2012vIdeologyTrans Naude

IDEOLOGY AND TRANSLATION STRATEGY IN MUSLIM-SENSITIVE BIBLE

TRANSLATIONS

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

University of the Free State

Abstract

One of the heated debates within Christian circles currently involves the translation of “divine familial terms” in Bible translations intended for Muslim audiences. On one side of the debate are those who claim that the metaphor “son of God” can legitimately be translated in an alternative way for Muslim audiences because of its offensive nature to Muslim sensibilities. On the other side of the debate are those who claim that the metaphor “son of God” must be translated in a way that preserves the family metaphor because of the rich and important theological connections of the term. This paper. explores the ideologies behind the debate about the translation of one of the central metaphors of Christianity and how those ideologies relate in multiple ways to the translation strategies that are employed.

1. Introduction

One of the central affirmations of the Qur’ān is sūra 112, which is recited by pious Muslims:

“Say: ‘He is God, One; God, the eternal; he brought not forth, nor hath he been brought forth;

co-equal with him there hath never been any one.” The sūra emphasises the unity of God and

his separation from humans. It also denies that God has been born, that he has produced any

offspring and that he has any associates (Parrinder 1965/1979:126). While the sūra certainly

opposes polytheism, it is also widely understood to be in opposition to the Christian belief in

Jesus as the “son of God.”

There are a number of verses in the Qur’ān that deny that Jesus is God’s offspring.

The first occurs in the Meccan narrative of the birth of Jesus (Parrinder 1965/1979:127):

“That is Jesus, son of Mary—a statement of the truth concerning which they are in doubt. It is

not for God to take to himself any offspring; glory be to him! When he decides a thing, he

simply says ‘Be!’ and it is” (19.25-26/34-35). This verse rejects the notion that God can

“acquire” or “take to himself” offspring, a belief held by the Arian and Adoptionist sects of

Christianity but rejected by the orthodox (Parrinder 1965/1979:127). Many other verses in the

Qur’ān reject the idea that God has acquired a son, for example: “They have attributed to the

Merciful offspring, when it does not behove the Merciful to take to himself offspring. There

is no one in the heavens or in the earth but cometh to the Merciful as a servant” (19,23-94/91-

Ideology and Translation Strategy in Muslim‐Sensitive Bible Translations 2

13). While the central idea in this verse is the denial that God could adopt offspring, it also

rejects the idea that Jesus could be anything other than a servant of God along with the rest of

God’s creatures in heaven and earth.

Another Qur’ānic verse denies that God has a son, without indicating whether the son

is born or adopted (Parrinder 1965/1979:128): “The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only the

messenger of God ... God is one God; glory be to him (far from) his having a son”

(4.169/171). A third Qur’ānic verse says: “The Jews say that ʿUzair [=Ezra] is the son of

God, and the Christians say that the Messiah is the son of God; that is what they say with

their mouths, conforming to what was formerly said by those who disbelieved; God fight

them! How they are involved in lies! They take the scholars and monks as Lords apart from

God, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, though they are commanded to serve one God,

beside whom there is no other God; glory be to him above whatever they associate (with

him)!” (9,30).

All of these Qur’ānic verses understand the phrase “son of God” in its literal

biological sense, meaning that God biologically produced a son, or in the sense that God

adopted a son. In contrast, the Christian understanding of Jesus as the “son of God” is not

biological in any sense, but rather metaphorical. It is this sharp contrast between the Islamic

and Christian perspectives that lies at the heart of an extremely heated controversy within

Bible translation circles concerning the rendering of “son of God” and similar divine familial

terms such as “father” in translations of the Bible for language communities in Muslim

settings.

On one side of the debate are those who argue that the phrase “son of God” must be

retained in Bible translations, even though it must be understood metaphorically and not

biologically. They advocate for a “source-oriented” translation in which the precise wording

of the original text is maintained, even though it is offensive to Muslims. Many indigenous

churches within a majority Muslim context, such as Arab Christian churches, Neo-Aramaic

Christian groups, the Coptic Church, etc., prefer the traditional wording because it is part of

their Christian identity. From a translation studies point of view, this approach employs a

strategy of “foreignisation”—the translated text reads like a foreign text.

On the other side of the debate are those who argue that because the phrase “son of

God” will be incorrectly understood as having a biological sense within a Muslim context,

alternative wordings should be found which will communicate the various meanings of the

phrase within their biblical context (see below). Advocates for this position argue that in

general Qur’ānic terminology should be used to render biblical ideas throughout the Bible


translation so that it is not repellent or offensive to Muslims. These translations are

sometimes referred to as Muslim Idiom Translations. From a translation studies point of

view, this approach employs a translation strategy of “indigenisation”—the translated text

reads like an indigenous text. Closely linked to this approach are missiological efforts to

evangelise Muslims, especially through so-called “Inside Movements” in which, for example,

individuals remain culturally Muslim while affirming belief in ʿIsā, the Qur’ānic rendering of

the name Jesus.1

The debate between these two translation strategies for “divine familial terms” has

currently reached a critical juncture in the USA. In the last decade, some members of SIL

International (the Summer Institute of Linguistics) who work in Muslim settings have

advocated using alternative renderings for divine familial terms. In contrast, some indigenous

churches within a majority Muslim context, such as Arab Christian churches, Neo-Aramaic

Christian groups, the Coptic Church, etc., have also used the traditional, source-oriented

terminology and are not willing to change to alternative renderings. They claim that it is

important to keep the traditional wording, even though it is offensive to Muslims, because it

is part of their Christian identity.

In 2011, a series of articles appeared in the popular press concerning the substitution

of terms for “son of God” in Bible translations sponsored by SIL (e.g. Hanson 2011), which

led to a consultation at Houghton College on June 20-23 (see Morton 2011). In August 2011,

SIL representatives met in Istanbul to consider the question and produced a document entitled

“Best Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms.” In February 2012, SIL

agreed to discontinue all translation work on Muslim Idiom Translations which did not meet

their current policy for the direct translation of divine familial terms, except in cases where a

literal translation would give an inaccurate meaning (Garner et al 2012: 31) until an

independent panel could provide recommendations. The Presbyterian Church of America has

been especially troubled by alternatives to “son of God.” At its 40th General Assembly in

June 2012 the church accepted a position paper on the topic entitled “A Call To Faithful

Witness - Part One - Like Father, Like Son: Divine Familial Language In Bible Translation”

(May 12, 2012). It allows only “son of God” as an appropriate translation and advocates that

all funding should be withdrawn from translation projects which use alternatives.

1 See Brown 2007a for a description of the origins of one insider movement.


In order to investigate ideology and translation strategy in Muslim-sensitive Bible

translations narrative frame theory as proposed by Baker (2006) is utilised.2 Narrative frame

theory (Baker 2006) offers a mechanism whereby the possible contextual interferences that

influence the translation of the divine familial terms can be described and explained. In

addition, the main aim of the frame analysis is to provide a hermeneutical background

towards a proposal for the translation of divine familial terms from a functionalist approach.

The structure of the paper is as follows. Using narrative frame theory, we first

describe the translational frames. We then examine the socio-historical and religious frames.

Finally, we hope to further the debate by indicating how a functional approach can assist

translators in arriving at solutions for this difficult issue.

2. The Translational Frames

In examining the translation frames, we describe the arguments, ideologies, and translation

strategies employed on each side of the debate.

Two types of translation strategies are relevant for our discussion: indigenisation (or

domestication) and foreignisation (Venuti 1995/2008: 15-16, see also Marais 2008:40 and

Miller-Naudé & Naudé 2010:309-314). Indigenisation involves an ethnocentric reduction of

the foreign text to the receiving culture’s values. This entails translating in a transparent,

fluent, invisible style in order to minimise the foreignness of the translation. Venuti aligns

indigenisation with Schleiermacher’s description of translation that leaves the reader in peace

as much as possible and moves the author toward the reader. Foreignisation entails choosing

a translation method where the translation is not adapted to the dominant cultural values in

the target language but is kept foreign; it is not easy to read and is resistant. In terms of

Schleiermacher the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the

reader towards the writer. These translations are called resistance translations.

2.1 The Indigenisation Strategy

The indigenisation strategy has been championed by Dr Rick Brown, a translation consultant

with SIL who has worked extensively in Muslim majority areas. He argues that in translating

divine familial terms, two distinctions must be made. The first distinction involves the

2 See also Wilt 2003 and Wilt and Wendland 2008.


difference between biological kinship and sociological kinship (Brown, Gray and Gray

2011b:106). A biological son is the result a procreative act, but a sociological son is one on

the basis of a social relationship such as adoption or nurturing. The English word son

encompasses both meaning of biological and social sonship, whereas the word offspring is

limited in meaning to biological children (Brown, Gray and Gray 2011b: 106).

The second distinction relates to absolute nouns and relational nouns. Absolute nouns

signify a property of something, like the English noun child in the sentence Sammy is a child

which signifies a human less than 14 years old. However, the noun child can also be used as

a relational noun to signify a familial relationship irrespective of age, as in Sammy is

Gertrude’s child (Brown, Gray and Gray 2011a: 122). Terms of address are often derived

from relational nouns, as when one man addresses a younger male as son as a term of social

intimacy, which does not necessarily reflect a biological relationship. Within translation, it is

important to keep these three semantic relations of nouns separate. As Brown, Gray and Gray

(2011a: 122) note:

a term of address like ‘my son’ is used in Greek and Hebrew to address people who

are merely friends or even just strangers seeking help; this does not entail, however,

that the meaning of the relationship noun huios, as in ‘he is my son’ can also mean

‘friend’ or ‘supplicant,’ because it is a different class of noun, with different

meanings. One has to investigate how a relationship noun is actually used and not

assume it is the same as its counterparts in other classes, because usually it is

different.

