We as a network do not endorse all the material presented or linked on this page. By the nature of our diverse network, some members would agree with any particular item and some members would likely disagree at some points. This material is part of our ongoing discussion.
2012 Pre-Reading and Presentations
- The “Nature of Islam” as Perceived from Various Christian Theological Perspectives – Benjamin Hegeman
Let the 5 circles below represent Islam. i.e. the way Christian see the entire ummah within the highly diverse Koranische Weltanschauungi, and this as seen from 5 Christian perspectives. The dark horizontal line divides the theological realm of ‘spiritual light’ from ‘spiritual darkness’.
- Preface to “Looking at Insider Movements” – Doug Coleman
Linked General Articles
- Narrative, Identity, and Discipleship (Updated) – Jens Barnett
Barnett also has two chapters of related material: “Refusing to Choose: Multiple Belonging among Arab Followers of Christ” and “Living a Pun: Cultural Hybridity among Arab Followers of Christ” in Longing for Community: Church, Ummah, or Somewhere in Between, (ed.) by David Greenlee.
- When We Disagree – Gary Corwin
EMQ April 2012, pp. 134-135.
Available here to those with an online EMQ subscription.
- “A Perfect Identity” – Kathryn Kraft
Available as chapter 7 of Searching for Heaven in the Real World: A Sociological Discussion of Conversion in the Arab World, on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.
- “Conversion in the Light of Identity Theories” and “Identity Choices at the Border Zone” – Tim Green
Available as chapter 5 and 6 of Longing for Community: Church, Ummah, or Somewhere in Between, (ed.) by David Greenlee.
- A Response to Brown, Gray and Gray, The Terms of Translation: A Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in the Bible – Bob Carter
In this response, I am not taking issue with the assertions of Brown, Gray, and Gray (BGG) that languages have semantic classes of absolute and relational nouns. I am also not taking issue with their assertions that languages have ways to express social and biological relations using kinship terms. My focus in this response is on their implication that Biblical Hebrew makes lexical distinctions between social and biological son and social and biological father.
- What Greek Filial Terms Did the New Testament Authors Have in their Toolboxes? – A Response to Brown, Gray and Gray – E. Dennison
The essay examines Brown, Gray and Gray’s summary of the Greek filial terminology employed in the New Testament and focuses on the question of whether their “biological versus social kinship terms” analysis is the most fitting way of analyzing the Greek filial terminological system, considering all the relevant data.
- SIL International Statement of Best Practices for Bible Translation of Divine Familial Terms: Concerns, Questions, and Comments
- No Other Name: Muslim Idiom Translation of “Son of God,” Cautions and Balance – J. Scott Horrell
Often left to the periphery of theological and church concern, the subject of Bible translation is no longer relegated to the jungle hut or a linguist’s coffee table. And not all is well. Much is brewing in these months regarding the translation of familial terms for God into Muslim idioms, most pointedly regarding the Christological phrase “the Son of God.” Several events highlight its increased importance…
- Translating Son of God for Muslim Contexts – Horrell
Those who translate the Bible into Muslim-culture languages must wrestle with the phrase “Son of God,” given that a literal translation may have non-biblical implications in the target language. This two-part article argues that Muslim-culture Bible translations must make the deity of Christ unambiguously clear. Since the WEA subcommittee gave their suggestions in April of 2013, this updated and published version of the article(s) (including fresh research done in 2014) discusses and concurs with aspects of the WEA decision.
Linked Translation-related Articles
- Meaning Discrepancy in Terminology between Christians and Muslims – Georges Houssney
Bible translation has experienced tremendous advancements on many levels. But there are serious problems, both in philosophy and practice. My own training in Psycholinguistics was with secular professors, some of them Muslims. My training in Bible translation was with Christian linguists, most of them with a background in Anthropology. Charles Kraft, Paul Hiebert, Tom and Betty Brewster, and others. My personal study of the subject included books by Nida, Wonderly, Taber, and others. I would like to offer some of the insights I have gained over the years, hoping to contribute some positive, fresh, and new ways of thinking to the discussion on Bible translation.
- Jesus’ Relationship to God, from His Words in John 13-17 – Don Fairbairn
Many papers and articles in the ongoing Muslim Idiom Translation (henceforth MIT) discussion have taken as their starting point the use of the phrase “Son of God” in specific New Testament passages. Other papers and articles have offered more of a big-picture approach by surveying the use of the words “Son” and “Father” throughout the bible. What I propose to do in this article is also big-picture in nature, but rather than surveying the broad uses of words, I would like to focus on one extended biblical passage that I believe undergirds biblical passage that I believe undergirds not only the way the Bible links those concepts to salvation and Christian life.
- Translating “Son of God”: Insights from the Early Church – by Don Fairbairn
In my article “Jesus’ Relationship to God, from His Words in John 13-17,” I argued that on the basis of Jesus’ Upper Room Discourse and High Priestly Prayer, the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father is central to Christianity. I contend that because of this one needs to allow the uniqueness and centrality of that relationship to shine forth clearly in the translated text of the New Testament. The question I would like to raise in this follow-up article is whether “Son or “son of God” must always be translated the same way, or whether it may be translated with different expressions in different passages, so as to render more clearly the contextual meanings it conveys in those different passages.