This is not an issue of political correctness nor of accommodation to any other religion, including Islam. Instead, it is a matter of accuracy in translation when literal translation does not communicate the original biblical meaning accurately.

Ask yourself the difficult question: How might you translate the Fatherhood and Sonship of God without readers of your translation of the Bible understanding that to mean that God has sex with the mother of Jesus? This issue has confronted Christian-Muslim interaction for centuries.

Following is the article from SIL and I do have permission to share it with you all:

SIL International Statement of Best Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms

---

Translation of the familial terms of God in Scripture has unfortunately generated considerable controversy. We want to clearly state our position on this important subject.

In SIL, we strongly affirm the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and require that it be preserved in all translations. Scripture translations must promote understanding of the term ‘the Son of God’ in all its richness, including Jesus’ relationship as Son with God the Father.

Without reservation, SIL’s Scripture translation practice is to use wording which accurately communicates to the intended audience the relationship of Father by which God chose to describe Himself in relationship to His Son, Jesus Christ, in the original languages of Scripture.

There are some cases in which it can be shown that a word-for-word translation of these familial terms would communicate an incorrect meaning (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relations with Mary, mother of Jesus; not only does this communicate obvious wrong meaning, but can also give readers the impression that the translation is corrupt). In these situations, the translations convey the accurate meaning by using terms that clearly have familial meaning but do not imply a procreative relationship. Where necessary, Scripture translations should include an explanation of the meaning of divine familial terms. This may be in an introduction, in one or more footnotes, or as a glossary entry, as seems appropriate to the situation.

Bible translation is complex work carried out by translation teams of highly skilled and dedicated people. In SIL, all personnel subscribe to a statement of faith which affirms the Trinity, Christ’s deity, and the inspiration of Scripture. SIL is committed to translating the Scriptures in the best way possible to preserve and not distort these truths. Respecting well-established Bible translation principles and practices, translation decisions are always made in consultation with other partners and the host communities, in order to achieve the best possible translation of God’s Word.

January 2012

The edition pictured here is the standard version, which, from the online sample, has very few footnotes. I have in my hand a borrowed copy of the study edition, which has quite a lot of short notes, although taking up at most a quarter of each page, and over 200 pages of study material at the end including a few translated Old Testament passages. I have not looked at this additional material. Sample pages are available online for the standard version, including Romans 6-8, and for the study edition, including John 1 and some of the study materials.

The study edition is a well presented hardback book, with a dark red cover similar to the standard edition pictured, but without Colin Urquhart’s name on the front. From the outside it doesn’t look much like a Bible, but it is printed on thin Bible paper with two sewn in ribbon markers.

I have looked at two sections of the text, Matthew 1-5 and Romans 6. In general this translation is into good clear contemporary English, with no sign of archaic words or syntax. In places it seems a little stilted, suggesting that a good stylistic editor might have improved it. The less elegant phrasing is not because the Greek text is followed too literally: for example, in Matthew 3:3 “Make ready for the Lord’s coming” (make what ready?) in place of the literal “Prepare the Lord’s way”.

The genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 is somewhat abbreviated into a list of names, with repeated names and “begat” or “the father of” mostly omitted. Josiah has been omitted from this genealogy, presumably as an oversight.

Urquhart wrote, and I quoted in the previous post, about “sometimes giving the literal translation of the Greek followed by another phrase that puts the same truth in another way that can be readily appreciated by the reader”. The cases I have found seem more the other way round: “the Messiah, the Christ” in Matthew 2:4, “The truly humble, those who are poor in spirit” in 5:3, and “Those with gentle spirits, the meek” in 5:5. I am glad that these explanatory additions are exegetically responsible and phrased in a way which preserves the readability of the text. Thus they are much better than the amplifications in the Amplified Bible, which has recently to my regret become a favourite of some Charismatic preachers.

In Matthew 2 I was annoyed by the repeated capitalised “Child” and “He” for Jesus. In 2:8 it might have been an appropriate choice to avoid capitalising Child on Herod’s lips, but more likely this is a mistake as Herod then twice refers to Jesus as “Him”. This made me look at John 20:15 where we have two different people given this honour in one sentence: “Sir, if You have moved Him…”

In Matthew 3:1 “In those days” has become “Some years later”, historically accurate but not justified by the Greek text.

In the following account of John the Baptist there is an interesting alternation between “baptise” and “immerse”. The stylistic variation makes for good English and helps to explain the “baptise” to readers not familiar with the word. But the rendering “immerse” suggests Urquhart’s credo-baptist theology (presumably adopted after he left the Church of England), which is even more clearly reflected in the rendering of verse 11:

I immerse in water those who have truly turned away from their sins and surrendered to God. But after me someone more powerful than I is coming. I am not fit even to carry His sandals. He will immerse people in the Holy Spirit and in God’s purifying fire.

Here we see a good explanation of the parallel between John’s baptism and the otherwise obscure “baptism” in the Holy Spirit. But we also see a theologically loaded definition of “repentance”, and a forced interpretation of the literal “into repentance” as referring to a past act. There may be good scriptural warrant for baptism following repentance, but this verse is not it and should not be translated as if it were.

In the next verse, 3:12, we have another odd explanatory addition: “spiritual threshing floor”. It is hardly likely that this verse could be wrongly taken literally. Similarly in 5:16 we read “spiritual light”. There is more danger of literalism with 5:6, which has lost its vivid imagery in:

Those who long for righteousness are blessed, because they will be filled with God’s life.

But where an explanation might have been useful, of the “salt” in 5:13, none is given.

In Matthew 4 there are more theological interpretations: “He had to be subjected to temptation from the devil” in verse 1 and “Defeated, the devil then left Him” in verse 11. Then in verse 13 Capernaum is simply “near Zebulun and Naphtali”, suggesting that these are towns rather than areas.

I also looked at Romans 6 because of the baptism issue and because this is one of the passages that can be read on the Internet. In this passage Urquhart uses the word “baptise” several times. But there are other explanatory additions, such as “We have died to sin; so can we continue to live in ways that displease God?” in verse 2. In the next verse there is a sign of a non-standard exegesis, taking “into Christ Jesus” as in apposition to “into his death”:

Surely you understand that all of us who have been baptised live now in Christ Jesus. Through our baptism we were made one with his death.

Right through the chapter there continues to be expansion, as if Urquhart the preacher is showing through more than Urquhart the translator, right through to the final verse 23:

You have seen for yourself that sin pays wages: eternal death and separation from God. But God’s gift to you is eternal life that is yours in Christ Jesus, your Lord.

I am pleased that Colin Urquhart has taken the effort to produce this translation. He has thus given the lie to the old charge that Charismatics aren’t interested in serious study of the Bible. In general terms he seems to have done a good job, in producing a clear, natural and generally accurate translation – although one which could have done with a bit more careful tidying up.

However, I did find more theological interpretation in this version than I would expect to find in a general purpose Bible. For that reason, and also because there is no Old Testament, I cannot recommend this version as anyone’s primary Bible. It has to be taken as what it is, one person’s, one respected leader’s reading of the Bible. Colin Urquhart is a man whose teaching I am happy to receive, and on that basis I would find this version useful, but I would always want to check it against a more reliable version, or against the original Greek.

Among the UK Charismatic leaders I have long had great respect for is Colin Urquhart. So I was interested to discover, only yesterday for the first time, that he has translated and published his own version of the New Testament, called simply The Truth New Testament. And this version is by no means another literal translation. Here, for example, is John 1:1:

Jesus is the Word. He existed in the beginning, before time began. This Word was with God and, indeed, the Word was God.

The surprising claim is made that

The Truth New Testament is the first UK translation of the New Testament for 50 years.

That can only be true because this version was published in 2009, and so predates N.T. Wright’s 2011 The New Testament for Everyone, sold in the USA as The Kingdom New Testament. Also, to be pedantic, the claim is true only if restricted to translations into standard English, as in those 50 years there were at least two new Welsh translations, one in Scots (not to be confused with Gaelic), and various attempts into English dialects, as well as numerous versions in world languages largely translated and published in the UK.

The Truth New Testament seems to be a genuine translation from the original Greek, not a paraphrase. Urquhart is clearly not a New Testament scholar and theologian in the same league as Wright (but then is anyone?), but he studied for the Church of England ministry (which he left in the 1970s) at a time when he probably had to learn Greek to a reasonable level.

Here is part of Colin Urquhart’s introduction to the version, as found also on its website but here edited and reformatted to match the printed text:

Having been a preacher and teacher of God’s Word for over 45 years, I have a great love for the scriptures. I have been devoted to bringing understanding of its significance for modern living to people in over 40 nations, where I have had the privilege of ministering in the name of Jesus Christ.

As someone who has been interpreted into several languages I am familiar with the process of translating the meaning of the truth from one language to another. I have been blessed with many wonderful interpreters over the years. They have impressed on me that the best interpreters do not necessarily translate what I say literally, but express what I say in a way that will be understood clearly in their own language.

As the principal of a Bible College, among several other aspects of ministry, I have always been deeply concerned that any version of the New Testament should be accurate. But I have also been acutely aware that people will only translate God’s Word into action in their lives if they clearly understand its meaning and implications for them personally.

I mention these things so that you can understand the principles behind this particular version, ‘The Truth’. Any translation inevitably involves a certain amount of interpretation.

There are two types of translation available today. Some are strict word by word or phrase by phrase translations. These are accurate translation of the original Greek text, but do not necessarily draw out the meaning of the text. On the other extreme are modern paraphrases which are certainly edifying but often seem to depart from the original. I believe that God wanted me to chart a middle course between these two extremes.

I sought to do this by first translating the text literally, and then asking the questions, ‘What does this mean? How would you express this in today’s world, with the modern mindset that people have?’

It seemed an awesome task to maintain accuracy with the Greek text and yet have the freedom to expand the translation where necessary so that it can be readily understood. This I have done by sometimes giving the literal translation of the Greek followed by another phrase that puts the same truth in another way that can be readily appreciated by the reader.

I sensed the Lord encouraging me in this by reminding me frequently that this exactly what a good preacher does. He reads the Word and explains it. Yet this had to be done without turning this edition into either a commentary or a study Bible! The text needed to be easily readable and readily understood.

I intend to review the text of this version. But this post is already long enough, so I will leave that to a follow-up post.

The Truth New Testament is available from amazon.co.uk: paperback £10.80, Kindle edition £4.62, hardback study edition £14.99; also at amazon.com: Kindle edition $7.13, print editions available only as over-priced special imports. (Disclosure: these are affiliate links.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/19/tom-wrights-new-testament-translation/

Fr. Charles Erlandson, a fellow Anglican, likes Wright’s translation but finds a number of translation decisions he disagrees with. See Erlandson’s review on this page:

http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-New-Testament-Contemporary-Translation/dp/0062064916/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

1. Are you fulfilled in your job?

2. Is your life fulfilling?

3. Are your days fulfilling?

4. When your days are fulfilled, what will you do next?

(After you think about these questions and comment on them, if you wish, look up translations of 2 Samuel 7:12 and comment on any phrase in those translations that matches any phrase in the questions above.)

HT: David Ker

Translating the Bible into the vernacular often divides people, sometimes deeply. Why?

Even in those cases where we know the correct words errors can slip in. I was looking through a songbook my wife and I made fifteen years ago and it contains this shocking statement of disbelief:

O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see the lie!

Now, how did that error sit unnoticed for fifteen years?!

Last night during rehearsal for the Christmas service at our church, the daughter of our flutist was singing that second line, and I asked her, “What does THEE mean?”

She wasn’t sure. Which of course didn’t stop her from singing along with gusto. Finally her mother helped her out, “It means HIM.” To which I nodded, and then she shook her head and said, “It means YOU!”

There are of course many, many examples of strange lines in hymns that make absolutely no sense to modern speakers of English. What do cattle do when they are “lowing?” Is it the same as a “lowly manger?” And what is a “yon” virgin?” Young? Yawn? And why is she round?

The preacher for Christmas day requested that we sing, “Thou Who Wast Rich Beyond All Measure.” It is a beautiful hymn based on a French carol:

Thou who wast rich beyond all splendour,
All for love’s sake becamest poor;
Thrones for a manger didst surrender,
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.

(Source)

The congregation where we worship is composed mostly of African college students and young families. So my wife was quite reluctant to try to lead them in singing strange things like “Thrones for a manger didst surrender.” Thankfully she discovered a very nice updating of the carol in modern language:

Lord, you were rich beyond all splendor,
Yet, for love’s sake, became so poor.
Leaving your throne in glad surrender
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.

Now, all the archaic language has been removed and it’s mostly intelligible. Notice that the plural “thrones” have been changed to “throne.” I think updating the language works on this carol because it’s not very well known. Imagine if someone tried to change the words to O Come, All Ye Faithful! Would you be able to enjoy singing something like, “Come, all you faithful ones?”

A final example of updating archaic songs is Corde natus ex Parentis, which you might know as “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.” The textual evolution of this hymn is fascinating. It started life as a 5th Century Latin poem. By the 10th Century it had become part of the church’s sacred music. It was translated into English sometime in the 1850s by JM Neale who was also responsible for giving us (afflicting us with?) God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen and Good King Wenceslas.

My wife has been patiently teaching me and our children the parts for Of the Father’s Love Begotten. It is really beautiful and if you modernized the words I don’t think I would be able to sing it. In fact at one point I suggesting that we sing one of the Latin verses. The English is so strange sounding that Latin wouldn’t seem out of place!

Corde natus ex parentis
Ante mundi exordium
A et O cognominatus,
ipse fons et clausula

A final example of textual difficulty (Didn’t I already say “finally?”) is in a more modern carol, Amen (Mary had a baby):

Mary had a baby
Wrapped in a manger

My wife wanted to change it to something like “lying in a manger” but I put my foot down. Tradition! The 1965 Impressions version has “wrapped in a manger.” So of course that’s the way it needs to be. I’ve had a tough time tracing the original lyrics on this song. Sidney Poiter also sings “wrapped in a manger” in the 1963 movie Lilies of the Field. Here’s the scene:

I think looking at Christmas carols is a helpful exercise in thinking about Bible translation. It shows that there isn’t an either/or answer to the question, “Which is better clarity or tradition?” Traditional wordings are very important. But after a while we don’t “see the lie” which is hidden in obscure language. It makes sense to us old fogies but is giving wrong meaning to the younger generation or those who speak other varieties of English.