Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Jonathan,


>At 03:27 PM 3/30/99 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>>In relation to Colossians 1:15 there is a theological motive behind the
>>search for a meaning other than "the one who is born first".
>
>I am uncomfortable with terms like "theological motive", "bias", "search
>for a meaning", etc. There is an implication in your messages that you are
>unbiased and whoever you are attacking is biased, and I personally think
>most of us are blind to our own biases. In fact, the best way to get beyond
>this blindess is to accept and express what our biases are. I'm suspicious
>of anyone who claims to be objective.

I do not think I ever have accused anybody on the list for being biased. I
do not define bias in relation to theology (as any theology other than my
own) but in relation to language. I give the following definition in my
book: "Bias in Bible translation is characterized by renderings that are
either (1) contradict lexicon, grammar or syntax; or (2) definitely weaken
or distort the meaning by addition or subtraction  of unwarranted semantic
elements  in order to promote the translator`s own theology."
All translations are, and must be influenced by the theology of the
translators, and therefore, *apart from*  bias, it is possible to
differentiate between a legitimate and an illegitimate use of theology,

>
>>Is it not
>>strange that in all other instances PRWTOTOKOS is translated by "firstborn"
>>but in this case different kinds of circumlocutions are sought? Behind this
>>is not lexical semantics but rather theology!
>
>I'm somewhat uncomfortable with getting into this level of detail on a New
>Testament passage in a forum devoted to the Hebrew Scriptures, but I think
>there is a valid issue related to translation in general, so I'll go into
>it this once.
>
>The most literal word-for-word translation, is, of course, "firstborn". I
>just did a quick look at the translations I have with me, and almost all of
>them do, in fact, translate PRWTOTOKOS as "firstborn", including: KJV,
>NASB, NRSV, NAB, NJB, Luther, Zürich, Segond. I assume that the New World
>Translation also translates it this way, judging by the messages of several
>people here who are advocates of that translation.
>
>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:

This is an excellent example of bias as defined above. The words "the
primacy" definitely contradict lexicon because they cannot be found in any
lexicon as a rendition for PRWTOTOKOS. It is true that Greek genitive may
have different meanings but anyone defending "the primacy *over*" should be
able to tell what kind of genitive he views the Greek construction to be
and give examples of similar genitives with the meaning "over". If this is
not done, the translation also contradicts grammar and syntax. There can be
little doubt that the principal reason for the choice of words is a
promotion of a particular theological view.
>
>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.

Your suggestion that we should use several translations is a fine one, and
we agree that the translators must use the context extensively and also
that their theology must play a legitimate role. But I am afraid that what
is behind the translation of Col 1:15 above and similar translations is not
a careful weighting of the evidence of the context but rather theolological
dogma which is taken for granted even before one looks at the context.  The
reason why I say this, is that no commentary, monograph or anything I have
read about Colossians 1 has addressed the two questions that are really
crucial for any appeal to *the context of Colossians 1*. If anybody on the
list is aware of such discussions, please tell me.

THE CRUCIAL POINT NO ONE: IS JESUS THE CREATOR (DIRECT AGENT OF CREATION)
OR THE INDIRECT AGENT?

In Colossians 1:16,17 Jesus `role in creation is described by passive
verbs. The agent in an active clause is the grammatical subject. If we
transform an active clause into a passive one, the object of the active
clause becomes the subject of the passive one (Examples "God created the
world" /active/ and "The world was created by God" /passive/). The agent of
the passive clause may be identified by a preposition (here: "by God), or
the agent may simply be implied.  There is little semantic difference
between the active and passive clauses.

However, in a passive clause in Greek more than the direct agent may be
expressed; an intermediate agent may also be expressed. According to
Robertson's Greek Grammar, p 820,  the direct agent is most commonly
expressed by the Greek preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO
("from") and EK ("out of") (Matt 4:1). The intermediate agent is identified
by DIA ("through"). A literal rendering of Matt 1:22 may illustrate some of
these distinctions: "All this took place because what was spoken (aorist
passive participle) by (hUPO) the Lord through (DIA) the prophet must be
fulfilled (aorist passive subjunctive)." Here "the Lord" is the direct
agent and "the prophet" is the intermediate agent.

