Untitled - St.Francis Magazine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 2 | April 2012 REVISITING “SON OF GOD” IN TRANSLATION: READING ACTS, LUKE, AND MATTHEW IN HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL CONTEXT By Bradford Greer, PhD Missiologists, linguists, and Christian workers have been dialoguing about Muslim-‐idiom translations of Scripture. Some have strongly objected to Muslim-‐idiom translations because they feel that fundamental and vital biblical concepts will be compromised by such translations. One point of contention has been the viability of using a functional equivalent for the term “Son of God.” The objection to using a functional equivalent for this term is based upon the understanding that the phrase “Son of God” attributes deity to its subject and is the Bible’s primary indicator of the deity of Jesus. 36 Therefore, it is assumed that a functional equivalent will diminish the meaning and the significance of the term. I too initially felt apprehensive about the use of a functional equivalent when I first heard of it. I think that being apprehensive is a natural reaction. However, the more I researched the issue the more I came to realize that the objection was not based on an accurate assumption. First, this assumption is not fully cognizant of the linguistic dimension. The goal of functional equivalence is to convey accurately and naturally in the receptor language the intended meanings of a text in the source language. When a text in the receptor language does not communicate these intended meanings accurately and naturally, functional equivalence has not been achieved. Those who object to using the functional 36 For a helpful article written from this perspective see J. Scott Horrell ‘Cautions Regarding “Son Of God”’ in Muslim-‐Idiom Translations Of The Bible: Seeking Sensible Balance’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 6:4, Aug 2010. 188
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 2 | April 2012 equivalence model for the translation of the “Son of God” term appear to prefer formal correspondence as the translation model. 37 What they may not realize is that functional equivalence has been the dominant theoretical paradigm in Bible translation for years. In addition, the Bible agencies require translations to use “terms that accurately express the familial relationship by which God has chosen to describe Himself as Father in relationship to the Son in the original languages;” and to “include an explanation of the meaning of the phrase ho huios tou theou (the Son of God) when it refers to Jesus Christ.” 38 This requirement ensures that the literal form and the meaning of the phrase are stated and clarified in the introductions, glossary, and notes. Second, this assumption that the phrase “son of God” attributed deity to its subject in the original language is not fully cognizant of the biblical data. It appears that the Gospel writers, even though they knew that Jesus was God the Son, did not share this non-‐contextual understanding of the term “Son of God.” The way the term is used in the Gospels, appears to have meant something different to them. If this is true, what did the term mean to the Gospel writers, as well as to the earliest churches, and how did they conceptualize and speak of the deity of Jesus? 39 37 Formal correspondence refers to a word for word or form for form translation. The weakness of formal correspondence is that languages use different forms to express meaning, so a formal correspondent can impair meaning or convey a wrong meaning. For a brief examination of the complexity of the transmission of meaning in translation, see Donna Toulmin’s article: When ‘Literal’ is Inaccurate (2011). 38 From the Wycliffe USA translation standards at www.wycliffe.org/TranslationStandards.aspx. See SIL’s stated policy on this at: http://www.sil.org/translation/divine_familial_terms.htm. 39 Richard Bauckham asserts that “the intention of New Testament Christology, throughout the texts, is to include Jesus in the unique divine identity as Jewish Monotheism understood it…They include Jesus in the unique sovereignty over 189
Page 1:
By Arab Vision & InterserveVol 8, N
Page 4 and 5:
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 18 and 19:
18 - เอกสารวิชา
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35: St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
show all

Untitled - St.Francis Magazine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?