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).

What are the marks of biblical and Spirit-filled preaching?

Frederic L. Godet summarizes the Pentecostal preacher’s purpose: “The preacher’s task in this work lies, not in wishing to act in the place and stead of the Spirit with the resources of his own eloquence and genius, but in opening up the way for Him by simple testimony rendered to Christ.”¹ While preachers should strive to do their best for Christ, they should at the same time allow the Word and Spirit to do their unique work in the hearts of people. But how do preachers open up the way for this work? I will address this issue by answering two other questions: What are the biblical premises for Pentecostal preaching? And what are the biblical principles for Pentecostal preaching? One paradigm for Pentecostal preaching answering these key questions comes from the Bible as a whole and from 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 which specifically focuses on Christ and reliance upon the Holy Spirit for lasting results.

Steve D. Eutsler

First, I will briefly examine some general biblical premises for Pentecostal preaching. Then I will focus more at length on some specific biblical principles for Pentecostal preaching drawn from 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.

Some General Biblical Premises For Pentecostal Preaching

As Fred B. Craddock says, “The pulpit has a memory, participating in a tradition reaching back across the centuries.”² Its earliest remembrances stretch back to the Old Testament and continue through the New Testament in the gospels, Acts, and epistles.

Paul was actually in sync with the whole revelation of Scripture when he declared his intention to preach only “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” in 1 Cor. 2:2.³ This focus proves true even of the Old Testament. Graeme Goldsworthy explains, “That the whole Bible testifies to Christ is what we mean when we say that Christ is in all the Scriptures. It is because of this that the preacher must ask the question of every sermon, ‘Did the sermon show how the text testifies to Christ?’”⁴ Christ constitutes the ultimate sacrifice of the Pentateuch. He provides mediation for the saints in the Psalms. And the Lord Jesus serves as the subject of prophecy in the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:44). Naturally, any Pentecostal preacher would want to bring out this Christo-centric focus in light of the declaration of Paul’s theme for preaching. Much more will be said about this emphasis on Christ in the second half of this paper.

Of course, the priests and prophets were expositors of God’s Word. The case of Ezra the priest and scribe expounding the Word in Nehemiah 8:1-12 serves as a classic example of biblical exposition. Likewise, all the writings of the prophets are in essence sermons preached to Israel and some of the surrounding nations.

Pentecostal preachers have long been noted for their ability and tendency to tell stories while they preach. They see this as following the precedent of that Master of preaching, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In parable after parable, Christ likens the kingdom of God to something familiar to His listeners in order to aid their understanding (cf. Mark 4:10-12.). Concerning this premise, two extremes must be avoided. First, Pentecostal preachers must not rely solely upon illustrative material. Jesus also preached the kerygma—the announcement of the gospel—and taught the didache—the application of the gospel (cf. Matt. 5-7; John 3-4). Second, Pentecostal preachers must not depend exclusively on biblical exposition. Balanced Pentecostal preaching makes ample use of both illustrations and exposition. Exposition has been compared to the foundation and walls of a building and illustrations to the windows that let the light in. One without the other is poor form and impractical. Jesus was the Master of both illustration and exposition, although many modern scholars emphasize primarily His unique contribution to preaching with the parables. Jesus was Master of the metaphor such as “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11, etc.). In light of this paradigm for ministers, Pentecostal preachers should make use of whatever rhetorical devices available to them like illustrations to improve their communication of the gospel to those who find it difficult to hear.

Two principles concerning preaching stand out in the Book of Acts. First, preachers must preach the Word, not their own ideas or opinions (cf. 2 Tim. 4:12). Preaching Christ revealed must be centered in the text.

Second, preachers must preach as ambassadors of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20). Ministers are representatives of the Lord. They must stay true to His orders and represent the heavenly homeland accurately in word and work.

Wherever the apostles preached the gospel, they stayed true to the original message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (i.e., the kerygma), regardless of the consequences, fair or foul (Acts 2:14-39; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 7:2-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 22:2-21; 26:1-23, etc.).⁵ This model furnishes another reason why sermons should always be based upon Scripture. Use of the Bible helps insure the proper testimony of Christ and the powerful anointing of the Spirit. In this way, ministers are less likely to misrepresent their Lord.