Translation of the Bible or any other text unavoidably involves a determination about its meaning. There have been different views of meaning from ancient times up to the present, and a particularly Enlightenment and Modernist view is that the meaning of a text amounts to whatever the original author of the text intended it to be. This article analyzes the authorial-intent view of meaning in comparison with other models of literary and legal interpretation. Texts are anchors to interpretation but are subject to individualized interpretations. It is texts that are translated, not intentions. The challenge to the translator is to negotiate the meaning of a text and try to choose the most salient and appropriate interpretation as a basis for bringing the text to a new audience through translation.

There is an increasing, or increasingly visible, societal trend in the EU and beyond—often followed by constitutional changes—that challenges inclusive constitutional values. The discourses underlying these changes emphasize the inviolability of national identity and redefine it with a strong reliance on exclusive constitutional values. This Article asserts that exclusive constitutional values—that are defined as values that question the moral equality of some members of the community—necessarily shrink the room for inclusive values, and a critical mass of exclusive values can lead to a hallowing out of a democratic order, both on the national and on the supranational level. The Article presents Hungary as a case where the populist-exclusivist elements of political rhetoric—that are also present elsewhere—became part of constitutional law and have transformed the political system. The case study shows how the redefinition of Member States' constitutional identities, along recent societal trends and exclusive constitutional values, could clash with the inclusive values of the European Union and relegate European institutions to the position of “the Other,” thereby endangering constitutional democracy. In particular, the Article shows how the rule praising and recognizing diverse Member State constitutional identities can work to embolden the already strong trend to challenge inclusive constitutional values.

No abstract

The article looks at the changing terrain of inclusion and exclusion, through mapping the shifts in Hungarian citizenship law and its political context. More specifically, it deals with the legal aspects of the definitional exercise of belonging to the Hungarian nation, starting with an analysis of the relevant provisions of the 2011 Fundamental Law of Hungary and moving on to assess the phenomenon of external ethnic citizenship. The surrounding political and legal debates are read together with insights from normative scholarship to trace the changing meaning of who belongs to the nation, in what sense and with what practical consequences. The paper discusses the political context of the changing constitutional and citizenship rules to demonstrate the circularity in defining the nation: who gets to vote will have an impact on who decides on who gets to vote which in turn will have an impact on who gets to vote, how, and for how long. The article concludes that supplanting the political nation with the ethno-cultural concept means that overinclusion has given way to underinclusion. For instance, some who used to be defined as part of the ethno-cultural nation have come to be viewed as voluntary outsiders: with the availability of non-residential naturalization, those who opted not to acquire Hungarian citizens can now be seen as also falling outside the nation, rewriting basic tenets of national identity.