路加是否用非孝道语言取代了 "神的儿子"?

David A. Doherty
{"title":"路加是否用非孝道语言取代了 \"神的儿子\"?","authors":"David A. Doherty","doi":"10.1177/20516770241235550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2005 missiologist Rick Brown argued on the basis of Synoptic parallels that, in a few cases, Luke translates Son of God language with non-filial language, especially the term “Christ.” The argument supported the practice of using non-filial renderings of Son of God language in Bible translations made for Muslims, the stated intent being to convey the meaning of the text more clearly and to avoid offense and misunderstanding. This article tests Brown’s claim, mainly by considering the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and by examining every Lukan parallel of Markan and/or Matthean Son of God language used with reference to Jesus. The results of the investigation contradict Brown’s thesis, showing that the relevant Lukan texts do not provide direct support for the rendering of Son of God language with non-filial language.","PeriodicalId":354951,"journal":{"name":"The Bible Translator","volume":"66 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Luke Replace “Son of God” with Non-filial Language?\",\"authors\":\"David A. Doherty\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20516770241235550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2005 missiologist Rick Brown argued on the basis of Synoptic parallels that, in a few cases, Luke translates Son of God language with non-filial language, especially the term “Christ.” The argument supported the practice of using non-filial renderings of Son of God language in Bible translations made for Muslims, the stated intent being to convey the meaning of the text more clearly and to avoid offense and misunderstanding. This article tests Brown’s claim, mainly by considering the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and by examining every Lukan parallel of Markan and/or Matthean Son of God language used with reference to Jesus. The results of the investigation contradict Brown’s thesis, showing that the relevant Lukan texts do not provide direct support for the rendering of Son of God language with non-filial language.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"volume\":\"66 23\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770241235550\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible Translator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770241235550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2005 年,传道学者里克-布朗(Rick Brown)根据对观福音中的相似之处提出,在少数情况下,路加用非孝道的语言翻译了神之子的语言,尤其是 "基督 "一词。这一论点支持了在为穆斯林翻译的圣经中使用非孝道语言翻译神子的做法,其目的是为了更清楚地传达文本的含义,避免冒犯和误解。本文主要通过考虑对观福音书之间的文学关系,以及研究马可福音和/或马太福音中与耶稣有关的神之子语言的每一个路加平行词,来验证布朗的说法。研究结果与布朗的论点相矛盾,表明相关的路加文本并没有直接支持用非诽谤性语言来表达神子的语言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Luke Replace “Son of God” with Non-filial Language?
In 2005 missiologist Rick Brown argued on the basis of Synoptic parallels that, in a few cases, Luke translates Son of God language with non-filial language, especially the term “Christ.” The argument supported the practice of using non-filial renderings of Son of God language in Bible translations made for Muslims, the stated intent being to convey the meaning of the text more clearly and to avoid offense and misunderstanding. This article tests Brown’s claim, mainly by considering the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and by examining every Lukan parallel of Markan and/or Matthean Son of God language used with reference to Jesus. The results of the investigation contradict Brown’s thesis, showing that the relevant Lukan texts do not provide direct support for the rendering of Son of God language with non-filial language.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Treatment of Unflagged New Testament Code Switching in English Bible Translations Translating 1 Corinthians 12.31a as a Rhetorical Question Book Review: A History of German Jewish Bible Translation by Abigail Gillman Gender Roles and Translation in the Book of Proverbs Demonization of Local Terminology in Bible Translation: The Case of Nat in the Kachin Bible
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1