User:Alastair Haines/Matthew Philips

23 May: Newsweek article

Matthew Philips, "God's Word, According to Wikipedia", Newsweek 23 May 2008.

Relevant quotes

A few times a week, Alastair Haines, a grad student at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney, sits down with a Greek version of the New Testament and translates a bit of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Haines doesn't speak Greek, but he can read it. When he's done, he loads his work onto a Wikipedia page.

But Biblical scholars see the potential for an inaccurate, bias-filled mess. "Democratization isn't necessarily good for scholarship," says Bart Ehrman.

Advocates say the discussion pages will be a microcosm of a theological debate that has been raging for centuries.

"We're lucky," says Barnard College Biblical scholar Alan Segal, "that we no longer live in a period where they burn the scholars."

12 June: Alastair to Matthew

Alastair Haines (Wikipedia) to Matthew Philips (Newsweek)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008, Alastair Haines <edited> wrote:

Dear Matthew,

I'm not an admin for the project, but I'm a longstanding Wikipedian and a posgrad theological research student, trained in Hebrew and Greek.

I'd love a link to any web-coverage of your press report by email if that's possible and convenient.

My user name is my real name and I'd be happy to be quoted anonymously or with my real name, whichever was more useful to you, if any of the comments below are relevant.

<edited>, you seemed most interested in controls regarding neutral and non-biased translation.

Here are some thoughts on that from an ordinary (but very reflective) contributor.

It is still very early days for this project. Many books have no text at all. There is so much "free space" that people "stake a claim" and translate those vacant passages. At this stage there is little editorial interaction, work is going into producing text, not refining it.

I have observed very different translation styles as I've glanced across existing work. I have also observed translation (or mistranslation) that reflects long-standing debates already in the literature of Bible interpretation. John 1 alone provides two examples. 1. John 1:1 "the Word was God" or "a god was the Word". 2. John 1:14, 18 "only begotten Son" or "unique Son".

Although I'm not aware of any official policy to address these important issues, they do not distress me unduly, since I'm sure they will increasingly attract attention and policy will arise from discussing them.

There are two very distinctive and important strengths of Wiki process. Firstly, there is no authoritative doctrinal position. Secondly, even linguistic authority does not reside in editors, but in what editors come to agree about what is said in external reliable sources. What makes Wikipedia outstanding in some articles, is the "Talk page", history of editorial composition, unavailable in other encyclopedias. I anticipate the same will end up being true of "The Free Bible" -- click on Talk for instant exegetical commentary, sometimes in engaging adversarial (but polite) dialogue -- and interact with it if you want to! Other editors are part of the text!

Theologically, the Free Bible is a curious phenomenon. We're not only dealing with translation, but potentially unstable translation. This is no fixed and final "Word of God". But then again, that's precisely what the most conservative scholars would say themselves, it is the *originals*, not translations, that are inspired (if any thing is).

Historically, scholastic rediscovery of the original language versions, and popular distribution via printing presses fueled the famous (or infamous) Reformation. What might happen with a Wiki-Bible, working with original languages, distributed via the ubiquitous internet? Will the 21st century "recapture the Bible for the people"; or merely lead to anarchy, and a "lowest common denominator" version -- the LCD version?

In Wiki processes, policy is theoretically as fluid as text. A lot may depend on the competance of editors to recognize and address important issues, normally entrusted to professionals. But it actually excites me, that we may have different "tones" in different books because of those who worked on them. This may inadvertently better reflect the Bible itself, than translations with more uniformity, since the original Bible was itself composed by people with diverse backgrounds, circumstances, issues ... and manner of expression.

None of the contributors are prophets, we can't know the future of the translation, we will all make mistakes, but I think the key issue will be whether universal access to "correcting" the text allows more constructive than destructive edits. Will the text be the work of genuine translators, or merely of passers by, "correcting" English they don't like, to English they do like? A lot depends on the *continued* involvement of responsible editors. Isn't that true of all publication?

Best wishes, looking forward to reading your article. Alastair Haines

18 June: Alastair to Matthew

Alastair Haines (Newsweek) to Matthew Philips (Wikipedia)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008, Alastair Haines <edited> wrote:

Dear Matthew,

<edited> link to the article.

I really enjoyed reading it. As a writer myself, I love reading skilled journos.

I like the way you provide so much information in such little space, maintaining interest all the way.

Neat contrast, between Wiki and the professionals. Even nicer conclusion -- no longer burning scholars (amateur or professional).

Perfect to inform the casual reader, with plenty to get those with more background thinking too.

I'm a hopeless reviewer, I only ever see good things.

Best regards, alastair