From: Jeffrey Gibson (jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 21 1997 - 13:00:38 EST
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> An argument could be made for the definiteness of hUIOS on the basis of
> the wording three verses before, hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO AGAPHTOS.
> The proximity might suggest that this conditional test by Satan in 4:3 is
> a direct challenge to the assertion made by God, not unlike His challenge
> raised to Eve when he asked "has God really said...?" Additionally, it
> is interesting that Christ answers each test by "it is written."
Here the issue would be what sense EI has. Despite Wallace comments, I
think that it means "since". If so, then what the Devil is up to is not
trying to cast doubt upon the the truth of the baptismal proclamation,
but upon Jesus' idea of what he is constrained to do in light of his
calling to be God's Son.
> I also find it interesting that there is no variation between the
> protasis in v. 3 and the protasis in v. 6. Is that significant? It
> certainly would have helped if Matthew had included the definite article
> on round two.
I'm not sure I take your point here. In what way would this have helped?
>
> Nevertheless, "if you are God's Son" does seem a safer translation. It
> does not unnecessarily interpret the anarthrous construction for us, as
> does "the Son of God," or "a son of God."
Agreed.
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT