Fr. Silvije Grubišić, the Neglected Bible Translator: Notes on Some Translation and Translational Solutions

1.1. Who is Silvije Grubišić?

Fr. Silvije Silvestar Grubišić was a Herzegovian Franciscan, born on April 8, 1910, in the poor Herzegovian town of Sovići (in Bobanova Draga, between Grude and Posušje). He spent most of his life serving in Croatian missions in North America and among American Croats. He died in West Allis, Wisconsin, on May 12, 1985.

After finishing Primary School in Sovići, he graduated from a classical gymnasium in Široki Brijeg (1932). He joined the Franciscan order while still in a gymnasium (1929) and was ordained as a priest on June 16, 1935, in Mostar. He served as a Friar in Široki Brijeg until 1937, when Croatian Missions in North America asked for help in their ministry among American Croats. So, as a 28-year-old, Grubišić moved to North America (in 1938), where he spent the rest of his life in different American cities.⁴

Upon coming to the United States of America in 1938, Grubišić was appointed parson in the Croatian St. Mary’s Assumption Parish in Steelton, Pennsylvania. He served there for three years (until 1940). Next, he moved to Chicago and later to New York. He also served in many other American Croatian parishes in Milwaukee, Ambridge, and Florida and spent a year serving in Canada (1969–1970). In 1954, Grubišić led a small delegation of Croatian priests to the United States of America to see American President Eisenhower. The reason for the meeting with the President was to deliver a memorandum in which many (143) Croatian priests who lived and served outside Croatia asked the Yugoslavian authorities to stop persecuting believers.⁵

Grubišić’s Bible translation work and endeavor began in 1973 in Chicago and continued until 1984, a year before his death in West Allis, Wisconsin, in 1985. Unfortunately, his translation work or possible analysis of his translation in his homeland does not draw much attention.⁶ At the same time, his commitment to Bible translation was a cause of much writing in the United States of America, not only in their Croatian publications but in the American press.⁷

In his doctoral work ( Pastoral-theological and Catechetical Contribution of Bonaventura Duda to the Croatian Theology, 2013), Antun Volenik mentions Silvije Grubišić and his contribution to Bible translation in several places. Describing travels and pilgrimages of Bonaventura Duda, Volenik also mentions his visit to the United States of America in 1965 and his meeting with Fr. Grubišić:

Volenik further mentions some Bible translations and translators, Silvije Grubišić among them, who played a crucial role in the preparation and creation of the so-called Zagreb Bible: “Immediately before Zagreb Bible was published in 1967, we saw a publication of the translation by Ljudevit Rupčić which, together with translations done by Silvije Grubišić and Gracijan Raspudić, demand a special review since they will serve as templates for parts of the Zagreb Bible” (Volenik 2013, 159).

Grubišić was indeed self-taught in the Hebrew language, as he testifies (Grubišić 1979, 183). Still, Marko Mišerda, describing Grubišić as a self-taught biblicist and Bible translator, concludes: “It is interesting that Grubišić did not go through specialist Bible schools, but his enterprise overcame all difficulties” (Mišerda 1985, 99).

1.2. Types of Translation

Instead of traditional categories and categorizations of Bible translations (philological, literal word for word, paraphrases, adaptation, etc.), it would be clearer to divide Bible translations according to types of translation as suggested by Heidemarie Salevsky (Lujić 2018). She argues that, in addition to traditional categorizations of Bible translations, we should accept a different model, which would use types of translation instead of categories of translation, namely three different types of Bible translation – concerning structure, meaning, and communication. It would look something like this, depending on which aspect the translation emphasizes (Lujić 2018, 59):

The ideal type of translation would be one that completely encompasses all three aspects. However, such typological representation of translations should not at all mean that one type excludes the other or that these types cannot overlap. Most frequent misunderstandings and disputes arise when, directly or indirectly, one attaches exclusivity to a specific biblical (type of) translation.

1.3. Biblical Translation of Silvije Grubišić

How does Silvije Grubišić’s translation stand in relation to the represented translation types? Which aspect do the particularities of his translation point to? Are his peculiar translational and lexical solutions the reason why Fr. Silvije Grubišić’s name is rarely, if ever, mentioned in popular media and expert circles of Croatian Bible translations and translators? For example, in the general introduction to the Bible (published by Kršćanska sadašnjost), in the description of the Book of Job, editors wrote: “We have used the manuscript translation of Silvije Grubišić here and there.”⁸

Grubišić’s translation of the Old Testament, some of his linguistic and translational solutions, and his complete approach to Bible translation most certainly deserve more attention than a casual note would imply. There are no indicators of exclusivity or universality in Grubišić’s translation. However, we can readily observe that his translation is remarkable in many respects. Among many Croatian Bible translations, it stands out as creative and unconventional in some elements but undoubtedly “faithful to communication.” Specificities of Grubišić’s translation are primarily seen in his vocabulary and lexicon. The language of his translation is very immediate and vivid, intensely direct, and sometimes bordering on ruthless cynicism. In his translation, Grubišić not infrequently uses dysphemism ( drop dead, butchered, dung, hussy, and the like) or colloquial terms ( pillowcase, bed, mischief, robber, mean, do-gooder, the poor, topple, and the like).

