Skopos <\/i><\/b>theory explained<\/b><\/p>\n
In skopos<\/i> theory, translation is seen as \u201can intentional, interpersonal, partly verbal intercultural interaction based on a source text\u201d (Nord [1997] 2007: 18). To fully examine this theory, we must first examine the core notion of translation as an \u2018intentional\u2019 activity.<\/p>\n
Nord admits that viewing translation as \u201cintentional\u201d or \u201cpurposeful\u201d seems to be self-evident (ibid p. 1).\u00a0 After all, the very act of doing anything implies intent or purpose (Sire 1988: 103, 227 [note 21]).\u00a0 However, to view translation specifically as an \u201cintentional\u201d activity means that the translation itself must be judged according to how well it fulfilled its purpose (Sch\u00e4ffner 1997: 2).\u00a0 This is the basis that forms the skopos <\/i>rule, which is as follows:<\/p>\n [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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How this rule operates can be demonstrated from professional practice.\u00a0 A translator working on a CV that is to be submitted to an employer in a target culture2<\/sup> will deliberately translate in such a way that the CV will function in that culture.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n Judging the success of a translation on how well it fulfilled the \u201cintention\u201d for which it was written means that its relation to the source text will necessarily become a secondary concern.\u00a0 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).\u00a0 In CVs, this would lead the translator to weigh up strategies for handling the use of target culture equivalents of qualifications \u2013 e.g. adding them next to the source culture term, using footnotes or replacing the source term completely.\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n This view tends to reduce the tendency for any particular translation strategy to be seen as an \u201cideal.\u201d\u00a0 While there may be some occasions and intentions that call for the strategy Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) call \u201cformal equivalence;\u201d others will call for \u201cfunctional equivalence.\u201d\u00a0 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).\u00a0 This view forms an alternative to the more traditional theories, which have caused so much debate in the past.\u00a0 In fact, many skopos<\/i> theorists see it is a real opportunity to solve the debates over \u201cfree vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators, and so on\u201d (Nord [1997] 2007: 29).<\/p>\n In both cases, such changes, while possibly being defensible as \u201cequivalents\u201d on a purely cultural level, are very likely to mislead the reader.\u00a0 If, for instance, the writer of a CV attended \u201cSorbonne\u201d but the translator uses \u201cOxford,\u201d the client could be accused of lying if the prospective employer decides to verify their claim.\u00a0 Similarly, no matter how familiar US cities are to US Bible readers, the fact is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Boston.\u00a0 Skopos<\/i> theory therefore lacked logical and ethical limits to what could be seen as acceptable translation practice (Pym 1997: 91).<\/p>\n To solve this weakness, Christiane Nord added the variable of \u201cloyalty\u201d to skopos<\/i> theory.\u00a0 \u201cLoyalty\u201d here is taken to mean the translator\u2019s commitment both to the clients and text producers they work with and to the culture in which they work (Nord [1997] 2007: 125).\u00a0 This addition introduces an \u201cinterpersonal\u201d aspect to skopos<\/i> theory as translators are seen as having responsibilities towards all their communicative partners.\u00a0 This also answers Pym\u2019s criticism (Pym 1997: 92-3) that skopos<\/i> theory reduces the role of the translator to that of a service provider who exists to fulfil others\u2019 purposes, with no ethical space of their own.\u00a0 With the addition of the notion of \u201cloyalty\u201d the translator is now ethically and professionally responsible to either observe the expectations their partners have of their work or to tell them why these expectations have not been met.\u00a0 Nord explains how this works in the following terms.<\/p>\n Normally, since authors are not experts in translation, they are likely to insist on a faithful rendering of the source text\u2019s surface structures. Only if they trust the translator\u2019s loyalty will they consent to any changes of adaptations needed to make the translation work in the target culture. And this confidence would again strengthen the translator\u2019s prestige as a responsible and trustworthy partner. (Nord [1997] 2007: 125)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This trust in the translator\u2019s \u201cloyalty\u201d to their communicative partners in translation is therefore seen as empowering the translator to ensure that the text achieves its given purpose.\u00a0 It also imposes on the translator a duty to remain loyal to the original author of the source text by ensuring that the intentions of the target text are in line with those of the original author (Nord [1997] 2007: 125).\u00a0 In the case of Bible translation, Nord feels that the translator\u2019s loyalty is to the authors of the Bible and to those who will read the Word, rather than to previous translations or \u2018”faithfulness” (whatever that may be) to nouns, verbs, and adjectives.\u2019 (Nord 2008: personal communication).<\/p>\n This idea of \u201cloyalty\u201d also introduces the \u201cintercultural\u201d (Nord [1997] 2007: 18) dynamic to skopos<\/i> theory.\u00a0 This notion is likely to become most necessary when there is a disagreement between the source and target culture as to what a good translation is.