Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Jonathan,

I fear that by treating Col1:15 as a special case as you've done here you
are introducing unwanted bias into your analysis. If you look at other
examples in the wider literature, you'll see that there is no need to make
the considerations that you do below.

Would you take the same line of reasoning with Philo's Logos which/who is
called "God's first-born" (Conf. Ling. 146)? The "Logos of God ... is the
eldest ... of created things" (Leg. All. 3,175). The "entire world ...
[has] ... upon it an image and appearance, namely his own Logos".

Consider this from Theophilus (from Bk2, Ch22), writing around 180 CE:
"But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word,
uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the
Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His
Reason."

Is Philo's or Theophilus's first-born any different from that in Col1:15?

>Revised English Bible translates "his is the primacy over all creation". I
>think the issue here is that there are several statements in verses 15-17
>that need to be reconciled:
>
>Colo 1:15(NASB) And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
>all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, [both] in the heavens
>and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers
>or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He
>is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
>
>This naturally raises some puzzles. If all things were created by him -
>including things in the heaven and invisible things, how can he belong to
>the class of created things, as verse 15 seems to imply? I imagine that the
>translators of the REB decided that the context shows that the main theme
>here is the primacy of Christ, and that they considered the use of the
>genitive, which has a fairly broad class of possible meanings, and
>concluded that this meant "firstborn over all creation", in the sense of
>the birthright of kings, where the firstborn inherits the right to rule.
>
>Now you may complain that this is a theological argument, but if a
>translator wants to convey the intended meaning rather than woodenly
>translate each word, then the translator must grasp the meaning of the word
>in context, and Colossians 1:15-17 poses a puzzle which inherently involves
>guessing about some theological presuppositions of the original writer and
>readers. Certainly it is legitimate for a translator to produce a
>translation that reflects this particular understanding of the verse - and
>any reader is well advised to consult several translations if they are
>studying a passage in depth and do not know the original language. Many
>verses can legitimately be translated in more than one way. Each
>translation is only one translation, and no translation is the original. 

A translator doesn't operate in a vacuum. Before one can do special
pleading, one has to know the wider context. This will reduce the "guessing
about some theological presuppositions of the original writer and readers".

>But does the fact that this translator's understanding of the passage
>disagrees with yours a proof of theological bias?

It just may do.


Ian
(Thanks to the list for bringing Col1:15 to my attention. I'm reading texts
such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Minucius Felix in the context of Philo
and this bit of Colossians also seems related.)