Direct Speech, Identity Mapping and Power in Translation

Extracted text from Direct_Speech_Identity_Mapping_and_Power_in_Translation.pdf:

Direct Speech, Identity Mapping and Power in Translation Roy E. Ciampa 2012 My goal this evening is to address some problems associated with the common promotion of Bible translations as texts through which God speaks directly to receptor communities, the related tendency for translators and readers to identify groups in the receptor context with groups mentioned in the source text(s), and the ideological and moral implications that has had in the history of interpretation. We who translate the Bible are usually aware of the historical role of the Bible in promoting cultural changes that benefit society, including the establishment of orphanages, hospitals, schools and other institutions, and its unquestioned role in the fight against slavery, prejudice and other social evils. The Bible has been experienced by millions of people as liberating, freeing, transforming, saving, and empowering. It provides the key to understanding Gods love for us, how that love has been manifested, and how its to be expressed one to another. But as a professor training present and future Christian ministers and workers, I recognize that this same material, so wonderfully transformative in peoples lives, has also been taught and used to harm vast numbers of people. My fear is that somehow I and my students would add to those numbers, and tonight I want to focus on one particular translation practice and think about ways we can prevent it from leading to inappropriate uses of Scripture. The Bible is a Dangerous Book The Bible, amidst all its tremendous good, can be considered a dangerous book. More than two thousand years of Bible translation and Bible usage provide us with innumerable examples of ways in which the Bible has been used to promote or justify oppressive relationships, institutions and customs, including crusades, inquisition, slavery, anti-Semitism, apartheid, genocide, the abuse of women, children and minorities. It has been used to empower the powerful at the expense of the powerless. It has also been used in the decimation of native peoples and cultures and the oppression of those who do not submit to its teaching. There are others who willingly submitted to their understanding (or others understandings) of its teaching, but who found it anything but a liberating experience. A letter signed by Andean Indians and addressed to John Paul II when he visited Peru in 1985 included the following indictment: We, the Indians of the Andes and of the Americas would like to take this opportunity of John Paul IIs visit to give the Bible back to him, because, in five centuries, it has not given us love, nor peace nor justice. Please take back your Bible and hand it over to our oppressors because they need it more than we do. In fact, since Christopher Columbus set foot here, one culture, one language, one religion and values intrinsically European were imposed upon America by force (Snchez-Cetina 2007:391-2). There are many different ways in which the text of the Bible has been and can be used to promote injustice and oppression, and these reflect a translators ideology or his ideological blinders. The task of Bible translation must not only be done with an awareness of the ideological issues it raises, but translators need to think carefully about what steps can be taken 1

to reduce unintended collateral damage that could result from a lack of attention to ideology (in light of what has actually happened in the history of the use of the Bible). In this paper, therefore, I wish to address one particular way in which Bible translation reflects peoples ideologies. It relates to that intuitive understanding of many translators who value the percept of Bible translations as direct speech from God. The Bible and Ideological Criticism Sandra Schneiders offers a simple definition of ideology, framing it as that entire generalized theoretical structuring of reality through which one experiences all of life. (1999:170) But she offers another definition (in passing) that does more to highlight the relationship of ideology to issues of power. Ideology has to do with a thought world generated by and supportive of a particular power agenda usually only visible to those excluded from the power system. (1999:120) I find both of Schneiders definitions very helpful, but would offer the following as my more inclusive definition of ideology for the purposes of this essay: The complex set of individual and socially-shared conscious and unconscious loyalties (whether philosophical, interpersonal, emotional or whatever) that are influenced and reinforced by my cognitive mapping of my world and which lead me to prefer certain ways of seeing myself, my context and the broader world around me, to perceive some things as problematical and not others (which other people might consider problematical), and to prefer particular ways of addressing the problems which come to my attention. The reference to loyalties in my definition is intended to highlight the relationship between ideology and power agendas as well as the unconscious nature of this relationship for most people. My ideology leads me to perceive certain things as natural or obvious beyond any need for validation or defense. Because we all tend to be blind to our own ideological commitments, I need to hear from others better able to recognize my real or perceived blind spots and failures. I need to be receptive to critiques, especially those that alert me to harm or injustice that is established or sustained by my way of perceiving and acting in the world. As an evangelical Bible translator my ideology has tended to make me (and many others like me) assume that the translation (and preaching) of the Bible is obviously and inevitably a positive activity that could hardly do anything but good in the world. Those who do not share my ideology will more readily recognize problematical consequences of my translation (and preaching) of the Bible. Consequences of Conceptualizing Bible Translation as Direct Speech By direct speech Im referring to the popular idea that readers of Bible translations should feel that the Bible (and God, through the Bible) directly addresses them in their particular circumstances. Approaches to Bible translation that, in Schleiermachers terms, move the biblical writer toward the reader (domestication) rather than forcing the reader to accommodate to the biblical writer (foreignization), are most susceptible to the problems I am concerned with here. Domesticating the Bible to the receptors of a Bible translation is often seen in the attempt to create equivalence. Nida and Taber (2003:200) describe dynamic equivalence as a quality of 2

a translation in which the language of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors (emphasis added). By response they mean the sum of the reactions of a receptor to a message in terms of understanding (or lack of it), emotional attitude, decision and action (206). It would seem that a primary reason one would respond the same way as the original receptors is because one believes that ones situation reflects that of the original receptors and, therefore, one has been addressed directly in precisely the same way. The more a Bible translation speaks in the idioms of my particular language and refers to artifacts or concepts from my cultural environment (e.g., dollars, pounds, kilometers, etc.),1 the more predisposed I am to adopt the perspective that it was written with my particular context and culture in view and to speak directly to me and my neighbors. I believe dynamic equivalent (and other more domesticating) translations have distinct advantages and benefits and that they will be the best approach in many instances, but we should be aware of potential problems or harm to readers if they are not used wisely. Harriet Hill points out that Nave audiences often consider God to be speaking to them directly through Scripture. (Their perceptions of God, and thus the mutual cognitive environment they access, are often heavily influenced by those who have told them about him, however.) They use nave interpretation, accessing cultural assumptions from their own cognitive environment to process Scripture as best they are able. This can lead to misunderstanding of the authors intended meaning. (2006:30-31) I am simply pointing out that the navet to which she refers is quite common, and often reflected even in statements of Bible translators themselves regarding the power of new Bible translations. It is not uncommon for translators and other Christian leaders to inform their supporters that when people began to hear the Bible being read in their own language for the very first time they responded in dramatic ways, because for the first time they heard God speaking to them directly from the Bible. For the first time in their life, after years of listening to the Word in Spanish, they heard God speaking to them directly in their own language. One of the greatest impacts of the translation, of course, is that ordinary people could more easily hear God speaking to them directly, through the words of the Bible. Now God is speaking directly to you! Its a miracle!

Translators, and indeed churches, need to think through whether, or to what extent, leading readers to think the Bible is addressing them directly is an ethically, ideologically or theologically appropriate result, or not. One possible conclusion might be that such a result is more appropriate for some parts of the Bible than others. Bible translation as direct speech is seen as highly desirable (and thanks to the ideology of many, quite natural) to many Bible translators (and readers) but, in my opinion, is also a potential source of much danger and abuse. In case after case, unless the context clearly does not

1

The new Common English Bible uses the expression Gods DNA at 1 John 3:9, a fine example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

3

allow for it, readers of the Bible have shown they expect the function to be the same even if the original and receptor audiences and contexts are in fact significantly different. Ethical issues arise (among other cases) when a translator does not recognize aspects of the translation that refer to source text social or cultural realities that will be interpreted in the translation as references to target audience social or cultural realities. That is, the text is expected to function in the same way in the receiving community as in the community of the original receivers, due in part to lack of awareness of the differences between the two audiences and the implications for what we might call dys-functional equivalence. Tremendous power is exerted, in particular, whenever a Bible translation is taken to refer to groups in the receptor culture. This is what I refer to as the mapping of identities. On Direct Speech and the Mapping of Identities By a mapping of identities I mean the idea that references to people or groups in the biblical text are identified with people or groups in the receptor culture and context, with one identity being mapped onto another. This takes place, for instance, when readers of Bible translations directly apply biblical referents (i.e., priests, lawyers, tax collectors, kings/rulers, Jews, slaves, or wives) to people they believe fit those labels in their own society. They immediately see the cultural similarity or parallel between the group in the biblical world and their own world. Even when translators recognize that there is no clear parallel between the referents in these two cultures, they may decide to label a biblical category or group with the name of a similar group in the receptor culture. There is a tremendous amount of power being exercised in this choice, since translators are deciding which group(s) should be identified with a positively or negatively referenced people in the original text (e.g., a group that is made to stand in for the Samaritans, or for any of the groups mentioned above). In the following sections I will look at several cases where the mapping of identities between biblical referents and groups within receptor cultures has led to extremely troubling results. Masters and Slaves Since the New Testament refers to slaves as a part of the Greco-Roman household, Englishspeaking readers of the Bible found a basis (and created further bases) for the view that the Bible condoned modern slavery --- and even the transatlantic slave trade --- generating interpretations of other biblical texts to support the (now clearly unbiblical) view that people of color were under Gods curse and born to serve white people as slaves (see, e.g., Callahan 2006). The fact that the slavery of the Roman world (a horrible evil in its dayi) was of a different nature and origin than modern racism and slavery, was deemed inconsequential. It was sufficient that the Bible spoke of slavery without explicit condemnation, and thereby the direct speech of the Bible was understood to condone the modern institution of slavery. Allen Dwight Callahan reminds us that "the abolitionists of the North and the planter class of the South read from the same Bible. Long before Lincoln, [Frederick] Douglass had learned that the Bible was the highest authority of American slavery and the strongest link in the chain of oppression and violence that warranted slavery as the sacred basis for the Christian culture of what would become the Confederacy (2006:23). 4

I understand that one of the reasons some members of the ESV translation committee supported a decision to change the translation of in 1 Corinthians 7 from slave to bond-servant is because the former term could too easily be identified with slavery as it is known by English readers and the second translation was felt more likely to cause readers to hesitate before making such an identification. This changing of terms is one approach to avoiding premature transference based on the assumption that the text addresses the reality we are familiar with. Perhaps a neologism like bond-slave would be even better than bond-servant (since most people distinguish servants from slaves in terms of ownership/employment). In many cases it may be best to handle this issue by explaining the different nuances of this cultural reality through the use of paratextual material (e.g., a footnote or sidebar).

Husbands and Wives Since slavery is no longer an acceptable part of Western culture (at least not explicit, legalized slavery), when readers come to texts that mention slaves and masters in such a context they realize instantly that the texts are not speech addressed directly to us and our context. But since husbands and wives are omnipresent across all societies, people without in-depth knowledge of biblical cultures readily assume that the marital relationships being referenced and addressed in the biblical texts are the same as or closely parallel those with which everyone in their context is familiar. Most Bible readers are not familiar with important aspects of marriage relationships in the Greco-Roman world. In that particular context, marriages were not typically entered into by men and women of similar ages, but by adolescent women and fully adult men. And, although there are references to well-educated women in the Greco-Roman world, they seem to be exceptions to the rule (and considered noteworthy, literally, by the ancient authors). Normally men and husbands were much better educated and had greater exposure to information and experience outside the household. This is implicit even within one of the most remarkable texts of the New Testament relating to this subject. In 1 Cor. 14:34-35 Paul says women or wives are not allowed to speak in the church meeting (in fact it would be shameful to do so), but should ask their own husbands at home if they have any questions. This latter clause only makes sense in a context where it is safe to assume that a wifes husband is better informed and therefore capable of answering whatever questions the wife might have. Such was the context of the typical Greco-Roman marriage.ii All of the New Testament statements about how wives and husbands should relate to each other are addressed not to wives and husbands who married peers of similar age and life experience as in modern western cultures, but to wives and husbands within the asymmetrical relationship that was the Greco-Roman marriage. Should all that the New Testament authors wrote about husbands and wives be considered direct speech to husbands and wives who do not reflect the cultural inequities (i.e., unequal ages, levels of maturity, education and life experience) of the Greco-Roman marriage? More to the point of this essay: how could readers even begin to ask this kind of question if there is nothing in the translation to alert them to the differences between the people addressed in the original context and those who have those same labels (husband/wife) in their own contexts?

5

This is, I think, a real challenge. We are certainly not going to translate the Greek terms as Greco-Roman wives or Greco-Roman husbands! And we cant translate one of the terms child-bride (especially since many of the wives would no longer be adolescents as when they were first married). Again, it may be that the best that can be done is to provide paratextual material (a footnote or sidebar) that gives some indication of the distinctive aspects of the roles and relationships in the original cultural context. Perhaps other solutions will be discerned or developed, but only if translators become aware of the problem and struggle with it. During the 2009 Nida School of Translation Studies a missionary Bible translator with more than twenty years of experience told me he had never been aware of the differences between GrecoRoman marriages and marriage as he had known it all his life. This lack of awareness is manifest in the terrible track record of the global church. These texts have been used to justify wife abuse in both developed and developing countries. On another occasion I heard a translation consultant tell a group of translators (including myself) about a situation where he returned after a seminar break to find one national translator telling another (with regard to one of the passages on submission), See, this is where the Bible says we can beat our wives. Thankfully he took the opportunity to explain that the Bible says no such thing. We would all reject any suggestion that the Bible supports wife abuse, but many Christians unwittingly teach wives and husbands to relate to each other according to a Christianized version of Greco-Roman standards, without being aware of or contemplating the significance of the differences. The Jews: some or all, then and now? Certainly one of the ugliest ways in which the understanding of Scripture as direct speech has manifested itself in Christian history has been with respect to references to Jews in the New Testament. Statements made about particular Jews or Jewish leaders or groups in the New Testament have been taken to be accurate descriptions of all Jews in different times and places. The fact that the Gospel of John uses (usually translated the Jews) to refer to a prominent group of Jewish opponents of Jesus, intending to focus only on some Jewish religious leaders, hasnt helped things throughout history. So, for example, the ESV renders John 5:16-18 as follows: And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him (emphasis added). Modern readers easily forget that all of the characters in the story are Jews, as were Jesus, his disciples, the invalids mentioned in v. 3 (including the one Jesus healed), and even the author of the book. What distinguished the people persecuting Jesus was not the fact that they were Jews, but that they were religious leaders openly opposed to Jesus. The author is hardly condemning all Jews but has a focus on the particular group that was opposing and would seek the death of Jesus.2 Martin Luther provides the most disturbing case of a well-respected Christian leader whose assumption of direct transferability in this area has had horrific consequences. In his 1543 tract, 2

The usage is not that unsimilar to the reference to the Romans in John 11:48, where Roman soldiers are meant (sent by the Emperor), and not Romans in general.

6

On The Jews and Their Lies, notice how Luther implies that whatever was said about the particular Jews who were addressed by John the Baptist and by Jesus may be directly applied to Jews in general in his own days. (I have italicized them and they so as to highlight how Luther identifies the two in his context.) He did not call them Abrahams children, but a brood of vipers [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, He has a demon [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a brood of vipers; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abrahams but the devils children, nor can they bear to hear this today.iii In his direct transference of this biblical term to Jews in general within his context and for all times, he calls on his readers to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burnthat their houses also be razed and destroyedthat all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from themthat their rabbis be forbidden to teachthat safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. (1543: 268-70) His blood-curdling call for pogroms was later used by the Nazis with unspeakable results. Indeed, Luther was a Bible scholar who had once been a monk and a lecturer in a German university, but his intuitive approach of reading the text as direct speech, with a mapping of the identity of the ancient opponents of Jesus onto all Jews of all times, was the result of an interpretive blunder of cataclysmic proportions. Because of the misunderstandings that have been caused by passages like this, some translators have proposed renderings that are less likely to mislead. For example the NET translates the key words as the Jewish leaders. Some other translators have suggested rendering it as some of the Jews. Still others refer to all first century Jews as Judeans, an attempt to distinguish those terms that refer to modern ethnic and religious identities from those that refer to the ancient people who predated Rabbinic and modern Judaism. I think an historical awareness of the actual historical and potential future misunderstandings of the traditional translation should lead translators to either adopt one of these translation strategies or make use of paratextual materials to explain the terms. This would minimize the risk that Jewish people today will continue to be profiled as villains due to an inappropriate identification with opponents found in texts of the New Testament. Sexual Identities in the New Testament? The case of sexual identity is rather different from those addressed above. The traditional translations of slave, wife, husband, and Jews have undergirded abusive ideologies across a very long history due to an often (unfortunately) intuitive use of direct transferability in translation choices. In contrast, the word homosexuals (or homosexuality) appeared in English Bible translations for the very first time in the twentieth century, reflecting the fact that the concept of homosexual and heterosexual orientations or identities took hold in Englishspeaking contexts within that century.iv

7

For example, the New American Standard Bible translates 1 Cor 6:9-10 as follows: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals. will inherit the kingdom of God. Until a very recent revision, the Holman Christian Standard Bible translated the same text, Don't you know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or any kind of homosexual will inherit God's kingdom. Other translations make the text refer to practicing homosexuals. But in light of the tendency towards direct transferability, and its clear reflection in translations like these, its important to understand that the Bible is not speaking of sexual orientations or homosexuals but of sexual practices, regardless of ones orientation. Its remarkable that most classical scholars agree that the ancient Romans did not have a concept of sexual identity or orientation (hetero-/homo-/bi-sexual). Rather, they had a concept of gender identity, one that identified maleness with the dominant position in sexual intercourse.v A mans reputation and social standing as a man was secured not on the basis of whether he primarily had sexual relations with people of the same or the opposite sex, but on the basis of whether he had the dominant position in sexual intercourse. Obviously there was plenty of same-sex activity going on in the Roman world, but it did not isolate a particular demographic of same-sex identity as we do today. Same-sex behaviors were most often engaged in by married men who practiced procreational sex with their wives but also engaged in recreational sex with male household slaves and/or prostitutes. One of the terrible realities of household slaves in the Roman world (both males and females) was that they were subject to the sexual requirements of their masters. By the introduction of the term homosexuals into modern Bible translations, a particular modern sexual identity/demographic that was never part of the cognitive environment of that ancient context came to be explicitly identified as the object of New Testament vice lists, so that modern readers are led to believe that Paul has homosexuals in mind (whether practicing or not) rather than men in his own world who practiced forms of male sexual exploitation (mainly of other males) familiar to his ancient readers but possibly quite foreign to us.3 In my view, the introduction of the modern socially-constructed concept of a sexual orientation/identity and demographic entails a reverse-mapping which reflects ideological blinders of recent origin. This transference ends up targeting certain members of a modern demographic that was not part of the social or conceptual landscape in Pauls world. None of this is meant to suggest that Paul would condone same-sex relations of any kind. But the translation of his terms should be faithful to the behaviors and context to which he referred and beware of mapping social behaviors of the Roman world onto people identified with a sexual orientation or identity in our own world.vi In a society where people are marginalized, bullied and end up committing suicide because they are identified (or identify themselves) as gay or The Greek terms Paul uses are and . One possible way of translating them would be to refer to men who are sexually promiscuous or who sexually exploit other males. For more on the background to Pauls language, see Ciampa 2011:111-18. 8 3

homosexual, Bible translators must be especially circumspect about inscribing that identity into the middle of a New Testament vice list if it is not exactly what Paul had in mind. Other Historical or Potential Mappings These four mappings of identity are merely examples, but they strike me as some of the most important examples in the global movement of the church. One can easily see the historical and the potential consequences. Other potentially harmful mappings in the use of direct transferability would include the translation of Hebrew and Greek terms for king or ruler (potentially translated chief in some contexts), for tax collectors, lawyers, or judges. Wittingly or unwittingly, certain power structures and ideological agendas are both reflected in, and established by, the use of translations. They can encourage readers to reflexively associate references to people or roles in their own social contexts (including social identities or structures never contemplated by the ancient authors) to ones that originally referred to particular groups, social structures or roles in the original biblical contexts. Of course Christians need to apply ancient texts to their own contemporary contexts, but I have attempted to address some of the problems that arise when Christians understand their translations to be speaking directly to their own social context. So a key question confronts Bible translators: to what extent should readers of a new translation be informed that the text does not address them directly, and that serious consequences might ensue if they apply the text as though it did. Translators Responsibility for Guiding Product Usage Producers and distributors of commercial products with potential dangers or side effects often provide consumers with warning labels or exhortations to refrain from improper usage. Advertisements for medications are accompanied by remarkable disclaimers that point out all the dangers that may be associated with the drug. The medications are still recommended and prescribed by doctors, but with an awareness of the potential complications and damage. Like these producers and distributors, I believe Bible translators should recognize their responsibility to take steps to minimize the possibility that their products will be used in ways that are abusive or harmful. Im speaking of the impact of unhealthy power structures that end up being improperly underwritten by the translation. Translators need to be fully conscious of the ways in which biblical texts have been used to support unjust and oppressive power structures in societies that have historically embraced them. They must consider what preventative measures might be taken in their work. Undoubtedly, there are numerous strategies that might be adopted. One would be to consider, where feasible, potentially foreignizing the translations of terms that might be likely candidates for improper applications of direct transferability. Another strategy would be to incorporate guidance into a preface or introductory materials, suggesting both appropriate ways of reading the texts as well as some of the unfortunate and inappropriate ways in which they have been read in the past. (This could include the tendency to take references to certain people or kinds of people in the text as ciphers referring directly to a particular type of person or people in the context of those receiving the translation.) They might also be encouraged to hold themselves and other readers accountable for making sure the Bible is only used in ways that promote the 9

proper love of God and others. The translation should not reflect the interests of powerful people or groups at the expense of the powerless. It should be clear that I am most concerned about terms that relate to social groups or roles, and whose translation may have implications for how social relations are configured or reinforced within the receiving culture. This happens especially when readers are not given any reason to think twice about it. For this reason, translators might reconsider the kinds of issues that get addressed in footnotes or sidebars. The tendency has been to use footnotes to address textual issues, alternative translations, or references to what are considered culturally unusual elements in the original texts. But perhaps translators could be more intentional about footnoting those terms that seem to automatically map identities, items in the text which carry cultural distinctions that may not be otherwise obvious to readers. On a Hermeneutic of Love The issue of ideology and questions of power sounds new and postmodern, but in a sense it has an ancient pedigree going back to Jesus Christ and the early church. Jesus on a Hermeneutic of Love Jesus himself also reflects a hermeneutic of love in his interpretation of Scripture as reflected, for example in Mark 3:1-5: 1

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come forward." 4 Then he said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. 5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. (NRSV) Those Pharisees (note, not all Jews or even all Pharisees, but those particular Pharisees who are not intended to represent anyone in particular in our context) wanted to use the Scriptures as grounds for marginalizing (or doing worse to) those who disagree with or differ from them. A cure on the Sabbath would be a good thing, since it would allow them to condemn Jesus. They were not concerned about the man with a withered hand. He may be useful to them. They are interpreting the Scriptures literally, woodenly and in a way that fits their ideological interests. Jesus question about whether it is lawful to do good or harm to save life or kill on the Sabbath suggests he is interpreting the Scriptures in light of the two great commandments love of God and love of neighbor (which is a proper manifestation of true love for God). His anger relates to the hardness of heart and the fact that their interpretation of Scripture was not guided by the same love for people and fundamental commitment to their wellbeing. When Jesus says the greatest commandments are the love commandments, he clearly does not mean the other

10

commandments may be safely ignored. It seems much more likely that he means they are all to be interpreted and applied through the lens of the love commandments.4 Saint Augustine on a Hermeneutic of Love In his teaching On Christian Doctrine Saint Augustine of Hippo stressed the importance of a hermeneutic of love. He is worth citing in light of the concerns of this presentation. He argued that The fulfillment and end of scripture is the love of God and our neighbor. Furthermore: That interpretation of Scripture which builds us up in love is not perniciously deceptive nor mendacious, even though it be faulty. Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception.5 The Challenge of an Ethic of Love Those of us involved in the work of Bible translation and interpretation need to work out of a more profound awareness of the darkness of the human heart, including our own hearts, and a profound suspicion of the uses and relations of power, including ways in which love has been co-opted by the powerful to justify the asymmetrical power relations in society (including those who argued that the enslavement of Africans reflected love and benevolence in civilizing and Christianizing them. Any application of a hermeneutic of love must be especially sensitized to issues of power and moral responsibility with respect to the vulnerable and to the infinite human capacity to rationalize unjust structures, institutions and behaviors. It must be a hermeneutic of love that suspicious of ones own (and ones groups own) ideological blinders and that is marked by a preference to condemn/critique oneself/ones own group before others. We must always keep in mind Jesus warning about specks and logs (Matt. 7:3-4). Conclusion How can we as Bible translators exemplify the ancient Christian value of divine power manifesting itself through the adoption of strategies of weakness (rather than power)? The power of the cross must have an opposite meaning for those translating and promoting the Bible than it did for the ancient Romans (for whom it was an instrument for the assertion of imperial power, rather than, as for Christ, an instrument for the assertion of self-denial/restraint and of the 4

See also Pauls emphasis in Romans 13:9-10 (especially v. 10: Love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law) and his many other treatments of the theme of love, and those of virtually every other New Testament author. 5 Augustinus, Aurelius, De doctrina Christiana, edited and translated by R. P. H. Green; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. 11

ultimate commitment to the well-being of others). How is it that communities for which the crucifixion of an innocent man by imperial authorities is a central part of their narrative worldview there has tended to be a lack of sensitivity to the unjust use of power by authorities except in cases where their own interests are threatened?6 We who love the Bible cannot afford to be nave about its impact. While it has brought great good to peoples lives throughout the world, it has also been used to promote or justify oppressive relationships, institutions or cultural customs. It has been used to empower the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Bible translation and interpretation need to be carried out with a more profound awareness of the potential consequences of leading people to think of Bible translation as direct speech from God to them, obscuring the reality that the texts of the Bible are addressed directly to other people in other times and places and that through them God also addresses us, but he does so indirectly. The tendency to identify people and groups in our culture with people and groups mentioned in our Bible translations is a natural one but one that has shown itself to also be full of danger for less powerful groups within our society (or any society that engages in similar identity mapping). The work of Bible translation needs to be carried out in ways that are extremely sensitive to such dangers and the power translations have to impact or justify certain power relations or marginalization in the receiving community, and concrete steps should be taken to minimize unhealthy consequences wherever possible. Bibliography Augustinus, Aurelius (397). De doctrina Christiana, edited and translated by R. P. H. Green; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Byron, John (2004). Paul and the Background of Slavery: The Status Quaestionis in New Testament Scholarship. Currents in Biblical Research 3(1):116-39. Callahan, Allen Dwight (2006). The Talking Book: African Americans and the Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ciampa, Roy E. (2010). Contemporary Approaches to Bible Translation: Origins Characteristics and Issues, in A Bblia e Suas Edies em Lngua Portuguesa: 200. Aniversrio da Primeira Edio Bblica em Portugus da Sociedade Bblica / 1809-2009, Revista Lusfona de Cincia das Religies Monograph Series, 6; Lisbon: Edies Universitrias Lusfonas & Sociedade Bblica, 59-101. Ciampa, Roy E. (2011). Flee Sexual Immorality: Sex and the City of Corinth in The Wisdom of the Cross: Exploring 1 Corinthians, edited by Brian S. Rosner; Nottingham, England: Apollos/InterVarsity, 100-133.

6

Is there a way of translating the passion narratives that would more fully highlight the issue of the unjust

use of power by governing authorities? Is there anything about our current approaches to translation that downplay or marginalize that theme that it could be so easily missed? 12

Cohick, Lynn H. (2009). Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Davidson, Arnold (1992). Sex and the Emergence of Sexuality. In Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy, edited by Edward Stein. New York: Routledge. Dreger, Alice Domurat (1998). Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ellingworth, Paul (2007). Translation Techniques in Modern Bible Translations. In A History of Bible Translation, edited by Philip A. Noss. Rome: Edizioni de storia e letteratura, pp. 307-334. Evans Grubbs, Judith (2002). Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York: Routledge. Glancy, Jennifer A. (2006). Slavery in Early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Hallett, Judith P. and Marilyn B. Skinner, eds. (1993). Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harrill, James Albert (2006). Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Hill, Harriet S. (2006). The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishers. Katz, Jonathan (2007). The Invention of Heterosexuality: With a New Preface. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Maureen B. Fant (1992). Womens Life in Greece and Rome. A Source Book in Translation. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Luther, Martin (1543). On the Jews and Their Lies. In Luthers Works, Vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV, edited by J. J. Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999. Metzger, Bruce M. (2001). The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber (2003). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. Noss, Philip A., ed. (2007). A History of Bible Translation. Rome: Edizioni de storia e letteratura. Paris, Jenell Williams (2011). The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Richlin, Amy (2003). Sexuality. In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 1399. Ruden, Sarah (2010). Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time. New York: Pantheon. Snchez-Cetina, Edesio (2007). Word of God, Word of the People: Translating the Bible in Post-Missionary Times. In A History of Bible Translation, edited by Philip A. Noss. Rome: Edizioni de storia e letteratura, pp. 387-408. Schneiders, Sandra Marie (1999). The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament As Sacred Scripture. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 13

Skinner, Marilyn B. (2005). Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Treggiari, S. (1993). Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Venuti, Lawrence (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Williams, Craig A. (2010). Roman Homosexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilt, Timothy, ed. (2003). Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishers. Witherington, Ben (1988). Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

i ii

Byron 2004, Glancy 2006, Harrill 2006

See Treggiari 1993, Evans Grubbs 2002, Lefkowitz and Fant 1992, Cohick 2009, Witherington 1988). iii iv

Luther 1543:141.

For empirical evidence on the usage of the language of homosexuals (and heterosexuals ) see http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homosexuals%2Cheterosexuals%2Chomosexual ity&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3. For discussion of the historical development of the concepts see, e.g., Dreger 2000:127; Davidson 1990; Katz 2007; Paris 2011. As far as I can tell, the earliest appearance of any of the related terms in a Bible translation was in the Amplified Bible of 1958, which translated the final two vices in 1 Cor. 6:9 as those who participate in homosexuality. In 1961 the New English Bible translated the key words, homosexual perversion. Those words were paraphrased simply as homosexuals in the Living Bible (originally in 1962 in Living Letters). Since then, translations have regularly referred to homosexuals (NASB, NKJ) practicing homosexuals (NAB, NET), homosexual offenders (NIV 1984), homosexual perverts (TEV), or, most broadly, any kind of homosexual (HCSB). Most Bible readers today understand their Bibles to refer directly to those in our own societies known as homosexuals. Before the twentieth century the various translations tended to be vague or use euphemisms for same-sex behavior. v

On same-sex behavior in the Roman world and the background to what Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 6:9, see Hallett and Skinner 1993, Richlin 2003, Skinner 2005, Williams 2010, Paris 2011, Ciampa 2011. vi

The 2011 revision of the NIV translation has dropped the word homosexuals and now translates the key terms as men who have sex with men. That is a tremendous improvement, as it describes a particular behavior rather than people of a particular sexual orientation (or even the

15

behaviors of people with a particular sexual orientation or identity). Of course, without any further information twenty-first century readers will still take that descriptive translation to be another way of simply referring to homosexuals.

15