<Rolf's posting on the various categories of ARXHI seems to suggest that a
<Greek word is chosen for a specific meaning and that other semantic
<possibilities can be withdrawn from that word in those instances when the
<bulk of translators opt for one choice. Hence he says, "The word ARXH
<(singular) occurs 45 times in the NT. The meaning "origin/source" is never
<found".
<Linguistically this is surely incorrect. One of the semantic equivalences
<of the word ARXH in English is "Origin/source" therefore wherever the Greek
<word appears one of the possible equivalences will be "origin/source".
<It's like saying that when I mention the word "Washington", because I am
<always referring to the small town just west of Sunderland in the NE of
<England, the meaning "Washington D.C., centre of US government" is never
<found!
<A word maintains its semantic field regardless of what translators do to
<that word. Therefore, ARXH always has within itself all possible meanings.
<It is up to the translator to determine which nuance the author is
<focussing upon. Crucially with Johannine material it is more often which
<nuances rather than which nuance.
Dear Pete,
On B-Greek we ought to be short. If I should spell out the words you
criticize more fully I would say: "There in no passage in the NT where the
context demands or where it is natural to use the English glosses
"origin/source" as a rendering of ARXH." I agree with much of your comments
on "semantic domain", but something is lacking (but you must also be short).
I have written a book on the role played by theology and bias in Bible
translation, in which I use 50 pages to discuss meaning - the realtion
between "word", "sense", "concept and "reference". It also outlines a
theoretical model for literal Bible translation, not based on "the
etymological fallacy" but upon modern linguistics. While "functional
equivalence" is based upon semantics (and semantic domain), this model is
based upon communication and (psycholinguistics).(Incidentally I am
positive also to idiomatic translation, it depends on who is the target
group).
What is lacking in your comments is an awarness of the two planes of
communication relevant for Bible translation. When we discuss word meaning,
we do so from the viewpoint of the translator and the modern reader.
However, the audiences to which the parts of the Bible were addressed had a
common' presupposition pool', and a word served for them as a semantic
signal for a concept with fuzzy edges in their minds. They neither needed
the etymological or the semantic domain approach. One word was enough for
them to signal meaning which idiomatic translations use 30 different
English glosses to convey.
So how are we to convey this 'signal' effect into English? Regardless of
whether the method is idiomatic or literal, Barr has shown that what counts
is what a word signalled in NT times. Both the witness of classical Greek,
the LXX and the Fathers therefore is secondary. The important question
about ARXH is whether there is evidence that the contemporary
"presupposition pool" would allow ARXH used as a signal conveying a meaning
that can be expressed with the modern glosses source/origin. Do you have
such evidence?
Applying this to Rev 3:14, the renderings "the ruler of God«s creation",
NIV and "the chief of the creation of God", Young, represent a legitimate
use of one«s theology, because this meaning is signalled in the NT. But
"the origin of God's creation" NRSV,"the source of God`s creation" NAB
"l'auteur de la creation de Dieu." SEGR ,"the origin of all that God has
created.",TEV and "The Principle of God«s creation" NJB, are in my view
biased renderings because they completely lack foundation in the NT.
(Yesterday in my discussion of Rev 3:14 I quoted the words "the firstborn
of all creation" instead of the correct "the beginning of the creation of
God" before Darby, ASV, NKJB, RSV,Luther, KJV, DHNT (modern Hebrew), MHNT
(modern Hebrew), and RVB.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Univeristy of Oslo