From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 12:29:39 EST
Ben Crick wrote:
<In 1 Samuel 3:20 Samuel is a member of a class of many; he is one of the
<many prophets of the LORD; so he is "A prophet of the LORD". However, Jesus
<Christ is not "one of" a numerous class of "sons of God"; he is the unique
<Son of God incarnate: `iMMaNuW 'eL. Satan in Matthew 4:3 is one of the
<class of angelic "sons of God", including Michael and Melchizedek and
<Gabriel and Palmoni (Daniel 8:13 MT), and the innumerable smaller fry of
<Genesis 6:2.
Dear Ben,
The NT portrays Jesus as THE Son of God in contrast with the angels (Heb
1), as you say. The question, however, is what the Devil did say and what
is behind the anarthrous QEOS in Matt 4:3. In any Bible translation the
theology of the translators will and must play an important role, and there
are passages where neither lexicon, grammar or syntax is decisive and where
theology must be the primary basis for the translation. But wise and
discreet translators would want to reduce the influence of their theology
as much as possible. So when we have an anarthrous construction, why read
into it a particular viewpoint when there is no linguistic demand for it?
This is the reason why I suggest "a son of God" in Matt 4:3, and this
suggestion in no way contradicts the portrayal in other passages of Jesus
as "the Son of God".
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT