Christiane Nord (Heidelberg) The One and Only Version for Salvation?

Ideological Aspects of Bible Translation 0 Introduction In the study scene of his most famous work, Goethe has Faust refer to the Bible as the holy original. Many of us believe that, if at all, there can be only one translation of this holy original; here we usually have a familiar version in mind, more often than not officially recognized by our church, and hence we deem any other to be a misrepresentation of the word of God. We read and hear this familiar translation as if it were the original, and the fact that out-dated translations are often difficult to understand, despite various adjustments in terms of vocabulary and syntax, merely corroborates this view. Surely such an ancient, holy text cannot sound as if it had been written for todays laypeople. This is why we need ministers to explain the words in their sermons. Nevertheless, new translations have been produced time and again, for various target groups and for diverse purposes. There are approximately 50 different versions of the New Testament in the German language alone. Since some of them have very little in common with each other, a pertinent question arises: which considerations were they based on, and which criteria were crucial for the decisions made by the translators? A few years ago, together with my husband, Klaus Berger, an expert on the New Testament who teaches at Heidelberg University, I completed a new German translation of the New Testament, published by Insel in Frankfurt am Main in 1999 under the title The New Testament and Early Christian Texts. This experience is the basis for the following reflections on ideological components, which consciously or unconsciously play a role in translating the Bible. 1 What is ideology? There are many definitions of ideology, too many to discuss here in any detail. The concept was introduced in the late 18th century by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy, and initially denoted "a social group, a culture or a similarly linked system of mentalities, basic convictions and value judgements" (DUW 2001). It was in particular through Marx that a critical connotation, in the negative sense, was lent to this concept: "political theory, in which ideas serve to achieve political and economical goals (especially in totalitarian systems) (ibid.). Who we call ideological depends on our point of view: the others are always ideological, as has been quite correctly pointed out by Van Dijk. ...few of "us" (in the West or elsewhere) describe our own belief systems or convictions as 'ideologies'. On the contrary, Ours is the Truth, Theirs is the Ideology. (Van Dijk 1996:2) This view is not a view I wish to espouse in this paper. On the contrary, I would like to go back to the original, etymological meaning of the word: the teaching of ideas. Thus my understanding of ideology here is that of Verschueren (1999: preface), i.e. "any constellation of beliefs or ideas, bearing on an aspect of social reality, which are experienced as fundamental or commonsensical and which can be observed to play a normative role". 1

In the area of translation, ideology in this sense has always been effective: the view of what makes a good translator or a correct translation cannot be objectively proven or falsified, but rather this always depends on the existing norms in a culture at a specific point in time. Thus it is legitimate and makes sense that even basic religious texts such as the Bible be retranslated now and then. 2 Ideological Aspects of Bible Translation In the following, we would like to examine the ideological aspects of Bible translation on the basis of the famous w-questions contained in the Lasswell-formula: who translates what for which purpose for whom and in what way? 2.1 Who is the translator? A look at existing translations would seem to allow for a classification into three types: - "anonymous" translations not accredited to an individual translator, e.g. the King James Authorized Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV 1984), - "team translations" produced by two or more or sometimes even a group of male and (rarely!) female theologians and occasionally also including the involvement of advisors e.g. Die Gute Nachricht Bibel (Good News Bible) (GNB 1997) or the Bibbia di Gerusalemme (Bible of Jerusalem) (BDG 1974); these do not usually refer to the names of individual translators either, though on occasion some of those involved are mentioned in the preface; - "authors translations", for which one or at most two authors are responsible, whose names are often representative of a specific theological direction. The first that comes to mind in the German language is the translation by Martin Luther (1534 the version quoted here is the revised one of 1984: LUT 1984) in Brazilian Portuguese there is the one by Pe. Antnio Pereira de Figueiredo (BSB1, no date), in Spanish we have the version by Casiodoro de Reina (1569, the text quoted here being the revision of 1960: CAS 1960) or the more modern edition by Ncar and Colunga (SBN 1975), while in the French language there is the translation by Alfred Loisy (NTF 1922). Translations falling within the first and second category would seem to be anonymous, and thus, to the amateur reader, would probably also seem to be objective. This impression is strengthened even further by means of the imprimatur of a Cardinal Archbishop (BSB1, BSB2), the "nihil obstat" of a supreme church authority and the official recommendation for use in liturgy. Table 1 shows two examples for the description of those involved in an anonymous and a team translation, as specified in the preface to the publications.
Version Gute Nachricht Bibel (Good News Bible in German) (GNB 1997) Persons Involved Numerous Lutheran and Catholic theologians from the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, Editing Committee including 3 translators, an advisor form the World Union of Bible Societies (Jan de Waard), representatives of the Bible Associations in German-speaking countries as well as Old Testament experts. In addition, for the1997 revision, a further 15 theologians and seven womens groups. Committee on Bible Translation consisting of 15 representatives (men

New International

Version (NIV 1984)

or women?) of theology faculties (distinguished scholars, no names) and stylistic consultants

Table 1: bible translations produced by (anonymous) teams of translators

In the 1997 GNB, alongside countless theologians, it is gratifying to see that three translators are included in the team, though their names and qualifications are not stated; in the 1984 NIV mention is made of stylistic consultants rather than translators, whatever that is supposed to mean to us. No information is offered about who selected the members of these teams or how they collaborated and ultimately produced a common text. Our translation (DNT 1999) is a team translation of a particular kind. Both members of the team are identified and mentioned by name, and in the preface they state their qualifications (and the limits thereof) openly. Table 2 shows the academic fields we represent. In the preface, our work is characterized as a decisive translation, decisive with respect to the theological interpretation it is based on and decisive with respect to our translation strategies and methods which are firmly committed to the skopos theory.
Translator Klaus Berger Christiane Nord Academic Fields Represented Theology of the New Testament, Oriental Studies, Philosophy, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syrian, Arabic Translation Science, Translation Didactics, Translation in Practice (Modern Languages, Latin)

Table 2: Berger/Nord Team Translation

Hence, the two poles between which the answer to the question who is translating fluctuates are anonymous and identified translations. Anonymous translations are ideological to the extent that they convey the impression of objectivity through nonsubjectivity. Translations marked with a name, on the other hand, are ideological because they are based on the views and interpretation of one single individual - no matter how academically well-founded these views may be. However, identifying a name allows recipients to perceive the interpretation before them as subjective and to judge it as such. A translator who openly defines his translation as an interpretation is one who takes recipients seriously and calls upon them to form their own opinion by making a comparison to other translations. 2.2 Which purpose does this translation have? How translators are selected is always a reflection of translation goals as well. The larger and the more anonymous a team of translators is, the more general will be the terms in which its goals are defined. Thus, the publishers of GNB 1997 state in the preface, for example, that the translation is meant to convey the meaning and substance of the original text in an appropriate idiom of the target language, which is Modern German", whereas the agenda of the NIV 1984 translators is: "accuracy and fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers + clarity and literary quality". This wording is so general that any reader would agree with it but it is also so imprecise that the criteria are not valid for an evaluation of the translation, not least since the thoughts of biblical authors are no longer easily accessible to us today.

The goals of author-translators are somewhat more specific by comparison, as shown in table 3, based on the example of five German authors translations:
Translator Martin Luther Fridolin Stier (1989) Ulrich Wilckens (1970) H. Menge (1908) Walter Jens (1998) Academic Fields Represented Theology CatholicTheology Lutheran Theology (New Testament) Ancient Philology Rhetoric Stated Goal To disseminate the word of God Translation as a form of literary testimony Translation as an opportunity for commentary Philologically precise translation Rhetorically appealing texts

Table 3: Authors Translations

Luther had a missionary goal: he wanted the public at large to be able to understand the word of God. He is famous for his stipulation that one must look at peoples mouths and produce a translation they can understand, having studied their spoken language. Fridolin Stier is interested in biblical texts as a form of literary testimony, while Ulrich Wilckens regards translation as a mere starting point for commentary (on some pages, the translation takes up a mere quarter of the page, the rest are comments!). Hermann Menge is an expert in Ancient Philology, and thus he is interested in the linguistic aspects of the original texts as a basis for a stylistic guide to ancient languages, whereas Walter Jens as an authority on rhetoric is particularly concerned about making target language texts readable and appealing in terms of wording. But these goals are vague as well. In our translation, things are different. Our preface defines the skopos, the goal of our translation, as intelligible foreignness. What this means is that these texts are to remain recognizable as testifying to a foreign culture and nevertheless be understood by todays readers. The following example from the Epistle to the Ephesians illustrates our skopos:
Ephesians 2,12: That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world... (KJV) Jedenfalls wart ihr damals von Christus getrennt. Ihr wart Fremde und gehrtet nicht zur Gemeinde Israels. Die Zusagen, die Gott bei seinen Bundschlieungen gemacht hatte, galten fr euch nicht. Ohne Hoffnung und ohne Gott lebtet ihr in der Welt. (GNB 1999) Estuvisteis entonces sin Cristo, excluidos de la ciudadana de Israel, extraos a las alianzas de la promesa, sin esperanza y sin Dios en el mundo. (NAC 1985) Que vous tiez en ce temps-l sans Christ, exclus de la corporation d'Isral, trangers aux pactes de la promesse, dpourvus d'esprance et sans Dieu dans le monde. (NTF 1922)

The Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed to heathen Christians, who were "atheoi" prior to their conversion. In German, all nouns are capitalized, and thus a literal translation is misleading, as it suggests that the Ephesians used to be atheists, although naturally they had their heathen gods. In the other languages quoted, the capital letter demonstrates clearly that the one God of Abraham is being referred to. Although or precisely because the right god sounds alien to us in 4

the age of political correctness, this wording can make readers aware of what was different about early Christian culture.
Ihr lebtet damals ohne Christus, getrennt vom Volk Israel, fr euch galten Bund und Verheiung nicht. So lebtet ihr in der Welt dahin. Ihr hattet nicht den richtigen Gott und wart ohne Hoffnung. (DNT 1999) [you did not have the right god]

As a functional translation with a clearly determined skopos, this translation represents an ideology of translation science, which it seeks to apply consistently. The other translations are by no means ideology-free by virtue of the mere fact that they have no defined skopos, but rather they are committed to the ideology of being literal and true to the wording of the original text, even if at times this is achieved at the expense of the message. 2.3 What is being translated? Translation goals also influence the selection of texts for translation. The bible can be translated as a whole, or the Old and New Testaments can be translated separately. The question as to which apocrypha are to be included in the translation can be answered in different ways as well canon laws are divergent in the various Christian churches. Moreover, it is not necessary to observe canons at all times if one is not interested in official approval from the church. Today, many texts exist which at the time when the canons were created (approx. 200 AD) were unknown in the city where this took place (possibly Rome), and were not found until much later in ancient libraries such as Nag Hammadi, or in the sand of the Egyptian desert or in the caves of Qumran. Since these texts were difficult to find and sometimes had not been translated either, they are often surrounded by a mysterious aura and at times have prompted scandals among persons who believe that the church might be withholding certain texts that it finds unpleasant. This was the case years ago with the texts from the caves of Qumran, and it is happening again at present with the newly discovered so-called Gospel according to Judas. Our translation is not linked to any church, and alongside the 27 texts of the established canon it includes 55 further texts from the first two centuries of the Christian calendar. The next edition will presumably include the Gospel according to Judas as well, since it fulfills the necessary criteria for inclusion: it was written before the creation of the canon and is a primary gospel text. Then there is a further particularity: the texts do not appear in their familiar canonic order (first the Gospels and then the Epistles, the latter sometimes according to their length!), but rather chronologically according to when they were (presumably) written. This makes it possible to read them anew, since we now have canonic and noncanonic texts alongside each other, often exhibiting interesting cross-linkages to one another. This is just as ideological, according to our definition thereof, as is showing preference towards certain texts or putting them in the traditional order, which implicitly conveys the impression that the Gospels were written prior to the Epistles (thus making them older and more trustworthy). The fact that some of the Epistles go back much further in time and are thus much closer to the historical events they describe is known to theologians, but not to lay-people.

2.4 Who is the translation for? Not only experts in skopos theory, but also many others involved in the theory and practice of translation and the creation of texts feel that their addressee or target group is one of the most important factors, if not the most important, in drawing up a text. This makes it all the more surprising that most bible translations (with the exception of childrens bibles and bilingual study bibles) include no mention of their target group. Those well versed in equivalence theory would say that the addressee of the target text is automatically analogous to the original texts addressee but who can be analogous to the Ephesians, the Corinthians, the Romans? The addressees of todays bible texts live completely different existences and have a different relation to Christianity than readers did then. The poles between which the issue of who are the target groups of bible translations must be defined are clergy vs. lay-people, adults vs. children, people who have been socialized in a Christian environment and therefore are already familiar with many texts from a specific translation vs. others who may be reading the bible for the very first time. It is interesting that existing bible translations (with the exception of childrens bibles and study bibles) only seldom include anything specific concerning their reader profile. So are we translating for everyone? A translation designed to work for everyone will work to a limited extent for everybody, but will not work particularly well for anyone. No company would ever take this risk with its advertising texts, but with bible texts we seem to believe that we can do without a properly defined target group. This has led to a dubious success: churches are emptying, and sects are enjoying an enormous influx of new followers. In connection with the definition of our skopos, we also specified our target group quite precisely in order to lend a frame of reference to our translation work, which took all of five years. Our target readers are interested lay-people of medium age, who have been educated and socialized in a Christian environment. Many of them will probably have at least one bible translation at home, but they are not satisfied with it or do not feel motivated to read it, since the language is too archaic and it is for the most part difficult to understand. However, they would like to understand more, and thus are willing to try a new translation. What this means is that the language should be contemporary, but not overly casual, and that the texts should only presuppose cultural and theological knowledge on the part of our readers that they are likely to actually have. Naturally, this kind of procedure can never be more than an approach. But the advantage of our target group profile was that I could regard myself as a typical target reader. This helped me identify potential gaps in our readers knowledge and decide on an appropriate style. Moreover, our skopos required us to make this translation intelligible for readers without the help of remarks and footnotes, so that they would not be obliged to read several meta-texts in addition to the main text. The references to parallel passages, which are unavoidable in any bible edition, can easily be ignored by readers preferring to simply concentrate on the main text itself. Coherence is the magic word for a comprehensible text, as illustrated by the following example from the Epistle of James. For a long time, theologians regarded this Epistle as a loose series of disjointed elements, as it was difficult to recognize how they were connected. This connection is created by the metaphors for conception and birth, used frequently in those times, whereas they sound unusual to 6

us today. This is why we added elements of cohesion (mainly anaphora and kataphora) in our translation (underlined in this example), designed to point out these metaphors to our readers. James 1,12-18
KJV (14) But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. 15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (16) Do not err, my beloved brethren. (17) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning. (18) Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. DNT 1999:76 (14) Wenn man sich zu bewhren hat, dann immer und ausschlielich gegenber der eigenen Triebhaftigkeit, die an jedem einzelnen zerrt oder ihn kdert. (15) Das Ganze ist dann wie zweifaches Zeugen und Gebren: Die Triebhaftigkeit des Menschen ist wie ein Mutterscho, der den bsen Gedanken empfngt und die bse Tat gebiert. Die bse Tat ihrerseits wird reif und wchst sich aus, und sie gebiert den Tod. (16) Macht euch ber diesen schrecklichen Zusammenhang keine falschen Vorstellungen! (17) Aber hnliches gilt auch von der Gegenseite: Alles, was gut und bewundernswert ist, kommt vom Himmel als Geschenk von Gott, dem Vater der Lichter, der unvernderlich ist und nicht den kleinsten Hauch des Wandels zeigt. (18) Auch hier gibt es Zeugung und Geburt: Gott wollte uns; durch das Wort der Wahrheit hat er uns als seine Wunschkinder in die Welt gesetzt, als Erstlinge seiner [neuen] Schpfung. Engl. Transl. of DNT 1999 (14) Whenever we have to prove our firmness it is solely against our own desire, by which each of us is drawn away and enticed. (15) It is like a twofold procreation: Human desire is like a womb that conceives the bad thought and brings forth the bad deed. The bad deed then grows to maturity and brings forth death. (16) Don't fool yourselves about this terrible sequence of events! (17) But the same is true of the opposite: Everything that is good and worth admiring comes down from heaven, as a gift from God, the father of lights, who is stable and never shows the slightest trace of change. (18) Here is procreation too: God wanted us; through the Word of Truth, he brought us into the world as his longed-for children, as firstborn creatures of his [new] creation.

This is standard procedure in all professional translations of difficult texts and need not be subject to any particular justification for translation practitioners however, since this is a bible translation, some would probably be quick to speak of unauthorized additions. But has anything really been added? In our opinion, our translation merely fills out former gaps in coherence, by expressing explicitly what the author presumed to be the background knowledge of the readers of his day and age. Nonetheless, this is ideological as well: we do not leave it up to our readers to create coherence, since we assume that they will not be capable of doing so, but rather we offer them assistance along the lines of what we believe the authors intentions to have been. 2.5 How is the translation carried out? All team translations must be subjected to several revision phases, until everyone involved is satisfied with the final result. This applies to us as well. But since we worked on the basis of competence splitting, meaning that each of us had his/her own specific tasks, we carried out the revisions alternately: 7

