"Truth in Translation" Part 2: Use of "[other]" in Col. 1:15

by M.J. 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  M.J.

  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens. (Colossians 1:15-20, NWT)

  ...the NWT is attacked for adding the innocuous other in a way that clearly indicated its character as an addition of the translators. Why is that so? The reason is that many readers apparently want the passage to mean what the NIV and TEV try to make it mean. That is, they don't want to accept the obvious and clear sense of firstborn of creation as identifying Jesus as of creation. Other is obnoxious to them because it draws attention to the fact that Jesus is of creation and so when Jesus acts with respect to all things he is actually acting with respect to all other things. But the NWT is correct. . . .
  

  All is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The other is assumed. In one case, Paul takes the trouble to make this perfectly clear. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches himself saying that God will make all things subject to Christ. He stops and clarifies that "of course" when he says "all things" he doesn't mean that God himself will be subject to Christ, but all other things will be, with Christ himself subject to God. There can be no legitimate objection to other in Colossians 1 because here, too, Paul clearly does not mean to include God or Christ in his phrase all things, when God is the implied subject, and Christ the explicit agent, of the act of creation of these all things. But since Paul uses all things appositively (that is, interchangeably) with creation, we must still recon with Christ's place as the first-born of creation, and so the first-born of all things.
  

  It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . .

  The decision whether or not to make something implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87)

  [This same argument would apply to Phil 2:9 as well. Thoughts?]
  

  argggh!! formatting!
• 

  peacefulpete

  Simply said, if the 'other' was implied then why add it? The translators of a "word for word " "literal" translation should have let the Greek speak for itself. However, IMO it simply is another case of orthodox Christains making a big deal about nothing. Ultimately the writer of Colossians thought of his Christ as neither a Trinity of mainstream Xtianity nor the elevated angel of JWs.
• 

  Narkissos

  What most bothers me in the NWT of Colossians 1:15ff is not the addition of [other], but the mistranslation of en autô as "by means of him," which imo shatters all the representation and concepts of this text.

  Of course, en + dative could in other contexts (especially with strong semitic influence, which is not the case here) mean "by means of", but this is certainly not the case here where the latter meaning is expressed by di'autou (NWT "through him," v. 16). This mistranslation is connected with BeDuhn's misinterpretation of "firstborn of all creation" as "part of the creation". Actually the Son is the "firstborn" of all creation because (v. 16a) all creation occurs / is in him, is part of him (not the contrary). In him all things hold together (v. 17, awfully mistranslated by the NWT "by means of him all [other] things were made to exist").

  In short, I guess the NWTranslators completely misunderstood (or deliberately obfuscated) this highly speculative text, which is pretty close to Philo and the Johannine Prologue. The "[other] things" are only the tip of the iceberg.
• 

  ellderwho

  I think the bigger problem is what the Jw is told "firstborn" means. And of course "[]" on the word "other" just drives home their point.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Interesting Narkissos. By comparing translations at verse 21 it is easy to see how literalness and consistancy matter very little when the verse itself is not controvertial.
• 

  NeonMadman

  And, just for the record, the brackets did not appear around the word "other" in the earliest editions of the NWT. They were added in later editions after much criticism from scholarly sources.