{"title":"Does Luke Replace “Son of God” with Non-filial Language?","authors":"David A. Doherty","doi":"10.1177/20516770241235550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":354951,"journal":{"name":"The Bible Translator","volume":"66 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible Translator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770241235550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.