The concept of “the Lamb of God” («ὁ ἀµνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ») in English, German and Russian translations of the Gospel of John

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The interpretation of biblical concepts is a complex translation problem, the method of literal translation cannot solve it. The search for lexical matches in the target language is not always systematic. A comprehensive solution to this problem is possible within the framework of the conceptual theory of metaphor, which allows you to rethink the process of translating biblical concepts. The article explores the implementation of the concept «the Lamb of God» («ὁ ἀµνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ») in the translations of the Gospel of John into English, German and Russian in the light of modern research on the conceptual theory of metaphor. The purpose of the study is to analyze the degree of implementation of the concept «the Lamb of God» («ὁ ἀµνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ») in translations of the Gospel of John. The work uses the MIPVU method to identify metaphors in the original text of the Gospel of John, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis to assess the adequacy of the translation of the concept « the Lamb of God» in the context of the biblical conceptual field. As a result of the study, it was revealed that in the English, German and Russian translations of the Gospel of John, the concept of the «the Lamb of God» («ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ») of the original text is not fully implemented. The absence of a separate lexical unit leads to confusion in the translations of the «Lamb» («ἀμνὸς») from the Gospel of John and the «Lamb» («ἀρνίον») from the Apocalypse, which distorts the meaning of the translations. The application of the MIPVU method to identify metaphors in the biblical text, as well as an integrated approach to the translation of biblical concepts, is a developing direction in modern translation studies. Modern advances in the field of metaphor theory make it possible to create new translations of the Bible that are accessible to readers who are not familiar with the biblical conceptual field.

About the authors

Ivan A. Kazantsev

University of Tyumen

Author for correspondence.
Email: i.a.kazancev@utmn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0534-5679
SPIN-code: 3368-9608

Head of the Department for Scientific and Project Activities, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Philological Education

Russian Federation, 625003, Tyumen, Volodarskogo Street, 6

References

  1. Marijke, H. de Lang. 2017. John 1.29, 36: The Meaning of Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and John’s Soteriology, The Bible Translator 68 (2): 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051677017694651
  2. Andrew, Scott Brake. 2019. The Christology of Ho Amnos tou Theou in The Contextualization of Yohannine theology: Domba and Adomba in The History of Translation in Indonesia, Jurnal Jaffray 17 (2): 157–170. https://doi.org/10.25278/jj.v17i2.300
  3. Greek New Testament Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus (With Morphological Data). 2005. — London. Print
  4. Gary, Massey. 2021. Re-framing conceptual metaphor translation research in the age of neural machine translation: Investigating translators’ added value with products and processes, Training, Language and Culture 1 (5): 37–56. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5–1-37-56
  5. Condello, Angela. 2016. Metaphor as Analogy: Reproduction and Production of Legal Concepts, Journal of Law and Society 43 (1): 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00738.x
  6. Sullivan, Karen. 2019. Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Mixed Metaphors: Their Use and Abuse, Bloomsbury Academic: 25–46. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350066076.ch-002
  7. Gómez-Moreno, José, and Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. 2022. Conceptual metaphors in terminology and specialised language discourse, Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice. John Benjamins Publishing Company publ. Print
  8. Torneke, N. 2021. Metaphor in Practice: A Professional’s Guide to Using the Science of Language in Psychotherapy. Translated by А.N. Shlyahova. Kyiv: Dialektika publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  9. Gerard J., Steen. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU, Aletta G. Dorst. J. Berenike Herrmann. Anna A. Kaal. Tina Krennmayr. Trijntje Pasma. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company publ. Print
  10. Amanda BB, Nokele. 2014. Identifying conceptual metaphors using the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU), South African Journal of African Languages 34 (1): 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2014.949471
  11. Mishlanova, S.L., and Suvorova, M.V. 2017. Otsenka sootvetstviya protsedury identifikatsii metafory MIPVU kriteriyam podlinnoj nauchnosti metoda [Evaluation of Metaphor Identification Procedure VU (MIPVU) by the Criteria of Truly Scientific Method]. Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Phililogy 9 (1): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.17072/2037-6681-2017-1-46-52
  12. Shitikov, P.M. 2018. Applying Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIPVU) to Biblical Texts. Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates 4 (2): 34–43. https://doi.org/10.21684/2411-197X-2018-4-2-34-43
  13. Gerard J., Steen. 2002. Identifying Metaphor in Language: A Cognitive Approach, Style, Cognitive Approaches to Figurative Language 36 (3): 386–406.
  14. Shitikov, P.M. 2021. New methods of metaphor identification in various types of discourse (Review of publications). Philological Sciences. Scientific Essays of Higher Education 6 (1): 19–31. doi: 10.20339/PhS.6-21.019
  15. Josef, Stern. 2008. Metaphor, Semantics, and Context, The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press publ. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 Print
  16. George, Lakoff. 2008. The Neural Theory of Metaphor, The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press publ. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 Print
  17. Borghi, Anna, and Binkofski, Ferdinand, and Castelfranchi, Cristiano, and Cimatti, Felice, and Scorolli, Claudia, and Tummolini, Luca. 2017. The Challenge of Abstract Concepts, Psychological Bulletin 143 (3): 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089
  18. Zoltan, Kövecses. 2015. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press publ. Print
  19. Thibodeau, Paul, and Matlock, Teenie, and Flusberg, Stephen. 2019.The role of metaphor in communication and thought, Language and Linguistics Compass. May: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12327
  20. Zoltán, Kövecses. 2021. A multilevel and contextualist view of conceptual metaphor theory, Journal of Language and Communication 8 (2): 133–143.
  21. Kuo, Yun-Hsuan. 2015. Interpretation as a factor influencing translation: the case of a biblical metaphor, Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.12681/ijltic.38
  22. Craig, Ott. 2014. The Power of Biblical Metaphors for the Contextualized Communication of the Gospel, Missiology: An International Review 42: 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829613486732
  23. Owiredu, C. 2021. Sin is a person: some ontological metaphors in the Bible, Acta Theologica 41 (1): 87–100. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi. org/10.18820/23099089/actat. v41i1.6
  24. Septuaginta. 2006. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs. Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart. Complete Text without Apparatus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft publ. Print
  25. Melniciuc Puicǎ, Ilie. 2011. The lamb sacrifice expressed in religious art, European Journal of Science and Theology 7 (2): 77–99.
  26. Wenjie, Hong, and Caroline, Rossi. 2021. The Cognitive Turn in Metaphor Translation Studies: A Critical Overview, Journal of Translation Studies 5 (2): 83–115.
  27. Romanovich, M.Yu. 2013. Teaching students to translate unfamiliar stable phrases in English: the Method of Conceptual Metaphor. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University 15 (675): 200–205. https://doi.org/10.0000/cyberleninka.ru/article/n/obuchenie-studentov-perevoduneznakomyh-ustoychivyh-slovosochetaniy-v-angliyskom-yazyke-metod-kontseptualnoymetafory
  28. Desnickij, A.S. 2013. Metaphors in Modern Biblical translation. Mother Tongue 1: 63–92.
  29. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2021. Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William Frederick Arndt, Felix Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press publ. Print
  30. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 1988. Walter Bauer, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland. Berlin: W. de Gruyter publ. Print

Copyright (c) 2023 Kazantsev I.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies