Muslim Bibles

A current controversy is whether Bible translations for Muslims should substitute a different word or phrase for “Son of God.” I’ll make a few comments:

i) I think this issue is miscast when it’s framed in terms of formal equivalence over against functional or dynamic equivalence.

For instance, the English language has many insulting words and insulting illustrations. It would be easy to substitute a different synonym or illustration. But that wouldn’t make it inoffensive.

Whether a reader finds a translation offensive is a separate question from whether the translation is accurate. Indeed, some readers might find a translation offensive precisely because it’s too accurate for their comfort level.

Take unisex Bibles. These eliminate masculine nouns, pronouns, and other “patriarchal” depictions. But that has nothing to due with translation theory. They’re not seeking functional or dynamic equivalents to masculine words and images. Just the opposite. For them, functional equivalence would be just as offensive as formal equivalence.

ii) Father/son language isn’t a culturebound idiom. Rather, that’s about as close to a cultural universal as you can get. Of course, the exact nature of the father/son relationship is culturally variable to some degree. Different cultures assign somewhat different roles to fathers and sons. But every culture has fathers and sons. That’s human biology.

iii) By the same token, there’s really no substitute for father/son language. We’re already dealing with a bedrock category. You can’t easily replace fatherhood or sonship with something equivalent. It’s not like there’s something more basic.

At best you can break them down into the different connotations of fatherhood and sonship. But, of course, one reason Scripture uses father/son language is because that bundles a range of different connotations into neat packages.

iv) In addition, fatherhood and sonship aren’t incidental categories in Biblical usage. Rather, these are major theological metaphors, woven into the warp and woof of Scripture. You can’t pull that thread and leave everything else intact. Pull that thread and the entire tapestry unravels.

And this isn’t just about Christology or Triadology. Scripture also uses father/son language to symbolize God’s relationship to his people, and vice versa.

v) Islam uses theological metaphors drawn from human relationships. Take Sufi poets like Hafez or Rumi. So Muslim readers should be able to adapt.

vi) It’s ironic that Anglo-American and European scholars are trying to accommodate Middle-eastern sensibilities by retranslating the Bible in a way that eliminates traditional Middle-eastern categories.

The “Son of God” title could easily be misinterpreted by 1C pagans. Yet that possibility didn’t prevent NT writers from using the phrase.

My forebears are Vikings (on my father’s side). I imagine that “son of God” could easily be misconstrued by pagans used to worshipping Norse gods. The Bible wasn’t custom-made for the social or religious culture of my Viking ancestors. But we came around.

vii) You can’t reason with unreasonable people. At the end of the day you have to do the right thing and leave the consequences to God.