J. Ross Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics (Baylor University Press/Mohr-Siebeck, 2014), 308 pages, ISBN 9781602589803.

Reading the Sealed Book aims to bring together the academic fields of Translation Studies and Biblical Studies to help us better understand the choices made by the translator(s) of Isaiah from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuagint Bible. The Septuagint is important for two reasons. Not only is it the earliest written translation of the Old Testament into any other language but, if New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are anything to go by, it was also the Bible of common use in the early days of the church. Understanding the translation choices made by the Septuagint translators therefore offers great potential to bring us closer to the approach to Scripture used by the early Church.

J. Ross Wagner’s argument is that we can apply approaches from Translation Studies to help us interpret these choices, including the translator’s reasons for making them. This would seem a promising approach, especially since most current discussion of Bible translation seems to be still entrenched in debates around types of “equivalence” and the well-worn “free” vs. “literal” debate, which have long been abandoned in Translation Studies. The precise approach adopted by Prof Wagner is Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), which treats the translation as a text in its own right, only turning to the “assumed source text” (Toury 2012, p.99ff) when and if the particular research questions requires it. This means that it is possible within DTS to study translation choices without any reference to the source texts at all, since this could be done by comparing texts which present themselves as different translations of the same source text.

This is relevant for Wagner’s book not just because he claims to be using DTS in his study but because it suggests a shift in focus from the traditional arguments about accuracy towards understanding how the text was shaped by its community. This is where terms like “acceptability” (Wagner 2013, pp.227–234)[1] come into play, underlining that every translation is created for a person or group of people whose expectations will necessarily be taken into account by the translator. The Septuagint is no exception to this principle.

Wagner’s book follows a very simple structure, introducing the problem and historical background in the first chapter, before providing a clear exposition of the theories involved in the second. The third and fourth chapters are by far the longest and contain a close examination of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 1. Here, readers will find an exhaustive analysis of the translation choices made in this chapter and their possible rationales and effects. Unfortunately, this analysis bears much more resemblance to traditional source/target text comparisons than to what most researchers in Translation Studies would understand as DTS. It is perhaps no accident that it is in those places where the author does lean more towards what would traditionally be thought of as DTS (eg. pp. 216-217, 224-225) that the analysis provides some of the most thought-provoking details on how the translation would have been received by its first readers.

While most discussion of Bible translations take place around the traditional “free vs. literal” debate, modern, non-Biblical translation theory has become suspicious of such easy dichotomies (e.g. Pym 1997: 39).  Many translation scholars now tend to examine translations based on the purpose for which they were written.¹ This article will examine skopos theory, one of the most well-known purpose-based translation theories, in more depth and will discuss the potential objections to using it to examine and analyse Bible translations.  This theory has been chosen as it is the only purpose-based translation theory so far to have been applied to Bible translation.  I will argue for this theory to become the prevailing theory for examining entire Bible translations while the use of the more traditional terminology would then be restricted to the description of small-scale translation decisions, if used at all.

Skopos theory explained

In skopos theory, translation is seen as “an intentional, interpersonal, partly verbal intercultural interaction based on a source text” (Nord [1997] 2007: 18). To fully examine this theory, we must first examine the core notion of translation as an ‘intentional’ activity.

Nord admits that viewing translation as “intentional” or “purposeful” seems to be self-evident (ibid p. 1).  After all, the very act of doing anything implies intent or purpose (Sire 1988: 103, 227 [note 21]).  However, to view translation specifically as an “intentional” activity means that the translation itself must be judged according to how well it fulfilled its purpose (Schäffner 1997: 2).  This is the basis that forms the skopos rule, which is as follows:

[To] translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely the way they want it to function. (Nord [1997] 2007: 29, translating Vermeer 1989: 20)

How this rule operates can be demonstrated from professional practice.  A translator working on a CV that is to be submitted to an employer in a target culture² will deliberately translate in such a way that the CV will function in that culture.  This may involve seeking target culture equivalents for qualifications mentioned, converting job titles into recognisable target language titles or even changing the grammatical class of words.  In my own work, one of the most frequent changes made to such documents is to change nouns into verbs given the preference in English-language CVs for action verbs (as shown in Yate [1993] 2003: 59-61).

Judging the success of a translation on how well it fulfilled the “intention” for which it was written means that its relation to the source text will necessarily become a secondary concern.  The translation strategy chosen and therefore the relation between the two texts will be determined by the intention of the translation (Nord [1997] 2007: 32).  In CVs, this would lead the translator to weigh up strategies for handling the use of target culture equivalents of qualifications – e.g. adding them next to the source culture term, using footnotes or replacing the source term completely.  In Bible translation this might mean weighing up strategies for handling source language terms for which there is no real target culture equivalent (see Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 37, 38 for examples).

This view tends to reduce the tendency for any particular translation strategy to be seen as an “ideal.”  While there may be some occasions and intentions that call for the strategy Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) call “formal equivalence;” others will call for “functional equivalence.”  Rather than choosing one of these two, or indeed any other option, for purely theological or linguistic reasons, the translator will make his or her choice based on which is more likely to serve the purpose of the text (Nord 2002: 33; 2003: 34).  This view forms an alternative to the more traditional theories, which have caused so much debate in the past.  In fact, many skopos theorists see it is a real opportunity to solve the debates over “free vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators, and so on” (Nord [1997] 2007: 29).

This challenges the traditional supremacy of the source text as the sole basis on which translations must be assessed.  While, Hans Vermeer, one of the originators of skopos theory, stated that there must be a relationship between the source and target text (Nord [1997] 2007: 32); he also claimed to have “dethroned” the source text as an unchangeable and unchanging basis of comparison (ibid p. 37).  Some theorists feel that this could easily lead to any and all translation purposes being seen as acceptable, even if they are incompatible with the apparent purpose of the source text (ibid p. 124; Pym 1997: 91).  Following this principle, there would be nothing inherently wrong with changing universities mentioned on a CV to UK equivalents (“Oxford” for “Sorbonne,” for example) or changing all references to places in the Bible to equivalents in modern-day USA, as one Bible translator is reported to have done (Fee and Strauss 2007: 33).

In both cases, such changes, while possibly being defensible as “equivalents” on a purely cultural level, are very likely to mislead the reader.  If, for instance, the writer of a CV attended “Sorbonne” but the translator uses “Oxford,” the client could be accused of lying if the prospective employer decides to verify their claim.  Similarly, no matter how familiar US cities are to US Bible readers, the fact is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Boston.  Skopos theory therefore lacked logical and ethical limits to what could be seen as acceptable translation practice (Pym 1997: 91).

From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

Leonora Tubbs Tisdale, Prophetic Preaching: A Pastoral Approach (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 138 pages, ISBN 9780664233327.

There are some occasions where the reader finishes a book unsure whether they should praise the author for writing a challenging and necessary work or criticise them for missing vital emphases. Prophetic Preaching is one of those books.

To begin with, the author’s definition of prophetic preaching is surprising. For Tisdale, “prophetic preaching” is not tied to any prediction of the future nor to speaking out any directly Spirit-inspired words but instead to preaching “based on prophetic biblical texts that call people to live into God’s vision for justice, peace, and equality in our world” (p. 3). What is presented then is a “social justice gospel” in much the same way that the preaching of some within certain Pentecostal traditions has been labelled a “prosperity gospel”. The rest of the book will provide ample evidence of both the potential and the danger of adding the phrase “social justice” in front of the gospel.

The first chapter covers a few definitions of “prophetic preaching”, before using these definitions as a basis for outlining seven hallmarks of this kind of preaching. These hallmarks range from an expression of the Biblical grounding of prophetic preaching (p. 10, point 1) to the corporate focus of prophetic preaching (p. 10, point 3). Reflecting what will be one of the most welcome arguments of the book, point seven points out that prophetic preaching “requires of the preacher a heart that breaks with the things that break God’s heart … and a strong reliance on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit” (p. 10). The chapter then ends with seven reasons for resistance to prophetic preaching. In six of these seven reasons, Tisdale covers ground that will be recognisable to many church leaders, including the insecurities than can render preaching less effective. What is most striking is the first reason, where Tisdale takes issue with models of Biblical interpretation that focus on evangelism over social justice (pp. 11-12). Many in Pentecostal churches would almost certainly take issue not only with her view that social justice better reflects “the heart of the gospel” than evangelism but also that such a view of the gospel “relegate[s] prophetic texts to the periphery of the Scriptures” (p. 11). These are arguments that will be returned to later.

In the second chapter the book really comes into its own, with its focus on “reclaiming a spirituality for activism” (p. 22). Tisdale’s appeal for a reconnection of silence and prophetic speech (pp. 22-23), individual and corporate aspects of biblical interpretation (pp. 28-32) and “prayer and prophetic witness” (pp. 32-35) all tackle issues that are key for the modern church. The overall theme of this chapter is a call for preachers to join together what the Bible says to each of us as individuals and what it says to us as a church or nation. The only issue in this chapter is the lack of an explicit appeal for preachers to call their congregants to reconnect their private and public service to God, an appeal which would obviously have strong biblical grounding (e.g. the book of Haggai, Isaiah 58 etc).

