Translating (Away) The Son of God

Translating (Away) The Son of God March 9, 2012

I’ve been meaning for some time to come back to a topic that has been garnering attention, the news that some Bible translations aimed at predominantly Islamic contexts were not using the phrase “son of God”, ever since I circulated an online article mentioning the news and was met with expressions of concern because that particular piece posed the matter in an inflammatory manner. (See Eddie Arthur’s blog post and longer pdf for more information.)

When it comes to this issue of translation, I think that replacing “son of God” with something else can not only appropriate, but in keeping with the spirit of the history of Biblical translation.

Keeping the same words, or the closest equivalents in a target language, does not guarantee preservation of the same meaning. And sometimes it achieves precisely the opposite.

I remember hearing someone in the context of a missionary Bible college mention that, in an Islamic context, he would always emphasize when sharing his Christian faith that he does not believe that Jesus is the son of God. When asked how this can be and what he means, since he is a Christian, and Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, the individual would then clarify that he does not believe that Jesus is the son of God in the sense that Muslims denounce viewing God as having a son.

The phrase “son of God” in a Jewish context in the first century could mean several things, from angel to king to righteous human being. It did not mean “God the Son, the second person of the Trinity,” nor did it mean “the offspring of divine procreation involving two deities or a deity and a human being.”

In the Qur’an, the concern that motivates polemic against saying God has a wife or a son is a concern for monotheism. This reflects the context in which Islam emerged. It was a concern which, interestingly enough, all or at least most of the New Testament authors shared. As Seumas Macdonald points out, the term “son of God” did not, in New Testament times, denote something at odds with monotheism.

John Piper is of the view that the risk of misunderstanding was there from the beginning, and so the risk should continue to be taken today. I don’t think that logic follows. We see New Testament authors adjusting language for a variety of contexts. The Gospel authors took the risk or translating “son of man” literally, in spite of the phrase being open to misunderstanding or incomprehension on the part of Greek speakers who didn’t know a Semitic language. But Paul didn’t take that risk. And while the Gospel of John took the risk of relating Jesus to the pre-existing (pun intended) concept of Logos (usually translated as “Word”), other authors did not. And so to assume that one should simply “take the same risks” as NT authors, irrespective of context, is to ignore the contextual sensitivity that the New Testament authors themselves exemplify.

And so there is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding the phrase “son of God” if the connotations of that phrase are so negative, and so far from what the phrase meant in the original languages and context, that misunderstanding will inevitably ensue. Would readers agree?

Also on the subject of translation, see Zeba Crooks’ piece in The Bible and Interpretation on the need for a secular translation of the Bible, uninterested in ensuring that the outcome seems to meet the standards of inerrancy, morality, or anything else that religious believers may be concerned about, skewing the fidelity of translation in the process. Also potentially of interest are Jim West’s negative comments about the idea, which I think lose something in the translation.

What do others think? Is something like the phrase “son of God” essential to Christianity and to the Bible in translation? Why or why not?

"Biblical reference to Ruth who did not want to be part of her people anymore ..."

Doctor Who: Fugitive of the Judoon
"Thankyou. I love this classic Asimov story."

How It Happened (Isaac Asimov)
"Might I also add a couple of things which reminded me of The Time Machine. ..."

Doctor Who: Orphan 55
"The revelation has been done before--see Planet of the Apes--but it works because it's true. ..."

Doctor Who: Orphan 55

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • William Tarbush

    I think as our world becomes more connected, that Muslims are eventually going to find out about the “Son of God” idea as they connect with more Christians. That said, it would be folly to allow their first connection with a Bible to be inflammatory to their idea of God.

  • Olu

    Well, Piper has to do SOMETHING to keep em from Hell, right ?. That’s the unspoken evangelical reality behind all the caterwauling

  • I think Philo of Alexandria started “the son of God” and Logos:
    a) “Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made” (The special Laws I, ch. XVI)
    b) “… the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being” (Questions and answers on Genesis, II, 62)
    c) “For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest Son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father …” (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)
    d) “And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God’s image …” (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)
    e) “And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift …” (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XLII)
    f) “the most ancient Word of the living God … he will never take the mitre off from his head, he will never lay aside the kingly diadem, the symbol of an authority which is not absolute, but only that of a viceroy, but which is nevertheless an object of admiration.” (On flight and finding, ch. XX)
    g) “the man [the high priest] who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete [intercessor], his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings…” (On the life of Moses II, ch. XXVI, 133-134).

    Apollos of Alexandria (who I think is the author of ‘Hebrews’) loaded that on Jesus.

    Paul then adopted fairly quickly the pre-existence and co-Creation (in 1Corinthians); but later, and probably reluctantly, “Son of God” (2Corinthians, Galatians and Romans), because of the great popularity of Apollos.

  • John MacDonald

    The beginning of the Gospel of Mark says: “1This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD” (Ehrman has argued “Son of God” may not have originally been in the 1:1). If we don’t try to read Matthew and Luke back into Mark, “Son of God” means Jesus was destined to become a leader or example to the Jews in some sense. This is what Mark’s account explains.

    Looking into the Hebrew Scriptures for “Son of God,” for instance, we read:
    (1) “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me (2 Sam. 7:12-14).”
    (2) In Psalm 89, in which the psalmist indicates that David was anointed by God (that is, literally anointed with oil as a sign of God’s special favor; v. 20), he is said to be God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of earth (v.27).”
    (3)God says to the king: “You are my son; today I have begotten you (Psalm 2, v. 7)

    In the same way, prefacing his account with identifying Jesus as the “Son Of God,” Mark is trying to show how Jesus acted as a “Son of God” for the Jews. If “Son of God” was intended in a different sense (like in Matthew and Luke), Mark certainly would have needed to explain it in this different sense, due to strict Jewish Monotheism.

    Jesus was the “Son of God” in Mark, not in the sense that he overthrew the Romans and restored the Davidic line, but rather that what he accomplished put him on par with any Jewish king (Son of God). It was based on what God knew Jesus would do.

    It’s an example of Mark’s use of irony. By identifying Jesus as the “Son of God” at the start of his ministry with the Baptism by John, it would make the reader think Jesus would become king of the Jews, when in fact Jesus becomes something else entirely – although still on par with, and greater than, any of the Jewish kings.

    By the time of Mark’s writing, it was well established that Jesus had died an atoning death (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Mark symbolizes the atonement with the reconciling of God with man by the tearing of the temple veil, and the reconciling of the Jews with the gentiles by the words of the centurion:

    38And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39When the centurion standing there in front of Jesus saw how He had breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”… (Mark 15:38-39)

    The centurion calling Jesus the “Son of God” shows that what Jesus accomplished made him greater than any previous Jewish king because Jesus broke down the barrier between man and God, and Jew and gentile.

    Regardless of whether “Son of God” appeared in 1:1, I still think “Son of God” in Mark means Jesus, although he didn’t become king of the Jews, was still considered on par with the greatest Jewish kings and was even greater than them for what he accomplished (not “Son of God” in the sense used in Matthew and Luke).

    Recall: the Centurion said Jesus “was” the Son of God, not that Jesus “is” the Son of God, implying the title was given to Jesus in life, not being applicable after he died.