The central claim of Brown is that divine familial terms in the Bible do not refer to

biological kinship but rather sociological kinship—there is no sense in which God the Father

and God the son are biologically related. Furthermore, the Hebrew and Greek words must be

differentiated with respect to whether they are being used as absolute nouns or as relational

nouns.

In 2007, Brown (2007b:426-27) put forward four translation strategies for translating

“son of God”: (1) Functional equivalents for the phrase “son of God” in its biblical context,

such as “God’s Christ”, “God’s Messiah”, “God’s beloved Christ,” “God’s beloved” or

“God’s Eternal Word.”3 A literal translation of the term “son of God” should accompany the

translation in a footnote, glossary or introduction to the translation. (2) A simile is used in

place of the metaphor, for example, “the Christ whom God loves as a father loves his son”.

3 De Kuyper and Newman 1977 suggest “servant of God” as another functional equivalent.


(3) A sonship phrase is used, but it is worded in such a way to avoid implication of sexual

activity by God, for example “the son from God”, “the prince of God,” or “the beloved son

who comes from (or originates from) God.” (4) The transliterated Hebrew phrase ben elohim

is used as a loan word, either occasionally or as the usual means for rending “son of God”,

and its meaning is explained separately in a footnote or glossary (Brown 2007: 427). Another

approach is to use a diglot text with a functional equivalence translation on one page and a

source text (Hebrew/Greek) interlinear on the facing page. In 2011, Brown advised that the

third strategy be used for sonship expressions referring to Jesus (Brown, Gray and Gray

2011b).

2.2 The Foreignisation Strategy

Proponents of the foreignisation strategy offer a number of arguments for the exclusive use of

their translation strategy. First, they reject dynamic equivalence as a translation approach. In

cases in which indigenising translations would put a functional equivalent in the text and a

direct translation in a paratextual note, the foreignisation proponents insist that the direct

translation be put in the text and the functional equivalent in the paratext.4

Second, indigenisation is seen as involving syncretism, an “orienting of the text to the

receptors rather than the divine authority of the text” (Garner et al 2012: 53). Those

advocating for foreiginisation are especially concerned about the so-called “Insider

Movements” as an evangelistic strategy and these movements routinely favour indigenisation

as a translation strategy. A particular concern is that the identity of Jesus has been

compromised. For example, the Arabic translation Sirat al Masih (The Life of the Messiah)

published in 1992 as an indigenising Arabic translation renders Matthew 16:17 with “Surely

you are the living Word of Allah and his salvation made manifest” instead of “Surely you are

the Christ, the son of the living God” (Dixon 2007:224).

Third, the Bible is seen as written for the church rather than for evangelism (Garner et

al 2012:50, 53). Bible translations should be intelligible to Christians and not to non-

believers.

Fourth, the phrase “son of God” is viewed as metaphysical (Abernathy 2010) and as

much more than as a simple metaphor (Carlton 2011). As a result, the human father-son

4 Although the term “direct translation” originated with Gutt as a technical term (see Gutt 2004), it is

now used in a broader sense to describe a representation of the source text in the target text.


relationship derives its true meaning from the metaphysical relationship of the divine Father

and son (Garner et al 2012:56).

3. Historical Frames

In this section we consider the historical frames of the emergence of Islam and its interactions

with Christianity in order to describe the relevant background to the debate over the

translation “son of God.”

3.1 The Byzantine Empire as socio-historical frame of the emerging Islamic world

Between the seventh and ninth centuries the rich south-eastern provinces of the Byzantine

Empire, extending around the Mediterranean basin from Syria to Egypt and across North

Africa to Spain, long part of the Hellenistic tradition and the Roman world, became part of

the emerging Islamic world (Evans 2012:4-11). The Christian and Jewish populace went

from being central to the fortunes of the Christian state ruled from New Rome, or

Constantinople (modern Istanbul), to being governed initially by the Muslim Umayyads from

Damascus in modern Syria and ultimately by the Abbasids in Baghdad in modern Iraq (Hitti

1970:139-168,189-224,288-331; Hourani 1991:22-58; Rogan 2011:15-47). The trade route

along the Red Sea past Yemen once dominated by Byzantine allies became part of the new

Islamic order. Even as Byzantine influence declined, Christianity remained a vital force.

There were important consequences to this shift in political power toward the Islamic

world (Hitti 1970:111-138, Lewis 1970:36-48, Evans 2012:4-11) First, Muhammed was

influenced by the Byzantine Empire and its unified structure of one faith, one church, one

empire, and one emperor who is a demi-god. The implication is that nothing outside of a

unified structure is tolerated.

Second, surviving manuscripts and inscriptions on mosaic floors and liturgical objects

reveal some of the languages spoken or written by the populace, including Greek (resulting in

diminished use of Latin), Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic. Many of the same languages

that were in use during the Byzantine era continued in the first generations of Muslim rule,

with Christian texts increasingly written in Arabic (Mavroudi 2012:22-24). As a result,

translation became a huge enterprise in the Islamic world, but the Arabisation of religious

terminology originating in these languages often resulted in a loss of meaning and context.


