
Working Towards a Solution
The tension between the adamant opposition of the largely Western Church to any non-literal translation of the term “Son of God” and the translator’s desire to see the title understood, and not merely rejected because of an immediate, visceral reaction of the intended audience, may be alleviated in part by a couple of considerations: first, this title is not actually the clearest ascription of deity to the Christ that may be found in the New Testament. Biblical-theological scholarship of late has done much to shed light on the typical usage of this term in Jesus’ day, as well as its Old Testament background. In many cases, it is the expected title of the heir of David, who would finally sit on his throne once again (cf., for example, Psalm 2:6-7; II Samuel 7:14); and hence, it has the basic semantical force of “Davidic (or Messianic) King”. Of course, this title also involved a subtle claim to deity, given what we know of the Messiah from the Old Testament, as Jesus himself hinted to the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41-46); but it was a claim that was too subtle for the clear majority of religious experts to realize. To them, Jesus’ preferred Messianic title, “Son of Man,” having clear roots in Daniel 7:13-14, was a more overt claim to deity, and that which finally got him condemned for blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-65). It must be admitted, however, that certain contexts, particularly in the Gospel of John, demand a greater significance to the title “Son of God” than simply “Messianic King,” pointing as they do to Jesus’ unique and eternal relationship with the Father. The second alleviating consideration is this: many of these translators are thoroughly Evangelical believers, holding firmly to such doctrines as the deity of Christ, and laboring, not to obscure this truth, but rather to proclaim it and make it understood by the people among whom they work. This in itself demands patience and understanding from the worldwide church.
What then are some practical ways to attempt to solve the difficulty? A variety have been tried to varying degrees of success, and none without problems. These include: 1) a strictly literal translation philosophy, which has the advantage of being technically correct; but the dual disadvantage of not being understood, and of utterly destroying the willingness of the target audience to read the translation. 2) A simple, one-for-one substitution of the phrase with a different term (e.g. Messiah) has been tried. This has the advantage that the audience is more willing to read it, but the disadvantage that it does not communicate precisely what the original languages communicate. To eliminate the possibility of correctly understanding all the nuances of so widespread and significant a term seems too steep a price to pay for a willing audience. 3) Instead of a simple substitution, an exegetical approach, which seeks to understand the implications of the term in every context and translate accordingly, may be tried. While more satisfactory than the former, this approach attempts a basically impossible task: the reason that “Son of God,” and not another term, was used in each biblical context is that, for whatever reason, that precise term conveyed the exact intent of the author. “Son of God” certainly may have strong overtones of “Messianic King,” but it still has a familial connotation that the suggested substitution lacks. This approach, while it does have its strengths, is still not entirely optimum. 4) An added qualifier to the literally translated term, perhaps in parentheses or italics, with the intention of combating the common misconception, is another possible approach (for example, “spiritual Son of God”). This has the advantage of making the literal expression available, but has two possible disadvantages: first, it may not be a sufficient concession to make Muslims amenable to reading the translation – for some of them, qualified or not, the term itself is simply not acceptable; and second, it may cause other problems, for instance, a diminishing of the importance of what it means to be God’s Son in the Messianic sense (e.g., “He’s not really the Son of God, just a “spiritual” son like everyone else). However, in certain contexts, given a thorough knowledge of the culture and a meticulously chosen qualifier, this approach may have better results than any of the others. 5) The approach of either giving a literal translation in the text with footnotes and introductions which “exegete” the term, or a non-literal translation in the text with literal footnotes and introductions, is likewise a very valuable approach. Ideally, this will be used in conjunction with one of the approaches above (particularly in combination with number three, with which it gains an especial potency).
to be concluded tomorrow (don’t forget to read part 1)
~~posted by Zioneer