The paper discusses the translation project “The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ” (supervised by Mazhar Mallouhi and a team of researchers), shedding light on the intellectual and religious dimensions of this work.
The paper’s discussion revolves around the following main points:
Summary and recommendations of the paper: regarding the translation as “throwing a stone into a still pond,” and a step toward the necessity of formulating a Christian Arabic language that mirrors Arab thought and sensibility, far from the absolute literalism of foreign languages (Greek or English).
Motives and goals of the translation: an attempt to bring the meanings of the Gospel closer to the Arab reader by using Arabic terms and formulations inspired by the Arab environment and the Arab Christian heritage, in order to overcome the barrier of the traditional ecclesiastical language.
Background and historical context: the issuance of this translation in a sectarian climate and the rise of fundamentalist currents, and the accompanying Christian tendency to preserve a special ecclesiastical language that rejects the concepts shared with Islam.
Nature of the terms used: the employment of expressions unfamiliar in traditional Christian thought (such as the use of “our Guardian/God, your supreme Guardian” instead of “our Father,” and names such as Isa, Yahya, and Ilyas), and the modification of some concepts.
The harsh ecclesiastical criticism: the presentation of the reactions rejecting the translation from the various ecclesiastical circles (such as the Bible Society and the Coptic Cultural Center), which considered the work “an attempt to Islamize the Bible” and a distortion of its essential meanings and of the divinity of Christ.
Keywords: The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, Arabic translations of the Bible, Mazhar Mallouhi, ecclesiastical criticism, Christian Arabic terms, linguistic civilizational encounter, Arab Christian thought
Introduction
One of the biblical translations into Arabic was the translation “The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ,” despite the immediate astonishment the title raises, as though the correct meaning is disclosed in this book, and as though it implies that there is no correct meaning outside this book. The study of this translation arouses fear in many and enthusiasm in others, especially because it departs from the usual context of biblical translations and places us within an Arabic translation in an Arabic language and with Arabic terms within the Arab civilizational context. Despite the criticisms surrounding it and the harsh attack it met with, this translation no doubt constitutes a real turning point in the context of biblical translations, especially because of the Arab Christians’ rejection of translating the book into an Islamic Arabic language and the attempt to create a special Arabic language. In this paper we shall present who undertook the translation, the reason for this work, the criticisms it met with, and a conclusion about it.
The Translators
The principal driving force behind this translation was Professor Mazhar Mallouhi and a team of translators with him. He is of Syrian origin, from the city of Salamiyah, Ismaili in doctrine and Muslim in religion, and he converted to Christianity and became a Christian. He worked with a team on this translation, in addition to Dr. Ikram Lam‘i, Professor Awatif Zuwayd, Dr. Ali al-Mikhlabi, and Dr. Nur al-Din al-Arabi, in addition to cooperation with an independent international body:
“…The specific task of the independent international committee, whose membership included the Reverend Dr. Atef Gendy, Dean of the Evangelical Theological College in Egypt, and the Reverend Dr. Ghassan Khalaf, was to present recommendations on the translation of these important terms. The editorial board of The Correct Meaning had in fact already decided in 2011, before the committee’s recommendations were issued, to amend the translation of these terms in the new editions of the translation. The purpose of the amendment was to convey the concepts of divine fatherhood and sonship in a consistent manner, while excluding the biological, non-biblical connotations that the two Arabic terms might arouse…”[1]
The Historical Context
The time in which this translation appeared is a supremely sectarian time, with the rise of Islamic currents onto the political scene, sectarian reactions against Islam, and a rejection of everything Islamic or of Islamic background. For example, Christian currents appeared that completely reject the use of the word “Nasara” (Christians) on the grounds that it is an Islamic word, even though it was used a great deal in the books of the Arab Christian heritage and in the ecclesiastical context and laws. Thus there were strong Christian attempts to create a Christian Arabic language particular to Christians, in addition to a complete rejection of everything Islamic. So there was a Christian current that greatly rejected translating the Bible into Arabic with Islamic Arabic terms.
