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

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 1997 - 17:12:03 EST


On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:00:38 -0600 (CST) Jeffrey Gibson
<jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> writes:
>
>
>On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>
>> An argument could be made for the definiteness of hUIOS on the basis
of
>> the wording three verses before, hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO
>> AGAPHTOS. The proximity might suggest that this conditional test by
Satan >> in 4:3 is a direct challenge to the assertion made by God, not
unlike His
>> challenge raised to Eve when he asked "has God really said...?"
Additionally,
>> it is interesting that Christ answers each test by "it is written."
>
>Here the issue would be what sense EI has. Despite Wallace comments, I
>think that it means "since". If so, then what the Devil is up to is not
>trying to cast doubt upon the the truth of the baptismal proclamation,
>but upon Jesus' idea of what he is constrained to do in light of his
>calling to be God's Son.

Jeff, I know that many are taking EI more as "since" these day, but I
think there are too many examples of the first class conditional where
the sense cannot be taken this way. Paul's argumentation in 1 Cor
15:19ff, for example, comes to mind immediately. There are numerous uses
of EI there where the sense can only be "if, for the sake of argument,"
not "since" (15:12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, etc). And, these are not
contrary to fact conditionals, since no AN occurs in the apodises.

Like the anarthrous construction hUIOS, why not just translate the EI as
a safe "if" and not interpet our translation any more than we have to,
not unless you want to go the "dynamic equivalency" route.
>
>> I also find it interesting that there is no variation between the
>> protasis in v. 3 and the protasis in v. 6. Is that significant? It
>> certainly would have helped if Matthew had included the definite
article
>> on round two.
>
>I'm not sure I take your point here. In what way would this have
>helped?
>
Often when a thought is repeated in scripture, certain things are changed
(cf Jn 21:15ff - AGAPAS ME ... FILEIS ME;), but the not essential
meaning. Thus, we might learn something from the parallelism. Thus, if
hUIOS in hUIOS EI TOU QEOU is definite, then we might find it stated
articularly later either in the precopulative or post-copulative
position. Whatever.

>>
>> Nevertheless, "if you are God's Son" does seem a safer translation.
It
>> does not unnecessarily interpret the anarthrous construction for us,
as
>> does "the Son of God," or "a son of God."
>
>Agreed.
>
Thanks Jeff. Still hoping to get you some feedback on the other.

Paul Dixon



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