The Problem 'Son': Debate Continues Over Translating 'Son of God' for Muslims
Wycliffe USA, faced with the possibility of losing support from the 3-million-member Assemblies of God, pulled one controversial Bible translation from circulation in February and halted publication of several others. In March, it agreed to an external audit of its translation practices by the World Evangelical Alliance.
Critics have faulted the audio translation Lives of the Prophets, among others, for translating "Son" in reference to Jesus into the Arabic equivalent for "Messiah." Muslims object to Christian teaching that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.
Wycliffe says it withdrew support for the audio translation and a few other translations last summer in accordance with new policies concerning divine familial terms. However, since Wycliffe international partner SIL is not the publisher, copies continue to circulate through other sources. As recently as January, Wycliffe and SIL denied that any of their translations omitted familial terms. Then in February, Wycliffe released another statement acknowledging that observers questioned the veracity of this denial.
"We are listening to those concerns," Wycliffe said in February, "and are seeking God's guidance as we re-evaluate our methodology and investigate to ensure that our commitment to accurate and clear translation is being reflected in every project."
Wycliffe says literal translations of divine familial terms should be preferred, but its translation policy continues to allows for non-literal substitutes where translators determine the literal phrasing creates inaccurate meaning.
Wycliffe's statements followed two meetings with Assemblies of God (AG) missionary leaders, missiologists, and scholars regarding disagreement over its Bible translation practices. Assemblies of God World Mission (AGWM) leaders announced in February that they would spend the next four months reviewing their relationship with Wycliffe/SIL.
"Our fellowship is deeply committed to the integrity of Scripture," said Greg Mundis, AGWM executive director. "We have done due diligence in researching, reflecting, and searching both the Scriptures and our hearts. This places us in a position in which we cannot agree with Wycliffe/SIL's stated and publicized position."
Currently 35 AGWM missionaries work with Wycliffe in a partnership that goes back 25 years. But AGWM leaders say they will determine by May 15 whether they will continue approving personnel to serve with Wycliffe/SIL and endorsing the groups' support in more than 12,000 AG churches.
After a series of public statements from Wycliffe in February, an AG spokesperson told CT, "Our stance on the use of familial language in Scripture is unchanged, and we cannot compromise our position on this issue. We are gratified by recent expressions from Wycliffe, assuring us that they are seeking God's guidance and reevaluating their methodology in Bible translation. Dialogue between [AGWM] and Wycliffe leadership is ongoing."
Last summer the 347,000-member Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) general assembly approved a statement declaring "as unfaithful to God's revealed Word, insider movement or any other translations of the Bible that remove from the text references to God as 'Father' (pater) or Jesus as 'Son' (huios)." Such removals, the denomination said, "compromise doctrines of the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and Scripture."
PCA moderator Dan Carrell appointed a study committee that could recommend the denomination's 1,750 churches withdraw support from Wycliffe/SIL.
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 4 comments
See all comments
RAYMOND HOOKER
Charles, I think you misunderstood the point. The problem is not with Greek and Hebrew but with translating to other languages which may have multiple words for son. I have heard one language has one word for genetic father and another for step father. One of the older translations used the word for genetic father for Joseph which is not true. I gather traditionally Christians in that language have explained the conflict away, while Muslims see it as a corruption. I believe the problem is not a non-literal translation but the difficulty of translating into another language which word for word is actually a mistranslation. I speak several modern languages and can tell that can happen even in European languages.
Charles Horton
I wish this article, as well as commentator Dr. Wayne Dye, could have given us a little more about it. At blueletterbible dot com the Greek word for both son and Son is 'huios' and it appears to be used in the NT for both genetic son as well as for Jesus as the Son of God. What are the different Greek words, and Hebrew and Arabic (Aramaic?) that Dr. Dye is talking about? What are the original words over which the subject is being debated? The article tells about the debate but doesn't explain any of the details that are putting the debate up on the table.
DR WAYNE DYE
There has been NO attempt to water down the message at any time. This is based on a misunderstanding of the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew, as compared with the Arabic. All 3 languages have one term that means "son" in the sense of legal inheritor and person in a relationship with father, and a matching term that means "father" as head of the family, authority, and responsibility. We can call those "social father" and "social son", recognizing that "social" here refers to an extremely important relationship, nothing like social in "social network. All 3 also have a quite different specialized term for father that means "genitor, the man who had a sexual relationship with my mother and so I was conceived" and a matching term for "son" = outcome of that relationship. Call that the "genetic" father and son relationship. In Hebrew and Greek the social relationship terms are ALWAYS used for the divine Father-Son relatiohship. Wycliffe has therefore used that relationship, not the genetic