The Reason for This Translation
The translators in this translation were concerned with presenting a reading of the meanings of the Gospel and its connotations, using the biblical terms that our Arab Christian fathers developed over centuries extending from the ninth century AD, seeking to present this translation to help the Arab mind understand the language of the Gospel. For they see that the ecclesiastical language used in the current translations is a language that conceals the meaning intended to be conveyed. Professor Mazhar Mallouhi says: “The Church received the Gospel of Christ not in the Arab world; the Arab reader cannot understand what he reads in the Bible, because the Christians avoided any word used by the Muslim.”[2]
Dr. Diab also explains:
“..Translation attempts took place in Eastern and Western Christian contexts, leading to the issuance of a translation by a council that published the Gospel in Rome in the second half of the seventeenth century, and this translation was the basis for all the known modern translations, the most important of which are the Bustani translation, Van Dyck, and the Jesuit translation. This is what makes us speak of translations belonging to two families: translations in an Arab Christian-Islamic context, and translations in an Eastern and Western multicultural Christian context, the most important of which are the Byzantine and Latin cultures….
In our view, the translation of The Correct Meaning is a new opening in the field of translating the Bible into Arabic. The translators began where the translations of the Arab context ended, and developed them greatly, so the translation came as a unique masterpiece in an authentic Arabic mold in terms of ecclesiastical and theological terminology[3]“
And the statement of the book’s committee explains the following:
” The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, and its second part The Clear Statement of the Disciples of Christ, is a translation in an authentic Christian Arabic wording, carved from the language of the ancestors, rendering from the Greek original “idea by idea,” not “word by word.” And as we mentioned clearly in the introduction to our first edition, this is merely “a reading of the meanings of the Gospel and its connotations.” Hence comes the significance of the title “The Correct Meaning,” insofar as it is an attempt to remove the ambiguity and the mistaken understanding of the meanings of the Gospel among those who are not accustomed to the particular lexicon of the common translations, and among those who may — because of their cultural and religious backgrounds — misunderstand the connotations of the Gospel…”[4]
And it adds:
“Our goal in translating The Correct Meaning is to deliver the message to the majority of Arabic speakers who find great difficulty in understanding the available translations.” And it clarifies that the delivery of this goal is “through words and expressions that convey to them the eternal biblical truth. To achieve this goal, one can draw on the rich heritage of translations of the Bible into Arabic, which goes back in its antiquity to the ninth century AD, if not earlier. Most of the terms, names, and stylistic formulations used in the translation of The Correct Meaning have equivalents in the heritage of the Arabic translations of the Bible that our fathers and forefathers left us,” and it affirms its commitment to the recommendations of the independent committee delegated by the World Evangelical Alliance, and the editorial board’s acceptance of the guiding recommendations issued by the committee commissioned by the World Evangelical Alliance concerning the terms “Father” and “Son”[5]
So they used many terms unfamiliar to traditional Christian thought, such as “the unique spiritual Son,” and the use of Arabic Islamic names such as “Yahya” instead of “John,” “Isa” instead of “Jesus,” and “Ilyas” instead of “Elijah,” and the use of “the eternal Father” (al-Ab al-Samad); and they use words such as “purification” (tathir) instead of “baptism” (imad). The use of some expressions did not come from an Islamic context but from an Arabic context: for example, the use of the word “Isa” appeared in many manuscripts[6].
The Criticism Directed at This Translation
This translation met with strong criticism from the entire ecclesiastical milieu, across the various Christian denominations and schools. Many statements were issued rejecting and denouncing this translation, including a statement from the Bible Society in Egypt and from the Coptic Orthodox Cultural Center; and a book was published entitled Another Gospel and Another Jesus: A Critical Look at the Sufi Translations of the Bible, by the priest Ashraf Nadi Habib. Everyone holds that this translation works to Islamize the Bible, that it is a distortion of the essential meanings of the book, and an attempt to strike at the divinity of Christ; and it was fought fiercely. Father George Massouh holds the following[7]:
The book presents a new translation of the four Gospels and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, about which the least that can be said is that it is a translation that distorts the original text recorded in Greek. In a scandalous manner, the supervisors of the new translation abolish the words and expressions familiar to Christians, and use in their place words and expressions alien to their heritage and very far from the Greek original. Here are some samples of these manifest scandals: “O our Guardian whose throne encompasses the heavens” becomes the opening of the prayer that Christ taught His disciples, and which hundreds of billions of Christians have recited after them from two thousand years ago until today. “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9) disturbed the custodians of the translation, so they overthrew the Greek language and scholarly fidelity in order to exclude the name of God that He revealed to people in the New Testament. For the word “Pater” in Greek means “Father,” not “Guardian,” just as the word “throne” does not occur in the original prayer — so where did they get it from? And thus throughout the Gospels, every time the word “our Father” occurs it is replaced with “God” or with “God your supreme Guardian.”
He also holds: “It appears clear that the authors of the forged translation seek to distort the Christian faith by corrupting the Gospels. For they have excluded from the text everything that could point to the divinity of Christ, His eternity, and His unique relationship with the Father.”
Father Paul Feghali, on the other hand, holds:
“…This book, The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, came directed particularly to the Arab reader in a sound Arabic language and with a smooth and attractive style and profound meanings unfamiliar to the Christian reader. The message of the Lord Christ came to the whole universe and must not be confined within the walls of the church..”[8]
And the Forum of Contemporary Affairs presented, in a lecture, a set of points:
“…..We must appreciate the new and different opinions that enrich our concepts and give us new dimensions of the word of God, even if they conflict with some of the traditional ideas we have become accustomed to.
Shall we cling to the inherited tradition regardless of its effect on the effectiveness of the spread of the word of God, and so call others to respect our tradition and join it and become part of it and an extension of it? Or must we give priority to effectiveness in service at the expense of ecclesiastical tradition?
Just as God became incarnate in our sensory world in order to speak to us in the context of our understanding, can we consider these translations as incarnating the word of God in Islamic culture and concepts? Or is the problem of the Muslim not with the culture and environment but religious in origin, and its treatment lies in presenting the truth in its traditional expressions, regardless of its acceptability to the Muslim’s hearing?
How can we go beyond the limits of binding our concept of God within the framework of names, to experiencing the actual relationship with God the Father? And do translations and literary works serve this goal?
Do we seek to protect our beliefs, the laws of faith, and the existing givens, out of fear of losing the Christian identity and in defense of the historical doctrine? Or is there a role for allowing the other to grow in the word according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit? And to what extent does sound growth rest upon the correct translation of meanings? And what is the connection between “precision,” “literalism,” and “correctness” in translation, and how does that contribute to establishing the correct concept of the Trinity and the oneness of God?….”[9]
Summary
This translation is a correct step on a correct path, despite the many errors it contains, especially in the terms related to the person of Christ. Therefore this translation must not be the end of a work, but rather the opening of Arabic translations that mirror Arab thought. For all the Arabic translations of the Bible are translations that mirror Christian thought with a non-Arab background, and we often read Gospel phrases and your soul fancies that you are reading an English or Greek language. We need an Arabic language that carries all the Arabic meaning. So if the goal is the evangelization with Christ, then we must use all the tools available in our hands to convey Christ to every Arab. For just as the fathers baptized the Greek language and Greek philosophy, so we must baptize Arabic in order to convey Christ to it.
Conclusion
Those working on this translation are not only Christians of Christian background, but Christians of Islamic background who came from Islam to Christianity; and they wanted to convey the Christ they had come to know to their peers. But this translation came in a historical context in which fundamentalist Islamic currents rose, and there are violent Christian reactions toward the Islamists in general, and attempts to create a real distinction from Islam through the use of Arabic Christian terms closer to a literal translation of the Greek or English word than to being an Arabic term. Therefore this translation met with strong criticism from the entire ecclesiastical milieu; but without a doubt this translation constitutes, as the popular proverb says, “the throwing of a stone into a still pond.” It also mercilessly broke the Christian rule of translating the Bible that forbids the use of Islamic terms, and it broke the great wall that we had built around the Bible and with which we had isolated it from the world and from Arab thought.
References
[1] The Editorial Board of the book The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, a clarification from the Editorial Board of The Correct Meaning
concerning the reactions about the translation, publication date 11 August 2020, date accessed: 7/8/2025, to view it: https://n9.cl/4ex90
[2] A private conversation with Professor Mazhar on 8/8/2025 at 10 in the morning
[3] The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ,” introduction by al-Hadi Jatlawi, (Lebanon, Beirut, Dar al-Farabi), p. 7
[4] Mina Ashraf, a statement from the committee of the book The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ to explain the idea of the book and its message, Mobtada, article date 12/7/2020, date accessed 8/8/2025, to view https://2u.pw/w6Kr6
[5] The Editorial Board of the book The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, a clarification from the Editorial Board of The Correct Meaning
concerning the reactions about the translation, publication date 11 August 2020, date accessed: 7/8/2025, to view it: https://n9.cl/4ex90
[6] Leiden 2378 (OR 561), Vatican Arabic 17 and Vatican Arabic 18
[7] George Massouh, “The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ”: the blatant forgery under the pretext of correct interpretation, An-Nahar newspaper, 24 May 2009
[8] The book The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, page 3
[9] The Forum of Contemporary Affairs: a discussion about the book The Correct Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, first episode: coordinating the translations of the Bible, date 14 September 2017, to view https://n9.cl/1l822