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).

History teaches that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit did not cease with the first apostles—the early church demonstrated signs and wonders of God’s work in the world.

Cessationism teaches that the types of signs and wonders evidenced in the New Testament are not for today. The reasons given by cessationists are varied, and the internet is full of websites dedicated to this doctrine. However, many scholars have written in favor of signs and wonders being for today, and they have shown that the arguments against signs and wonders today are weak and biased. Some of the most impressive examples of polemical writings in favor of signs and wonders today include The Kingdom and the Power, edited by Dr. Gary Greig and Kevin Springer; Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, by Dr. Jack Deere; Confronting Powerless Christianity, by Dr. Charles Kraft; On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Miracles, by Dr. Jon Ruthven; just to name a few.

In this article, I want to take you back in history and present to you an argument for signs and wonders revealing that the miraculous works done by Jesus and the apostles were also done by the early church—thus showing that the main thesis of cessationists, signs and wonders passed away with the last of the apostles, is false. I will limit my discussion to exorcism and healing, and I will quote writers from the 1st-3rd centuries who have written about continuing signs and wonders. I will also add commentary where I feel it may be helpful and relevant for today’s church.

All of the quotes are from the 10 volume The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson between 1885-1887.¹ They are cited in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot.² The citations use the convention of “volume number. page number”; thus 1.200 indicates a quote is from volume 1, page 200. I will use the notation of ANF 1.200 to designate a quote’s location.

Exorcism

One of the main themes I found in the early church writings I examined was exorcism. In the New Testament, exorcism is a sign, wonder, or miracle, bringing deliverance to an individual who is demonically oppressed or possessed. Let’s first examine some of the evidence that exorcism continued on, past the apostolic age.

Justin Martyr
Image: Wikimedia Commons

Justin Martyr, c.155 (or shortly thereafter)

“For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs.” ANF 1.190

“We call Him Helper and Redeemer. Even the demons fear the power of His name at this day, when they are exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ, … they are defeated.” ANF 1.209

“He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions.’ … And now we have all the demons and evil spirits subjected to us, when we exorcise them.” ANF 1.236