Scribd
Upload
13 views3 pages

The Translation Model

Uploaded by

nosuchothertools
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views3 pages

The Translation Model

Uploaded by

nosuchothertools
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

 Models in Contextual Theology :

The Translation Model


 It is one of the most commonly employed and a well-known model for the people who do theology
in context.
 Practitioners of the translation model have pointed out this model is possibly the oldest one for
contextual theology.
 Charles Kraft says that the translation model is the recovery of the original spirit of Christian
theology more than a recovery.
 In many ways, every model of contextual theology is a model of translation. But, this model has its
insistence on the message of the gospel as an unchanging message.
 In this model, we don’t mean a literal or ‘word to word’ translation; rather it is much more a way of
being faithful to an essential content.
A Sketch of the model
A. Terminology :
 Charles Kraft speaks of translation by formal correspondence rather than a literal, word to word
translation.
 A formal correspondence approach to translation can never get at the deep structures of a language.
 Kraft observes word for word translation and the constituency principle as the result of
misunderstandings of the nature of language and of the translation process itself.
 It ignores completely the cultural involvement.
 The translation has to be a translation of meanings, not just of words and grammar.
 A good translation captures the spirit of text and a clear sign of having mastered a language.
 Translation has to be idiomatic.
 Kraft says it must be done by functional or dynamic equivalence.
 The aim of this dynamic equivalence method of translation is to elicit the same reaction is
contemporary hearers or readers as in the original hearers or readers.
 The translation of the Bible must not only provide information which people can understand but
must present the message in such a way that people can feel its relevance and can then respond to it
in action.
 By translation model, we don’t mean a mere word for word correspondence. Rather, we are
concerned with translation the meaning of doctrines into another cultural context which might make
those doctrines look and sound quite different from their original formulation.
Page 1 of 3
B. Presuppositions of the Translation Model :
 The key of presupposition of this model is the essential message of Christianity is supracultural or
supracontexual.
 Another metaphor is the kernel and the husk of a “gospel core.”
 There is the kernel of the gospel, which is surrounded in a disposable, nonessential cultural husk.
 Some theologians speak simply of the gospel core as “Christ incarnate.”
 But, some other would hold that the essence of the gospel would have a bit more content.
 Max Stackhouse outlines four doctrines that he considers basic to Christian orthodoxy.
 They are : (1) that humanity is fallen and is in need of healing and salvation;
(2) that, as is witnessed by the Bible, God’s revelation takes place within human history;
(3) that the doctrine of the Trinity articulates best what God is truly like and what faith in
God means for life in the world;
(4) that Jesus is the Christ – that in Jesus men and women can find the true meaning of
life.
 The first step in order to contextualize a particular Christian doctrine or practice is to strip of its
wrappings – the contextual husk – in order to find the gospel.
 Once the “naked gospel” has been revealed, one then searches the “receptor situation” for the
appropriate terms or actions to rewrap the message.
 When both are found and put together with real religious and cultural approach, this particular
aspect of the gospel has been translated relatively successfully.
 The another presupposition of this model is that of the ancillary or subordinate role of context in the
contextualization process.
 Experience, culture, social location and social change, of course are important, but they are never as
important as the supracultural “never changing” gospel message.
 The final presupposition to be considered in regard to translation model is its conviction, implied
rather than stated explicitly, that all cultures have the same basic structure.
C. Critique of the Translation Model :
 The emphasis is more on Christian identity than contextual reality and cultural identity.
 This model implies that Christianity does have something to say to the world and that its message
can bring light and peace to a dark and troubled world.
 The another important aspect of this model is it accepts the unsureness of contextual reality; it may
be of a person or a society’s experience.

Page 2 of 3
 This model can be used by anyone who is focusing on a particular culture or situation,
nonparticipant or participant.
 One critique is regarding the model’s theological method. The presupposition is that the most of all
the cultures will be roughly equal and that what is important in one culture should be in other.
 So, the question raised is this – whether there are such parallels or not, whether the parallels have
same significance in new culture or whether other significant patterns might be drawn upon? e.g.
Polygamous marriages
 The other critique focuses on the idea of the translation model : whether is tis supracultural or
supracontextual nature.
 Thirdly, the fundamental procedure of this model uses is to go from message to gospel.
 More than any model, the translation model takes the message of Christianity seriously.

Page 3 of 3

You might also like