Lost in translation?

For the last few years there has been a controversy over rendering such words as ‘Father’ and ‘Son of God’ by some Bible translators, especially within Muslim contexts.

In the spring of 2012, the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) leadership agreed to facilitate an external review of Wycliffe and SIL International’s practice of translation of the words ‘God the Father’ and ‘Son of God’. The report was finalised in late April and made public.

International panel

The WEA asked Dr. Robert Cooley of Charlotte, North Carolina, to moderate the work of a panel of 12 scholars from a number of different countries who looked into this matter. The panel had free access to Wycliffe and SIL International’s resources. Both organisations agreed to accept the outcomes of the panel’s work and recommendations.

The report begins with the panel acknowledging the tremendous work which both Wycliffe and SIL have done in making God’s word available to people who would otherwise have no Bible in their own language. However, the recommendations from the panel seriously challenge the ways that key biblical words and concepts have been translated in some situations recently.

Some of the recommendations

The panel made ten recommendations. The first three of these concern translation methodology. The whole document can be viewed on the web, but we highlight here the four most significant.

1. The WEA Panel recommends that when the words for ‘father’ and ‘son’ refer to God the Father and to the Son of God, these words always be translated with the most directly equivalent familial words within the given linguistic and cultural context of the recipients. In the case of languages that have multiple words for ‘father’ and ‘son,’ translators should choose the most suitable words in light of the semantics of the target language.

2. The panel recognises that there is significant potential for misunderstanding of the words for ‘father’ and ‘son’ when applied to God and that, in languages shaped by Islamic cultures, the potential is especially acute and the misunderstandings likely to prove especially harmful to the reader’s comprehension of the gospel. Therefore, in case of difficulties, the panel recommends that translators consider the addition of qualifying words and/or phrases (explanatory adjectives, relative clauses, prepositional phrases, or similar modifiers) to the directly-translated words for ‘father’ and ‘son’, to avoid misunderstanding. For example, as the biblical context allows, the word for ‘father’ might be rendered with the equivalent of ‘heavenly Father’ when referring to God, and the word for ‘son’ might be rendered with the equivalent of ‘divine Son,’ ‘eternal Son’ or ‘heavenly Son’ when referring to Jesus. The Panel also encourages translators to use paratextual material to clarify and avoid misunderstanding in these cases.

3. The panel recognises that the phrase for ‘Son of God’ has varied nuances in its different New Testament contexts, especially in light of the Old Testament background to those contexts. In the case of most languages, the biblical context should enable the reader to discern the nuances of the phrase for ‘Son of God’, and translators need not make adjustments to the translated text, although they may want to indicate nuances of meaning in paratextual material. But, when and if necessary, the panel recommends that translators convey nuances of meaning from the biblical context in the translation through the addition of qualifying words and/or phrases (explanatory adjectives, relative clauses, or prepositional phrases). For example, the phrase for ‘Son of God’ in a context of Messianic kingship might be rendered with the equivalent of ‘anointed Son of God’ or ‘royal Son of God’.

4. The panel recognises that some of the disagreement over the translation of the word for ‘father’ and the phrase for ‘Son of God’ has resulted from overloading the translation by attempting to address too many possible meanings and misunderstandings. The panel recommends that, in addition to translating Scripture, translators consider additional ways of communicating the message of Jesus to Muslim audiences. These can include such literary genres as tafsir (commentary), qusas al-anbiya (stories of the prophets) and sirah (life stories). But these should not be considered or presented as biblical translations unless they abide by the first three recommendations.

Pitfalls to be avoided

The document goes on to discuss the recommendations in more detail. It points out that translators need to be aware not only of how their translation will be received by unbelievers to whom they are seeking to introduce the Bible, but also on local Christian believers who may feel that their faith is being undermined by loose translations of key theological concepts. The words ‘father’ and ‘son’ used in reference to the Godhead occur with great frequency in Scripture, showing the importance of fatherhood and sonship in the biblical presentation of God. The panel says that this is ‘an importance that constrains translators to render these words with the most direct equivalents possible.’

Corrupting the Scriptures?

The panel also explains that most Muslim know that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and have heard that the Bible describes him as such. ‘One longstanding obstacle in reaching out to Muslims is the deeply-rooted Islamic conviction and claim that the current Bible we have (both Old and New Testaments) is corrupt.

Christian apologists in the Middle East have long responded to this accusation by challenging those who make it to bring out any evidence that Christians have falsified the Bible. In many cases, apologetics depended on the fact that problematic issues in the biblical text were neither removed nor softened in the course of history, but rather retained and maintained (as manuscripts and textual critical studies show when comparinging older texts with current translations).

Translating the words for ‘father’ and ‘son’ in non-direct or less direct ways could belie the Christian heritage of apologetics and add substance to the Muslim claim that Christians have corrupted the Bible.’

Wait and see

The document is long and complex and perhaps some of its nuances are only understandable to those involved on the very front line of Bible translations. So we must wait to see how this will play out in coming years.

However, the charge concerning corrupting the Bible needs to be taken seriously on a wider front. As translators have felt under pressure to tone down the biblical language as they work within a Muslim context, just so the question must be asked as to whether certain English translations are in danger of corrupting the Scriptures as they seek to engage with the increasingly politically correct environment of North, America, Europe and the Westernised world. This question will also centre around the use of the gender sensitive terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ in different contexts.