First of all, the theologian produced version 1 based on the original texts (in Greek, Coptic, Syrian, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic) as a philological translation, in which the theological implications had already been taken into consideration and partly also explained in footnotes. I then read this version 1 with the eyes of our target group and produced a version 2, tailored to the needs of our target readers in terms of language and background knowledge. This involved including the footnotes of version 1 in the main text and consulting the theologian (this time in his capacity as a cultural expert) whenever I did not understand something at once and asking him for additional information, which was then also included in the text. Version 2 was then checked by the theologian in order to rule out potential heresies or theological problems, which he discussed with me where necessary. The result was version 3, which we both had to agree to. Compromises were out of the question. This procedure soon showed that the substance of translation competence is made up of asking questions (of the text and the experts). Many questions which imposed themselves on me (as a translator with precisely this competence) had obviously never been put forward by other teams or authors, thus making their translations incoherent and incomprehensible (at least for lay people). In many cases this involved the cultural background, as in the following brief example from the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 6, concerning the sermon in the plain. Verses 17-19 tell us that Jesus descended from the mountain to the plain, where he was already awaited by many male and female disciples. The Luther translation and the King James Authorized Version (and this corresponds to all other translations that I consulted), our version 1 also being similar, then go on to say:
Und Jesus hob die Augen zu seinen Jngern auf und sprach: Selig die Armen, denn ihrer ist das Himmelreich. (LUT 1984) And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (KJV)

My question to the theologian was: why does Jesus look up? He is standing on the field, and his disciples are either standing as well or sitting on the ground, because they had already been waiting for a while. The answer: contrary to todays conventions, in Palestine it was customary for the teacher to sit, while his pupils stood around him. As soon as we become aware of this, the act of looking up becomes plausible, Our translation makes this knowledge explicit:
(20) Jesus setzte sich, sah seine Jngerinnen und Jnger an und sagte: Selig ihr Armen, denn ihr werdet frei von aller Not, wenn Gott Knig ist. (DNT 1999)

The same example includes another ideological component. In this case the ideology at issue is that of feminism. Quite a few of Jesus disciples were women (for example Mary Magdalene). In the English and French language, the term "disciples" is not gender specific, whereas in Spanish, Portuguese and German there is a socalled generic masculine form, which however many women feel is no longer acceptable today. Thus, in our translation, we always chose a combination of the feminine and masculine forms wherever women are also denoted, as in this example. In the case of the twelve apostles this assumption can probably not be made, even if some portrayals lend feminine traits to the so-called favorite disciple and as we know, this is what inspired Dan Brown to write his somewhat daring stories.

3 Conclusion Naturally it has not been possible to refer to all of the ideological aspects which played a role in our translation (in comparison to or as opposed to other translations). More could also be said in response to questions such as When do we translate? and Where do we translate?. Nonetheless, I hope to have succeeded in demonstrating that in this kind of translation not only our theological viewpoint or definition of skopos are ideologically influenced, but rather that the translators are an ideological factor in themselves: Who they are, (whether and) how they introduce themselves, who their translation is addressed to, which texts they select and in which order they present them all of these things consciously or unconsciously influence the reception of target texts and their interpretation on the part of recipients. We can only hope and wish that all bible translators remain continually aware of this fact. 4 Bibliography BDG 1974: La Bibbia di Gerusalemme. Testo biblico di La Sacra Bibbia della CEI; note e commenti di La Bible de Jerusalem, nuova edizione 1973 (Paris: Editions du Cerf), edizione italiana e addattamenti a cura di un gruppo di biblisti italiani sotto la direzione di F. Vattioni, Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano. BSB1: Biblia Sagrada, transl. by Antnio Pereira de Figueiredo, Difuso Cultural do Livro, Brazil: Cremagrafic S.A. BSB2 1982: Bblia Sagrada, trad. Mateus Hoepers, Petrpolis (Brazil): Editora Vozes. CAS 1960: El Nuevo Testamento de nuestro Seor Jesucristo, Antigua Versin de Casiodoro de Reina (1569), rev. 1960. DNT 1999: Das Neue Testament und frhchristliche Schriften, neu bersetzt und kommentiert von Klaus Berger und Christiane Nord, Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Verlag. DUW 2001: Deutsches Universal-Wrterbuch, Mannheim: Duden-Verlag. GNB 1997: Gute Nachricht Bibel, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (CD-ROM). LUT 1984: Die Bibel, nach der bersetzung Martin Luthers (1984), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. NTF 1922: Les Livres du Nouveau Testament, traduits du Grec en Franais par Alfred Loisy, Paris: mile Nourry. SBN 1975: Sagrada Biblia, versin directa de las lenguas originales por Elono Ncar Fuster y Alberto Colunga, O.P., 4a edicin (1a ed. 1970), Madrid: Editorial Catlica (= Bibblioteca de Autores Cristianos). Van Dijk, T.A. (1998): Discourse, opinions and ideologies, in: C. Schffner/H. KellyHolmes (eds.): Discourse and Ideologies, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Verschueren, J. (ed.) (1999): Language and Ideology. Selected Papers from the 6th Intrenational Pragmatics Conference. Vol. 1. Antwerpen: International Pragmatics Association.