[b-greek] Re: BDAG at Rv 3:14 - Christ was the first creation now probable

From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 06:36:42 EST


Dear Iver,

I think we agree that *meaning* in relation to a word like ARCH can only be
discussed in an intelligent way in a context of translation theory. I
define "presupposition pool" as "the common knowledge and understanding of
the world which a particular group has built on their language, their
culture, their religion, and their everyday life." A theory dealing with
translation from Greek to English has to account for the two different
presupposition pools and the two different situations of communication. I
have NEVER seen such a theory, and the reason is that translations theories
are not concerned with the interests of the readers (as intelligent
participants in the translation process) but only with the interests of the
translators. Theorists and practitioners have simply given in to the
"functional equivalence" of Nida and de Ward, and this is to a great extent
true even for those making more literal translations.

I have a SIL friend who has translated the NT into a language of New
Guinea, and in this situation functional equivalence was the only viable
principle. I am not against the principle when the target group has no
knowledge of the Bible, but the translator should always be conscious of
which principle he or she is following. And where possible, the text should
be translated in a way as to help the readers make informed choices of what
the meaning of a particular passage is. In my view, therefore, the *word*
should be the fundamental translation unit and not the "kernel" nor the
phrase nor the clause.

Then to ARCH. To the Greek reader of the first century a noun such as ARCH
signalled a concept in her mind - a concept with a core which was
relatively clear, but which became more fuzzy at the edges. The concept
signalled by ARCH (and other concepts signalled by words /some words signal
more than one concept/) belongs exclusively to the first century
presupposition pool. Because of the nature of a concept it cannot be
defined, but it was *known* by those having the same presupposition pool.
This is the *meaning* of ARCH (as I see it) - the whole *meaning* is found
in the minds of people, not in sounds and letters and not in contexts and
cotexts. In the first-century situation of communication ARCH and other
words were used to convey information, and because the concepts signalled
by the words often were quite broad (just think of the concept behind the
English word "culture"), the context played an important role. The context
does not generate meaning, but it helps the reader to see which part of the
concept signalled by the word that the author wants to illuminate.

To understand ARCH and Rev 3:14 we *must* take our own presupposition pool
and our present situation of communication as our point of departure - but
this is very dangerous. We have no other choice, but to avoid the pitfalls,
or worse, to deceive others to fall into the pits, we should always be
conscious of what we are doing and think in terms of the two presupposition
pools and the two situations of communication. Much of the modern
literature leads the reader in a completely different way, such as for
instance Louw & Nida, whose principles in part are misleading and whose
entries at times can be very misleading. A good example of a pitfall in
connection with Rev 3:14 is the approach that Jesus is no creature and
therefore the construction with ARCH in this verse cannot be translated as
"the beginning of God's creation". Such a reasoning is not wrong only
because it uses the English presupposition pool as its base, but because it
is based on the extra-linguistic and foreign element theology.

As mentioned, the *meaning* of the concept behind ARCH cannot be defined
today. But we have to create a metalanguage to try to come as close as
possible to this *meaning* in order to understand Rev 3:14. No problem with
that, as long as we keep in mind what we are doing,that we use a
metalanguage, and that we realize that glosses in BDAG or any other lexicon
do not represent *meaning*, not even the *senses* of ARCH. To come close to
the *meaning* of ARCH and to get a reasoned opinion of which part of this
*meaning* the author wants to illuminate in Rev 3:14, we should consider
all the occurrences of the word in the NT, and then draw ourconclusion.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo







>Dear Rolf,
>
>Thanks for quoting Comrie's "definition" of markedness. I am adding my
>perspective below.
>
>> Dear Iver,
>>
>> Just a word in defense of Wes' use of "markedness". Bernhard Comrie writes
>> ("Aspect 1976, p. 111): "The intuition behind the notion markedness in
>> linguistics is that, where we have an opposition with two or more members
>> (e.g. perfective versus imperfective), it is often the case that one member
>> of the opposition is felt to be more usual, more normal, less specific than
>> the other (in markedness terminology, it is unmarked ther others are
>> marked."
>>
>> It is true that the markedness terminology usually is not applied to how a
>> single Greek word is translated or understood by English readers, but in
>> this discussion where the English words in the entry ARCH in BDAG are
>> handled as if they were different *senses* of ARCH, such a terminology is
>> appropriate.
>
>My problem was that the notion of markedness was apparently used to a priori
>exclude certain potential senses of a word. I don't think that is an
>appropriate
>use of the markedness concept.
>
>This can be illustrated by any word with more than one sense. Let's take the
>word "first". What is the primary meaning? Is it "before all others in time"
>(This is the first sense listed in my Oxford Universal Dictionary.) Other
>senses
>listed are: "preceding all others in serial order", "foremost in position",
>"foremost in rank, importance or excellence." When I mention "the First
>Lady" do
>you go through the various possible senses starting with the primary one?
>Or do
>you deduce the meaning of "first" from the fact that it co-occurs with "lady"?
>Is it up to me to prove that this does not refer to Eve - as someone who has
>heard about markedness would have expected?
>
>> The meaning of ARCH is not identical with the English glosses in BDAG, and
>> neither is it found in the context or the cotext, but it existed as a
>> concept in the minds of Greek-speaking persons who had the same
>> presupposition pool.
>> When we today mention "the senses of a word" or "its primary meaning" and
>> base this on the modern English presupposition pool,which is completely
>> different from the first-century Greek one, from the point of view of
>> applied linguistics we are "speaking into the air" ( 1 Kor 14:9).
>>
>> However, this is the normal way of speaking, and those hearing or reading
>> get some of the sense. So when we use this 'not completely correct way of
>> speaking' and focus on the different English glosses, the notion of
>> markedness can be helpful for our understanding.
>
>I agree with the notion of "presupposition pool" but not necessarily with your
>definition of it. (I am not sure what your definition is.) I believe we
>need to
>distinguish between different elements in that pool. One element is the
>semantic
>range of a word. Few words have a specific meaning. Some have a small area
>(circle) of meaning, others have a large circle. These circles only partially
>overlap from one language to another. So, the area of meaning of ARCH includes
>parts of the areas of meanings of the English words "first, authority, rule,
>beginning". In the example above, knowing the possible senses of "first"
>defines
>the semantic range of the word. Another element is the linguistic co-text
>(that
>"first" modifies "lady"). A third element is the extra-linguistic
>encyclopaedic
>information pool (knowing that First Lady is a term conventionally used to
>refer
>to the wife of the president.) All elements come into play in
>understanding any
>utterance, but they are distinct elements. Someone might understand the
>semantic
>range of "first" and "lady" and still fail to understand the meaning of the
>expression, if he does not have the needed extra-linguistic encyclopaedic
>information.
>
>Iver Larsen
>Kolding, Denmark
>alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org
>





---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:48 EDT