Luther and the EHV

Now that the EHV is done it seems like a good time to consider the similarity and differences between Luther’s translation practices 500 years ago and ours today (the principles are the same; the circumstances are different).

We will use eight terms to discuss key attributes of Luther’s translation project and their application to translation projects today. The eight attributes are: confessional, communicative, creative, comprehensive, contextual, collaborative, continuative, and consequential. 

1)    Confessional

 “Confessional” Bible translation has reference to the basic presupposition that all true translators brings with them to the task—that they are handling the inspired Word of God. “I hold that a false Christian or a sectarian spirit is unable to give a faithful translation.” Luther believed that the Holy Spirit played a vital role in translation work, and hence “Scripture Alone” (sola Scriptura) must be the concrete guide.

Although any skilled linguist who is fluent in the source language and the receiving language can do an acceptable job of rendering the basic, literal sense of the words of Scripture, the most important qualities for a Bible translator to possess are a thorough knowledge of the whole message of Scripture, the aptitude to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and a humble willingness to submit to everything which Scripture says. It was this aptitude, more than the depth of his knowledge of the original languages that made Luther such a great translator.

The translator should remember he is a translator not an editor. He has no calling to “improve” the message the Spirit has given, either in content or in style.

When editors are dealing with the Bible, they must remember that they have entered sacred ground. When we are creating our own writings, we can make the writing conform to a set of rules we have adopted. In ordinary writing, our rules can shape the writing. When we are dealing with the Bible, the nature and intentions of the biblical text must shape our rules.

2)    Communicative

Every translation continually fluctuates between the two poles of “form” and “meaning.”  We seek a balance between the poles of so-called literal and dynamic equivalent theories of translation. A translator should not adhere too closely to any one theory of translation because literalistic, word-for-word translations sometimes convey the wrong meaning, or they do not communicate clearly in the receiving language. Overly free translations deprive the reader of some of the expressions, imagery, and style of the original biblical texts.

Luther is often associated with the “meaning” or “dynamic” end of the spectrum, but a consideration of both his principles and his practice indicate that he really is quite balanced between the two. It is certainly true that Luther vigorously opposed literalism in translation, as he clearly asserts:

I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation … Therefore I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew or Greek expresses … Words are to serve and follow the meaning, not meaning the words.

Luther had to speak so strongly against literalistic translation, because he realized that he was breaking new ground and swimming against the current in his idiomatic renderings of the text. But when necessary, he stayed closer to the literal rendering in order to preserve biblical meaning or to enrich the German language with biblical expressions.   Luther says,

I have not gone ahead anyway and disregarded altogether the exact wording of the original. Rather with my helpers I have been careful to see that where everything turns on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not lightly departed from it.

3)    Creative

Luther exercised four kinds of creativity in his work as translator (actually, I am sure there are more, but we are only going to talk about four of them).

1)    Change the linguistic form whenever necessary.

It requires only a quick look at the original text to demonstrate that it is impossible for a Bible translation (or any translation for that matter) to follow the original language word-for-word, because the structures of the two languages are too different. Examples: the verb to be, articles, pronouns, gender markers for feminine.

2)    Express selected implicit information

The original readers had a great deal of background information which present-day readers do not have in their store of knowledge. The original readers knew that eleh and eshel (terebinths and tamarisks) were trees. Modern readers may not know that terebinths and tamarisks are trees, so the translator can be helpful by the rendering “terebinth trees.”

Some of this additional information can be included in the translation itself, but some of it can be in notes or other helps. 

3)    Retain certain unnatural forms in critical places

Sheep cannot be changed to caribou in Arctic translations, nor can palms become pine trees. Translations can enrich the receptor language by introducing concepts and words that were not part of its native repertoire or of its readers’ experience.

4)    Listen for the sonority of the text

Luther realized that most, by far, of his potential audience would hear, rather than actually read, his translation.: How does the Word sound when it is read?  Example: fir vs fur

To help the reader follow and express the flow of the text, the EHV often punctuates by the flow of the text rather than by grammatical rules. Remember that the purpose of punctuation is not to fulfill a rule but to help the reader, who cannot hear the natural pauses and the inflection present in speech, put the pauses and inflection in the right place in the sentence.

4) Comprehensive

Luther used all the tools available to understand and express the text before him. Especially noteworthy is Luther’s use of textual criticism. Although Luther did little systematic work in Old Testament textual criticism, he may justly be regarded as a pioneer (maybe even the pioneer) of Old Testament textual criticism among Christian translators.

Also relevant to this topic is attention to formatting, layout, and font size to help readers follow the flow of the text.

5)    Contextual

Context is, of course, first of all the nearer and farther context in Scripture—Scripture interprets Scripture. Here, however, we are concerned with the external context: the sources outside Scripture that help us understand the biblical text, such as studies of other Semitic languages, ancient literature, historical records, the geography of Israel and surrounding lands, and so on. Luther was interested in making use of all these fields. The difference is that today we have vastly more resources available to us than he did.

The EHV is committed to using archaeology, geography, and history to provide a clearer understanding of the original meaning of the biblical text, and this is reflected both in the translation itself, in the footnotes, and in the online resources at our website. Here we will simply list a few examples: Brass/bronze; tambourines/drums; wine/beer.

6)    Collaborative

A diversified and well-organized translation team generally produces results that are more accurate, effective, and acceptable to the receptor language audience than a translator working in isolation can achieve. Although Luther completed his September Testament alone and in a hurry, that was due to special circumstances [being hidden away in the Wartburg Castle] and was certainly not his preference. Throughout the process of translating the Old Testament Luther had his “Sanhedrin” of consults who worked with him. Their meetings are recorded in considerable detail in multiple volumes of the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. The big difference here is that today translators have a much greater number of qualified collaborators to assist them than Luther had available to him. Examples: Luther, the King James, commentaries, reviewers, African professor, at least 10 readers.

7)    Continuative

No translation is ever perfect or complete. They must undertake a careful revision in order to correct the inevitable errors and to improve the wording wherever possible, based on their past experience and also the feedback from the publication of selected portions. But they must also try to preserve a stable text.

Translators must approach the task with humility. Luther once commented that he was very happy that he had undertaken the work of translating the Bible, because before he did this, he had been under the delusion that he was a learned fellow. We can paraphrase Ecclesiastes as saying, “Of the making of many translations there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” Part of this is because of the ever-changing nature of language and because of preferences for different styles of translation, but much of it is due simply to the nature of the art of translating, writing, and editing. No matter how many times translators, writers, or editors reread their work, if they are honest, they will always see something to change. They change A to B to C, and then decide A was better after all. It simply is the nature of the discipline. In many passages, there can be more than one good translation.

8)    Consequential

Luther's version can now be seen for what it was: a truly revolutionary achievement for his age, linguistically, socially, translationally, and theologically. It was the first time a mass medium had ever penetrated everyday life. Everyone read Luther’s new Bible or listened to it being read. It also had a profound effect on the English Bible.

It is highly unlikely that another “Luther” will arise before the Lord returns, to make the contribution that Luther did to Bible translation theory and practice. Nevertheless, there are many today who by faithfully following Luther’s principles (aided by computer-based tools and internet technology) are together, in corporate cooperation, able to accomplish results that he never dreamed possible.

Energetic participation in Bible translation-related activities is essential for the development of a dynamic, healthy church—the pastorate as well as the laity. Such involvement may include actual translation and review work; the careful comparative study of various translations plus how and why they differ; the consistent support of Bible translation, publication, and distribution work, both at home and abroad—on the mission field.

A great comfort to translators and Bible readers is expressed by a key principle which is set forth in theology: “The essence of Scripture is not the shape of the letters or the sound of the words but the divinely intended meaning.” If a translation conveys that divinely intended meaning, it is delivering the Word of God, regardless of what the letters look like or how the words are pronounced, whether the language is a bit stuffy or archaic or a bit too casual for the tastes of some readers. The external forms change (indeed they must if they are to keep communicating), but the meaning, the essence of the Word of God, remains forever.

brugjf@gmail.com  I can send you a 15 page paper or a one hour podcast or a 40-page book, or look at the library at www.wartburgproject.org