Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.1990, Qupperneq 86

Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson
the new critical method. This article describes the background of these
disputes. Attention is, for example, drawn to the fact that historical
criticism had not yet gained much of a following at the University of
Copenhagen in the years around 1890 when the Icelandic "Tum-of-the-
Century Theologians" were studying there. It was through visits to
German universities that Icelandic theologians became acquainted with the
new critical method.
Haraldur Níelsson was one of the pioneers of historical criticism in
Iceland, and his opponents found numerous traces of this new method in
his translation. They called the translation the "heathen Bible"; but others
could barely find words sufficient to express their delight and admiration,
and maintained that few other nations possessed a Bible translation as
successful as Haraldur's. In those years, Haraldur was becoming one of
the most zealous proponents of spiritualism in Iceland, and many people
claimed to find refiections of this in his translation. The use of the name
Jahve in the translation, instead of the traditionally-used expression, the
Lord (Drottinn), also attracted criticism. It was not these matters but
others, however, which formed the principal basis of a complaint lodged
with the British and Foreign Bible Society, the financial sponsor of the
translation. Haraldur had to go abroad to answer this complaint. A
compromise was reached in which he agreed to make changes in two
places: Isaiah 1:18 and 7:14.
The final part of this article attempts to answer the question why a new
Bible translation is needed. It is pointed out that in Iceland the simple
argument that the language has changed has less application than in most
other countries. Linguistic conservatism has long been accounted a great
virtue in Iceland. The main reason presented in favor of a new translation
is rather that approaches to translation have changed. The announced
objective of those who carried out the 1908/12 translation was to translate
"word for word". That approach is here rejected, and the ideas of E. A.
Nida suggested as a better altemative.
84