I like your response. I see you are aware of the two levels I mentioned and
appreciate that you discuss the material in a scholarly way. Of course a
model taking presupposition pools into account is not unproblematic, but I
thing there are substantially fewer problems here than when following the
"functional equivalence" model.
In my work with translation theory I have become more and more concerned
with the interests of the readers, that religious views should not be
forced upon them, but that they should have a part in the very process of
translation. Theology must influence every stage of translation but there
should be controls, By using a common presupposition pool and contemporary
linguistic evidence as primary evidence I am not excluding the possibility
that different writers used the same word as signals for different
meanings. But this should not be presumed but be demonstrated, because
there is an enormeous amount of speculation. One of the worst examples is
Michaelis` discussion of PROTOTOKOS in TDNT.
The following approach to Rev 3:14 really takes the interests of the
readers into account: In Rev. is ARXH used two times signalling
"beginning". The first natural conclusion is that it also has this meaning
the third time, in Rev 3:14.
Expanding this small presupposition pool to all the Johannine material, we
find only the same meaning. Expanding the pool to all NT, we also find
"ruler/government/sovereignty", but we may say these meanings are "marked"
because they occur a few times and are exclusively dependent upon the
context. At this stage we may look at the etymology, classical Greek etc,
but keeping in mind that this represent a secondary line of evidence.
The most natural thing for the translator is to choose the "unmarked"
meaning "beginning", which also is overwhelmingly attested in the material.
He may choose the "marked" one,"ruler.." but being aware of sound controls
he will not do so if the context does not definitely point in this
direction, and this is not the case. The principal reason, therefore, for
choosing "ruler" or "cause" is not lexical semantics but doctrine. And the
poor readers, using versions without footnotes explaining the case, has no
possibility to know this. They are completely in the hands of the
translators.
The same is true with Col 1:15. PROTOTOKOS has an intrinsic partitive
meaning, and there is no example of a meaning in OT or NT taking as its
point of departure anything else than "the one who is born first". The
usual appeal to "the context", will not stand scrutiny, as you will see if
you test the arguments against "the context" in my posting monday.
Following the same procedure with this verse as with Rev 3:14 we come up
with "firstborn of all creation" as a rendering with a strong backing.
Applied to John 1:1, the two verses argue strongly against the
understanding that the clause EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS means that the Word is
eternal.
What I am making an appeal for, is not that we drop theology and personal
viewpoints when we translate and interprete the Bible, but that we are
honest against ourselves, looking into our own presupposition pool, and
admit it when theology rather than lexical semantics is the principal
reason for a certain rendering.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo