Book Review by Adam Simnowitz
Note: The author thanks Dr. Ant Greenham, the book’s editor, for clarifying the penultimate paragraph. The review is incomplete without Dr. Greenham’s comment left on Dec. 4, 2023, 6:34 PM.
The current, treacherous state of the world of Bible translation is in large part due to the acceptance of cultural relativism in which precision in translation has been sacrificed on the assumption that language can never express anything that is true for all cultures. This thinking has contributed to the notion of “Muslim Idiom Translation” (MIT) in which Scripture is intentionally Islamized by use of wording that upholds the teachings of Islam. Thankfully, there are those who are opposed to such a betrayal of the divine inspiration of Scripture, which brings us to the book under review, Islam and the Bible: Questioning Muslim Idiom Translations.
Islam and the Bible is edited by Drs., Ayman S. Ibrahim and Ant B.Greenham. It is their second collaborative effort and serves as a companion volume to their earlier publication, Muslim Conversions to Christ: a Critique of Insider Movements in Islamic Contexts (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2018). While the former is broader in scope, the latter, as noted above, focuses on MIT which is foundational to the Insider Movement (IM).
This book of 452 pages contains an introduction, twenty chapters by twenty different authors, an editorial afterword, about the contributors, and three indexes. The topics covered include historical factors that have led to MIT, theological considerations, translation issues, critiques of specific MIT versions, and views of MIT proponents. It is available at Amazon and Christianbook.com.
Among the twenty authors featured in this publication, six are from the earlier one (Mark Durie, Fred Farrokh, David Harriman, Kevin Higgins, Georges Houssney; Ayman Ibrahim); four write in favor of MIT (Higgins; Tobias Houston; Patrick Krayer; Brad Willits); and six are Middle Easterners (Houssney; Ibrahim; Suheil Madanat; Emad Mikhail; Youssef Nathan; Imad Shehadeh). The editors are to be especially commended for including the contributions of non-Westerners – especially those still living in the Middle East – as they face greater backlash for MIT versions that are almost exclusively the result of Western innovation and funding (dare I say, neo-colonialism?) yet whose voices have been too often absent regarding this perversion of God’s Word. For the four authors who write in favor of MIT, the editors have included an afterword to express their disagreement with them.
- Some of the most important issues regarding MIT are addressed in this volume:
-
-
- abandoning Father-Son terminology (chapters 1-3)
- the key role played by Charles Kraft of Fuller Theological Seminary in its origins (chapter 4)
- the ineffectiveness of the 2013 Report of the World Evangelical Alliance (chapter 6)
- capitulation to Islamic theology (chapters 1, 2, 7)
-
Other topics include wording in specific MIT versions (chapters 10, 12, 16, 17), the translation of Scripture into Arabic (chapters 15, 18, 20), and the function of Scripture for the Church (chapter 13). The four articles in favor of MIT (chapters 5, 8, 10, 11) provide a window into the thinking of some of its advocates and their departure from biblical orthodoxy in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
As one who has written much on MIT, I found the following three chapters of special interest: “The Influence of Charles Kraft on Missions to Muslims,” by Mark Durie (chapter 4); “Bible Translation, the Egyptian Church, and Donor Support,” by David Harriman (chapter 14); and “Muslim Idiom Translation Practice in Islamic Turkic Languages,” by Noah Lee (chapter 19). Each of these chapters provides much-needed and helpful information in understanding the history, practice, and negative consequences of MIT in order to call to account those responsible for these publications.
Islam and the Bible would have been strengthened if the following two important, but easily overlooked matters were addressed: first, the responsibility that groups like Every Tribe Every Nation (ETEN) and the popular Bible app, YouVersion (bible.com), have in making MIT versions readily available; second, the responsibility of mega-donors to hold accountable the Bible translation organizations and the Bible societies for how the millions of dollars that they give annually is spent, especially the accuracy of the versions that are being made. It would not be difficult for these donors to require “back translations” into English and submit them to qualified Hebrew and Greek scholars who could properly assess the faithfulness of the versions being produced before being approved for publication. Finally, the editorial comment regarding the “father-son role, between the older and younger generation… provides the basis for the analogical use of Son in Bible translations” (94, 425) is in need of clarification. As written, this comment is not according to the witness of Scripture that the Son of God is eternal (e.g. John 17:5, 24; Heb 1:8-10; 7:3) and runs counter to the parts of the book that refer to the “eternal Son” (e.g. 12, 20, 64).
In conclusion, the visible Church is indebted to the editors and those contributors who have addressed many of the problems of MIT and for bringing much-needed awareness to it in Christian academia. May it have a wide readership among pastors, theologians, and denominational leaders who will take appropriate action to hold Bible translation organizations, societies, and individual translators accountable for their past and present unfaithfulness to the Lord, His Church, and the lost by perverting His Word through cultural relativism. “Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon” (2 Samuel 1:20) that professing evangelicals have outdone Jehovah’s Witnesses in mistranslating God’s Word. The Italian adage, “traduttore, traditore” (literally, “translator, traitor”) was never more applicable than to those responsible for MIT.

Purchase on Amazon
Purchase on Christianbook.com
Publisher: (Dec. 1, 2023): B&H Academic
Paperback ISBN: 978-1087770222



The best chapters in this book were the ones the editors picked on because they made sense.
Thanks, Adam, for your kind words about my chapter in the book.
Ant, thank you for so quickly responding. Your affirmation that the Son is eternal is extremely reassuring and greatly appreciated.
I want to offer my clarification (since I wrote the editorial comment concerned) in response to these remarks: “Finally, the editorial comment regarding the “father-son role, between the older and younger generation… provides the basis for the analogical use of Son in Bible translations” (94, 425) is in need of clarification. As written, this comment is not according to the witness of Scripture that the Son of God is eternal (e.g. John 17:5, 24; Heb 1:8-10; 7:3) and runs counter to the parts of the book that refer to the “eternal Son” (e.g. 12, 20, 64).”
Of course, the Son is eternal. As you point out, Scripture is very clear on that. However, the question is, How does one communicate the eternal relationship between God the Father and God the Son using a human analogy? No human father-son relationship is eternal, yet father-son language is what Scripture uses, even though it breaks down in every human situation: No human father-son setup captures God’s eternal nature. However, this analogy is the essential and indispensable way the Holy Spirit chose to communicate the (eternal) divine relationship. My comment should thus be understood in terms of role (or function) within the Godhead, not as an attempt to liken the Creator to the (temporal) creature ontologically (as if God the Father is older than God the Son). And the reason I italicized the word role in my brief comment was to make that point.
Additionally, I had Patrick Krayer’s discussion on pp.143-45 in mind when I penned my comment in both places. The father-son role is indeed transcultural (i.e., universal), despite all the anthropological examples Krayer assembles to suggest it is not.
Aaron, your contribution, “The Translation of the Names of God in the Chadian Arabic Old Testament” (ch. 12) is outstanding. Showing the similarities between the Chadian Arabic version and the Sharif Bible in Arabic is essential to any understanding of the liberties taken by the translator(s) of the Chadian. Your thorough research is evident throughout your article; it is extremely informative; and lays before the reader the non-negotiable importance of properly translating the names of God in the OT. Much thanks!
Thank you for this review, Adam!