Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Bible translations

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
  • Subject: Re[2]: Bible translations
  • Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:50:06 -0500


Dear Rolf,

I fear that you are falling into the etymological fallacy here. The
meaning of a word cannot be determined by history but by its
synchronic use. This is not the place to comment on "prwtotokos", but
the following is relevant to the idea of Christ being called the
B:KOWR of creation.

In VanGemeren (#1144) Bill Arnold writes: "The Jacob and Esau episode
demonstrates the transferability of the birthright (Gen 25:31-34) and
illustrates the common OT pattern of the younger son displacing the
firstborn (Gen 25:23; 1 Chron 5:1-2...). So Israel as Yahweh's
firstborn received a position of honor and privilege, though she was
youngest and least among the nations (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9). God's
grace and sovereign rule over people and nations was demonstrated by
his freedom to choose those who were not the firstborn by nature and
treat them as firstborn."

Thus it is fully in accord with this OT idea and usage of B:KOWR for a
man Jesus who was born "late in time" to be nominated as the
firstborn. The parallel with Israel in Exod 4:22 is clear. The issue
has nothing to do with his created or uncreated status.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Bible translations
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 20/03/1999 06:35


John Ronning wrote:


>Rolf Furuli wrote re. Col 1:15 (Christ as firstborn of all creation)
<snip>

Dear John,

If you by"meaning" have in mind "lexical meaning" the word prototokws has
just one meaning in the Bible- "the one who is born first". Your example
does not prove another meaning. The firstborn had different rights,
responsibilities and functions, and in different contexts one of these may
be stressed. But this does not add to the *lexical* meaning of the word but
only serve as collocations. For instance, one function of the kohen was his
service as physcian, but this important side of his work does not add
"physician" to the lexical meaning of cohen. And similarly with )e:lohim.
According to Exodus 4:16 Moses should serve as "god" for Aron, but this
does not add a new lexical meaning to )e:lohim. I therefore claim that all
uses of prototokws in the Bible, literally or metaphorically, takes as
their point of departure "the one who is born first". A new king would
normally be the firstborn (the one who was born first) of the former king.
To say that someone would "be put in the position of a firstborn" is
nothing strange. It does not say more that that the one got the position
the firstborn normally would have had. In time the meaning of bekor
developed, and at some time some would even say that God was "firstborn",
but such meanings are not found in the Bible.

The problem, however, is not lexical but rather theological. The word
prototokws taken in is plain meaning of "the one who is born first"
strongly suggests a partitive genitive i Colossians 1:15, and this again
places Jesus among the creatures - something which is disgusting for those
believing in the trinity. Therefore, systematic searches have been done to
find another meaning of bekor/prototokws, and the meagre result (shown
inthe lexicons) is Psalm 89:27 which adds nothing to the lexical meaning of
the word.



Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page