Third, from the eighth into the ninth century, during the Iconoclastic controversy, the

church in Constantinople and the Byzantine state forcefully debated the correct role of

religious images. Men like Saint John of Damascus (ca. 675-749) became leaders in the

defence of religious veneration of icons (Evans 2012:4). Icon veneration and the depiction of

living creatures in ecclesiastical settings should be considered within the context of the self-

definition of Christian communities in an increasingly Islamic world which rejected physical

representations of God as well as the appropriation of human familial terms applied to God

(Khalili 2006; Canby 2005).

3.2 Religious frames of the emerging Islamic religion

3.2.1 Polytheism of the Pre-Islamic Arab world

Within the context of 7th century Mecca, a pilgrimage centre for polytheists, Muhammad’s

preaching was a threat to the established system of beliefs and way of life. Allah was one of

360 gods and had daughters who were goddesses; below the gods and goddesses were the

jinns (Hitti 1970:87-88, 96-102, Lewis 1970:21-35). The attack on the polytheism of Mecca

is taken up by name in the Qur’ān sura 53, verses 19-21: ‘Have you considered El-Lat and El-

‘Uzza and Manat the third, the other? What, have you males, and He females?’ (Arberry

1964/1983:550). This is a forceful rejection of the notion that Allah had offspring, and that

the pagan gods or goddess could be accommodated under his name. So constantly throughout

the Quran such pagan deities are rejected, and it is within this context that the Qur’ān’s

refusal to call Jesus the “son of God” must be understood.

Islam recognizes Jesus (‘Isā) as a Prophet and Envoy or Messenger to whom God

revealed the Gospels (Injil); he is the prophet who predicts the coming of Muhammed.

Although the Qur’ān recounts his miraculous birth, it denies Jesus’ divinity, his crucifixion,

and his resurrection. (Anawati 2011).

3.2.2 Christological controversies

In the town of Madaba, the pavement of the Church of the Virgin, constructed about 608, was

re-laid in 767. The new mosaic is entirely geometric, in accordance with Islamic artistic style.

Nonetheless, at its centre is an inscription extolling the Virgin Mary’s role as Mother of God


and directing the faithful to purify themselves through prayer before venerating the church’s

Marian icon (Ratliff 2012:33). Such an inscription would have made a powerful statement

about the foundation of Christian faith – the Incarnation of Christ – which was a key point of

dispute between Christians and Muslims.

Christians, however, could not agree on various aspects of the incarnation. The

discussion of the Christological controversies which follows is mainly drawn from Daley

(2008:886-905). Arius (ca. 250) argued that the Son of God, who became enfleshed in Jesus

was created, a position rejected at Nicea in 325. Nestorius (ca. 381 – after 451) argued that

the eternal son of God is fully divine in nature and dwells in the human Jesus (God the Son

and Jesus are not of the same nature but share a common form), whereas Cyril (r. 412-444)

argued that Jesus always remained God the Word, and thus Christ had a single nature

(Miaphysite). Both viewpoints were rejected at Chalcedon in 451 for the view that Christ has

two natures, without division or separation, in one person and one hypostasis. However, the

statement of Chalcedon did little to bring unity to the church.

Further attempts to unite the church were made in the seventh century (Daley

2008:886-905). Monoenergism was developed as a formula defining the two natures of Christ

as operating through a single energy. An alternative position was Monotheletism according to

which the two natures of Christ are united in a single will. In 680 Emperor Constantine IV

called the third Council of Constantinople, which condemned both Monoenergism and

Monothelitism and defined Christ as having two natures and two wills that operate in

harmony.

The history of these christological controversies demonstrates the difficulty that

Christians had in determining the nature and person of Christ and highlights the

corresponding difficulties that early Muslims had in understanding the Christian faith on this

point. By rejecting the terminology of “son of God” for Jesus as well as “mother of God” for

Mary, Islam was able to side-step the most controversial aspect of Christian theology. As we

will see, the Coptic Church, Syriac Church, and Arabic Church illustrate the diversity of

Christianity within the Islamic world.

3.2.3 Diverse Christian communities


After the Council of Chalcedon, the Egyptian Church for the most part rejected the

Chalcedonian formulation that Christ has two distinct natures (human and divine) in favour

of Cyril’s Miaphysite Christology that Christ’s divinity and humanity are seamlessly united

in one nature. The church retained Coptic as its primary language until the tenth century

(Bolman 2012:69).

In Syria the controversy over Chalcedon split the churches of that region (Khalek

2012:66). The Syriac Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) understanding is that Christ has one

nature as the Incarnate Word, with full humanity and full divinity. They use the Peshitta as

their Bible. The Melkites (“royalists”) have the Chalcedonian understanding that Christ is one

person in two natures, one fully human and the other fully divine. They used as liturgical

languages Greek and an Aramaic dialect known as Christian-Palestinian Aramaic (with

communities in Palestine, Transjordan and the Sinai). The Melkite community provides the

earliest evidence of the use of Arabic as an ecclesiastical language in the mid-eighth century.

The Christology of the East Syrian Church was Nestorian (God’s fully divine nature dwelling

in Jesus in a single, common form). Syriac remained an important language for the church,

even after the ninth century, when the church adopted Arabic.

The fall of many eastern Mediterranean territories to the Muslim armies beginning in

635 had extremely important consequences for the Syriac Church. By the eighth century the

sacred landscape changed—Jerusalem, for example, had been reoriented with the building of

the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, and the basilica of Saint John the Baptist in

Damascus had been replaced by the Great Mosque. Restrictions were imposed on the

construction of churches and on practices that were offensive to Muslims or disruptive to

Muslim worship. These limitations extended, for example, to the display of the cross, which

proclaimed the Christian belief in the incarnation and Resurrection, and to religious

processions. At the end of the early Islamic centuries there was a Christianized world that had

become Arabicized. Intrareligious dialogues, which were often focused on Christology, a

doctrinal matter that frequently put Christians on the defensive in discussions with Muslims,

took place in Arabic, and a large body of apologetical and polemical literature in Arabic was

produced. Christian thinkers continued to play vital cultural roles, particularly in the

translation movement in the Abbasid capital of Baghdad, where from the eighth to the tenth

century works of learning from Hellenistic and Persian traditions were translated into Arabic.

Towards the end of the ninth century, however, instances of conversion to the Muslim faith


increased and the Christian population began to decline, a trend that would only strengthen as

time went on.

Eastern Christians were effectively cut off from easy access to Rome or

Constantinople until modern times and adopted Arabic for public purposes. By the ninth

century they had accommodated themselves to the then burgeoning culture of the Islamic

commonwealth. There had been Arab-speaking Jews and Christians in Arabia before and

during the years of Islam’s rise and successful expansion (Fine 2012:202-206). These

communities continued to define themselves doctrinally even after they adopted the Arabic

language and responded to the religious and social challenges of Islam. In fact, along with the

translation of the Bible into Arabic and the translation of selected patristic texts, they

developed the distinctive expression of their ecclesiastical identities only in Early Islamic

times (Griffith 2012:60).

3.3 Implications of the historical frames to the debate

The Eastern Christian empire of Byzantium permitted minority religious groups and deviant

forms of Christianity the freedom to practise their faith and to manage their own religious

affairs. Islam was thus born in the religious pluralism of the Middle East, where various

faiths had coexisted for centuries.

On the one hand, the Arabs of central Arabia distrusted those religious systems and

were determined to remain religiously and politically unique by their basic monotheistic

article of faith: “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.”

Kellerhals (1978:72-73) states that this central affirmation is a reaction to the Old Arabic

polytheism (Sura 53,19ff), to the alleged claim that Ezra is the son of God according to the

Jews (Sura 9:30, see Parrinder 1965/1979: 128, 157) and to the Christological and Trinitarian

dogmas of the Christian church (Parrinder 1965/1979:126-141).

On the other hand, it is very clear from the overview provided by the socio-historical

and religious frames outlined above that for centuries Christianity did not arrive at a

monolithic interpretation of the nature of the Christological and Trinitarian issues concerning

the term “son of God”. Furthermore, the doctrinal difficulties ultimately stem from the

various uses of the phrase “son(s) of God” in the Hebrew Bible, the Second Temple literature

(including Qumran), various portions of the New Testament, and the early Christian literature

(see Von Martitz 1972; Michel 1978; Greer 2012). Theologically, four basic senses in which

Jesus is called the “son of God” include: (1) the nativitistic sense, as a creature owes its


existence to the creative activity of God; (2) the moral-religious use, describing the

relationship human may have with God as the objects of his loving care; (3) the messianic

sense as the Davidic king; and (4) the theological sense as one who partakes of God’s divine

nature (Ladd 1974:160-61; see also Guthrie 1981:301-321; Cullman 1973:270-305; Goppelt

1981:199-205; Horrell 2010). At the same time, the Qur’ānic view of Jesus as the “son of

God” does not accurately reflect any Christian understanding of the phrase. In fact, the

Qur’ān most commonly refers to Jesus as “son of Mary,” even though this title occurs only

once in the Bible (Mark 6:3) (Parrinder 1965/1979:22).

In the next section, we hope to further the debate by indicating how a functional

approach can assist translators in arriving at solutions for this difficult issue.

4. Towards a functionalist approach to the translation of divine familial terms

The functionalist approaches seek to liberate translators from an excessively servile

adherence to the source text by looking at translation as a new communicative act that must

be purposeful with respect to the translator’s client and readership.

As an alternative to equivalence, Katharina Reiss introduced a functional category

into her translation model and Hans Vermeer formulated his skopos theory in which function

or aim (skopos) are key concepts. It is the intended function (skopos) of the target text which

determines translation methods and strategies and not the function of the source text (Reiss &

Vermeer 1984). In this way, Vermeer dethroned both the source text as norm and the concept

of equivalence. The difference between linguistic-oriented models of equivalence and

Vermeer’s functionalist model lies in their various attitudes towards the source text: the first

group of theorists regards the source text as a norm and accords acceptability to a translation

only in so far as it is equivalent to the source text. In contrast, Vermeer regards a translation

as a true rendition in so far as it functions as a text in the target culture; the function of the

translation in the target culture determines which aspects of the source text should be

transferred to the translation (Nord 1991:6). This is the reason for the source text to lose its

function as a criterion in terms of which equivalence is measured.

