I think we are in agreement on the goals of translation. The results are a different issue. Here are the back translations from the New American article.

• Frontiers published a Turkish translation of the gospel of Matthew that uses the word “guardian” for “Father” and “representative” or “proxy” for “Son.”

• SIL consulted on a Bengali Scripture translation that changed “Son” to “Messiah” and “Son of God” to the cumbersome “God’s Uniquely Intimate Beloved Chosen One.”

In regard to the SIL sample using Messiah for Son, this is addressed at great length by David Abernathy and I think he makes a solid case that Messiah doesn’t cut it for Son.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

The question is why not do the whole thing as “the human being.” If I can read their minds, I’ll suggest that Ps 8 is generic, speaking of mankind as a whole, but the author of Heb reads it Messianically, without however necessarily completely abandoning the sense that it’s also commenting on the position of mankind in generic.

My mind-reading claims that the citation in Heb 2:7 does include the generic statement of mankind as a whole being having everything under their control, but also includes a Messianc reference. This works better with the generic singular, since it’s ambiguous enough to carry both meanings. But they can’t use that, and even if they did, the ambiguity might not be clear. So they use plural, but change to the singular for the one phrase that has the clearest messianic meaning.

The resulting translation is clumsy, but may still be more accurate than NRSV, because it gives the sense that both a general reference to mankind and a specific one is intended. The Messianic reference is even clearer because of their normal use of “the Human One.”

But I have no idea whether I’ve explain their intention or not.

We’re going to have to find better words to express what we mean if we intend to communicate as accurately as possible.

And it seems to me that that is precisely what this translation debate is about. There is vocabulary in some languages which expresses the idea of a relationship between a father and son but does not communicate the idea that God had sex with a woman to produce a son.

Psalm 2:7 Son of God, Begotten of God

I will tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, “You are my son,
today I have begotten you.

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου
Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ,
ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

7 אספרה אל חק יהוה
אמר אלי בני אתה אני
היום ילדתיך

J. A. Fitzmyer in his discussion of 4q246, the Aramaic “son of god” fragment, refers to ילדתיך in Psa 2:7 as a “graphic expression” and goes on to state “Commentators are usually hesitant to assert that this implies a physical divine sonship for the king, such as might be the connotation of similar expressions in the ancient myths of the eastern Mediterranean world.”[1]

From there moving to the New Testament, I might focus on one particular reading of μονογενὴς, i.e., “only begotten” in the Johannine Prolog.

John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth

John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

There is no lack of material in the Christian canon for an Islamic apologist who is set on proving the that christianity teaches a pagan form of divine paternity. All these texts are read by orthodox christians in light of the doctrine of the trinity worked out in detail after the canon was complete. If the question is simply one about the language used in an **isolated text** like Psalm 2:7 or John1:18 then the Islamic apologist will be difficult to refute.

[1]Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, 2000, page 66.

Where might the Common English Bible find itself, if anywhere on the list?

My initial inclination would be to include it with # 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Is it more suitable than say the NLT for study?

I think so, depending on what kind of study one is doing. If one is studying for basic themes, the NLT is probably better. But if one wants to do study of smaller language units such as clauses and words, then I’m guessing the CEB would be better.

I think it would be a nice combination to use both versions for devotions and personal study. I’m guessing that the CEB might have an edge on the NLT for group Bible study, again, depending on what kind of study is done.

Arabic isn’t the only language involved. David Abernathy points out that many languages are spoken in Islamic cultures. The current controversy is over Arabic and Turkish bibles but translating for Islamic people groups involves a multitude of languages and dialects.

And I’m having a lot of trouble getting an informed answer to this question.

-Joel

—
Josephus tells a story of a prominent woman who “serviced” a ruling man (I can’t remember who) all night because he had made the pretence of being a god and she wanted to get benefit from that. She was furious the next morning when she learned the truth.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Matt. 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matt. 26:63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

This is modeled after Hebrew parallelism, right? The second half is not simply a restatement of the first half, right? That is a point where Rick Brown’s argument that Son of God is a messianic synonym for Christ fails to convince. Clearly, Son of God! and King of Israel! are not synonyms.