Call for Discussion: the Arlington Statement on Bible Translation
With this article, we bring the Arlington Statement on Bible Translation to your attention. The statement is a new development, created in 2019 by a group of scholars including fundamentalists and evangelicals. The intention is to set a standard for Bible translation going forward that will avoid problems others fell into in recent years (perhaps, however, the error came about with good intentions). While attempting to bring clarity to translation for some language groups, some translation policies allowed certain standards to slip that could cause confusion or even false doctrine among readers. Thus, the need for a clarifying standard.
The statement focuses on three key areas of translation philosophy. First, translation should not result in even a seeming affirmation of false religion. The statement gives examples to illustrate what that means. The statement calls for a commitment to translate in such a way as to prevent the suggestion to a reader that there is no distinction between the true God and the gods of unbelievers. The statement and supporting documents give examples.
The second point says translations should not hesitate to translate in ways that might call out the sins of a target audience. The non-Christian reader might find that the Bible addresses false practices they have long held. If they come to Christ, they will have to change. There should be no “sensitivity” to their “culture” when their culture is false, a distortion of God’s created order.
The third point of the statement calls for consistency in translation so that readers will come to no confusion about key Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity. Similar terms throughout the Bible should have consistent translation so the reader can discern the web of truth the Bible proclaims.
The Arlington Statement on Bible Translation is here and some immediate questions have answers on the Statement’s FAQ section, found here. An additional document dealing with the arguments in more detail is here.
Dr. Troy Manning, Chief Language Consultant of Bibles International, informed the FBFI of this development in a recent email in which he wrote::
I want to inform you of an important development in Bible translation circles, one that I would think the FBFI pastors would want to be aware of. It is a statement to counter the trends of extreme contextualization. Believe it or not, though many may have good intentions (e.g., wanting to reach more Muslims for Christ), they have somehow justified tampering with the Word of God in order to fulfill their good intentions. Maybe these Bible translation practitioners are not those with whom FBFI pastors associate, but I wonder if there might be some friendships or even associations. If the pastors have any associations with Bible translators in large organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, or even small ones, they definitely should be made aware of the Arlington Statement on Bible Translation.
Here’s what we at Bibles International wrote about the ASBT:
Bibles International joined with a group of Bible translators, theologians, pastors, missionaries, Greek and Hebrew scholars, and linguists, to draft a statement that promotes conservative principles regarding contextualization in Bible translation. There are various trends and ideas in recent Bible translation theory, many of which are helpful, and some of which are well-intentioned but nonetheless problematic. The Arlington Statement on Bible Translation is a set of simple principles that addresses the most important issues related to contextualization. The Statement will help pastors to determine which Bible translators and Bible societies they would be willing to partner with. Bibles International fully subscribes to this Statement.
As further background to the Arlington Statement, Dr. Manning added these comments:
Contextualization has been a key buzzword in missions for a few decades now. When applied correctly, it gives us missionaries more effectiveness with the people, because we make all the God-approved changes in our life and ministry to reach the people God has called us to reach. But how far can a missionary go before he is transgressing the Word of God? Such contextualization has been applied to Bible translation since around 1987. Bible translation (BT) organizations encouraged contextualizing their translations, especially for Muslim readers. But concern grew concerning how much contextualization was allowed, so these organizations drew up principles to guide the BT practitioners in their organizations. Apparently, this wasn’t sufficient, because abuses became public, resulting in an examination of the issue by the WEA. This examination resulted in some guidelines being drawn up (see below for hyperlink). Apparently, these guidelines, though good, were insufficient for at least three reasons: they applied to only one issue—Divine Familial Terms, those guidelines had loopholes, and they applied only to a few large organizations. Other organizations didn’t have to follow the guidelines—and various ones didn’t!
So, in 2019 a BT practitioner began contacting those whom he thought would be as concerned as he was. He contacted me after reading Bibles International’s translation philosophy. It was actually quite encouraging for me to hear that there was a group of BT practitioners from various organizations who were concerned about the developments in extreme contextualization for BT. In Oct 2019 various BT practitioners (including myself) met in Arlington, TX, to begin drafting the principles that are now in much more developed form on the ASBT website. We continued working together by email and video conferencing, including others who were not able to attend the first meeting in Arlington. Once we had the content to our liking, we got it translated into various languages and then posted it all on a website dedicated to the issue.
The organizations that have been pushing this extreme contextualization—some are pushing quite hard—have not allowed public discourse or debate to occur. A perfect opportunity for this would be at the bi-annual BT conference each year in the Arlington/Dallas area. But the big organizations don’t want that. So, we decided to draw up a set of principles, make it public, and then promote it among our contacts.
With this introduction, we ask our readers at Proclaim & Defend to raise their own questions or comments in response to the statement or what we have said here. As always, our comments section is moderated. That means you must stay on topic and you must not engage in emotional personal attacks that so often derail internet discussion. See our comment guidelines for a complete statement of our requirements.
We think this topic is important and invite thoughtful discussion below. Our plan is to keep this article “at the top of the page” for some days to facilitate an ongoing discussion.
Don Johnson
The call for discussion has gone unanswered so I’ll chime in! My awareness of Bible translation practice quickly turns to ignorance as soon as the discussion departs from the English-speaking world. My first thought was that this “Arlington Statement on Bible Translation” might be an insignificant subtweet crafted in response to the actions of one of the big Bible translation organizations. I shared this with some friends and one of them informed me that Mark L. Strauss gave a paper at ETS in November on one of the issues this statement addresses (“Translating ‘Son of God’ in Muslim Contexts: A Critical Assesment”). And looking down through the list of signers, I see that Danny Akin, Tom Schreiner, Wayne Grudem, and Leland Ryken have put their names on the dotted line in agreement with this series of affirmations. So maybe there is something to it so far as its relevance goes. But do we need another statement from another city? (Who is going to keep track of all these?) Here’s my take.
When it comes to Article I, it would seem the translator’s goal should always be to express the meaning of the text without any consideration of the theology of other religions. They’re not writing a theology textbook. They’re translating the Bible. Seems like common sense.
For Article II, it would seem translators are supposed to translate the words confronting whatever sins or falsehoods the Bible confronts regardless of how believers or unbelievers might perceive it. Seems like common sense.
Article III seems to stress maintaining the integrity of familial terms. Again, translate these according to the best practices of lexical semantics. Have you ever tried to explain Jesus as the Son of God to your kids in English? It’s not easy. But we don’t avoid it. So again, this one seems like common sense.
I would expect the pleas from these articles to be followed in an English translation and a translation into any other language. If Bible translation organizations aren’t following these, then that would be problematic. But should we expect to see another statement from another city every time people want to address a problem?
Brent,
I appreciate your willingness to chime in. I was a little disappointed that there were no comments, so you have satisfied my desire!
I understand your frustration that yet another statement connected to another city has come out to address an important issue. But I think you are agreed that it is an important issue, especially if you knew that various Bible translation practioners are violating the principles of ASBT. Since it is such an important issue and since the cool thing nowadays is to attach the public statement to the city in which the statement was framed, we original signers decided to venture out and state what we believe to be responsible Bible translation.
You say that it’s common sense, so does that mean that the many Bible translation practitioners who don’t do it have no common sense? I know it’s hard to believe, but Bible translations around the world are violating “common sense,” and their organizations are promoting and encouraging it. It all goes back to the cultural relativism in anthropology that denies certain absolute truth claims upon all cultures.This extreme contextualization seeks to “incarnate” the gospel, adjusting the message and the methods to suit specific cultures. Such thinking has produced the “Insider Movement” in which missionaries reaching Muslims encourage them to stay within Islam after their conversion. This thinking has bled into Bible translation, which had already opened the door with reader-response translation philosophies. We have to keep in mind the readers of the translations, they say, and we have to try to produce the same response in the modern-day readers that the Scripture authors wanted from the original readers. Once they opened this door, it was an easy entrance for extreme contextualization to make itself at home and tell Bible translation practitioners to adjust the translation to please Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., adherents.
Do you see now how easy it is to slip away from common sense, if you are not anchored to the absolute truth claims of the Word of God? The ASBT is simply trying to breathe common sense into the world of Bible translation, with the common sense founded on biblical principles. We want churches and church leaders to be aware of what’s going on and to take a stand against it.
For comparison, here are the SIL Standards for Translation of Divine Familial Terms: https://www.sil.org/translation/sil-standards-translation-divine-familial-terms
Here is a statement from WEA that I believe is related: https://worldea.org/en/news/wea-divine-familial-terms-oversight-group-affirms-wycliffe-and-sils-bible-translation-guidelines
I must admit that I’m confused as to how the SIL standard is problematic on the issues it addresses.
SIL recommends translating “Son of God” and “Father” with explanatory adjectives, such as “heavenly Father” and “anointed Son of God” or “royal Son of God.”
Arlington is reacting against substitution of “Messiah” for Son of God, if I’m reading it right. Yes, I can see how that’d be a problem. But how does a qualifying adjective attached to “Son of God” distort the biblical meaning? The reason this is recommended by SIL is (apparently) because in the Islamic mind the phrase “son of God” only implies a physical descendant as a result of sexual union with a human mother, which is considered blasphemy. Of course the Bible doesn’t teach that, nor does “son of God” as a term for Christ imply createdness, subordination, or temporal beginning.
Certainly translations must seek to be accurate, and the Bible’s teaching can be offensive to people. I’m just not clear on how the SIL standards allow errors that the Arlington Statement prevents.
And if other organizations wish to adopt best practices of their own in addition to, or in contrast with, the SIL, by all means go ahead! Surely there are ways we can all learn from one another.
Duncan,
Thanks for posting those two websites, though we had already posted them under Claim #12 on the last page referenced in Pastor Johnson’s post (5th paragraph). If you will read Claim #12, you will find answers to your questions about why we felt the SIL standards and WEA guidelines to be insufficient. I would also refer you to D.A. Carson’s 2012 book: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Son-God-Christological-Misunderstood/dp/1433537966. He explains very well the dangers of trying to adjust or modify the important expression “Son of God.” It requires understanding a lot about the theological significance of that term, especially in relation to the Messianic connections to the OT (e.g., Jesus truly was the physical descendant of King David).
Let me also add that the original writers/signers of the ASBT are in the Bible translation ministry, and we see the abuses that continue to go on in Bible translations, even after SIL (who refuses to support ASBT) established their standards and WEA wrote their guidelines. There are significant loopholes in both, and as Claim #12 states, the guidelines applied only to the Wycliffe/SIL family of organizations. There are many other BT organizations out there!
I appreciate Troy’s responses and don’t have anything new to add. I am a signer who is involved in helping translate the Bible among some pioneer people groups (first generation believers, no established churches etc…) and I wasn’t immediately familiar with the concerns expressed in the Arlington Statement. I somewhat enjoy being unaware of other project’s translation challenges as I have plenty of my own challenges to focus on (I recently published an article on translating the title of Messiah with three different teams in Myanmar). But part of my job is keeping up with current events among Bible Societies, and that is what this statement is proactively doing. I can relate to the earlier comment wondering why such a “common sense” position needs to be stated in the first place. And backing up what Troy has explained about loopholes, I was rather saddened to hear from a former SIL translation consultant who was required to resign this year specifically because he personally was a signer of this Arlington Statement. To me that implies there is more going on behind the scenes, specifically within the larger Bible Societies and a shifting of translation philosophy, at least on this particular issue.