Translation choices continue to be a major issue for the church. While preparing this review, news showed that the choices made in a further update to the NIV has led to a prominent denomination expressing disappointment with two large Christian publishers. As a professional translator, I obviously care about the choices translators make. However, as a believer, I care much more for my brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is no doubt that the translation issue covered in the article covered by this review is an important one: what should Bible translators do with concepts and phrases that might cause offence? What if a cultural or linguistic understanding of a Biblical phrase could prevent a barrier to someone receiving Christ? How far should translators go in their work to present the Word of God in a language people understand?

The specific example in this article is by no means an easy one. For many Muslims, the phrase “Son of God” paints the picture of God having physical sexual relations with Mary, an idea which is an anathema both to them and, I would imagine, to the vast majority of Evangelical Christians. We all understand that the Biblical writers are here intending to paint a picture of Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit and His intimacy with the Father.

The phrase “Son of God” therefore, is clearly a critical Biblical concept. It means far more than a purely linguistic analysis of the words would suggest and plays an important role in Biblical theology. Few could deny that knowledge of Christ and His purpose is not complete without a deep understanding of what is going on whenever this phrase is mentioned. It remains to be seen whether the proposed replacement “the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God” could ever fully stand in its place.

On the other hand, the results of making this change have been astounding. In a single network of house churches that have used a translation that has adopted this phrase, hundreds of Muslims have accepted Christ as their saviour. If Jesus is right that you recognise Christians by their love for each other (John 13: 35), do particular phrases in Bible translations really matter? Surely, perfect love and not perfect theology is the mark of the true Church.

The arguments could easily rage in either direction and as a reviewer, I find myself pulled both ways. This is not a topic that offers an easy route to neutrality. Whatever stance one takes, important and Biblically sound arguments exist in contradiction.

Perhaps this is actually the issue: we take sides more easily than we give love. This kind of behaviour is not new, Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian church for taking sides behind one preacher or another (1 Cor 1: 12-21). There may well have been real and perhaps even important theological differences between Paul, Apollos and Peter but Paul is keen to remind the church that our common faith in Christ is greater than our differences.

We might make a similar point about the tendency to back one Bible translation strategy over another. As I have written elsewhere (The Pneuma Review, vol. 12 no. 3., Summer 2009, pp. 24-43), there are real problems and issues with every strategy. Something goes wrong no matter how we translate the Word: this why almost all pastors and theologians warn against only using a single translation for study. We need the wisdom of multiple counsel.

Jana Childers and Clayton J. Schmit, eds., Performance in Preaching: Bringing the Sermon to Life (Baker Academic, 2008), 256 pages, ISBN 9780801036132.

While whole libraries of books have been written on the preparation of sermons, the art of successfully delivering them is much less studied. In this collection of articles, leading scholars on the performance aspect of preaching give us a welcome insight into not only the things preachers can learn from other performers but also what it means to examine preaching in this light.

From the first lines of the introduction, it is clear that we are not in the well-trodden territory of traditional preaching manuals. By comparing the variety found in preaching to that found in a circus, Childers and Schmidt make it clear that the emphasis in this volume will not be in making all preachers alike but in alerting them to ways of building greater self-awareness and improving their skills.

All this talk of circuses and performance might make us wary that preaching will be relegated to the status of entertainment and lose its power (cf. 1 Corinthians 2: 1-5). It is with this in mind that we should read Margaret Shuster’s essay entitled “The Truth and Truthfulness.” While outlining the importance of the spoken and listening aspects of preaching, Shuster is keen to stress that the primary role of a preacher is not that of a performer but that of a proclaimer of Truth. Performance is therefore the servant of the text and the preacher is above all a servant of God.

John M. Rottman’s discussion of the application of Speech Act theory to preaching reminds us of the limitations of using the tools of performance studies. God does, after all, work mightily through sermons that fail to fulfil the criteria we might set up for good preaching. Nevertheless, Dr Rottman is still keen for us to learn what we can from performance studies while still remembering that God is the senior partner in our preaching.