Christiane Nord (1991; 1997) provides yet another insight into the interpersonal

interaction of the translation process. The initiator – who may be a client, the source text

author, the target text reader or, in some cases, the translator – instigates the translation

process by approaching a translator because he or she needs a certain function (or skopos) in


the target culture (Nord 1991:6). This skopos is contained in the translation brief, which is the

set of translating instructions issued by the client when ordering the translation.5

A translator starts with an analysis of the skopos. Then s/he finds the gist of the source

text enabling him/her to determine whether the given translation task is at all feasible. The

next step involves a detailed analysis of the source text. It is necessary to 'loop back'

continually to the translation skopos, which acts as a guide to determine which source text

elements may be preserved and which elements require a measure of adaptation. This circular

process ensures that the translator takes into account factors relevant to the translation task.

The target text should therefore fulfill its intended function in the target culture. In this way,

the initiator or person acting the role of initiator actually decides on the translation skopos,

even though the brief as such may be explicit about the conditions. This model is recently

typified by Nord (2005: 37) as the looping model (Nord 2005: 38).

The “looping model” stresses that translation is not a linear process leading from a

starting point S (source text or ST) to a target point (target text or TT), but a circular,

recursive process comprising an indefinite number of feedback loops. Besides the looping

model, Nord also made use of the “two-phase model” and the “three-phase model.” The two-

phase model is based on the assumption that translating is a code-switching operation on a

sign-for-sign basis, as is perhaps the case with simultaneous interpreting (Nord 2005:34-35),

while the three-phase model includes an intermediate phase for transfer operations. The

translation process is divided into three steps, namely analysis (decoding, comprehension

phase), transfer (transcoding), and synthesis (recoding).

Any translation skopos may be formulated for a particular original so that the

translator's licence to move away from the source text is unlimited. However, Nord (1997:63)

modifies the conventional skopos theory by adding the concepts of loyalty and convention; in

this way she limits the variety of possible functions or skopoi. In Nord's view, the concept of

loyalty takes account of the fact that the ultimate responsibility rests not with the initiator, but

with the translator, who in the final analysis is the only person qualified to judge whether the

transfer process has taken place satisfactorily. Loyalty can be defined as a moral category

which permits the integration of culture-specific conventions into the functionalist model of

translation (Nord 1997). This is contrary to equivalence-based translation theories, because

the demand for faithfulness or equivalence is subordinate to the skopos rule. In other words,

5 The definition of the translation brief is from Nord 1991 and 2005. In actual practice, there is often negotiation between the translator, the client, and the commissioner of the translation in the shaping of the brief.


if the translating instructions require a change of function, source text equivalence is no

longer a priority.

According to the Functionalist approach to translation, a translation is viewed as adequate

if the target text or the translated text is appropriate for the communicative purpose defined in

the translation brief (Naude, 2000:15). In a nutshell, the frame of reference for translators

translating using the Functionalist model places emphasis not upon the source text and its

function, but on the intended function of the target text within the given situation.

To fulfill the translation skopos, Naudé (2002:38) also identified certain translation

strategies which can be utilised. He referred to the categories of Delabastita, Newmark,

Williams and Baker, but adds the translation strategies of specification

(intensification/explication), generalisation and deletion and addition. He omits the categories

of functional equivalence, paraphrasing and negative for positive and positive for negative:

• Transference – This is the process of transferring a source language (SL) item to a

target language (TL) unchanged; the SL item then becomes a loan item in the TL.

• Indigenisation/domestication – This strategy is similar to transference, but is used

when an item is adopted from the SL with slight modification to remove some of the

foreignness.

• Cultural substitution – This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific item (or

expression) with a TL item (or expression) that does not have the same prepositional

meaning, but is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader.

• Generalisation – The use of a culturally neutral term, a less expressive item or even a

more general term to define the SL culture-specific term.

• Specification – intensification/explication – The use of a culturally more specific

term, a more expressive item or even a more specific term to define the SL culture-

specific term.

• Deletion/Addition: Deletion: Using deletion as a translation strategy means that the

ST item is not rendered in the TT at all. Addition: The TT contains linguistic, cultural

or textual items, which did not occur in the ST.

• Transposition – A translation strategy involving a change in grammatical form from

SL to TL.

• Translation couplet – In this category two of the above strategies can be combined.


Missiological translations before the era of Nida usually were foreignising translations

(e.g. the Tswana translation of Moffatt, see West 2009), though there were exceptions (e.g.

