In the
first post of this blog, I discussed my reasons for translating
Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich as “science/scientific” in my 2013 translation of
From Jesus to the New Testament and as “scholarship/scholarly” in my forthcoming translation (with Brian Pounds) of
Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee—Savior of the World, both by
Jens Schröter.
While it is possible that I will continue to vary my translation of
this term on a case by case basis, I think that I will most likely make a
general shift in the direction of “scholarship/scholarly” in future
translations, i.e., toward a translation that gives greater priority to
the conventional language pattern of the target language. In this post,
by contrast, I will discuss a case in which my thinking has moved in the
opposite direction.
From the very first time that I read German works in translation it
had annoyed me to read the words “primitive Christianity”. In short, the
negative connotations of “primitive” always struck me as problematic
and unnecessary. Accordingly, I never seriously considered employing
these words as a translation for “
Urchristentum” in my translation of
From Jesus to the New Testament.
Instead, my initial plan was to translate this phrase as “earliest
Christianity”, which would allow me to maintain a distinction between “
Urchristentum” and “
Frühchristentum”.
Upon further consideration, however, I settled on “early Christianity”
for both terms, regarding the desire to maintain a distinction between
them as less important than the priority of readability. While this
approach seemed quite sensible at the time, I have subsequently changed
my mind for two reasons. In fact, against my earlier inclinations I have
decided to translate
Urchristentum as “primitive Christianity”. What changed my mind?
“One aspect of this translation calls for comment, namely the way in which I have chosen to render the words Urchristentum and urchristlich
which occur so often in this book. I recognize that many New Testament
scholars regard ‘primitive’ as a ‘taboo’ adjective to apply to
Christianity. However, I have discussed the question at length with
friends who are expert in this field, both in Britain and in Germany,
and they have confirmed me in the conviction that there is no other
possible translation. ‘Ur-‘ does not mean ‘early’ or ‘earliest’
or ‘nascent’ or ‘in the making’, even if such terms are commonly used.
It is a far richer term. ‘Primitive may not be the ideal rendering, but I
hope that readers will agree that it does the job effectively.”
(For my own memories of John Bowden’s advice for translators, see
here)
Secondly, a passage from my current
BMSEC translation project, namely
Christoph Markschies’ book
Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (
Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire) strengthened my conviction that it was necessary for the translator to maintain a clear distinction between “
Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” and “
Frühchristentum/early
Christianity”. In short, through Markschies’ work I became aware of the
fact that there has been extensive discussion within German scholarship
about the connotations and appropriateness of the term
Urchristentum,
with some scholars arguing that this term should be replaced by
alternatives such as or “Frühchristentum/early Christianity” (S. Alkier)
or “frühe Christentümer/early Christianities” (F. Vouga). Markschies
himself contributes especially to the question of whether it is
preferable to speak of “Christianity” or “Christianities” in relation to
the findings of the second and third centuries (see p. 6 and pp.
337-383).
In relation to the term “
Urchristentum”, Markschies (p. 5) observes that
Francois Vouga (Geschichte des frühen Christentums,
p. 13) has raised two objections against the use of this term: 1) it is
said to imply “the equation of beginning and nature and the falling
apart of truth and history” and 2) it is also said to contain “the idea
of a degeneration of an original unity into groupings and heresies that
are independent of one another”, which is viewed as untenable after
Walter Bauer’s work. Moreover, Markschies notes that Stefan Alkier has both carefully traced the ideological implications of this term in his 1993 book Urchristentum. Zur Geschichte und Theologie einer exegetischen Disziplin (pp. 5-254!), and argued that the term “Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” should be abandoned in favor of the alternative term “Frühchristentum/early
Christianity” (261-266). On the other hand, Martin Hengel and Anna
Maria Schwemer have explicitly challenged the validity of Alkier’s line
of argumentation (Jesus und Judentum, p. 5n. 8).
Against the background of this extensive discussion around the connotations and appropriateness of the term “Urchristentum” within the German language sphere, it now seems essential to me that translators not only translate “Urchristentum” in such a manner that it is clearly distinguished from “Frühchristentum”,
but also that we render it in such a way that it reflects something of
the nuance of meaning that has given rise to such debates about its
appropriateness. And with this in mind, it seems to me that “primitive
Christianity”, despite its shortcomings, comes closest to achieving
these goals. This does not necessarily mean that Vouga’s analysis of the
implications of the term is correct or normative. And it certainly does
not mean that a given German author is necessarily using the word “Urchristentum” to imply what Vouga suggests the term implies, since some German authors may simply alternate between “Frühchristentum” and “Urchristentum”
for reasons of style. But it does mean that unless the German author
clarifies that “early Christianity” is the force that is intended
throughout, the translation should reflect the word choice of the German
version, so that the possibility of a difference in meaning and
connotation may be considered by the English reader. This doesn’t,
however, necessarily mean that it was a bad decision for Fortress Press
to revise Bowden’s initial translation of the title of Theissen’s work,
for one of the most important aims of a publisher is to sell books, and
it makes sense to conform the wording of a book’s title to the speech
conventions of the target audience if this is likely to improve sales,
even if this should not always be done with the work itself.
Appendix: for the relevance of this question for
translation, consider the following sentence from Kaiserzeitliche
christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen/Christian Theology and its
Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (p. 76/p. ?): “Über ur- und
frühchristlicher Lehrer und die Unterschiede zwischen beiden Gruppen
sind ausführliche Monographien und detaillierte Aufsätze geschrieben
worden”/”Comprehensive monographs and detailed articles have been
written about primitive and early Christian teachers and the differences
between the two groups”.
