts of Slovenian reformers and Bible translators Primož Trubar (aka.
Primus Truber) and Štefan Küzmič (aka. Stevan Küzmics). See: Primož Trubar. Svetiga Pavla dva
listy. Tübingen, 1561: 48. Zbrana dela II. Ljubljana: Rokus, 2003: 169, 325. Zbrana dela III. Ljubljana:
Rokus, 2005: 24, 484. Štefan Küzmič. Nouvi zákon. Halle, 1771: Foreword §10. It is interesting that
St. Cyril and Methodius, who first translated some portions of the Bible into the Slavonic language
in 9th century, appealed to the same texts (Sanneh, 2009: 85).
8
Theology of Translation
and seek to help the translator to adequately grasp the proper notions and
develop them in a direction that corresponds with import of the source text.
Perhaps a different model of understanding the role of theology in the
translation process could be suggested. Usually it is assumed that a translator
has a fixed set of theological presuppositions with which he or she comes to the
text and which cause lesser or greater distortions to the product. I would call this
a static model. The opposite would be a dynamic model, where a translator
comes to the text with an attentive and sober openness to the text itself,
allowing the text to inform and influence and shape his or her theology, both as
far as a particular biblical book is concerned and in general. In the ultimate
analysis we could say this is a matter of loyalty to God who is, in Christian
perspective, the primal commissioner of the enterprise of Bible translation.10 This
does not mean one should approach the original as a tabula rasa, but it does
suggest that a translator should be a person who is sincerely willing and open to
gain new insights from the text itself and therefore construe and shape his or her
theology (at least as far a particular biblical text is concerned) along the way.
10
We also do not need to comment on which of these models better fits the essential Christian
virtues of humility, obedience, faith and “trembling at the word of God” (Isaiah 66:2). If we believe
that the Holy Scripture plays a key role in God’s revelation to us, then we should let it fulfill it.
11
It is not incidental that Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19, which we have mentioned
earlier, is quoted in the Identity and Ethos document of United Bible Societies as the foundation of
their mission.
9
Theology of Translation
itself. According to some New Testament passages, the wholeness of the Christian
message will only be reached as it finds its full expression in all the different
languages and cultures of the world (cf. Ephesians 1:10; 2:21; 3:6; 4:13ff;
Revelation 7:9).
More concretely, the first translation in a language means the establishment
of a particular theological paradigmatic space, which is constitutive and strongly
influential for all the subsequent theology in that language. “The translator’s role
is fundamental in the shaping of the future theology of the local Christian church.
That role needs to be documented and the translator must be prepared for that
very long-term task” (Noss 2002: 341). We can only repeat the observation made
earlier: theology should be highly interested in the translation of the Scripture,
since this is its primal form in a new language.
10
Theology of Translation
and its effect has definitely proven to be such in the subsequent centuries in the
Christian West.
Let me add two further examples from contemporary Slovenian translation
practice. The Slovenian Standard Version of 1996 chose to change the traditional
rendering of the word hades from “hell” to “underworld.” The translation team
arrived at this decision after a debate whether “hell” is a biblical concept or not.
At the end, the understanding prevailed that “hell” (at least in the Slovenian
language) carries with it too many connotations of later (especially medieval)
developments to accurately convey the meaning of the original term, so a more
generic term was chosen. This means that there is no longer any “hell” in the
standard Slovenian Bible,13 which carries the “Imprimatur” of the majority
Catholic Church. This is in itself is a strong theological statement, and something
that can have profound theological implications and may call for a “reform” or
reexamination of certain Christian concepts and persuasions.
The other example is from the new dynamic translation of the Gospel of Luke
in which I have been involved. Because of the target audience (youth and
unchurched people) and because of translation principles themselves, we have
chosen to replace the traditional terms like “grace” and “mercy,” which are not
used in contemporary (secular) Slovenian, with terms like “favor,” “goodness”
and even “friendship.” We have consciously chosen these more relational terms
that represent some of the core values of the target audience, as an attempt to
communicate the Gospel with a means relevant to the modern culture. Similarly,
when dealing with terms for “salvation” and “redemption,” we have sometimes
opted for solutions that included concepts of “liberation” and “freedom,” since we
perceive these as highly important values of the target culture, which are
obviously affirmed in the Christian message, but at the same time also qualified
in ways that both correct and transcend the contemporary understandings.
