Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests is translated by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “The foxes have their holes, and the birds have their nests.” The meaning is that wild animals and birds have their homes.
Foxes have holes can pose some problems. In areas where foxes are not known, some other similar animals such as jackals or wild dogs may have to be used. Since Jesus is using “foxes” here only as an example or illustration, this cultural substitution will not have any serious theological significance.
Holes refers to places where foxes live. Other terms can be “burrows” or “lairs.” Some translations say simply “holes where they live.” Similarly for nests, some translators will find it better to say “nests to stay in.”
Birds of the air, a Hebraism, is redundant in most languages. In fact, for many languages it would imply the wrong meaning, “birds that can fly” as opposed to “birds that cannot fly.” It is therefore better to render it simply as “birds.”
But the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head is difficult to interpret. First, there is the problem of the meaning and translation of the phrase Son of man. Outside the Gospels it is used only once (Acts 7.56). In the Gospels it is used only by Jesus and as a reference to himself, always speaking of himself in the third person. New Testament scholars are not in agreement regarding the background for the interpretation of the phrase, but at least the following points can be made:
(1) It was sometimes used to refer to one who comes with and experiences divine authority.
(2) The notion of “human being” is not an essential or distinguishing component of this phrase except for its usage in the book of Ezekiel. We are all human beings, but what distinguishes the Son of Man is the authority given him. This is the view one has also in Ethiopic Enoch.
(3) The third-person reference in Hebrew and in Aramaic was not as disturbing as it may be in many other languages. Many languages do use third-person reference for first person. In Malay, for example, it is often used of people of some high rank.
(4) Jesus’ audience probably understood him to be referring to himself, but in light of the resurrection, the Christian community to whom Matthew and the other Gospel writers may have been writing understood the term as it is used in Daniel 7.13 and in 1 Enoch, that is, the one exalted with power. Exegetical support for the fact that Jesus was seen to be referring to himself may be found in those passages where one Gospel has “the Son of Man” (third person) and another Gospel has the first person singular (“I”). The most obvious example is Matthew 16.13, where Jesus asks, “Who do men say the Son of Man is?” Two verses later Matthew himself clears up any possible misunderstanding on the part of his readers by the additional question, “Who do men say I am?” In the parallel to Matthew 16.13, both Mark (8.27) and Luke (9.18) have the first person (“I”).
As far as the translation of the term is concerned, the following guidelines may be beneficial:
(1) Since a literal rendering of Son of man is meaningless in a particular language, a dynamic equivalent term should be substituted. Central to the meaning is one who speaks and acts with divine power and authority. Some translations have tried an expression such as “the Man whom God has appointed,” or “the Man whom God has chosen,” or “the Man whom God has installed.” Translators have to be very certain, however, that they do not use the same expression that they have for translating “Messiah.”
(2) Many translators have started from the premise that the most important thing about the term is that it is a title, and they then use a formula in their language for titles. For example, many West African translators have used “the One called Son of Man” or “the One who is the Son of Man.” Sometimes such an expression will have no meaning; in other cases it will be a common way to refer to a person or to any human being. But often the use of the title formula makes this expression seem to refer to one specific person, and he is somehow “special.”
An important benefit from using a title formula is that often using a third-person form is more acceptable than would otherwise be the case. In some languages third person is used with titles for certain important figures such as potentates and kings, so that this title works exceptionally well in places like that.
(3) Obviously from what we have said so far, translators should attempt to find an expression with third person if at all possible, even though it is clear that Jesus was referring to himself. The fact that third person was used when first person could have been used means that in some sense the term was being set off and marked as a title, or to indicate that it was being used in some special way. But there will be languages in which the third-person reference will simply be impossible, and it may be obligatory to use a first-person reference. Even then, however, it is helpful to use this in conjunction with a title formula, as in “I, the one called Son of Man.”
Another problem of exegesis concerns the phrase has nowhere to lay his head. The problem is that Jesus does seem to have a permanent home in Capernaum (Matt 9.1; Mark 2.1). Of course, the crowds give him no opportunity to rest, and this may also be a reason for his statement. In any case, the majority of translations remain fairly literal.
Lay his head may not be very clear, and translators may either add “and rest” or follow Good News Translation, “to lie down and rest.” Another way is “nowhere where he can go and rest.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .