In Jewish tradition, sin is often depicted with the metaphor of “debt.” The use of this metaphor in Jesus’ time was quite clearly understood by the people at that time. However, for some people today, the concept of sin as “debt” may not always be easy to understand, especially for those who are not familiar with the background of Christian teachings since childhood. Therefore, in the New Translation the word “debt” is translated with the term “error.” This approach aims to make it easier for readers to understand the message of the text.
In general, there are two main approaches to translation. First, the literal approach. This approach attempts to reproduce the form and structure of the source text as accurately as possible, including grammar and sound. The 1974 New Translation can be categorized as a formal translation that often maintains the literal form of the source text. However, this approach is sometimes difficult for today’s readers to understand. Second, the dynamic functional approach. This approach prioritizes the conveyance of meaning over the form of the source text. In this approach, the elements of the source language’s distinctiveness are not too much of an issue for the sake of the reader’s ease of understanding. The Bible that uses this approach is the Bible in Current Indonesian, which aims to help readers understand the message more easily. However, it should be noted that no translation is completely literal or completely dynamic. The translation process always involves a negotiation between form and meaning. For example, in the Lord's Prayer, the Greek term ὀφειλήματα (opheílēmata), which means “debt,” is translated as “guilt” in the New Testament, to convey its meaning more relevantly.
Today, dynamic translations are often considered to be less respectful of the specificity of the source text because they tend to separate form from meaning. In fact, the two are interrelated. In first-century Jewish culture, sin or guilt was understood through the concept of “debt.” If the metaphor of “debt” were removed from the text, this could reduce appreciation for the Jewish way of thinking and the richness of their culture.
Today, the understanding of metaphor has evolved. In the past, metaphors were seen as mere comparisons. However, metaphors are now understood as part of the mechanism of human thought. For example, when someone says “prices have gone up,” this is not just an expression, but also a way of understanding reality. This is in line with the way of thinking of the Aramaic-speaking Jews in the first century, they understood sin or guilt in terms of ‘debt’. Debt became a tool for them to understand sin, so if we remove the terminology of ‘debt’ in other texts, it will reduce or not appreciate the uniqueness of their thinking.
Marshall McLuhan, a famous theorist, said that “the medium is the message.” The medium or intermediary is as important as the content of the message being conveyed. This is relevant in the world of translation. Translators need to respect the source text and its original culture, while ensuring that the text remains easy to understand for today's readers. Therefore, the replacement of the word “debt” with “guilt” in the Lord's Prayer is the result of a negotiation that considers the form, meaning, and context of the reader.
Translating a biblical text involves a complex process. Between maintaining the original form of the source text and conveying an easily understood meaning, the translator must make a wise decision. In the case of the Lord's Prayer, the metaphor of “debt” has important cultural and theological value. However, translation that prioritizes conveying meaning is no less important, especially to reach today's readers. Thus, a balance between form and meaning is key in presenting an accurate and relevant translation.
In the context of current culture and thought, to what extent is it important to maintain the cultural distinctiveness of the source text?
Watch more in this video!