Viewed from a distance, both of these tendencies could be taken to imply a shift
to a more personalistic theology, which is not strongly present in the Slovenian
thought-world.
Many other examples could be added from these and other translations. Their
overall effect, especially when we are dealing with a translation of the whole
Bible, is nothing less than a reformation: a reshaping, a redefinition of theological
reasoning and discourse. This change of the church’s self-understanding can in
turn cause changes in the liturgy, the activities or even in the structures of the
local church. This reformative potential of every new Bible translation should be
recognized from the beginning of the process and possibly planned and
determined together with our “clients,” the local church communities, to achieve
the desired effects. Churches, which are often suspicious to suggestions of
change or even reform, could be encouraged to see this as an opportunity to
become more relevant in the culture they are called to serve and also to more
fully use the potential of the “deposit of faith” which they treasure.
C ONCLUS ION
This short overview has shown that the relationship between theology and
translation could be investigated more thoroughly and systematically in all the
three aspects of their interaction. Other classical formulations of the theology of
the Word of God could be consulted and applied. The tension or the paradox
between communication of meaning and mediation of a transcendent mystery
could be explored further both from the viewpoint of the apophatic theology of
13
Gehenna is translated with the metaphor “hellish valley”; so there is still a trace of “hell”, but
only metaphorical.
11
Theology of Translation
Dionysius the Areopagite and Barth’s treatment of the “speech of God as the
mystery of God” (CD I.1: 162ff). Different concepts of theology (systematic
versus narrative) might be analyzed and evaluated regarding their usefulness for
a “theology of translation.” The issue of the inculturation of the Scripture
message could be researched further, with a special view to the distinctly
Christian approach to the non-violent spreading of the faith, which necessarily
involves cultural dialog, and within it, translation. Some attention could be also
paid to the fact that the New Testament itself, as part of Christian Scripture, is a
translation of discourses and stories that originally occurred in Aramaic, and also,
that it contains a large amount of translated material of the Old Testament. All
these instances could be analyzed with a view to their role in the Christian
mission and with a view to the question of translation principles, and thus a
specific “New Testament theology of translation” could be formulated. Similar
research of the Septuagint itself, and its use in the New Testament, would also be
important.
However, even from this necessarily superficial treatment, it seems to be
obvious that serious theological questions should not be avoided in Bible
translation, but rather addressed as consciously as possible, engaged with
comprehensively, and used responsibly and creatively in this primal theological
effort.
12
Theology of Translation
B IBL IOGRAPHY
Arichea Jr., Daniel C. “Taking Theology Seriously in the Translation Task” in BT 33,
3 (1982): 309–316.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God (CD I),
Part 1 (2nd ed.) & Part 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 22004. Authorized translation,
originally published in 1936 (Pt. 1, 1st ed.) and 1956 (Pt. 2).
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume II: The Doctrine of God, Part 2 (CD II.2).
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 22004. Authorized translation, originally published in
1957.
Crisp, Simon. “Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its
Implications for Bible Translation” in Current Trends in Scripture Translation,
United Bible Societies Bulletin 194/195 (2002): 73–80.
Ellingworth, Paul. “Theology and Translation” in BT 53, 3 (2002): 302–307.
_______. “Exegetical Presuppositions in Translation” in BT 33, 3 (1982): 317–323.
Mitchell, William. “Liturgiam Authenticam: … Towards a True Liturgy?” in BT 53, 3
(2002): 343–352.
Nida, Eugene and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Noss, Philip A. “Translators’ Words and Theological Readings” in BT 53, 3 (2002):
331–343.
Ogden, Graham S. “Translation as a Theologizing Task” in BT 53, 3 (2002): 308–
316.
Sanneh, Lamin. Translating the Message. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
2
2009.
Walls, Andrew F. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the
Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
Ward, Graham. Barth, Derrida and the Language of Theology. Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Wendland, Ernst R. “ ‘Theologizing’ in Bible Translation” in BT 53, 3 (2002): 316–
330.
13