For 18 years I served as director of development/director of advancement for Frontiers, the ministry which produced thisย Turkish translation of Matthew.ย While I believe the workers behind this project have good motivations, I also believe they effectively rendered the text compliant with Islam.ย While the volume in question thankfully included a properly-translated Greek to Turkish Interlinear, the purpose of the contextualized translationโand the related footnotesโis to cast a specific โMuslim friendlyโ meaning upon the text itself.
This translation, and others produced and advised by Wycliffe, SIL, and Frontiers, have been the subject of a recent petition organized by Biblical Missiology:ย http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible
The petition Fact Check document (http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf) shows how even the footnotes to this Turkish translation fail to properly convey Christโs ontological Sonship:
โThe focus of our concern is the text of the Matthew translation, not the Greek-Turkish interlinear. In the Matthew text, โSonโ is rendered as โrepresentativeโ or โproxy,โ and โFatherโ is translated as โprotectorโ or โguardian.โ However, โFather,โ โSon,โ and โSon of Godโ should be translated literally in the text, with explanation provided in the footnotesโand not the other way aroundโฆ
โOne example will illustrate the problems with the Turkish translation. At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:17, โSonโ is translated as โrepresentativeโ in the text. In the footnote to this verse, โSon of Godโ is defined in several ways, such as โGodโs representative,โ โthe king, Messiah,โ and โGodโs beloved monarch.โ The note incorrectly says the term โis synonymous with the title of Messiah.โ Jesus is portrayed only in kingly terms, with no recognition of his divinity or actual Sonship. Needless to say, such explanations have the effect of obscuring the full and true meaning of โSonโ and โSon of God,โ even if the terms are translated correctly in the footnotes.โ
To get a sense of how Christian witness to and among Muslims has changed profoundly in recent years, I would encourage all Patrick Henry students to read the following article by former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund:ย http://barnabasfund.org/Recent-Changes-in-Christian-Approaches-to-Islam.html
Patrick Sookhdeoโs piece shows the organic relationship between the ideas and assumptions behind certain interfaith dialogue approaches (such as the Common World and related Yale Response), and โinsider movementโ approaches to work among Muslim.
David Harriman
In correspondence with me, Mr. Harriman adds this:
I work with a lot of former Muslims and they are outraged by this approach to translation.ย What you have, actually, is the spectacle of Western translators (actually, only a couple of highly-committed advocates, but who are acting with the support of senior WBT/SIL leadership) attempting to tell native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, and other languages what their languages actually mean.
There are other translations that are actually far worse โ one is an Arabic translation of the Gospels and Acts in which Father is not rendered literally, in any instance, and in which Son, Son of God, and Son of Man is redefined by paratext and footnote.ย Similar to the footnote I noted on your blog, the commentary portion of this volume (advised by SIL, but funded by Frontiers) describes Christโs Sonship as metaphorical.
An audio โStories of the Apostlesโ volume is in fact far worse than this โ Son of God is translated โCaliph of Godโ โ Caliph of course referring to religious/political rulers of Islam who defended and promoted Islam by force; โsaintsโ is replaced with โummaโ; Islamic honorifics like โupon him be peaceโ are used after the mention of Christโs name (an Islamic prayer for the dead).ย This audio โBibleโ produced by WBT/SIL is still online, BTW.