Sesotho, see Makutoane and Naudé 2009). After Nida, the first translations for a Christian

community usually indigenise as much as is necessary to convey the meaning of the source

text to a language group without prior context. A translation for an established church or a

second translation for a Christian community is usually a foreignising translation in order to

bring out the culture of the source text as much as possible (Marais 2008; Venuti 1995/2008).

The choice, then, between an indigenising translation and a foreigning translation is driven by

the purpose, or brief, of the translation. Either kind of translation must be “loyal” to the

source text (Nord 1991, 1997, 2005).

The functionalist approach to translation brings to the fore the translator as an agent,

though the precise nature of the agent role will depend on the kind of translation and upon the

translator’s choice. In a foreignising translation, a translator may be an agent of change by

facilitating understanding of the source text culture and world view. Or a foreignising

translation may also empower the identity of an indigenous church in a Muslim majority

country which wishes to maintain its centuries-old traditional language. In an indigenising

translation, a translator may be an agent of change by facilitating understanding through a

non-offensive text and assisting in the development of Christian identity.

5. Conclusions: Towards a complex approach

In viewing the controversy concerning the translation of divine familial terms in Bible

translations for Muslim majority languages, it is clear that there is no simple question of right

translation or wrong translation. Instead, a complex approach is called for in which the

various historical and religious frames that inform the discussion are taken into account and

the translation brief has indicated the purpose of the translation and identified its readers.

The critical problem in the current debate is that the discussion is taking place in the

abstract, with an attempt by both sides to promote their solutions for translation in general.

Some of the reasons for the lack of information and concrete examples are understandable—

there is great sensitivity to mission efforts in Muslims areas and to followers of ʿIsā who may

wish to have an indigenising Bible translation. The result, however, is that it is almost

impossible to acquire real data which can be analysed and for this reason arguments are made

for or against indigenising strategies in a vacuum.


A functionalist approach advocates for an approach that is specifically related to a

specific language group in a specific location with specific goals for the translation—these

are the clients for whom the translation should be made. They alone—not donors or

sponsoring agencies or translation consultants—can work with the translator to produce a

translation brief and hence a translation which they will consider adequate.


Bibliography

Abernathy, D. 2010. Jesus the Eternal Son of God. St. Francis Magazine Vol. 6. 327-394.

Anawati, G C 2011. ‘ʿIsā. Pages 81-87 in The Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by E. Van

Donzel, B Lewis and Ch. Pellat. Second edition. Leiden: Brill.

Arberry, A. 1964/1983. The Koran Interpreted. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Arduini, Stefano and Robert Hodgson, Jr., eds. 2004. Similarity and Difference in Translation: Proceedings of the International Conference on Similarity and Translation, Bible House, New York City, May 31-June 1, 2001. Rimini, Italiy: Guraldi.

Baker, Mona 2006. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London and New York:

Routledge.

Bolman, Elizabeth S. 2012. Coptic Christianity. Pages 69-71 in Evans and Ratliffe 2012.

Brown, Rick. 2005. Translating the Biblical Term “Son(s) of God” in Muslim Contexts.

International Journal of Frontier Missions 22:135-145.

Brown, Ric, 2007a. Brother Jacob and Master Isaac: How One Insider Movement Began.

International Journal of Frontier Missiology 24:41-42.

Brown, Rick. 2007b. Why Muslims are Repelled by the Term “Son of God.” Evangelical

Mission Quarterly 43:422-429.

Brown, Rick, Leith Gray and Andrea Gray. 2011a. A Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal

Terms in the Bible. International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28:121-125.

Brown, Rick, Leith Gray and Andrea Gray. 2011b. A New Look at Translating Familial

Biblical Terms. International Journal of Frontier Missiology 28:105-120.

Canby, Sheila R. 2005. Islamic Art in Detail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carlton, Matthew. 2011. Jesus, the Son of God: Biblical Meanings, Muslim Understanding,

and Implications for Translation and Bible Literacy. St. Francis Magazine Vol. 7.1-

30.

Cullman, Oscar. 1973. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press.

Daley, Brian E. 2008. Christ and Christologies. Pages 886-905. In The Oxford Handbook of

Early Christian Studies. Edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Kuyper, Arie and Barclay M. Newman, Jr. 1997. Jesus, Son of God—A Translation

Problem. The Bible Translator 28:432-438.

De Vries, Lourens. 2003. Paratext and Skopos of Bible Translations. Pages 176-193 in Smelik, den Hollander and Schmidt, eds. 2003.


Dixon, Roger. 2007. Identity Theft: Re-theologizing the Son of God. Evangelical Missions

Quarterly 43:220-226.

Evans, Helen C. 2012. Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition (7th-9th century), Pages 4-11

in Evans and Ratliff 2012.

Evans, Helen C. and Brandie Ratliff, eds. 2012. Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition 7th-

9th century. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Fine, S. 2012. Jews and Judaism between Byzantium and Islam. Pages 102-116 in Evans and

Ratliff 2012.

