Ethics in Bible Translation

Bible Society access | SIL access

The biennial Bible Translation Conference in October 2025 takes the theme of “Ethics in Bible Translation.” Ethics and Bible translation intersect in various ways. Most translators enter the work with a sense of calling and service, but the day-to-day choices—who to involve, which words to select, how to structure workflow, what tools to use, how to explain decisions to donors and communities—raise ethical questions that deserve explicit attention. Where does Bible translation intersect with issues like respect, justice, fairness, concern for the vulnerable, minimising harm, avoiding control and exploitation, and other ethical issues?

This Virtual Issue collects some illustrative previous articles that connect with the conference subthemes: ethics of people and communities, ethics of interpretation and exegesis, and ethics of technology, processes, finances, and leadership. It includes both papers that offer a more general philosophical foundation and those that explore ethical issues in specific case studies, with the aim of providing a helpful basis for discussions.

Ethics of People and Communities

Bible translation involves people, whether as translators, facilitators, advisors, consultants, managers, or funders, and ethical issues are raised when contextualising best practices for particular communities and the contexts in which they live. The Bible Translator has featured several articles that focus particularly on the translator’s ethical tension between serving the original author’s intent and serving contemporary audiences or commissioners of their translations.

Carl Gross (2003) explores the translation criterion of acceptability, and whether it is ethically justifiable for translators and consultants to place this community focus above other principles. He also points to some of the underlying ethical principles that might be at work, such as whether the ends justify the means. For example, does the end of selling more Bibles, or having people read them more, justify the sanitisation of texts by using euphemisms?

Krijn van der Jagt (2010) takes this further, using Chesterman’s norms of translation to explore the ethics of Bible translation, particularly noting the tension between representing the intention of the author and serving the commissioners of the translation so that they can use it for their objectives. He questions whether all such objectives are ethically acceptable, and notes the possibility of unwittingly affirming oppression. For van der Jagt, Bible translation ethics must be “governed by honesty,” in a way that respects the otherness of the author, rather than conforming to the beliefs of the translator or the project’s commissioners.

As a practical example, Anne Lise Matre (2012) explores the choice of translating Christ as “shepherd” or “ruler” in Rev 2.27 for a community oppressed and exploited during British colonial rule. Does the original co-text or the audience context provide the most important guide? Similarly, can the phrase “enemies of God” be used of Jews in a translation of Romans 11 without fostering anti-Semitism? Her conclusion is that a translator’s primary responsibility is to the co-text of the Bible.

Nathan Esala (2014) investigates this tension of loyalties to author and community through insights from skopos theory, highlighting the potential of a translation brief as a way to address and mediate postcolonial concerns. Self-awareness and explicit documentation of challenges at the front end of a project can help promote dialogue between partners and language communities in the translation endeavour, who are equal before God but have asymmetric power in the world.

Looking at translators themselves, Elsa Tamez (2015) explores the unique ethical challenges for Deaf translators in sign language projects, whose identity is always visible alongside the narrators and characters to whom they give life. This visibility leaves the translation vulnerable to criticism based on the acceptability of the translator-signer by the Deaf community. But seeking to hide this identity through disguises, animation or AI raises further ethical questions: If the signer is not real, can what he or she says be trusted?

Gross, Carl. 2003. “Acceptability—the Supreme Translation Principle?” The Bible Translator 54(4), 424–34. Access in TBT archive.

Van Der Jagt, Krijn. 2010. “Ethical Concerns and Worldview Perspectives in Bible Translation: An Inquiry into the Ethics of Bible Translation.” The Bible Translator 61(3), 101–22. Access in TBT archive.

Esala, Nathan. 2015. “Measuring the Adequacy of the Host Text Using Skopostheorie in Bible Translation: The Ethics of Operational Transparency.” The Bible Translator 65(3), 308–36. Access in TBT archive.

Matre, Anne Lise. 2012.“To Which Context is a Translator Responsible? A Response to John S. Mbiti.” The Bible Translator 63(4), 197–206. Access in TBT archive.

Tamez, Elsa. 2015. “Sign Language, Performance, and Identity.” The Bible Translator 66(3), 258–63. Access in TBT archive.

Ethics of Interpretation and Exegesis

In terms of interpretation and exegesis, what ethical frames may guide our translation choices as we recognise the theological persuasions and ideologies that shape us? As an example, much has been written in The Bible Translator over the past few decades about inclusive language and how theological convictions around gender roles can shape translation choice, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Anneke de Vries (1998) looks at the subtle ways in which gender stereotypes in the minds of translators can influence interpretation and translation choices in broader ways than just exclusive language, showing the impact across many different literary and linguistic features. She concludes that translators need to be as careful as possible in deviating from source texts to avoid male and female stereotypes.

By the early 2000s, the treatment of gender in Bible translation had become a significant ethical controversy, particularly prompted by the translation choices of the TNIV. Darrell Bock’s (2005) paper provides a model for seeking to understand the rationale for translation choices without disparaging those who made them, helpfully affirming a variety of potential appropriate translations, and highlighting the deeper theological and ideological issues that arise from suggesting there is only one correct option.

Further practical case studies show how theological persuasions can shape interpretation and exegesis. Arthur Walker-Jones (2019) explores translation choices that limit human identification with other species, for example, using ivory instead of teeth when referring to elephant tusks. Ji-Youn Cho (2011) examines how Korean translations of John 4 reflect or counter gender norms through different levels of deferential honorifics used by Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Peter-Ben Smit (2018) argues that more gender-neutral translations can obscure the particular critique of male behaviour in Mark 10.1-9, and in a similar vein, Alice Ogden Bellis (2024) contends that translations that neutralise the specifically male negative stereotypes in Proverbs do not provide the original’s counterweight to the misogynistic sayings found elsewhere in the book.

De Vries, Anneke. 1998. “Beyond Inclusive Language. Gender Stereotypes in Translations of the Old Testament.” The Bible Translator 49(1), 103–16. Access in TBT archive.

Bock, Darrell. L. 2005. “You Make the Call: Are Gender-Sensitive Translations Safe or Out?” The Bible Translator 56(3), 169–87. Access in TBT archive.

Walker-Jones, Arthur. 2019. “Palaces of Ivory or Teeth (Ps 45.9): Carol Adams’s Absent Referent and Ecological Translation of the Psalms.” The Bible Translator 70(3), 273–82. Access in TBT archive.

Cho, Ji.-Youn. 2011. “A Feminist Approach to Bible Translation: Translating the Dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman (John 4.7b-26) into Korean Addressee Honorifics.” The Bible Translator 62(4), 216–25. Access in TBT archive.

Smit, Peter.-Ben. 2018. “Man or Human? A Note on the Translation of Ἄνθρωπος in Mark 10.1-9 and Masculinity Studies.” The Bible Translator 69(1), 19–39. Access in TBT archive.

Bellis, Alice. Ogden. 2024. “Gender Roles and Translation in the Book of Proverbs.” The Bible Translator 75(1), 82–93. Open access.

Ethics of Technology, Processes, Finances, and Leadership

Finally, the ethics around technology, processes, financing, and leadership in translation deserve consideration. Technology and Bible translation have a long history, from the inventions of writing, the printing press, computers, to machine assisted translation and AI. New technology is emerging faster than ever before, and there are often power differentials between the various stakeholders. What are the ethical issues to consider as we develop and use technology? What are the power dynamics and ideologies at play in other aspects of the translation process? Strategies for funding, decision making, quality assurance, and messaging about activities and impact are all important areas for ethical consideration. A number of articles in The Bible Translator have investigated these kinds of issues.

Andy Warren-Rothlin (2011) looks at the translation technology of the time (Paratext and Adapt-It) and explores how these tools and the procedures around them communicate a set of values that need to be ethically considered. Access to source texts and training in source languages needs to be available to all translators, rather than “enslaving” local communities to a particular reading decided by the agendas, priorities, and user interfaces of those developing technological tools. These concerns still echo in today’s context, where many tools focus on AI drafting, minimising even further the input of local communities.

In terms of decision making and messaging, Phil King (2019) explores the tensions between different mental models that shape the engagement of various stakeholders in Bible translation, questioning whether the linear goals and metrics often applied by outside agencies are appropriate for fostering the development of sustainable Bible translation movements.

Marlon Winedt (2021) points to ethical issues arising from the historical dominance of written modalities for Bible and their translation. He argues that embracing a more multimodal approach opens the door to greater participation, community appropriation, and transformation.

As a specific case study, Stephen Pattemore (2010) critiques The Green Bible and the ethical choices that were made in formatting, which English version to use, and even the justice of a decision to invest in another translation aimed at Western consumer society while the translation projects of other communities languish. He concludes with more just ways for a translation to engage with ecological themes, translating with “sensitivity to the voice of the earth” and providing notes and extra materials on key issues.

Warren-Rothlin, Andy. 2011. “Source Texts, Source Languages, Technology, and Values.” The Bible Translator 62(4), 240–46. Access in TBT archive.

King, Phil. 2018. “Ladders and Wheels: Comparing Metaphors for Bible Translation in the Context of Sustainability.” The Bible Translator 69(1), 79–102. Access in TBT archive.

Winedt, Marlon. 2021. “Bible Translation as Incarnation of the Word of God: Transformational Power through Form and Meaning.” The Bible Translator 72(2), 220–40. 90-day open access.

Pattemore, Stephen. 2010. “Green Bibles, Justice, and Translation.” The Bible Translator 61(4), 217–26. Access in TBT archive.

This collection of papers only begins to reveal some of the many ethical challenges involved in Bible translation today, but it provides an introduction to some of the key themes that will undoubtedly be developed further in the conference itself. We look forward, in turn, to future issues of The Bible Translator, which will hopefully themselves be influenced by discussions at the BT Conference 2025.

Phil King, SIL Global