In Defense of Wycliffe

Blaine Robison, M.A.

Published 6 February 2012; Revised 8 February 2012

Terminology: In order to emphasize the Jewish nature of the apostolic writings (New Testament) and message I use the terms Yeshua (Jesus), Messiah (Christ), and Tanakh (Old Testament)

My wife and I have been financial supporters of Wycliffe Bible Translators for many years and in particular workers in Papua New Guinea. The recent controversy attacking Wycliffe and SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) for supposedly changing the Bible to eliminate "familial terminology" in reference to God has been especially troubling. Translators have been unfairly slandered as "blasphemers" and "heretics" by people totally ignorant about the process of translation. Because of my personal investment I am offering my opinion on this issue.

CAVEAT: I do not speak for Wycliffe or SIL; I am not their agent. SIL has prepared a response to the accusations: (1) SIL Responds to False Accusations. Please review their Statement of Best Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms. I also do not know Arabic, although the critics act like they know more about Arabic than the translators.

The criticism takes two forms, first the general use of "Allah" for God and then substituting "Allah" for "Father" and "Messiah" for "Son" in Matthew 28:19, “cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.” (The translators are also accused of "removing" "Father" and "Son" in other texts, all in an effort to Islamicize the Bible.)

Allah: the first issue is, what is the Arabic word for God? Is there more than one word for God in Arabic? If so, what is it, what are they? The critics never answer these questions. They automatically assume that Allah can only mean the Jew and Christian hating God of Islam and don't stop to consider that Allah is the general name for deity in the Arabic language and was in use long before the religion of Islam was even invented (See ChristianAnswers.net). In addition, Arabic speaking Christians and Jews use "Allah" when referring to God (Encyclopedia of Christianity, cited by the Wikipedia article "Allah"). See also the article Allah in Translations of the Bible originally published in 2001. It is written by a translation expert with United Bible Societies, which produced the Greek text used by all modern versions of the New Testament. The author gives a valuable historical perspective on the etymology of "Allah" and its use in Middle Eastern cultures. According to a Wikipedia article there are 99 names for God in the Koran (describing attributes), which are formed from the root Al.

The Greek New Testament uses theos uniformly for God. In secular Greek writings a number of deities, always represented in anthropomorphic form, were called theos. In ancient polytheistic culture theos was not one omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Creator and ruler of the universe and certainly not spirit as described in Scripture (John 4:24). All of the gods and goddesses of polytheistic pantheons were strictly non-personal, which stands in sharp contrast to the Hebraic view that God loves and desires a relationship with men. In the LXX (Septuagint, Greek translation of the Tanakh) theos renders the generic designations of God, El (which occurs over 200 times) and Elohim (which occurs over 2300 times), as well as the tetragrammaton YHVH, over 300 times. As with many other Greek words the rabbis who translated the LXX infused new meaning into theos. It’s noteworthy that, in rejecting the pagan Greek’s erroneous concept of God, the apostles did not reject the word they used for God. Should not the practice of the apostles guide us as well?

Father: The use of Allah for Father is not inconsistent with apostolic use. Paul refers to God and Jesus in the same verse many times without calling God "Father." In fact, in only one verse does he refer to both God as Father and Jesus as Son (Gal 4:6). In verses where Paul refers to "God our Father" (which occurs at least once in every Pauline epistle) he always refers to Jesus as "our Lord Jesus Christ." Among Jews, speaking of God as father was minimized because it seemed overly familiar and disrespectful. In fact, "God our Father" is not a statement of the Trinity, but of identification with Israel. "God" is Israel's God, not a Christian god. Verses with the phrase "God and Father of our Lord Jesus" (which occurs 5 times in the New Testament) create a challenge for translation in any language because the apostles clearly don't mean that the Father created the Son. The Son is co-eternal with the Father (John 1:1).

Messiah: The translation of "Messiah" (I assume Arabic Mahdi) for "Son" is an interesting and I believe entirely appropriate choice. In Jewish culture of the first century "son of God" was a title for the anticipated Davidic king and did not necessarily denote deity. Christianity has historically preferred to treat the title as always referring to deity in order to perpetuate replacement theology and deny the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. Calling the Son "Messiah" is right on target, for that is who Jesus (Yeshua) is. Messiah is identified with the title christos in the Greek New Testament. Unfortunately, most Christians think of "Christ" as the second person of the Trinity, not the Jewish Messiah. In Greek culture christos was someone smeared with whitewash and was not a compliment, and yet the Jewish rabbis chose christos to translate mashiach, "anointed one," a title of priests, kings and the Messiah. In so doing the rabbis infused christos with new meaning and this is the word that the apostles chose to communicate the gospel. Like the use of theos, the apostles could separate the usage of christos in pagan culture from its usage in the Body of Messiah with a much more elevated meaning.

I believe the translation philosophy of Wycliffe and SIL are reasonable, considering the demanding task of conveying the truth of God's Word in so many different languages. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a perfect translation in any language, because they are created by human beings. One only needs to compare different English versions to note the many significant differences in translation. In my commentary work I sometimes disagree with the translation of a particular word or phrase. Jewish practices and idioms in the New Testament are often obscured if not eliminated in English Bibles. Yet, I don't attribute subversive motives to those scholars who produce the various Bible versions. The reader still has the responsibility to study and judge the presentation of God's Word (cf. Acts 17:11; 1 Cor 14:29).

Wycliffe was founded in 1942 by William Cameron Townsend, a missionary to the Cakchiquel Indians of Guatemala. Townsend caught the vision for translation when Cakchiquel-speaking men expressed their concern that the Bible was not available to them in the language they understood clearly. As a result, Townsend resolved that every man, woman and child should be able to read God’s Word in their own language. Since its inception, Wycliffe has played an part in completing more than 700 Scripture translations.

Wycliffe and SIL are doing commendable work and do not deserve to be slandered by overzealous commentators.