Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Rolf,

I almost agree with you. It is just that "firstborn" is only 
marginally in use in modern English (of which I am a native speaker - 
as distinct perhaps from international-academicese, in which I claim 
no expertise!), and so I would suggest "oldest son of all creation" as 
a more acceptable literal translation.

I don't feel any obligation to agree even with such authorities as 
Bratcher and Nida, and I think they are confused on this passage 
because of their failure to understand "firstborn" as synonymous with 
"oldest child". But if the learned experts cannot agree on the meaning 
of this phrase, what chance does the poor ordinary reader have? 
Perhaps we should translate "the xzyxyz of all creation": that would 
be just as meaningful to the average readers and would be less likely 
to lead them into heresy! But if we want a translation which ordinary 
readers can understand, we need to include some kind of interpretation 
of this phrase. That is a different question.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet 
Date:    31/03/1999 08:59

<snip>

Dear Peter,


A friend of mine made a survey of about 20 theologically loaded passages in 
130 Bible translations in 6 languages. Regarding Col 1:15, he found that more 
than 50% had a literal rendition equal to "the firstborn of all creation". It 
may be true that this is not modern idiomatic English. But you must keep in 
mind that you are immersed in Nida's dynamic equivalence method (which is 
fine / save the theologically manipulations of the text/ when the target 
group is the general reader), but this method does not fit all situations and 
all groups.

I have not argued in favour of any theological interpretation of Col 1:15, 
but underlaying all my posts in this thread has been the question: "Why not 
make a literal translation and let the readers decide its meaning?" By 
using renditions making Jesus "above" or "before" the creation, the 
readers' possibilities for making their decisions are greatly restricted. 
What in effect is done, is to force upon the readers a particular 
theological interpretation and prevent them from seeing that there are 
other possibilities.

R.G. Bratcher and E.A, Nida, 1977, "A Translators Handbook on Paul's Letter 
to the Colossians and to Philemon", which you have on your own SIL CD and 
which I have quoted before, says on p 22:
"Translated literally (as RSV), it implies that Jesus is included in the 
created universe, which is inconsistent with the context of the whole 
passage." These authors evidently reasoned that "the firstborn of all 
creation" could only imply that the genitive was partitive (Jesus was a 
part of creation), giving it the same meaning as is expressed by EN in 
Romans 8:29 (quoted by Dan-Ake). I agree with the authors in this.
You have other interpretations of the phrase which evidently are shared by 
others on the list, and that is your privilege. But is this not the best 
alternative: Translate the text literally and let the readers decide, 
instead of bombing some alternatives away through translation, to use the 
slogan of the day?


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.