Garner, David B. et al. 2012. A Call to Faithful Witness (Part One)--Like Father, Like Son:

Divine Familial Language in Bible Translation; A Partial Report (Part One of Two

Parts) of the Ad Interim Committee on Insider Movements to the Fortieth General

Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (May 14, 2012). Online:

http://www.pcaac.org/Ad%20Interim%20on%20Insider%20Movements%20Report.p

df

Goppelt, Leonhard. 1981. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1: The Ministry of Jesus in its

Theological Significance. Translated by John Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Greer, Bradford. 2012. Revisiting ‘Son of God’ in Translation: Reading Acts, Luke, and

Matthew in Historical and Biblical Context. St. Francis Magazine 8:188-212.

Griffith, S. 2012. Arab Christians. Pages 60-66 in Evans and Ratliff 2012.

Guthrie, Donald. 1981. New Testament Theology. Leister: Inter-Varsity Press.

Gutt, Ernst-August. 2004. Translation, Metarepresentation and Claims of Interpretive

Resemblance. Pages 93-101 in Arduini and Hodgson 2004.

Hansen, Collin. 2011. The Son and the Crescent. Christianity Today February 2011:19-23.

Hitti, Philip K 1970. History of the Arabs. Tenth edition. London: MacMillan.

Horrell, J. Scott. 2010. Cautions Regarding ‘Son of God’ in Muslim-Idiom Translations of

the Bible: Seeking Sensible Balance. St. Francis Magazine 6:638-666.

Hourani, Albert. 1991. History of the Arab Peoples. London and Boston: Faber and Faber.

Kellerhals, Emanuel. 1978. Der Islam: Seine Geschichte, seine Lehre, sein Wesen. Gütersloh:

Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.

Khalek, N. 2012. The Syriac Church. Pages 66-68 in Evans and Ratliff 2012.

Khalili, Nasser D. 2006. Islamic Art and Culture: A Visual History. Woodstock & New York:

The Overlook Press.

Ladd, George Eldon. 1974. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Lewis, B. 1970. The Arabs in History. 5th edition. London: Hutchinson.

http://www.pcaac.org/Ad%20Interim%20on%20Insider%20Movements%20Report.pdf

http://www.pcaac.org/Ad%20Interim%20on%20Insider%20Movements%20Report.pdf


Makutoane, T. J. and J. A. Naudé. 2009. Colonial Interference in the Translations of the Bible

into Southern Sotho. Pages 79-94 in Naudé 2009.

Marais, Kobus. 2008. The Language Practitioner as Agent: The Implications of Recent

Global Trends in Research for Language Practice in Africa. Journal for New

Generation Sciences 6(3):35-47.

Mavroudi, Maria. 2012. The Naples Dioscorides. Page 22-24 in in Evans and Ratliff 2012.

Michel, O. 1978. ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ [son of God]. Pages 634-648 in The New International

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3. Edited by Colin Brown. Cape Town:

Oxford University Press.

Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé 2010. The translator as an Agent of Change

and Transformation: The Case of Translating Biblical Proverbs. Old Testament

Essays 23(2):306-321.

Morton, Jeff. 2011. Some Thoughts on Houghton 2011: Bridge the Divide. St. Francis

Magazine 7:31-40.

Naudé, Jacobus A. 2000. Translation Studies and Bible Translation. Acta Theologica 20:1-27.

Naudé, Jacobus A., ed. 2009. The Bible and its Translations: Colonial and Postcolonial

Encounters with the Indigenous. Acta Theologica Supplementum 12. Bloemfontein:

SunMedia.

Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic

Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches

Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.

Nord, Christiane. 2005. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic

Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. 2nd edition.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1965/1979. Jesus in the Qur’ān. London: Sheldon Press.

Ratliff, Brandie. 2012. Christian Communities during the Early Islamic Centuries. Pages 32-

39 in Evans and Ratliff 2012.

Reiss, K. and H. J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegen einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Rogan, Eugene. 2011. The Arabs: A History. London: Penguin Books

SIL International Statement of Best Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms.

2011. Online: www.sil.org/translation/divine_familial_terms.htm

http://www.sil.org/translation/divine_familial_terms.htm


Sirat al-Masih: The Life of the Messiah in Classical Arabic with English Translation. 1992.

Atlanta: Global Publications.

Smelik, W. F., A. A. den Hollander and U. B. Schmidt, eds. 2003. Paratext and Megatext as

Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series.

Leiden: Brill. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 2003.

Von Martitz, Peter Wülfing, Georg Fohrer, Eduard Schweitzer, Eduard Lohse and Wilhelm

Schneemelcher. 1972. ὑιός, ὑιοθεσία. Pages 334-399 in Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament, vol. VIII. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Venuti, Lawrence 1995/2008. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London

and New York: Routledge.

West, G. 2009. The Beginning of African Biblical Interpretation: The Bible among the

Batlhaping. Pages 33-47 in Naudé 2009.

Wilt, Timothy, ed. 2003. Bible Translation: Frames of Reference. Manchester: St Jerome’s.

Wilt, Timothy and Ernst R. Wendland. 2008. Scripture Frames and Framing. Stellenbosch:

Sun Media.

Documents

2012vIdeologyTrans Naude