Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Jonathan Robie wrote


>At 11:58 AM 3/31/99 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>>>Since Louw and Nida have both influenced a great deal of influence on
>>>modern linguistics, including lexicography, I assume they know how it's
>>>done. You may disagree with their results, just as you may disagree with
>>>certain translations of this passage.
>>
>>Your quotations above are excellent examples of how the "functional
>>equivalence" model of Nida ( and de Waard) and the "semantic domain" model
>>of Louw and Nida both allows and encourages  Bible translators to read
>>orthodox theology into the biblical text.
>>
>>Nida's two central principles were: (1) There is only one target group: the
>>general readers (who do not want to work with the text themselves). (2) The
>>individual words have little meaning, what is to be translated are not
>>words, but "kernels", which are found by a semantic (interpretative)
>>analysis. (See J de Waard, E.A. Nida, 1986," Functional Equivalence in
>>Bible Translating From One Language to Another")
>
>You say that a translation is biased if it contradicts lexica. I see that
>Louw&Nida is not a lexicon you accept. BAGD is the other major NT lexicon,
>and it also clearly states that PRWTOTOKOS is used in a variety of settings
>where "it is uncertain whether the force of -TOKOS (born) is still felt at
>all", and gives examples to show this. In a separate section of the
>definition, it also cites an example where heretics are called the
>firstborn of the devil. These are the two major New Testament lexicons,
>especially Louw&Nida, and the translation of the NIV does not contradict
>their definitions here.
>
>The major classical lexicon, Liddel-Scott-Jones, suggests that PRWTOTOKOS
>is used metaphorically in this passage.
>
>So if the definition of bias you are working with is to contradict the
>lexica, and the three major lexical allow a particular translation, then it
>can't be accused of bias by your definition, can it?
>

Dear Jonathan,

When we deal with a word, we need to differentiate between its letters,
what it denotes and the concept it signals, and when we use lexica we also
need to find all the English glosses which are suggested for the particular
word. James Barr criticized Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament because it did not differentiate between "Wort" and "Begriff" and
because it mixed theology and linguistics. When we use lexica we should
therefore try to differentiate between linguistic and theological evidence.

The only gloss found in BAGD and Liddell & Scott for PRWTOTOKOS is
"firstborn", so to translate  "his is the primacy over all creation" as
does  Revised English Bible, is contrary to these two lexica. This
translation accords with Louw & Nida, but as I showed in a previous post,
their comments on PRWTOTOKOS (similar comments are not found in any other
lexicon), has no support at all except their own theological interpretation
of Col 1:15.

It is not so that I sort the lexica and those suggestions that accord with
my view I accept and the others I reject, but when a suggestion has no
linguistic support at all but definitely is based on theology, as the
example we are discussing, I am not bound to use it because this
theological view happens to be written in a lexicon. Louw & Nida contains
an enormeous amount of theology and should be used with the greatest
caution.

The REB rendition, therefore, both contradict lexicon and is an addition of
semantic elements to promote a particular theology. Therefore it meets my
definition of bias.




Regards
Rolf



Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo