Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Translations and Bias

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu, Wes.Williams AT echostar.com
  • Subject: Re[2]: Translations and Bias
  • Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 22:30:28 -0400


Dear Wes,

I agree with the first part of what I quote below from your E-mail.
But then you go on to confuse two issues. In Luke 2:7 "her firstborn",
i.e. "firstborn of Mary", does not mean "born before Mary", but rather
"born before the other children of Mary". The firstborn of Pharaoh is
not another earlier Pharaoh but one of Pharaoh's sons. The firstborn
of a sheep is the first of the lambs of that sheep, not its older
sibling. It seems to me that "firstborn of X", at least when X is
singular, does not generally have a direct partitive force, although
there is still "an implicit group". On the same analogy, one would
expect "firstborn of all creation" to mean "born before the other
children of all creation" rather than "born before all the rest of
creation". At least that is a very reasonable alternative explanation
rather than one showing bias.

Meanwhile, can you show me a case in the New Testament of PRWTOTOKOS +
genitive of X unambiguously meaning "born before X" rather than "born
before the other children of X"? For that matter (and to give you a
question whose answer I don't already know!), how about a case in LXX
where X is singular?

Just to clarify: the phrase "prwtotokos twn basilewn" is NOT found at
Psalm 89:27 (LXX 88:28). In fact I would be surprised ever to see such
a phrase as a singular prwtotokos can only have one male parent. Or
can you find such a phrase meaning something like "the eldest of the
kings"? I note that in Job 1:13,18 where BEKOWR is used and the only
genitive in the context is of the other brothers, so that English
translations read "eldest", LXX has translated not PRWTOTOKOS but
PRESBUTEROS. Even in Genesis 4:4, presumably the lamb which Abel took
was the first offspring of one of his sheep as well as being itself
one of his sheep, so that case is ambiguous. Even Exodus 13:15 (fourth
occurrence LXX), 22:28, 34:20 cannot be partitive but must refer to
grandsons (in the thinking of the LXX translator), for the singular
"mou/sou" who can only have one eldest son and so "pan" is
inappropriate.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Translations and Bias
Author: Wes.Williams AT echostar.com at internet
Date: 05/04/1999 16:26


<snip>

As respects the word "firstborn," the *lexical* force of prwtotokos requires
an explicit or implicit partitive, a group in which the firstborn is first
in time. When the genitive following "firstborn" is possessive, it still
implies an implicit group. Thus, Luke 2:7, the expression "her firstborn"
implies first in time with respect to a group of children. This holds true
in *all* biblical passages except in cases of simile or metaphor, as I
mentioned previously, which you did not address. The word "firstborn" is a
partitive word. The same is true of your proposed interpretation, Col 1:18
and Col 1:15. There is no difference in the lexical force of the word, that
the prwtotokos/ BeQWR is part of the group. Thus "the firstborn of the
sheep" (Gen 4:4) is a sheep. The "firstborn of Pharoah" is one of Pharoah's
sons. The "firstborn of your sons" is himself a son.

<snip>

In conclusion, I find no lexical support for your pragmatic/ theological view
that requires the firstborn to be external to the group from any verses in
the entire bible. Ps 89:27 adds no support either since the firstborn is not
"prwtotokos twn basilewn" but is God's firstborn.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page