\u00a0 In this case, the translator is expected to act as a mediator between the two cultures (ibid p. 125).\u00a0 This may take the form of the translator explaining to a publisher that a translation is likely to be politically unpopular if done correctly or reducing the forcefulness of an expression in order to ensure that the source text producer is not discredited (ibid p. 127).\u00a0 In both cases, the translator must take into account the difference in how various cultures perceive translation and the likely reaction of the target audience.<\/p>\n The \u201cintercultural\u201d aspect encourages translation problems to be examined in the light of cultural issues.\u00a0 A good example of this is the problem of what to do with the word \u201cdenarius\u201d in Jesus\u2019 parable of the workmen in the field (Matthew 20: 1-16).\u00a0 It may be right to insist that this be seen as \u201cthe average wage of a day laborer\u201d (Fee and Strauss 2007: 94) however, there still remains a two-fold translation problem.\u00a0 Firstly, people who work in steady employment today tend to be paid weekly or monthly and not daily, so the phrase \u201cnormal daily wage\u201d as used in the NLT translation of verse 2 is possibly unclear.\u00a0 Secondly, if translators try to avoid this by picking a particular amount of money, they run the risk of either inflation or irrelevant comparisons making a mockery of their work.\u00a0 There is simply no real equivalent available.\u00a0 The choice here is therefore not between a good solution and a bad one but between several solutions that each have their own strengths and weaknesses.<\/p>\n Once again, the translator will choose their solution according to the purpose of their translation, including its intended audience (Taylor 1997: 76-77).\u00a0 A translation prepared for new believers in the UK might call for the use of an explanatory phrase or even a very rough monetary equivalent; a translator working in a culture where bartering is more common might prefer the option of exchanging \u201cdenarius\u201d for a more common method of payment.\u00a0 Conversely, a translation prepared in a culture where daily pay is very common could very easily contain the phrase \u201cthe normal daily rate\u201d with no problem.\u00a0 The key here is that it is not so much the word itself that is the problem but its use in the particular culture in question.\u00a0 In this context Harries\u2019 (2006: 59) appeal for a study of language use gains even more impetus as translators are very like to inadvertently choose unsuitable solutions if they do not have such information.<\/p>\n This \u201cintercultural\u201d element in turn leads into the final consideration; that of translation being a \u201cpartly verbal\u201d interaction.\u00a0 In this case, it is the word \u201cpartly\u201d that carries the greatest weight.\u00a0 In skopos<\/i> theory, translation is not simply about the exchange of word A in language X for word B in language Y.\u00a0 Instead, this theory, much like the theories of Hatim and Mason ([1997] 2003), sees translation as essentially about communication (Nord [1997] 2007: 10, 11, 16, 17; 2003: 34).\u00a0 This agrees with Strauss\u2019 assertion that translation is primarily about communicating meaning rather than reproducing form (Strauss 2004: xx).\u00a0 The centre of any analysis should therefore be how the meaning of the text has been communicated.3<\/sup><\/p>\n Applying skopos <\/i>theory to Bible translations<\/b><\/p>\n No scholar could pretend that examining the purpose of Bible translations is entirely new.\u00a0 Fee and Strauss (2007: 119-120) have already noted the first decision to be made by translators is to determine the intended audience for their translation.\u00a0 However, given the relatively late placement of this comment, the reader must assume that, in their view, considerations of purpose and audience design must take second place to discussions over translation approach.<\/p>\n This seems contradictory.\u00a0 If they say \u201cthe first, and most critical, decision made by translators\u2026has to do with the audience intended for their translation\u201d (Fee and Strauss 2007: 119) then the meagre attention given to the analysis of this issue at the end of the book disproportionately influences the weight of their argument.\u00a0 If the translator must first decide on the intended audience, then those discussing Bible translations should also start with the question of the audience design and translation purpose.\u00a0 To begin at the end, so to speak, suggests that somehow translation approaches such as \u201cformal equivalence\u201d or \u201cfunctional equivalence\u201d (ibid p. 25-34) can be discussed as translation strategies independently of issues of translation purpose, audience design or even cultural expectations.\u00a0 It really cannot be stressed enough that such a view is dubious at best (see Taylor 1997: 76-77 for examples of this in action).<\/p>\n Given the emphasis in skopos<\/i> theory on the intention or purpose of the translation, applying it to Bible translation requires the reader or scholar to be able to determine the purpose for which the translation was written.\u00a0 As I wrote elsewhere, in most cases the prefaces of Bible translations do normally contain the requisite information for this task.\u00a0 This information should therefore form the basis of the analysis of any translation.<\/p>\n To take an example that I have already used4<\/sup>, the preface New King James Version clearly illustrates the translators\u2019 wish to stay as closely as possible to the rhythm and phrasing of the original Authorised Version (NKJV 1982: xxxv).\u00a0 The success or otherwise of this translation should therefore be primarily measured against its similarity to this text.\u00a0 Conversely, it would be foolish to use the same standard to describe the success or failure of The Message in fulfilling its skopos<\/i>.\u00a0 Here the translator has clearly stated that his purpose was to translate in a way that would sound as if the Word was originally written or preached to his church (Peterson 2003: lii; Strauss 2004: xvi).\u00a0 He also stated clearly that his translation was not aimed at scholars but at helping people who may have become disenchanted with the Word to read it in a new light (Peterson 2003: li).<\/p>\n In this case, skopos<\/i> theory serves to encourage readers to measure translations against the known and explicit standard set by their translators5<\/sup>.\u00a0 This avoids the pitfalls of the more traditional accounts of translations where scholars could attempt to establish a translation rule without clearly defining why this should be the case.\u00a0 In the case of Fee and Strauss (2007: 36), for example, this manifests itself in recommendations that in all translations, the epistles should \u201cread like first-century letters\u201d (ibid p. 37).\u00a0 In the case of Wenham\u2019s review of Ryken (Wenham 2003: 77, 78) this is shown in the implicit assertion that the Bible must read like a work of great literature and that linguistic tricks can and should be reproduced in all translations.<\/p>\n Both cases assume that the scholar\u2019s subjective preference is or should be a universal truth.\u00a0 There is little reason to expect non-academic readers of the Bible to notice or be interested in the forms and conventions of a first-century letter.\u00a0 Neither is it justifiable to insist that the Bible should read like one of the literary classics when there is little in the Word itself to justify such a view.\u00a0 While these scholars may have found issues that are of great importance to some audiences, it is going too far to set them up as universal principles of translation.\u00a0 Instead, skopos<\/i> theory would require that the importance of these views would depend on the purpose of the translation, including its intended audience.\u00a0 The principles and resulting strategies pertinent to translations aimed at Bible scholars or academics in training will not necessarily be the same as those required in translations aimed at someone whose knowledge of the source language and culture is more limited and vice versa.\u00a0 Similarly, many of the requirements of a translation aimed at lovers of classic English prose will be significantly different to those of a translation aimed at lovers of ancient history.<\/p>\n The \u201cinterpersonal\u201d elements of skopos<\/i> theory, including Nord\u2019s addition of \u201cloyalty,\u201d encourage readers to trust Bible translators, no matter which of the traditional views they might favour.\u00a0 In this view, the translator\u2019s responsibility towards God, the writers of the Bible and their target audience is given centre stage.\u00a0 Unlike the traditional paradigms, which have proven to be insufficient to prevent translations from clearly distorting the meaning of Scripture (Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 43), loyalty shuts the door to sectarian and unorthodox interpretations.\u00a0 In the framework of loyalty, attempts to create a translation that denies or reduces the deity of Christ, for instance, are absolutely excluded as justifiable translation purposes.<\/p>\n \u201cLoyalty,\u201d of course, does not entirely erase the differences that will arise when translators of different theological perspectives translate the Word \u2013 what one translator will see as remaining \u201cloyal\u201d to the authors of the Word, another might see as a distortion.\u00a0 In this case, neither the view that the \u201cclient,\u201d in this case the publisher, is always right nor the idea that \u201cprofessionalism\u201d is enough of a basis on which to make a decision (Pym 1997: 79-82) can provide an adequate basis for judging between different views.\u00a0 However, it must be admitted that there is simply no research into the operations of loyalty in any translation.\u00a0 It is seen as a philosophical and ethical concept rather than one that can be empirically measured (Nord [1997] 2007: 125). Until further research is done into its operation, researchers can only suggest possible routes in the pursuit of a solution to this dilemma. \u00a0One approach worth pursuing would be to recommend that Bible translators find colleagues of differing theological viewpoints to check their work.\u00a0 Another would be for theologians, translation scholars and Bible translators to work together on the preparation of professional guidelines akin to those that professional associations require their members to sign.6<\/sup><\/p>\n The \u201cintercultural\u201d element of skopos<\/i> theory emphasizes that the act of translating the Bible involves building a bridge between the world of the Biblical writers and the world of today. One solution is to try to make the \u201cotherness\u201d of the Biblical worlds \u201caccessible\u201d to modern readers (Nord 2005).\u00a0 Another option among many is to keep \u201chistorical distance\u201d in some places and not in others (see Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 35-42).\u00a0 Where previous scholars have tried to set up one approach as an ideal for all translations, skopos<\/i> theory would yet again insist that the ideal approach is dependent on the purpose of the translation and is limited by the translator\u2019s loyalty.<\/p>\n Skopos <\/i><\/b>theory and traditional paradigms<\/b><\/p>\n The central argument of this article has been that skopos<\/i> theory should become the new standard theory for the discussion of Bible translations.\u00a0 However, any discussion on this point must acknowledge that it could be argued that this theory and those underlying the \u201cfree vs. literal\u201d debate seek to define and discuss entirely different problems.\u00a0 With its emphasis on the purpose of the translation, skopos<\/i> theory compares the translation to the purpose for which it was written.\u00a0 The traditional models, on the other hand, have only ever sought to compare the target text with the source text.\u00a0 Most discussions over Bible translations in general and translation choice in particular centre on how translators handle short portions of text (e.g. Fee and Stuart 2002: 36-42, Strauss 2004 and Fee and Strauss 2007: 45-110).\u00a0 Traditionalists may say that this shows that the traditional approaches are at their best in discussions concerning the linguistic aspects of translation. Hence, to expect analysis performed using this mode to include situational variables is to stretch the framework over an area it was never meant to cover.<\/p>\n Such an argument does have some support.\u00a0 When Fee and Strauss (2007: 25-34) talk of \u201cformal equivalence\u201d and \u201cfunctional equivalence,\u201d they imagine equivalence in specifically linguistic terms.\u00a0 It is then perfectly logical that they should cite evidence from grammar (ibid p. 28) or comparative linguistics (ibid p. 25) to justify their views.\u00a0 Such a model, however, tends to pull discussions of translation further and further out of the reach of all but the most dedicated scholars.\u00a0 In order to choose a Bible translation, a believer would need a strong grounding in linguistics, theology and preferably one or more of the biblical languages.\u00a0 This leaves us with the sad fact that the only people qualified to choose a Bible translation would be those who translated the version in the first place and those who are likely to translate the next version.<\/p>\n When it comes to helping people choose a translation, skopos<\/i> theory seems to offer us a far more stable foundation than the traditional models.\u00a0 Decisions concerning which translation should be used for which purpose must be based on a theory that is centred on translation purpose.\u00a0 After all, if both translators and readers begin with purpose in mind, it is perfectly logical that those analysing or recommending translations should too.\u00a0 The principle that people should look for the translation with the purpose which most closely matches their purpose in using it is also far simpler and potentially less controversial than any attempt to argue the case for a universally ideal approach, especially since the existence of such an approach is doubtful anyway (Ellingworth 2004: 352)<\/p>\n Objections to skopos <\/i>theory<\/b><\/p>\n It would be na\u00efve to suppose that skopos<\/i> theory, or any new view for that matter, is so faultless and perfectly formed that opposition to it is impossible or foolish.\u00a0 This section therefore discusses some of the principle objections to skopos<\/i> theory.<\/p>\n Objection no. 1: Skopos<\/i> theory tells us nothing new<\/p>\n Given that the roots of skopos<\/i> theory are found in previous functionalist theories (Nord [1997] 2007: 9) and theories of action (ibid pp. 11-13), critics have questioned how original it actually is (ibid pp. 114-116).\u00a0 Similarly, if Bible scholars are already aware of the need for Bible readers to be aware of the purpose and audience for which the translation was designed, we could easily question the need for an entirely new theory based on the same concept.<\/p>\n It is true that translation purpose and cultural issues have already been discussed in connection with Bible translation; however, such discussions (e.g. Harries 2006 and Nord 2005) have actually concluded that the traditional approaches do not give sufficient consideration to either of these areas.\u00a0 Skopos<\/i> theory could therefore be seen as an attempt to answer the call for a more integrated approach to Bible translation that foregrounds cultural and purpose-based variables.<\/p>\n The novelty of skopos<\/i> theory is therefore not located so much in the information it contains but in how this information is organised.\u00a0 The centre of analysis moves from being semantic equivalence or equivalence in terms of linguistic forms to the purpose of the translation including its intended audience.\u00a0 In this case, the semantic comparison of the target and source texts turns into the functional analysis of the quality of the translation in terms of its suitability for its purpose.\u00a0 Discussions over translation strategies are removed from their imagined vacuum and morph into debates over which strategies are most suitable for which purposes.\u00a0 Lastly, translations are no longer classified according to subjective criteria such as \u201chistorical distance\u201d (Fee and Stuart [1994] 2002: 36) but are organised according to their purpose and intended audience.<\/p>\n Thus, if the initial objection is set aside, the possibility for new avenues of research arises as translation theorists and practitioners seek to empirically examine how well a Bible translation has fulfilled its purpose in its target situation.\u00a0 Strategies and methods borrowed from market research may be of use, allowing new translations to be field tested in focus groups, churches and even non-Christian audiences.\u00a0 New models of translation could be built integrating skopos<\/i> theory and discussions of translation techniques, allowing theorists to examine the effects of different purposes on different translations.<\/p>\n Skopos<\/i> theory also suggests new approaches in Bible translation teaching.\u00a0 Firstly, it suggests the need for further cross-disciplinary work on the use of non-Biblical translation theories in Bible translation practice.