This partnership does, of course, include our responsibility to ensure that our delivery does not hamper the work of God in the congregation. This concern is reflected in several of the articles in this book, such as Todd Farley’s insightful chapter on movement and Richard F. Ward’s essay on the use of the voice. Both of these pieces contain useful ideas on improving the connection between what we say in the pulpit and how we say it.

In a similar vein, Alyson M. Mackenzie’s examination of the New Homiletics, which insists on the importance of the delivery of sermons, can be read as a useful bridge between the theological discussions of performing a sermon and their practical application. Given her perspective, it is no accident that this article contains a range of thoughts and questions that will guide preachers towards more effective delivery.

Darrell W. Johnson, The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World (IVP Academic, 2009), 278 pages, ISBN 9780830838530.

With the massive growth in multimedia ministries, it might seem that preaching could go the way of vinyl LPs and telegrams. However, in The Glory of Preaching, Darrell W. Johnson not only aims to convince us that preaching has not lost any of its wonder but that, by standing up to preach, we have the opportunity to participate in this wonder each and every week.

In part 1, we are given the theoretical reasons behind the importance of preaching, based on his hypothesis that “When a human being … invites the gathered assembly into a particular text of the Bible … something always happens” (p. 7). The first two chapters of this part take the form of extended expositions of two key Bible chapters, Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 13. Taken together, these two chapters not only give us a glimpse of the redemptive power of preaching but of reasons why we may not see the expected results after every sermon. The fourth chapter takes a different angle by providing a useful and inspiring study of the Greek words used to refer to preaching and the dynamics of the preaching moment that they represent.

The only flaw in this section is that, whereas three of the four chapters rely on direct examination of the Word of God, the third chapter takes a more indirect route and focuses exclusively on the views of theologians. While theological reflection on preaching is welcome and necessary, it would have been useful to relate the theological positions to biblical examples. The thesis of this chapter is that expository preaching, where a sermon examines a single biblical text, rather than a theme or principle, is superior to other preaching methodologies such as narrative and topical preaching (pp. 53-55). Such a position is surely hard to defend scripturally, given the wide variety of preaching styles used by both Jesus and His disciples.

For a number of readers, part 2 will be welcomed as one of the most straightforward sections of the book to apply to the practice of preaching. Here the author deals with the mechanics (his term, see pp. 103-104) of creating a sermon from a Biblical text and backing up your words with Biblical integrity.

In the first chapter of this section (chapter 5), the author walks us through the broad steps of sermon creation from scripture selection to finding the right ways to express the sermon’s content. For each step in the process, we are given a number of questions to guide our thinking. Of course, some of these will be more relevant to some texts and even congregations than others. For instance, the precise nuances of the prepositions used in a text may be less relevant when preaching to a church with a large proportion of new believers. However, these guides, if used wisely will give any preacher an excellent foundation for text study.

Chapter 6 moves us to the ordering of the sermon by providing a wide range of sample structures that can be used. These will be useful for both inexperienced and mature preachers alike and, when combined with the study methods outlined in the previous chapter will form a powerful addition to a preacher’s toolkit. We are also reminded of the oral nature of preaching and the effects this might have on preparation and on the creation of the notes that are taken up to the pulpit.

David A. Livermore, Cultural Intelligence: Improving your CQ to Engage our Multicultural World (Baker Academic, 2009), 288 pages, ISBN 9780801035890.

What is ‘cultural intelligence’ and why is it important? In today’s multicultural and multilingual world, it is more necessary than ever for church leaders and lay believers to learn how to express “love and respect for people who look, think, believe, act and see differently than we do” (11). This becomes all the more pressing when we realise that several different generations or even nationalities may be present in the churches and communities in which we live and worship. This is the driving force behind David A. Livermore’s excellent introduction to cross-cultural work and ministry. This guide is suitable for all leaders who have a heart to “reach across the chasm of cultural difference” (11) and, in this reviewer’s opinion, is destined to become a classic in its field and the benchmark against which future works will be based.

The book is split into four parts, covering the four areas of cultural intelligence (shortened to CQ), a new model for cross-cultural work and reflection. In the first part, “Love CQ,” Dr Livermore argues that the basis of all successful cross-cultural work must be genuine love for others and not simply “politically correct tolerance” (20). Only once we are sure that this is our foundation can we move on to actually learning about other cultures.

The second part, “Knowledge CQ,” maps out the contours of culture as a concept and gives examples of its different representations in everyday life. In chapter 4, for example, the author summarises the typical values of the prevailing socioethnic culture of the USA, while in chapter 5 he wrestles with the complicated task of defining culture. The last three chapters of this part cover the nature of different cultural domains, from socioethnic to organisational culture (chapter 6), the relationship between language and culture (chapter 7) and a general overview of a variety of cultural values, overlaid on a series of sliding scales (chapter 8).

