Incarnation Is Not Translation: A Critique of Walls' Rationale for Translation

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a central doctrine of the Christian faith. In his study on the history of missions, Andrew Walls proposes that the Incarnation provides a theological rationale for Bible translation. He suggests that the Incarnation be viewed as a metaphor for translation and states, “There is a history of translation of the Bible because there was a translation of the Word into flesh.” Walls’ proposal has been generally well received in the literature. In a recent paper, however, Eddie Arthur questions whether the metaphor of Incarnation as translation does, in fact, provide a rationale for translation, although he agrees that the metaphor may offer other insights. This paper investigates in more depth the relationship between the Incarnation and translation. The concepts are defined and then compared in terms of the nature of change associated with each, e.g. to what extent they resemble each other in terms of what changes, how it changes, what the outcome of the process is, and how they relate to the concept of special revelation. This investigation questions whether Walls’ proposals provide an adequate theological basis for translation. Finally, this paper will suggest alternative theological rationales for the translation of the Scriptures.