Compromise or Comprehension?

[Deacon]

A recently published article in ‘Christianity Today’ by Collin Hansen, entitled "The Son and the Crescent" (February, 2011: 19-23). concerns some how one translates Scripture.

Here are some thoughts and quotes from Vern Poythress' critque of the article
Bible Translations for Muslim Readers [LINK]


The articles note a common Muslim misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the phrase “Son of God”.
To the Muslim ear the expression means that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary, an abhorrent idea even in our ears.

To properly translate the phrase so a Muslim audience would understand it means we need to select an expression that communicates not only the words but their meaning in a way that transfers the original meaning without the added baggage inherent in their culture.

Dr. Poythress is critical of (un-footnoted) substitutions including: "spiritual Son of God", "beloved Son who comes from God" and "Beloved of God".

Words do not match in a one-to-one fashion across languages. The difficulty is a general one, and is not confined to religious vocabulary. But meanings can still be communicated faithfully, provided we recognize a difficulty when it appears. We try patiently to find a way to express the meaning in the target language. But expressing the meaning faithfully may sometimes mean searching for the right expression, rather than immediately choosing an expression in the target language whose words seem to a native speaker of English to match English words at some points.
…strictly speaking, they are not misunderstanding "Son of God," but rather an expression in their native language. That expression does not have exactly the same meaning that "Son of God" has in English, or the analogue in Greek. And that is the problem, not the English phrase "Son of God."

… Carefully selected expressions may succeed better in representing and communicating meaning than an expression that violates a taboo and that produces the wrong set of associations when it is heard.

An old friend of mine is back in the States for a bit on leave from ministering to the Muslim world.

I’ll update this post with some of his experiences and opinions on the matter when I get the chance.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I spoke to my friend this morning (he’s on a year and a day’s leave from the mission field - some administrative aspect of a foriegn country's retirement system).

Re: the Muslim understanding of “Son of God”
Rather early in their education, Muslim’s are trained to question the doctrine of the trinity.
Apparently there is a recent modern translation that was written to be more acceptable to the Islamic ear.
In his opinion, a modern translation that avoids the phrase may initially be helpful for evangelism but one quickly has to use a more literal translation.
Eventually a Christian must deal with what the original author wrote and what it means.

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Eventually a Christian must deal with what the original author wrote and what it means.

Amen to that!

My first reaction to your OP was that generally translations ought not to be very accommodating to specific circumstances; that would be a moving target that perhaps would serve only to cause more confusion.

Then I read the article. My thoughts did not change.

Actually, I think they may be looking at the whole "Son of God" issue backwards. The problem is not in the term translated "Son". In the article Mr. Hansen perpetuates the confusion of the KEY term (p.2 online, my bold) --

The problem, however, far surpasses a theological argument between Muslims and Christians. In fact, the Qur'an (At-Tawba 9:30) says God curses anyone who would utter the ridiculous blasphemy that Jesus could be ibnullâh ("a son of God"). Not only do Muslims disagree with Christians about the identity and nature of Jesus, they also incur a curse for even mentioning the phrase "Son of God."

No, Collin! God does NOT curse in the Qur'an, Allah does. The Bible is not talking about a 'son of Allah'. Scripture is talking about the "Son of God". There is a difference. The Muslims have a problem with Allah having a son. If they are led to understand that the Judeo-Christian triune YWYH (God) is not Allah then there is no internal Islamic conflict. We should not allow the perception to continue that makes God and Allah equivalent. Our God is not described in the Qur'an. Allah does not have a son [not to mention that Allah doesn't even exist]; the eternal living Father does have a Son. How about: "Son of YWYH" as a translation? Would that help?

BTW, here is one online English translation of At-Tawba 9:30 (Sahih International) --

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

 

[Trotter]

Allah =/= God.

Allah = god only.