Theological and Cultural issues in Bible Translation
A lay person's guide to a basic understanding of what is important

Article by Kirk Franklin, Executive Director Wycliffe Australia

Introduction
Throughout the history of the church, Christians have viewed the translation of the Bible into the languages of the world as an essential foundation for the sustainable mission of God. This commitment began in the 3rd century BC with the Old Testament translated into Greek (the Septuagint/LXX). Over the past 2300 years a monumental effort has been made so that currently there are over 2300 languages that have at least one book of the Bible.

However, providing God’s message of salvation, love, reconciliation and hope to followers of other religions poses a complex challenge. A primary issue is the use of key terms in Bible translation. Since God’s word was never meant to be locked up in any one cultural context, what are the cultural and linguistic bridges that can be used so God’s message speaks in every context?

Identifying some issues
It is doable to take what God has communicated through his word and translate this into every cultural and linguistic situation. This is a basis of Jesus’ interaction with humankind. While he spoke Greek and Aramaic, he expected his teaching to be communicated through his followers to all peoples in every context.

The task of translation needs some flexibility because the biblical text has to be accurately followed and yet there are times when it is permissible to have ‘cultural deviations’ (Tucker, 1983: 351). Noted missiologist Andrew Walls describes this as ‘the art of the impossible’ (Walls, 1992: 24). Translating the exact meaning from one linguistic medium to another requires great dexterity because the words of the receptor language are embedded with existing meanings that do not always correlate well with the source language.

As an introduction there are some common issues that arise when considering how key terms can be developed for followers of both traditional and world religions.

Issue 1: Translatability of the Bible
God intended for his word to be translatable. He modelled this through the incarnation. God showed that his message could enter every cultural situation and expression. In fact God never stated that his word could only be communicated in a single language such as Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

This is in stark contrast to Islam where the effective ‘hearing of the word of Allah occurs only through the medium of Arabic’ (Bediako, 2001: 6). The Christian message is not bound by a sacred language for its Scriptures. The Acts 2 account of the Holy Spirit enabling all who had gathered from various languages and cultures to hear the wonderful things of God in their own language provides the biblical basis for this fact. Therefore Christ, the logos [word], can be translated into every language because Christ is at home in every culture and context.

Issue 2: The importance of theological terms and concepts
Identifying key words that appear in a biblical text is a preparatory step in translating the Bible. These are the words and theological concepts that include God, Jesus Christ, creation, sin, death, redemption, incarnation and resurrection. What are the best equivalent words in the receptor language? This entails discovering the meaning that is essential and therefore needs to be transferred.

While the Bible is beyond any one religious system and culture, local religions do provide theological significance to key terms. Using idioms or key words borrowed from local religions raises many issues. For example,

• Readers of the translation will always understand the terms through their own world view.
• The local culture and religion contain concepts that might accommodate biblical ideas.
• The choice of key terms impacts how the recipients will attempt to understand them from within the limitations of his/her own religion, cultural and linguistic context.
• If there is no term in the language that is sufficient for communicating a particular concept, then a term must be borrowed or a different way of conveying the idea needs to be created.

Issue 3: Language and culture
Every language is capable of expressing both human and divine thought. Therefore each people group can be helped to have a relationship with God aided by their own cultural and historical understanding. In the process of communicating theological information there is the crossing of a gap in three sets of languages and cultures – the ones contained in the original manuscripts, the ones of the readers themselves and the ones ‘by which the Bible and the faith were mediated to the translator’ (Smalley, 1995: 3).

Issue 4: The matter of God/Supreme Being
From the outset one has to deal with identifying the name for the Supreme Being, God. This can be difficult and potentially divisive. However, each language and culture appears to have within it a ‘ “homing instinct” for God – deeply buried by the sin and corruption that affects all cultures, yet still there’ (Williams, 2004: n.p.).

Each religion has a different understanding of deity that is based upon how the Supreme Being is defined (Thomas, 2001: 305). The characteristics of the local deity must be identified so that it can be determined how these will impact the understanding of God. Is it possible for any language to totally explain the meaning of God? Or is there a need to add further definition or explanation? The challenge is to identify what intrinsic capacity exists within the language that helps provide the meaning of God.

Issue 5: Linguistics and Communication
Translation is a process which begins with an analysis of the source text into its semantic structure (meaning of words) and then reforming this structure into suitable forms so that there is a comparable meaning in the receptor language (Larson, 1998: 519). In other words, translation is both art and science that ‘involves decoding and transferring decoded information into ideas that are apprehensible in another language’ (Hachibama, n.d.: n.p.). However, in the process there is always the concern that non-biblical culture will get introduced when the source message is developed into ideas that are understandable in the receptor language.

Issue 6: Responsibilities of the Translator
It is essential that the meaning of the original be preserved in any translation. This is the issue of fidelity and it is measured with two questions: (1) Is the translation communicating the same meaning as the original? (2) Is it communicating as clearly and as idiomatically as the original did? (Beekman and Callow, 1974: 34). If the answer is yes to both then it is a faithful translation. That being said, there is a tension between accuracy and ease of understanding.

Another responsibility is to ensure personal views and theological agendas are minimised. This is so they don’t interfere with the meaning and purpose of the original text (Soesilo, 2001: 423).

Issue 7: The matter of incarnation
Bible translation is based on the incarnation because its very process gives flesh to God’s word ‘in a new cultural environment’ (Ogden, 2002: 312). The incarnational model requires the translation process be immersed into a particular culture even when the translator may not agree with all that is within that culture.

Issue 8: Syncretism
It is not unusual for syncretistic concepts to slip into Christian thinking and practise through a translation of the Bible. Syncretism is the mixing of elements that come from other sources and religions. Christianity in traditional societies is subject to syncretism because of a traditional religion’s ability to be very accommodating (Burnett, 2000: 237). This could occur when terms and concepts from within the local religious cultural situation are introduced.

Examples of Developing Key Theological Terms
How do these issues affect actual contexts of identifying key terms? Here are four examples.

Example 1: Allah as the term for God
Perhaps the best example of finding the term for God that is acceptable in both an Islamic and Christian context is whether Allah can be used for readers of both religions. Many Christians reject this view and say that Allah and God are not the same deity and therefore Allah should not be used in any translations of the Bible. However, Allah can be a ‘generic term for the supreme being that can be used to translate elohim or theos, which are themselves generic terms in Hebrew and Greek’ (Thomas, 2001: 301).

Speakers of Arabic used Allah as the term for God/Supreme Being as far back as the 5th century BC which was a pre-Islamic time. The term has also been used in Arabic translations of the Bible as early as the 8th century (Thomas, 2001: 301-2).

Furthermore, the common use of Allah for God has enabled inter-faith discussions by Jews, Christians and Muslims. In Islamic contexts with an Arabic influence, using Allah in translations of the Bible enables Christians to use these translations as a bridge to their Muslim neighbours.

An exception to using Allah is when translating the Hebrew term YHWH because this is the definitive name of the Supreme Being of the Israelites of the Old Testament (Thomas, 2001: 302). It is transliterated as yahwah or rabb (Lord) in Arabic translations (Thomas, 2001: 302).

Example 2: Indigenous names of deity for God
Missionaries in sub-Saharan Africa came upon new challenges from tribal societies when the Christian God was introduced. Often what happened was that the people did not adopt ‘the jealous God of Calvinistic clericalism [but rather the pluralistic] deity of the tribe’ (Sanneh, 1992: 17).

Noted Ghanaian missiologist Kwame Bediako states that in most cases Bible translators discovered that the God who had been revered in indigenous languages ‘was found to be the God of the Bible in a way that none of the major European gods, whether Zeus, Jupiter or Odin, could be’ (Bediako, 2001: 4). For example, when the beginning point was Ngai who has been known for generations in African pre-Christian tradition, and turns out to be the Christians’ God, the result was a vernacular indigenous Christian theology adapted for the local situation (Bediako, 2001: 4).

In the Thai Buddhist context, the biblical concept of a strong God does not fit well. Deity in Buddhism is portrayed as being weak. The biblical teaching of God being love is acceptable but what about when God is described as dynamic because he saves, protects and loves people? His son Jesus died for people and identified with their difficulties and suffering. ‘This is new fruit grafted on Buddhist cultural roots’ (Smalley, 1995: 12).

Example 3: The concept of the kingdom of God
This features heavily in Jesus’ teaching in the gospels and carries the connotation that this kingdom is based on God’s kingship, kingly rule and his sovereignty rather than the geographical area of his rule. When the Bible Society of Malaysia was revising the Malay Bible, the translation consultants discovered that ‘kingdom of God’ was translated as Kerajaan Allah and Kerajaan Syurga (kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven). However kerajaan (kingdom) has the context of being about a territory in which a king rules his people. This was not the best rendering since it emphasised the geographical reign rather than the kingly reign. So the consultants chose to use a variety of statements depending upon the context. For example, they used ‘put God’s rule first’ (Matthew 6:33); ‘when God rules’ (Mark 4:26); ‘how God rules’ (Luke 4:43); ‘that God would soon rule’ (Luke 19:11); ‘enjoy God’s rule’ (Matthew 5:3); and ‘God’s new world’ (Matthew 8:11) (Soesilo, 2001: 240-4).

Example 4: The honorific
In some languages there is a marked difference between individuals based on their class or social ranking system. These distinctions exist in Spanish, Thai and Burmese. Originally the Burmese language possessed three layers of language: royal, priestly and common but now it has only two, as royalty is no longer part of the society. The Burmese Bible translated by Adoniram Judson in 1835 used the priestly language and consequently Jesus was portrayed as a person of royalty and his humanity was disguised. The result was that since those who were wanting to follow Jesus were not of royalty, they were prevented from doing so because of the language that was used (Ogden, 2002: 315). This was an unfortunate outcome and had to later be corrected.

Conclusion
Translating the Bible is shaped by the principle that it is possible to take what God has given in one context, the Bible in its original languages and forms, and translate that into all other human situations. This task requires great flexibility because it is as much art as science. Furthermore, there are theological overtones to the entire task and therefore understanding the issues surrounding the use of key theological terms is absolutely essential.

Identifying these key terms is a critical preparatory step in translating the Bible because these are the important words and theological concepts that underpin the understanding of the text. Furthermore, this gives greater assurance that the translation will be understood by followers of other religions and world views so that they too might come to know the triune God who seeks to have them understand his message of love and salvation contained in his word.

This is not a task for the fainthearted. Yet God continues to call his children to become equipped to take his message of love to the nations in the language they understand best.

Bibliography
Bediako, K. (2001). The role and significance of the translation of the Bible into African languages in the consolidation of the church and its expansion into unreached areas. Unpublished paper presented to Wycliffe Bible Translators International Africa Area Forum, Nairobi.

Beekman, J. & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Burnett, D. (2000). World of spirits: a Christian perspective on traditional and folk religions. London: Monarch Books.

Hachibama, S. (n.d.) We have a common message: we are forgiven through Jesus Christ. (http://www.celc.info/essays/scripture.rtf).

Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence. New York: University Press of America, Inc.

Ogden, G. (2002). Bible translation as a theologizing task. In The Bible Translator. (Vol. 53, No. 3: pp. 308-16). Reading, England: United Bible Societies.

Sanneh, L. (1992). Gospel and culture. In Bible translation and the spread of the church: the last 200 years. (p. 3-23). Stine, P.C., editor. New York: E.J. Brill.

Smalley, W. (1995). Language and culture in the development of Bible Society translation theory and practice. In International Bulletin of Missionary Research, (19:2), electronic edition. New Haven, CN: Overseas Ministries Study Center.

Soesilo, D. (2001). Focus on translators. In The Bible Translator. (Vol. 52, No. 2: pp. 239-45). Reading, England: United Bible Societies.

________ (2001). Translating the names of God: recent experiences from Indonesia and Malaysia. In The Bible Translator. (Vol. 52, No. 4: pp. 414-23). Reading, England: United Bible Societies.

Thomas, K. (2001). Allah in translations of the Bible. In The Bible Translator. (Vol. 52, No. 3: pp. 301-6). Reading, England: United Bible Societies.

Tucker, R. (1983). From Jerusalem to Iran Jaya: a biographical history of Christian mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Corporation.

Walls, A. (1992). The translation principle in Christian history. In Bible translation and the spread of the church: the last 200 years. (p. 24-27). Stine, P.C., editor. New York: E.J. Brill.

Williams, R. (2004). Service to celebrate the bicentenary of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Unpublished paper. Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, London.
ext.

Back | Next | Menu | Close