Volume 10 (2018): Issue 1 (April 2018)

Uniform translation of liturgical texts into German has been an important field of work of Orthodox churches in Germany for several years. This task has been accomplished by the translation commission which was convened by the Orthodox Bishops’ Conference in Germany. The essay first introduces the current situation of Orthodoxy in Germany under the conditions of the diaspora situation. Then the development of the unified text of the Divine Liturgy is presented. Subsequently, challenges and perspectives of the translation work are discussed.

In this article, I intend to survey the reception of versions of the Old Testament in the Orthodox churches, focusing on the Greek, Russian and Romanian Church, respectively. While Western biblical scholars gave precedence to the Hebrew text over the Septuagint, in the Orthodox world one can see a tension in the relationship between the two textual witnesses and sometimes, even recently, there are voices which tend to give the Septuagint total authority in the Church. Orthodox scholars in the field of Old Testament studies usually resort to the Hebrew text, but especially scholars from outside this field tend to promote the Septuagint as the Old Testament of the Orthodox Church. I shall use the argument of authority, which is improper for scientific argumentation, but it suits my research, as I try to understand the confessional positions held within Eastern Orthodoxy. Consequently, if a certain saint, acknowledged as such by a national Orthodox Church or by the entire Eastern Orthodox communion, embraces a particular view on this subject, this bears significantly on the issue.

The program of „translating faith” was also inherent to the coming-into-existence of the so-called Septuagint. Jews living in Egypt began to translate their holy texts for pedagogical needs. The awareness of Greek cultural superiority required efforts to demonstrate that Jewish culture is equally valuable. Because of the non-Jewish political rulership, Jews had to emphasize their loyalty (Ex. 22.27 [28]; Deut. 17.15); anti-Jewish oppression built the desire of liberation (Isa. 9.3). The translation of the Septuagint therefore includes elements of inculturation (e.g. Gen. 1.26; Ex. 3.14) and dissociation (e.g. Prov. 3.19). Common language (between Jews and non-Jews) did not refer to a common religious feeling; and differences of language (between the Jews in Egypt and the Jews in Israel) did not imply “confessional controversies”. The translation of holy texts into Greek is hence no direct model for shaping ecumenical relationships nowadays, but an appeal to an ethos of speaking, writing, and translating in one’s own way.

This paper is an attempt to answer the question whether Bible translation may help building a community or communities, which would contribute to creating the framework for a commonality of faith. The answer is not difficult to state, since translation is about bridging gaps, about creating communities, as steps forward in this process. It is impossible to understand the process and to formulate an adequate and articulate answer to the initial question without taking a journey through the complex field of Translation Studies, and of Bible translation, in particular. The method of study involves analysis and use of concepts such as the paradox of translation, dynamic equivalence and (essentially) literal translation, in a dialog with authors such as Ricoeur, Berman, Nida or Ryken. This analysis shows that a linguistic oikumene, as a step towards a commonality of faith, is achievable through the translator’s hard work of producing linguistic hospitality, as a sine qua non condition for making our home, our language warm enough for the foreigner to dwell in and feel as if he were in his own.

The Reformation in Transylvania, Lutheran in structure, has been from its very beginning in direct contact with representatives of the Orthodox Church. An Orthodox clergyman, Philippus Pictor (Filip Moldoveanul), had worked for decades in Hermannstadt in the service of the magistrate, with tasks – among other responsibilities – in the printing house; it was probably during his activity in office that the (now lost) Romanian catechism of 1544, the church-slavonic and the bilingual (Slavonic-Romanian) gospels were printed. There are good reasons to assume that these prints were made directly by the initiative of the city council; but this was not an attempt at the conversion of Romanians to the Evangelical faith, but rather an exercise of the duty – emerging from Luther’s theology – to make possible for all people the access to Scripture.