The translation does not contain unnecessary biblicisms, which makes it different from most other Croatian Bible translations. This fact alone makes the text come alive and closer to the average reader in a unique way, although it sometimes sticks out through inspirational, occasionally even provocative solutions, so direct that they border on colloquial mercilessness, causticity, and dysphemism. In all this, Grubišić tenaciously follows and conforms to the source text, as evident in some of his exceptionally valuable footnotes. Grubišić’s translation is not only vividly rendered, as might be done by another skillful linguist, but primarily well thought-through and exhaustively researched, not only from a linguistic and textual angle but also from a historical and religious context of the Bible. This is especially evident in Grubišić’s footnotes.

2.1. My Liver Jumps (Ps 16)

In the source text, the psalmist’s abdominal organs, primarily kidneys, and liver participate in his joy (16:7, 9).¹⁰ For reasons of style and comprehension, most translators here, as in some other places, instead of kidneys, as it is said in the original, translate this word as the heart. Šarić here states: “I always have the Lord before me. He is at my right hand, and that is why I never stumble. My heart rejoices, and my spirit ( liver) is glad, and my body rests in safety” (16:8-9). Consistent with the original and his translational uniformity, without stylistic subtlety, Grubišić translates these lines as follows: “I constantly hold the Lord before me, and from his right hand, I will certainly not depart. Therefore my heart rejoices, my liver jumps for joy, my body rests comfortably” (16:8-9).

Kidney or liver could, and should, be translated as conscience. Such is Alter’s translation (2007, 46), “I shall bless the Lord Who gave me counsel through the nights that my conscience would lash me.” In the original biblical text, the kidney (kidneys) represent a paradigm and metaphor for the center of man’s conscience. This is well illustrated in a text from the prophet Jeremiah where the people are described as those who are doing well (have taken root, bear fruit) but care little for their God. The translations of Kršćanska sadašnjost and Ivan Evanđelist Šarić here state, “You have planted them, and they have taken root; they grow and bear fruit. But you are only close to their lips, but far from their hearts” (רחוק מכליותיהם) (Jer 12:2).¹¹

In many places, the heart, even when the original does not say heart, is a deft and subtle stylistic solution. Abdominal organs in the original biblical text far surpass only one organ, the heart, and this should be manifest in the translation.

2.2. Look at the Do-Gooder (Ps 37)

“Progress and prosperity are guaranteed for the one who is honest and upright” (Ps 37:37), Kršćanska sadašnjost translates: “Look at the upright and look at the blameless: the peacemaker has posterity.” Šarić renders this very similarly, “Look at the honest and look at the upright because he who is a peacemaker has a future!” (Ps 37:37). Grubišić’s translation is ingenious and lucid: “Look at the do-gooder, look at the straight shooter! A blameless man has a future.”¹² In many places in the original, one must bear in mind a certain synonymy of the following notions: ישר ( honest, upright) and תם ( whole, of integrity). Many Croatian translations render this as upright and blameless, which are biblicisms of a sort. Grubišić persistently avoids biblicisms, choosing colloquial expressions, such as we find here in the do-gooder and the straight shooter. In every case, Grubišić tries to stay faithful to the meaning and structure, but he prioritizes faithfulness to communication.

2.3. Drop Dead (Ps 55)

The originality and the fierceness of Grubišić’s translational solution are especially highlighted in Psalm 55. Using melodramatic vocabulary, the translator here portrays the situation as somewhat grotesque. The narrative of the psalm focuses on the fact that the psalmist has been abandoned by his best friends, who have turned into enemies and are now trying to kill him: “You, my companion and I, my companion, my bosom friend!... You, whose company I was so fond of, with whom I have walked around in God’s house side by side! May you drop dead! May you fall into Sheol alive!” (55:16).

Using elements of imprecatory psalms, the psalmist wishes these to die. For his biblical text, Grubišić uses a very rough, somewhat raw, and uncouth term – (may they) drop dead. Why does Grubišić use this dysphemism here?¹³ When we consider the Hebrew original of this verse, we find יַשִּׁימָוֶת( yaššimāwet), which is a compound of נשא (“outsmart”) and מות (“death”).¹⁴ However, it is not entirely clear why Grubišić uses such a dysphemism ( drop dead).

2.4. My Brain Became Leavened (Ps 73)

Psalm 73 is, in many ways, exceptional and deserving of our attention. Especially, and because, Grubišić, in his translational inventiveness, adds additional emotional charge to this psalm. Brueggemann believes that Psalm 73 holds a “central place in the Psalter” (2007, 204). Artur Weiser comes to similar conclusions and says that Psalm 73 “holds the most prominent place among the mature fruit of the struggle and the pain the Old Testament faith had to endure. That is a strong testimony of the human soul’s struggle and could be compared to the Book of Job” (1962, 507).

Several psalms follow the orientation/disorientation/reorientation pattern. So, the psalmist is initially secure in his faith and trust in God and firmly oriented. Then, confused by wrongdoings and threats, distressed and disappointed in God and his (in)justice, he finds himself in a state of complete disorientation. He cannot understand the injustice God seems to allow: “I tried to understand all this, but it troubled me deeply” (Ps 73:16). This process culminates in the psalmist’s meditation and introspection when in the renewed presence of God (“till I entered the sanctuary of God,” cf. Ps 73:17), he observes the final destiny of evildoers and the wicked (“I understood their final destiny,” 73:17b). Psalmist has now been reoriented.¹⁵

Psalm 73 is typical of precisely these psalms, in which we notice the pattern of orientation-disorientation-reorientation. These psalms abound in very immediate vocabulary and lexis. Forms and formulas of poetic idyll are often avoided. Such intensive wording of the original asks for a reciprocal response from the translator. For instance, while in Psalm 73:12 a great majority of translators speak of thieves and deceivers, or sinners amassing wealth, Grubišić uses the language and vocabulary of the people and calls them scoundrels: “ scoundrels increase their wealth” (73:12).

In the next verse, the psalmist asks: “Have I, then, in vain kept my heart pure” (73:13; Kršćanska sadašnjost and Šarić), while Grubišić here, more intensely, and with a dose of cynicism, translates, “So (I) have kept my heart pure for nothing.”

And while the psalmist looks at the prosperity of the wicked (Grubišić: of the scoundrels), not understanding all these injustices, he becomes caught off guard, confused, and disoriented. He simply cannot understand all that is going on around him (73:21). His mind cannot fathom all these wrongdoings, so he concludes, “my soul was distressed” (Kršćanska sadašnjost) (73:21).¹⁶ And yet again, we are then surprised by Grubišić’s original, unexpected, and unusual translation of this verse which reads, “When my brain became leavened, and my emotions became hidden, I became a madman without understanding.” The original here compares and uses metaphors from the cottage industry. Such vocabulary points to yeast and fermentation (חמץ) in bread-making.¹⁷

3.1. Psalm 1:1 What Luck

Grubišić’s vividness can be seen both in his translational solutions and footnotes. Stylistically, he is characterized by a conversational style. So, for example, Ps 1 in Grubišić’s translation says: “What luck for the man who does not come to the counsel of the wicked, does not participate in the assembly of sinners nor sits in the meeting of the ungodly.” All other translations render this as “Blessed is the man.” It is impressive how skillfully and knowingly Grubišić uses his footnotes. Merely by reading these concise translator’s notes, the reader will be schooled and educated. For example, in a footnote about the mentioned Psalm, Grubišić discusses different approaches and aspects of biblical translation and some concrete translational solutions from the cited text in the Psalter. In this footnote, we are once again met with his picturesque and somewhat lively conversational style and expression:

With relatively few words, Grubišić in this footnote provides a concise language analysis and translational aspects and variants. Also, he does not leave unexplained terms that he uses in his translation, which are perhaps not entirely clear, as will be seen in the coming example from Psalm 2. In his notes, Grubišić will explain why he sometimes uses terms that are most probably unfamiliar or unclear to a broader reading audience.

3.2. Psalm 2:3 “Gužve”¹⁸

The episode we find in Psalm 2 portrays different situations that Israel, this small nation overwhelmed by many superpowers of that time that wanted to enslave and eradicate them, found itself in. The psalmist points to the power of their God, so he sees their rebellions as folly: “Why do the nations rebel and the peoples plot foolish plans? Earthly rulers gather together, and princes deliberate among themselves against the Lord and his Anointed.” On the other hand, the Israelites decide: “Let us tear off their shackles ( moser, מוסר) and throw off their yoke” (Ps 2:2-3).

Grubišić here renders: “Why do earthly kings entrench themselves, and princes plot against the Lord and his anointed? Let us break their cords, shake off their yoke!” Grubišić expertly and meticulously expounds on the term cords and provides instruction for the reader:

This kind of footnote will concisely and vividly teach the reader about the biblical text and the context of the time.¹⁹

3.3. 1 Samuel 10:11 and Pentecostals

Grubišić’s footnote on the text in 1 Samuel 10:11, describing an unusual event from King Saul’s life, proves even more inspirational. The King encounters a group of prophets in a “prophetic ecstasy.”²⁰ Meeting this charismatic group, Saul himself begins to prophesy, so the text says: “All who knew him from before and have now seen him in a prophetic ecstasy among prophets, asked one another: ‘What happened to the son of Kish? Is he also among the prophets?’” Grubišić uses the footnote under 10:5 to describe the mission and the task the prophets of Saul’s time were to perform and says:

Things can hardly get any more illustrative or vivid. Here, again, Grubišić remains faithful to communication ( faithful to communication), gives particular care to structure, and especially lexicon ( faithful to structure), and finally, very carefully attempts to bridge the Old Testament world with our modern world, history, and culture. This can be seen in his footnote on the text of 1 Samuel 10:11.