\u00a0 It also suggests that teachers of Bible translation might benefit from the functionalist teaching approaches outlined by Nord ([1997] 2007: 39-79).\u00a0 These include a deep analysis of the function(s) of the source text and thoughts on how changes in function may affect translation strategies.\u00a0 Such approaches may bring welcome balance to some of the current discussions of Bible translation (e.g. Wenham 2003, Fee and Strauss 2007) where target culture and translation purpose are given scant attention.<\/p>\n Objection no. 2: Skopos<\/i> reduces the status of the source text too far<\/p>\n If it is accepted that skopos<\/i> theory offers a useful new perspective, discussion must turn to the most pressing danger of its use in Bible translation.\u00a0 Since shortly after the theory was formalised, with the appearance of Reiss and\u00a0 Vermeer\u2019s Grundlegung einer allgemeneinen Translationstheorie <\/i>in 1984, one of the most trenchant criticisms of skopos<\/i> theory has been that it gives too little respect to the source text (Nord [1997] 2007: 119).\u00a0 Where equivalence to the source text, in one form or another, was once held up as being the sole purpose of translation8<\/sup>,we now have a situation where we have a multiplicity of purposes with no criteria to allow us to judge one against another (Pym 1997: 91).<\/p>\n Even if we accept for the moment that Nord\u2019s concept of \u201cloyalty\u201d is entirely sufficient to resolve this dilemma, we still find ourselves faced with a situation where the Word of God as written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is reduced to being an \u201coffer of information\u201d (Vermeer 1982 cited in Nord [1997] 2007: 12).\u00a0 This \u201coffer of information\u201d could then be translated in any way that the translator sees fit in order to fulfil the purpose that has been set for the translation.\u00a0 Not only does this stretch the traditional conceptual limits of translation to breaking point (Pym 1995: 168) but it fails to take into account the inspired nature of the Word of God.<\/p>\n Any solution to this problem must take into account that more recent accounts of skopos<\/i> theory have deliberately underlined the importance of source text analysis in translation.\u00a0 Nord ([1997] 2007: 62) sees three main reasons for detailed source text analysis.<\/p>\n Analysis of the source text guides the translation process in that it provides the basis for decision about (a) the feasibility of the translation assignment, (b) which source-text units are relevant to functional translation, and (c) which translation strategy will lead to a target text meeting the requirements of the translation brief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To this we might add the necessity of detailed exegesis to help translators determine the textual and theological function of the source text at any given time.\u00a0 Such exegesis gives translators as much information as possible on the source text to allow them to determine how much of this information must or even can be communicated to allow the translation to function for its target audience.\u00a0 An example of this is the decision taken by Nord and her husband to use the German verb \u201csetze sich\u201d (sat down) in their translation of Luke 6:20, because their historical research that showed that teachers in New Testament times would often be seated with their disciples stood around them (Nord 2003: 35).<\/p>\n Thus, while equivalence to the linguistic form of the source text may not be seen as important in skopos<\/i> theory, it would be a mistake to see this as a danger to accurate Bible translation.\u00a0 On the contrary, if we add the notion of \u201cloyalty\u201d to the need for exegesis and source text analysis, we have a powerful heuristic for determining the acceptability of any given translation purpose.\u00a0 No purpose is acceptable if it means being disloyal to the original intended purpose of the Word of God or of the particular section of it under discussion (following Nord [1997] 2007: 125).\u00a0 Creating a translation for use with new believers could be justified in that it would help with the fulfilment of Christ\u2019s command in Matthew 28: 28-20.\u00a0 Similarly, translating an entire version specifically aimed at helping personal or theological study could be justified by 2 Timothy 3: 16-17.\u00a0 On the other hand, translating the Scriptures in such a way as to attempt to induce racist views of the Jews or to defend sectarian theological opinions would be disallowed.\u00a0 In both cases, there is no backing for this purpose neither in Scripture itself nor in any responsible exegesis.<\/p>\n Interestingly enough, this approach would also question the value of translations confessing \u201cloyalty\u201d to previous translations in the same language.\u00a0 Given the lack of any possible justification, outside of subjective opinions over what constitutes a \u201cfaithful\u201d or \u201cbeautiful\u201d translation, such translation purposes would be subject to severe questioning under skopos<\/i> theory.\u00a0 It would seem that, while skopos<\/i> theory would open the door to new translation purposes, it is likely to close the door to others.\u00a0 For this reason, the validity of any given translation purpose must remain a matter of theological debate.\u00a0 In this case, the theory is not enough in itself to solve the issue but once again points to how discussions from other fields can be integrated into the debate.<\/p>\n Objection 3: Opting for one Bible translation purpose is too simplifying<\/p>\n No matter how hard translation theorists such as Hatim and Mason ([1997] 2005: vii, 1, 111-126) and Nord (2003) might try to argue that translation theory and its associated disciplines work equally well in any domain, there will always be dissenting voices arguing that the Bible is different.\u00a0 One of the areas in which it would seem to most differ from many of the texts analysed in translation theory is that it is not a single text, produced at a given moment in time and in a given culture but a collection of 66 texts written and collected over thousands of years.\u00a0 A quick glance in any Bible commentary will assure the reader that each book was written with a different purpose and audience in mind.\u00a0 Dissenters could therefore argue, with some justification, that the attempt to translate the Bible for a single purpose or audience is far too simplifying.<\/p>\n It is entirely plausible to think in such terms.\u00a0 To translate Nahum\u2019s prophecies against Nineveh as predictions of the downfall of any modern city would betray the translator\u2019s loyalty to both the prophet and the audience of the translation.\u00a0 On the other hand, to take the practicality of the book of James and translate it in such a way that the reader spends all his or her time studying the grammar of his instructions would be equally disloyal.\u00a0 It once again becomes necessary for translators to carry out a detailed exegesis of the text at hand in order to try to discover the intentions of the writer at each stage.<\/p>\n However, it would be a mistake to interpret this duty as nullifying the idea of an overall translation purpose.\u00a0 The very fact that almost all Bible translations include the purpose for their work in the preface should be enough to prove this point.\u00a0 Similarly, we have seen that even theorists coming from the point of view of traditional theories realise the importance of translation purpose.\u00a0 Therefore, we must conclude that while translators have a duty to be aware of and integrate the intentions of the original authors into their work, in practice the way that this is done is determined by the purpose of the translation as a whole.<\/p>\n Objection 4: Skopos<\/i> theory is skewed towards \u201cfunctionally equivalent\u201d translation<\/p>\n In theory, there should be no question of skopos<\/i> theory favouring one translation strategy over another as the central tenet of skopos<\/i> theory is that translators will choose their translation strategies and techniques according to the purpose of the translation (Nord 2002: 33).\u00a0 Nord\u2019s schema of possible text-wide translation strategies (Nord [1997] 2007: 48, 51) comes close to confirming this assumption. She lists four strategies that prioritise the documentation of features of the source culture and three that prioritise the function of the text as an \u201cinstrument for target-culture communicative interaction\u201d (ibid p. 51).<\/p>\n However, it would be equally easy to assume that the very orientation of skopos<\/i> theory towards purposes as they are determined in the target culture (e.g. Nord [1997] 2007: 115) will necessarily tend towards the production of functionally equivalent translations.\u00a0 In many of the examples of purposes suggested earlier in this article, some form of deviation from the formal elements and order of the source text will be necessary in order to make the translation function for the target readership.\u00a0 In the example of the translation of CVs, it was suggested that additions would be necessary in order for the CV to help get someone a new job.\u00a0 In the example of the translation of the word \u201cdenarius,\u201d it was suggested that, in most cases, some kind of explanatory phrase or modern monetary equivalent would be more useful than retaining the original term without any changes.<\/p>\n In light of such examples, we must conclude that most translation purposes will involve some kind of move towards what traditional translation theory might call \u201cfunctional equivalence\u201d (e.g. Fee and Strauss 2007: 28).\u00a0 The opposite approach, while perfectly justifiable, tends to only be justified in the light of a limited number of translation purposes.\u00a0 On the other hand, the fact that the strategies called for by so many purposes \u2013 from translating for new believers or those whose first language is not that of the translation to the attempt to produce an equivalent effect on the target audience \u2013 would all be classified under a single heading suggests a further weakness in the traditional labelling of translations.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n The purpose of this article was to provide a more detailed account of skopos<\/i> theory, paying particular attention to the possible objections to its use in Bible translation choice and analysis.\u00a0 Skopos<\/i> theory has been seen to cover far more ground than is commonly covered by the more traditional accounts of Bible translation.\u00a0 Its emphasis on the intentional nature of translation offers a new way of examining and choosing finished translations as well as opening new research avenues in translation reception and translator training. Its notions of the intercultural and interpersonal aspects of translation offer a way of integrating concerns raised by missionary translators into standard theory while still offering boundaries for translation practice.<\/p>\n However, the emphasis on translation purpose has also been the source of many of the objections to its use.\u00a0 These may be based on concerns over the resulting status of the source text, a perceived danger of oversimplification or a possible bias towards a particular translation strategy.\u00a0 In all cases, while there is much remaining to be discussed, the beginnings of solutions to these issues can be found by integrating skopos<\/i> theory into a multidisciplinary approach involving theology, history and even ethics.<\/p>\n Despite these objections, skopos<\/i> theory holds a great advantage over traditional approaches when it comes to translation analysis and choice.\u00a0 In both cases, it asserts that analysis should begin at the same point as the translator or translation user will begin: the purpose of the translation.\u00a0 In doing so, it not only allows those who have not been able to spend years in further education to choose a translation following common-sense variables but also offers a stable and reliable framework for the discussion of individual translation techniques.\u00a0 For this reason and given the advantages sketched above, it is the opinion of the author that skopos<\/i> theory should become the primary theoretical foundation for the discussion of Bible translations, displacing the more traditional theories.<\/p>\n \u00a0PR<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Spring 2026 issue<\/a> of The Pneuma Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 <\/sup>An example of this method being used to help readers choose a Bible translation can be found in my current article in The Pneuma Review<\/i>: “Using the Right Bible Translation? A professional translator\u2019s perspective on translation choice<\/a>” appearing in the Summer 2009 issue.<\/p>\n 2 <\/sup>In this article I will use the naming conventions of modern, non-Biblical, translation theory throughout.\u00a0 The adjective \u201csource\u201d as in \u201csource language,\u201d \u201csource text,\u201d and \u201csource culture\u201d will be therefore used to refer to the entities belonging to or originating in the language or culture in which the text to be translated was written.\u00a0 The adjective \u201ctarget,\u201d on the other hand, will refer to equivalent entities as they appear in the language or culture into which the text is to be translated.\u00a0 Although the Bible is made up of \u201csource texts\u201d written in three \u201csource languages,\u201d I will refer to these entities in the singular throughout, given that translation theory is, or aims to be, language-neutral as far as possible.<\/p>\n 3 <\/sup>Of course, the possibility of separating meaning and form has been debated in many places for thousands of years.\u00a0 Similarly, some Bible translation scholars (e.g. NKJV 1982: xxxiv) have seen the form itself as an essential part of the meaning.\u00a0 However, as is explained in note 4 of my current article<\/a> in The Pneuma Review<\/i>, such a view quickly leads to Bible translation being devalued since any<\/p>\n translation will necessarily lead to a change in form.<\/p>\n 4 <\/sup>See the analysis of this version in my current article<\/a> in The Pneuma Review<\/i>.<\/p>\n 5 <\/sup>It is heartening that one of the more fortunate outcomes of the controversy over the TNIV has been Packer\u2019s article in Christianity Today<\/i> (1997: 30-31) that concluded that all mainstream Bible translations do \u201csurprisingly well in terms of their own ground rules\u201d (ibid p. 31).\u00a0 It is the sincere hope of this scholar that others will follow this common-sense and purpose-based approach to Bible translation analysis and criticism.<\/p>\n 6 <\/sup>Examples of these can be found on the AIIC website (http:\/\/www.aiic.net\/ViewPage.cfm\/article122.htm<\/a>), on the ITI website (http:\/\/www.iti.org.uk\/pdfs\/newPDF\/20FHConductIn_(04-08).pdf<\/a>) and on the websites of similar organisations.<\/p>\n 7 <\/sup>There are, of course, alternative ways of examining translation techniques and their effects (e.g. Molina and Albir 2002) that may be of interest to Bible translation scholars.\u00a0 Rather than trying to divide the myriad of translation techniques into two or three approaches the authors offer a taxonomy of 18 possible translation techniques based on the differences between the source and target text in each case (ibid p. 509-511). Such models could further help to defuse some of the tension in discussions of Bible translations by allowing linguistic analysis to be carried out according to objective factors.\u00a0 This would offer the radical possibility of moving discussions of Bible translation away from the traditional models entirely.\u00a0 However, since the usefulness of such models in Bible translation remains to be tested, the traditional models are likely to persist for some time yet.<\/p>\n 8 <\/sup>Examples of this include Worrell\u2019s view, as cited in Kuykendall (2007: 263) and even the less restrictive views suggested in Fee and Stuart ([1994] 2002: 37) and Fee and Strauss (2007: 19, 25-30).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n Hildegund B\u00fchler, “Word Processing and the Translation Process \u2014 The Effect of the Medium on the Message,” META<\/i>, 1990, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 31-36.<\/p>\n Paul Ellingworth, \u201cReview of Bible Translation: Frames of Reference,\u201d Evangelical Quarterly<\/i>, 2004, vol. 74 no. 4, pages 351-353<\/p>\n Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for all its Worth<\/i>, Zondervan 2007.<\/p>\n Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for all its Worth<\/i>, Scripture Union [1994, 1997, 2001] 2002.<\/p>\n Jim Harries, \u201cBiblical Hermeneutics in Relation to Conventions of Language Use in Africa: Pragmatics Applied to Interpretation in Cross-cultural Context,\u201d Evangelical Review of Theology<\/i>, <\/i>2006, vol. 30 no. 1, pages 49-59.<\/p>\n Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, The Translator as Communicator<\/i>, <\/i>Routledge: London, 2003.<\/p>\n Michael Kuykendall, \u201cA. S. Worrell\u2019s New Testament: A Landmark Baptist-Pentecostal Bible Translation from the Early Twentieth Century,\u201d Pneuma<\/i>, <\/i>2007, vol. 29 no. 2, pages 254-280.<\/p>\n Lucia Molina and Amparo Hurtado Albir, \u201cTranslation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach,\u201d Meta <\/i>XLVII, 2002, Vol. 47 no. 4, pages 498-512.<\/p>\n Christiane Nord, \u201cManipulation and Loyalty in Functional Translation,\u201d Current Writing<\/i>, 2002, vol. 14 no. 2, pages 32-44.<\/p>\n Christiane Nord, \u201cWhat Function(s) in Bible Translation,\u201d ATA Chronicle<\/i>, <\/i>March 2003, pages 34-38.<\/p>\n Christiane Nord, \u201cMaking Otherness Accessible Functionality and Skopos in the Translation of New Testament Texts,\u201d META<\/i>, <\/i>2005, vol. 50 no. 3, pages 868-880.<\/p>\n Christiane Nord, Translation as a Purposeful Activity<\/i>, Translation Theories Explained, Manchester, United Kingdom, St. Jerome, [1997, 2001] 2007.<\/p>\n J. I. Packer, \u201cThank God for our Bibles,\u201d Christianity Today, <\/i>October 1997, Vol. 41, Issue 12, , pages 30-31.<\/p>\n Eugene H. Peterson, \u201cIntroduction to The Message,\u201d in John R. Kohlenberger ed. The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible<\/i>, New York: OUP, 2004<\/p>\n Anthony Pym, \u201cEuropean Translation Studies, Une science qui d\u00e9range, and Why Equivalence Needn\u2019t Be a Dirty Word,\u201d TTR: traduction, terminologie, r\u00e9daction<\/i>, 1995, vol. 8, no. 1, pages 153-176<\/p>\n Anthony Pym, Pour Une \u00c9thique de Traducteur<\/i>, Artois Presse Universit\u00e9, 1997.Martin Yate, The Ultimate CV Book, <\/i>London: Kogan Page [1993] 2003<\/p>\n Christina Sch\u00e4ffner, \u201c>From \u2018Good\u2019 to \u2018Functionally Appropriate\u2019: Assessing Translation Quality,\u201d Current Issues in Language and Society<\/i>, 1997, Vol. 4, No 1, pages 1-5.<\/p>\n James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door<\/i>, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1988.<\/p>\n Mark L. Strauss, \u201cUnderstanding Bible Translation,\u201d in The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible<\/i>, New York OUP, 2004, pages xv-xxiv.<\/p>\n Daniel Taylor, \u201cConfessions of a Bible Scholar,\u201d Christianity Today<\/i>, October 1997, Vol. 41, Issue 12, pages 76-77.<\/p>\n G. J. Wenham, \u201cReview of Ryken, Leland, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation,\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament<\/i>, <\/i>2003, vol. 27 no. 5, pages 77-78.<\/p>\n Preface citations and Scripture quotations marked \u201cNKJV\u201d are taken from the preface and text of the New King James Version \u00a9 1982, by Thomas Nelson Inc., as they appeared in The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible, <\/i>New York OUP, 2004.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Introduction While most discussion of Bible translations take place around the traditional \u201cfree vs. literal\u201d debate, modern, non-Biblical translation theory has become suspicious of such easy dichotomies (e.g. Pym 1997: 39).\u00a0 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2882,"featured_media":23970,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17,7364],"tags":[5800,5679,7369,6072,7370,7371,4000,7372,3455,4360],"ppma_author":[4620],"class_list":["post-23969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-indepth","category-spring-2026","tag-downie","tag-era","tag-free","tag-intercultural","tag-interpersonal","tag-literal","tag-paradigm","tag-skopos","tag-theory","tag-translation","author-jonathandownie"],"authors":[{"term_id":4620,"user_id":2882,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jonathandownie","display_name":"Jonathan Downie","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/JD-profile-150x150.png","url2x":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/JD-profile-150x150.png"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2882"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23969"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23969\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23977,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23969\/revisions\/23977"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23970"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23969"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=23969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/translation-p5VW_ZUon7o-511x341.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
This challenges the traditional supremacy of the source text as the sole basis on which translations must be assessed.\u00a0 While, Hans Vermeer, one of the originators of skopos<\/i> theory, stated that there must be a relationship between the source and target text (Nord [1997] 2007: 32); he also claimed to have \u201cdethroned\u201d the source text as an unchangeable and unchanging basis of comparison (ibid p. 37).\u00a0 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).\u00a0 Following this principle, there would be nothing inherently wrong with changing universities mentioned on a CV to UK equivalents (\u201cOxford\u201d for \u201cSorbonne,\u201d 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).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/focus-RomainVignes-ywqa9IZB-dU-531x353.jpg\")
The other problem with this model is that, when it comes to the kinds of fine-grain analysis that is required by such a purely linguistic approach to translation, the model turns out to be nothing but a blunt instrument.\u00a0 In the example of the \u201cdenarius\u201d stated above, the only translation solution that could be labelled \u201cformal equivalence\u201d is the transliteration of the name itself with no additions.\u00a0 All other possibilities will therefore be filed under \u201cfunctional equivalence.\u201d\u00a0 Given that language-specific rules of grammar may often prevent anything approaching formal equivalence (B\u00fchler 1990: 31), the traditional models prove insufficient for even purely linguistic analysis.7<\/sup><\/p>\n