What,then,  is the position of Jesus in relation to creation? In Col 1:16
we find the preposition EN ("in", "by means of"). The preposition governs
AUTW ("him", in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences in the NT of
EN AUTW in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something
or someone being in some place. Only one of the examples point to a direct
agent . In the last part of verse 16 we find the preposition DIA which
governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an
intermediate agent, so this must be the way Jesus should be viewed.

Does the context confirm that God is the direct agent of the passive verbs
which speak about creation, and that Jesus is the intermediate agent? It
certainly does!  In Col 1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active
through verse 20. This is seen in v 19 where God is the implied subject for
the verb, and it is particularly evident in v 20, because here both the
direct agent (God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is
said that the reconciliation is "through" (DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God.
The same thought is expressed in v 22. The implied agent (grammatical
subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God". The intermediate agent
is Jesus, for it is said that reconciliation occured "by means of" (EN) his
fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death.

The role of Jesus as an intermediate agent and not as creator opens up the
possibility that Paul meant that Jesus was the first one created by God and
that God used him as a mediator in creation (NB the words "open up the
possibility" which implies that I do not here claim that Jesus is a
creature, but only want to show that Jesus' role as agent of creation
according to Colossians 1 do not a rule out the literal translation ov v 15
"the firstborn of all creation".)  Ian's reference to Philo is interesting.
Philo was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and in my view was very
far away from Paul, but his words show it was possible to view Greek
constructions with PRWTOTOKOS in a partitive sense.

THE CRUCIAL POINT NO TWO: IS TA PANTA IDENTICAL WITH PASHS KTISEWS?

To exclude a literal translation of Col 1:15 and place Jesus "above" or
"before" creation, one has to show that TA PANTA is identical with PASHS
KTISEWS, because Jesus created TA PANTA and therefore he cannot be a part
of TA PANTA.  The words TA PANTA occur 35 times in NT and of these, 29
occur in the portion generally accepted as the Pauline corpus. Looking at
the different passages, we see that the words do not have a fixed contents,
and to understand them we must in each case find their reference. In fact,
these words have fuzzy edges, and they serve as "signals" for thoughts, the
contents of which can only be found by help of the context.

 In Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 4:11 the reference is to all that God has
created, exactly the same reference as for PASHS KTISEWS in Colossians
1:15. However, the reference may also be more restricted. In 1 Corinthians
12:19 TA PANTA refer to all the members of the human body, and by
impliction to all the members of the Christian congregation. In other
instances the contents is abstract and it is more difficult to know exactly
what is involved. Some examples include that which can be studied (1
Corinthians 2:15), all the operations of The holy spirit (1 Corinthians
12:6), all things in which a Christian may progress (Ephesians 4:15), all
things Christ represents (Colossians 3:11).

The words TA PANTA may also be used for negative things. In Philippians 3:8
the reference is to all the things offered by the world in contrast with
Christian values, in Colossians 3:8 the reference is to all the bad things
formerly practised by the Colossians, and in Galatians 3:22 the reference
is all things in which sin operates.

Returning to the use of TA PANTA in Colossians 1, we find it is clear that
we cannot, at the outset, take for granted that the words in this chapter
is all-inclusive and have the same meaning as PASHS KTISEWS . In fact, we
know for sure that this is not the case, at least not in verse 20. While TA
PANTA in verses 16 and 17 evidently includes the angels of heaven, the same
words in verse 20 do not include them, but must be restricted to those
creatures who are sinners, and who are in need of reconciliation with God .
Thus we cannot by the help of lexical evidence say that TA PANTA in verses
16 and 17 have the same meaning as PASHS KTISEWS in verse 15.

The consequence of the information in the two crucial points discussed
above, is that to refer to *the context* of Colossians 1 in order to avoid
a literal rendition of Col 1:15 is futile. There is absolutely nothing in
the context excluding the possibility that Jesus was created as God's
onlybegotten son, and that he after that was used as the intermediate agent
in creating the whole universe. What remains then, is the small semantic
unit PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS  which must be analysed in its own right. And
I suppose that everyone on the list will agree that if there is nothing in
the context that has a bearing on the three words, and if we let all dogmas
aside, the only natural rendition would be "the firstborn of all creation".

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

No, as answered above.
>
>Jonathan


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo