Does Luke Replace “Son of God” with Non-filial Language?
In 2005 missiologist Rick Brown argued on the basis of Synoptic parallels that, in a few cases, Luke translates Son of God language with non-filial language, especially the term “Christ.” The argument supported the practice of using non-filial renderings of Son of God language in Bible translations...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2024
|
| In: |
The Bible translator
Year: 2024, Volume: 75, Issue: 1, Pages: 37-49 |
| Further subjects: | B
Synoptic Gospels
B Muslim-idiom translation B filial language B Messiah B Sonship |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In 2005 missiologist Rick Brown argued on the basis of Synoptic parallels that, in a few cases, Luke translates Son of God language with non-filial language, especially the term “Christ.” The argument supported the practice of using non-filial renderings of Son of God language in Bible translations made for Muslims, the stated intent being to convey the meaning of the text more clearly and to avoid offense and misunderstanding. This article tests Brown’s claim, mainly by considering the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and by examining every Lukan parallel of Markan and/or Matthean Son of God language used with reference to Jesus. The results of the investigation contradict Brown’s thesis, showing that the relevant Lukan texts do not provide direct support for the rendering of Son of God language with non-filial language. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2051-6789 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The Bible translator
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/20516770241235550 |