Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bill Rea wrote:


>Rolf Furuli wrote:-
>
>>The problem, however, is not lexical but rather theological. The word
>>prototokws taken in is plain meaning of "the one who is born first"
>>strongly suggests a partitive genitive i Colossians 1:15, and this again
>>places Jesus among the creatures - something  which is disgusting for those
>>believing in the trinity. Therefore, systematic searches have been done to
>>find another meaning of bekor/prototokws, and the meagre result (shown
>>inthe lexicons) is Psalm 89:27 which adds nothing to the lexical meaning of
>>the word.
>
>How do you handle the situation where a word appears not to be used
>in its lexical sense? Some examples from English. If our English
>dictionaries define the word dog to to refer to the biological
>family of furry creatures with four legs which has a proper latin
>name which I don't know, and hot is defined as a high temperature,
>then what of "hot dog".
>
>If you were standing in a fish and chip shop here and ordered a
>hot dog you would get a sauage cooked in batter. In the US you
>get one of their wieners in a bread roll. At one stage of my life
>"hot dog" was a slang expression very similar in meaning to "cool"
>today. The relationship between hot, dog, and any of these three
>meanings is tenuous at best.
>
>While bekor might have a single lexical meaning, the context in
>which it is used may very well tell us that it is being used in
>a metaphorical manner. It would seem to me that if I translated
>the word using only its lexical meaning I would be obscuring the
>meaning of the word in context for my reader.
>
>I welome your comments.
>

Dear Bill,


I am completely in line with you in all your comments above. I do not argue
in favour a strictly literal translation of the Bible and I do not advocate
that each Hebrew and Greek word allways should be translated with one
English word. What I do argue, is that for a particular target group,
namely, those who by help of their mother tongue,  want to come as close as
possible to  the original languages, only a strictly literal translation
will do.

The "functional equivalence" of E.A. Nida is excellent for most Bible
readers, because few want to work with the Bible text of their own, so they
need food which is thoroughly chewed by others. Two drawbacks with Nida's
model are: (1) There is no room for a target group of those who want to
work with the text of their own (such a group is explicitly rejected by
Nida), and 2) The translators are not bound by the meaning of single words
(because it is believed that words do not have a meaning without a
context); and the translators believe they are free to colour the text by
orthodox theology without informing the readers.

The literal translations of last century and the first part of this century
often built on what is called "the etymological fallacy" - the view that
the basic etymological meaning of a word is somehow found in all its uses -
and therefore should each Greek and Hebrew word be translated by the same
English word. In connection with my study of the role of theology and bias
in Bible translation, I have asked whether a strictly literal translation
can be justified on the basis of modern linguistic principles, and not on
the basis of a wrong etymological viewpoint. The answer is yes!

On the basis of the results of psykholinguistics, it can be shown that
meaning is connected with concepts in the minds of living people and not
with words uttered or written. Each written word is a semantic signal of a
particular concept in the minds of people speaking the same language and
having the same presupposition pool. Such concepts have a core meaning but
they become more fuzzy as their edges are approached. This is the reason
why concepts such as nepe$ and basar could be used with different senses,
even with new senses, and still be understood instantly by the Hebrews of
old. The context played a role in the understanding of the concepts, not as
a means that generated new meaning  (which is does not), but simply as a
device which to make visible the part of the concept that the author wanted
to stress.

A model of a literal translation can be based on the view that just as one
Hebrew word, say "nepe$" (which in itself is void of meaning) could serve
as a semantic signal for a concept, and the side of the concept which was
stressed could be ascertained because of a common presupposition pool,
similarly can one English word, say "soul", function as a semantic signal,
the nature of which, and the side illuminated in each case can be
ascertained by a study of the original Hebrew presupposition pool. A
translation based on this theory is in a way a semi-finished product where
the translators do the greatest part, and the rest of the translation work
is done by the readers. There are different classes of words, and every
word cannot be rendered strictly literally, as you also point out. And
again, I am not advocating such a literal translation, I am just saying
that it has the right to live, and has several advantages over the
idiomatic one.

Then back to bekor. Very strong religious viewpoints are behind the
discussions of this word, something which is seen in one heading containg
the words "Arian Bias".  This word, as all words, can of course be used in
a metaphorical sense, as I already have shown; and different sides of "the
right of the firstborn" (Deuteronomy 21:17) may be stressed in different
passages. What is sought, however, is another *meaning* (an extension or
change of the concept in the mind) which does not include "the one who is
born first". And the reason for this quest is to be able to avoid using the
word in a partitive sense in Colossians 1:15, a sense which is contrary to
dogma. However, there are no examples in the Bible of bekor/prwtotokos with
a meaning justifying the translations (TEV): "He is the firstborn Son,
superior to all created things." or (C.B. Williams): "He is firstborn Son
who existed before before any created thing." This is the reason why I so
strongly stress that the core meaning of the concept signalled by
bekor/prwtotokos is "the one who is born first", and advocate that language
has priority over theology.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo