Form vs. Content: A Tale of Translation

Original copy of Luther's translated Bible - 1534

Language and communication in the sixteenth and seventeenth century were paramount in shaping the beliefs of the people and the overall social climate. For the first time, religious and secular texts were made available to the masses as a result of the printing press. Translation efforts made these texts available to even more people, changing communication and learning completely. Being a dual-language speaker myself, I was particularly interested in the role that translation played during this era, and how the people responded to that role. What kind of texts were being translated? How common was translation? What problems arose from such translation? 

As a part of my schooling, I am currently taking an introduction to translation course. One of the key components that we learn about is the difference in form and content when it comes to a piece of rhetoric. The form refers to the actual words that are being used to convey the message of the text. The content is the meaning of the text. Because languages and cultures are so inherently diverse, it is almost impossible to retain both the form and the content of a piece when translating it. Translation theorists have debated endlessly about which is more important, the form or the content. But all of these theorists agree, it is almost impossible to achieve a perfect translation. Either the form or the content will be affected, if not both. 

During the Renaissance, there was a greater desire in the people to go back to their roots as a culture. As the Protestant Reformation began, Martin Luther continued to lead the people to go back to the roots of the Church, examining Christ and the way that he originally established it. Luther's "back to the roots" also focused on the doctrine of the gospel and the scriptures, as seen in his "sola fide" and "sola scriptura" beliefs. We could say that Luther was focused on the content of the scriptures, or the meaning. The Protestants wanted to focus on that content and doctrine, just as Christ had established it. Yet at the same time, they were dealing with mass translations of scripture, which inevitably diluted that same doctrine to which they held as it focused on the form, or the words themselves. Understanding this concept, it seems to me like two facets of the Reformation - the role of translation, and returning to the sources of the doctrine - do not fit together. When I shared this thought with my classmates, Adam and Daniel, they helped me synthesize why I felt a disconnect between these two ideas. Which was more important during the Reformation - was it the form, or the content?

Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther, Johannes Bugenhagen, and Caspar Cruciger work on the translation of the Bible into German. (19th century illustration after the 1846 painting by Pierre-Antoine Labouchère).

After this discussion with my classmates, I searched in my textbook from my translation class, and dived a bit deeper into some modern translation theories that might help me understand the principles that were underlying in the Reformation era translations. Edward Sapir, a monumentally influential American translation theorist, claims that each language creates its own unique world, and that humanity clings to them as a basis for their social reality. He also claims that “the worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.” Early Reformation leaders were not afraid to brave those new worlds of translation and bring them to others. They sought to bring the meaning of their message in whatever words their audience needed to hear, allowing all to participate in the glorious gospel and unite them in Christ.