An article dated 4 November 2020
Some days ago we saw the harsh criticism that the article of Metropolitan Basilios Mansour, Metropolitan of Akkar and its dependencies for the Greek Orthodox, received. His Eminence used some expressions that some found objectionable and rebelled against, such as: Christianizing and baptizing, and his translation of the verse of Paul the Apostle in the Epistle to the Corinthians: no “god but God,” which some considered an Islamic verse. I do not hide that in our youth we used to reject such usages out of our ignorance of many details. It used to anger me to read that incense was used in pagan worship before, and then the Church used it; I saw in that an insult to us, and I refused that we use in our theology a term that Muslims or others use. But when we sailed in our reading with an understanding of matters, not in a superficial, populist way, we realized what we had been completely ignorant of — indeed, in truth we realized the depth of Christianity and the thought of early Christianity. For even the first Christians used terms such as the “baptizing” of the Greek language; and “baptizing” does not mean dipping it in water (and some demand that we search the Bible for where the tools were baptized). “Baptizing” is a term the first Christians used to indicate that the Greek language, which had been used and had carried the ancient philosophy, came to be used to carry theology and the divine revelation and to express and clarify it. What you used to use for a false god must be placed in the service of the true God — and here is its place with God. A simple example:
One of the words that were used in the ancient Greek world and carried a Christian content is “the gospel ευαγγελιο,” which means the good news, especially that which relates to victory and reward, and means the sacrifice offered to the deities upon hearing the good news at victory. It is striking that the word was used in the worship of the emperor during the Greco-Roman eras, (1) and that the day of the emperor’s birth is considered a gospel, good news “The birth of the god was as good news to the world.” Did the Apostle err when he wrote in his Gospel “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ”? And did he err when he used a term that the Greeks and pagans used? No; on the contrary, he took the very same words to announce that the good news is in the birth of Christ — that the true gospel here is the news of Jesus.
Another simple example: in the miracle of the blind man, Jesus used His spittle and the dust and made clay to heal the blind man, and this was an act that the physicians of those ages used to perform. Does this mean that Christ erred in using what existed in His age? Or did He want to load the method then in use with a different and new meaning? And also, because the cross was an instrument for executing criminals, should we not make it a symbol of salvation?
What we understand from the word “baptizing” is in truth that what God created in creation — incense and other things — and was used for other than God, Christianity restored to its place so that it might again be used for God. That is, what people made an instrument of corruption, Christianity restored as an instrument of sanctification.
Then the word “Christianizing” (tansir) did not come from a vacuum; it means exactly the followers of the Nazarene who was crucified, and this term is biblical, not from outside the Bible, and all the followers of the Nazarene are Nasara (Christians). Some say that the word Nasara means the people of the dhimma (covenant) and means heresy. On this point, many are heretics and their name is Christian — does this mean that I must not use the name Christian because another Christian is a heretic? With more realistic examples: our region is called Wadi al-Nasara (the Valley of the Christians); anywhere you tell them “you are from Wadi al-Nasara,” they will realize that you are Christian — indeed, moreover, Orthodox too; no other meaning of the word Wadi al-Nasara will occur to anyone.
The last and important matter is the use of the verse “no god but God.” Before discussing it, I want to comment on its translation between Van Dyck and the Common Translation. The literal translation of the verse οτι ουδεις δεος ει μη εις means “no one is God except one” (2). We cannot compare the Arabic translations with one another without returning to the Greek original, for the more precise for this verse is the Common Translation. And if we go to other translations, the Pauline translation translates it as it came, and also in Van Dyck’s translation in another verse: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels..” (1 Tim 3:16). As for the Common Arabic translation, the word God is absent.
Returning to the Greek text : και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον ος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματ
We see that the word δεος (God) is entirely absent from the verse. And returning to the interlinear translation (3), we find its literal translation: “And by common consent great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.” Therefore the Common Translation is the more precise.
What I wish to say here is that the people of knowledge and learning do not compare translations with one another for verification; and therefore we cannot compare the Arabic translations with one another, but rather we must compare the translation with the Greek original. Cornelius Van Dyck is a translator from Greek into Arabic, like several translators, and his translation was not infallible; he used terms in many cases that were not precise and changed the meaning of the verse.
The more important matter is the confusion caused by those who see in its use an inclination toward Muslims and an attempt to win them over; and in that they have erred. If we apply this principle, we would have to abolish even the use of the word “God” and use in its place the word “Theos,” for example, and replace the term “Word of God” that means Christ, because it is mentioned in the Qur’an. And here is the essence of language: when they tell you “Jesus the Christ” and “the Word of God,” here is the common key to clarify how Christ is the Word of God — that is, He is God and from God Himself. And the Arab Christians possess what others in the world do not: we can speak with Islam, which speaks Arabic, in the same language; we do not need a mediator to translate for it and to translate for us; we understand Islam in our mother tongue.
And the Arabic language is not an Islamic language, nor is Greek the Christian language; for Arabic existed before Islam too, just as Greek existed before Christianity. The emergence of Islam speaking Arabic does not mean that it is its language, and Christianity’s lateness in speaking Arabic does not mean that it is not its language and will not become its language. For language is the means that we want to carry the divine Word.
For “no god but God” is not an Islamic testimony, because Islam is bound not to the first testimony that unifies God alone, but to the second — that is, not that you declare that there is no god but God, but rather a declaration that you bear witness to the prophethood of Muhammad.
It is also a Christian testimony that we affirm that we have no god but God; and is there a god besides Him, or another god whom we worship?
The attack that is happening is not from the door of criticism, but rather stems from the attempts of many to add points to their media credit by responding to His Eminence, the highly respected Metropolitan Basilios, and an attempt to gain more fame. And there is another current in the Church, unfortunately, that tries to present priests and metropolitans as corrupters of the faith, believing that God has guided no one but them, and that no one realizes the truth of the faith but them; and others from lack of knowledge and attempts to build counter-fanaticism.
In the end, I did not attempt to reply to the critics of His Eminence in order to defend him, for he is our shepherd and he defends us; but the truth is that before replying and criticizing, we must be knowledgeable, reading, and understanding — and not merely be followers of so-and-so or so-and-so, who become famous at the expense of religion because they found no place for themselves except at the expense of religion.
…………………
1. See Introduction to the New Testament, Dr. John Karavidopoulos, Arabic translation by Father Ephrem Melhem, page 115
2. See the book The Interlinear Translation of the New Testament (Greek-Arabic), the Antonine University, page 813.
3. The previous reference, page 989.