The second deficiency is that in chapter 5, where he sets out to define culture, no settled definition is actually presented. Instead, we are offered a handful of “useful” definitions and a tour around common metaphors used in discussions of cultures (80-81). While it may indeed be true that the very nature of culture makes it difficult to define, and while previous definitions may not have been too helpful (80), the lack of a settled working definition here is disappointing.

For church leaders, preachers and even ordinary Christians, choosing a Bible translation can be a difficult task. This is made even more difficult for those who study translation in order to make an informed decision. It is unfortunate that discussions of Bible translations tend to be centred on personal opinions (for example Taylor 2007) or discussions over the techniques used to overcome small-scale linguistic problems (for example Fee and Stuart 2002, Neff 2002 and Hill 2006) rather than on objective facts.  However, to be in a position where they can make a truly informed choice, pastors and leaders would need to have some sort of reliable guide as to what they can expect in the translation as a whole. Based on recent translation research and my own professional experience as a translator, this article will suggest an approach based on the intended purpose of each Bible translation. It will show that it is this approach, and not the traditional approaches that spark the “free vs. literal” debate, that has the potential to help church leaders and preachers to make informed, objective decisions on the translation or translations they choose to use.

The Traditional Approaches and their Weaknesses

Historically, most Bible translation scholars have described their work in relation to two main translation schools. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth (SU, 2002), arrange nine translations of various dates along a line with “Literal” at one end and “Free” at the other (Fee and Stuart 2002: 36)¹. For them, “literal” translation is “the attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing of the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language” (ibid, p. 35). Translators working using the “free” approach, on the other hand, would agree with Dr. Mark L. Strauss (2004: xx) who says that “translation is first and foremost about meaning, not form.” The goal of free translation is to get as close as possible to the ideas and meaning of the original and to express these in a manner more closely resembling modern-day speech. The following sample of possible translations of a simple question in French illustrates the differences between these two approaches.

French: Comment vous appelez-vous?
English 1: How yourself calls you?
English 2: What do you call yourself?
English 3: What is your name?

In this example, English 1 represents the version most likely to be generated if someone with knowledge of French grammar were to look each word up in a dictionary and translate the sentence accordingly. English 2 represents the version most likely to be generated by a translator using the “literal” approach—as few changes as possible have been made to the grammar of the sentence while still making sense in English. The verb “to call” has also been retained as the literal, dictionary translation of the verb “appeler.”

English 3 represents the “free” translation approach. In this case, more attention has been paid to the normal expectations and phrasings of English than to the grammar of the original. None of the words in English 3 can be found in any form in the original but this version has the advantage of being the version that most native English speakers would be familiar with.

In this simple example we can see that literal translation has the advantage of giving us an insight into the grammar of the original and the meanings of the individual words used. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it is likely to generate translations that contain phrasings that are unfamiliar and do not reflect normal English use (Fee and Stuart 2002: 35; Strauss 2004: xix; Fee and Strauss 2007: 34). Free translation, on the other hand, has the advantage of offering translations that read more naturally. The disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it more difficult for readers to gain access to the patterns used in the original language (Van Leeuwen 2001: 30, Strauss 2004: xix, Fee and Strauss 2007: 57).

An example of the problems with either approach in Bible translation is found in how four different translations have handled 1 Kings 2:10. In this example, the first two translations can be roughly seen as traditional, literal translations with the second two representing the free approach to translation to differing degrees.

NKJV: So David rested with his fathers…
ESV: Then David slept with his fathers…
NLT: Then David died and was buried with his ancestors.
TM: Then David joined his ancestors.

It is clear from comparing these four translations that we have a phrase that can be loosely translated into English as “David died.” The NKJV and ESV, in order to translate literally, have tried to keep as much of the original Hebrew phrasing as possible. While their choice of phrasing may be clear enough for those who are used to reading the Word, they have turned a phrase that would have been natural and easy to understand to the original readers into a phrase that is foreign and, in the case of the ESV especially, can easily be interpreted in a sense that is completely different to that intended by the original author. In the two free translations, on the other hand, the phrase either had to be extended to include both elements of the Hebrew image, as in the NLT, or recreated to express these elements and keep the same meaning as the original, in the case of The Message. This verse, therefore, clearly illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.