Re: Matt 4:3 If you are *the* son

From: Ben Crick (ben.crick@argonet.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 14:08:58 EST


On Tue 23 Dec 97 (11:55:12 +0100), furuli@online.no wrote:
> We find an example in Ps 81:4 (5) (RSV) "For it is a statute for Israel,
> an ordinance of the God of Jacob" The phrase "an ordinance of the God
> of Jacob" is in Hebrew MISHPAT LŽELOHEY YAŽAQOB. What makes MISHPAT
> indefinite is the particle "L" which normally is used as a preposition
> (to), but also may signal a possessive genitive, as in this case.

 Thank you, Rolf, for your gracious and helpful response. IMHO the
 preposition "L" in MISHPAT LŽELOHEY YAŽAQOB is the LaMeDh of authorship
 or attribution; as in MiZMoWR LeDaWiDH. Proper names are, of course,
 always Definite; as is the Tetragrammaton. The whole verse of Psalm 81:4<5>
 is KiY ChoQ LeYiSRa'eL HuW', MiShPaT Le'LoHeY Ya`aQoBh: So, MiShPaT'' is
 a parallel attribute to the first hemistich which is indefinite.

> 1 Sam 3:20 "a prophet of the Lord". The LXX translates the mentioned
> constructions with "L", also the possessive ones, with dative. But some of
> them could better be rendered by a Greek genitive. A possible Hebrew
> expression behind Matt 4:3 could have been `IM BEN L`ELOHIM `ATTA, and such
> a clause could only be translated as "if you are a son of God". The Greek
> text is ambiguous but a Hebrew Vorlage would be clear, either definite or
> indefinite. The same could be said of an Aramaic Vorlage.

 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.

 In Mark 1:24 we read TI hUMIN KAI SOI, IHSOU NAZARHNE; HLQES APOLESAI hHMAS;
 OIDA SE TIS EI, hO hAGIOS TOU QEOU. Similarly in Luke 4:34. Incidentally,
 if evidence were needed for a Hebrew/Aramaic original, it is there in TI
 hUMIN KAI SOI, MaH LiY WaLaKh, the Covenant Formula. Satan knew, and his
 demons knew, Jesus is THE Holy One of God; THE Son of God: not A holy one,
 A son of God. In Mark 5:7 we read TI EMOI KAI SOI, IHSOU hUIE TOU QEOU TOU
 hUYISTOU; ktl. hUIE is definite because IHSOU (proper noun) is definite.

 My Hebrew retrotranslation `iM BeN-'eLoHiYM `aTTaH agrees with that of Dr
 David Stern in his /Hebrew New Testament/, CUP, n.d., who does not insert
 a LaMeDh of attribution before 'eLoHiYM.

 So the answer is moot. Just another example of where the chosen translation
 depends on the preferred theology. If only the Bible were clear beyond all
 cavil! As the High Priest said, EXORKIZW SE KATA TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS hINA
 hHMIN EIPHiS EI SU EI hO CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU (Matthew 26:63). Or as
 the Jews said, hEWS POTE THN YUCHN hHMWN AIREIS; EI SU EI hO CRISTOS, EIPE
 hHMIN PARRHSIAi (John 10:24). That would settle it once and for all!
 But I think we *know* in our bones where the truth lies.

 Happy Christmas.

-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
 http::/www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick/htm


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT