Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Williams, Wes" <Wes.Williams AT echostar.com>]

Dear Rolf,

You wrote:

It is interesting that your surface Psa. 89:27 here in connection with Col
1:15. I researched this very topic over the weekend. What I found was in
line with your thoughts. The only critical commentary I cound find on Psa
89:27 was T.K. Abbott and H.A.W.Meyer. However, both reject Psalm 89:27 as
having any connection with Col 1:15. Abbott notes that Psa 89:27 speaks of
the *result* of being placed as BeQWR/ PRWTOTOKOS. That *result* is that he
is higher than the kings of the earth and thus there is no new meaning for
the word. Meyer's argument was that the Psa 89:27 firstborn is not the
PRWTOTOKOS TWN BASILEWN (or, firstborn of kings), but rather, firstborn of
God. Thus, although Ps 89:27 is frequently used as an example of exclusion
from the group, the claim has no base. I tried to argue against this
conclusion in my mind, but their arguments are quite sound. This adjusts my
thinking on the verse and causes me to reject Ps 89:27 as a parallel to Col
1:15. More modern commentators should highlight this exegesis of Psa 89:27.

BTW, T.K. Abbott was so theologically frustrated commenting on Col 1:15 that
he stated that there is no satisfactory semantic category for the genitive
KTISEWS after PRWTOTOKOS, although every example of LXX use is partitive
when not possessive (such as "my firstborn").

In conclusion, the charge of bias does not apply to those who translate as
"firstborn of all creation", but to those who would translate it otherwise.
The solution, I propose, is to seek an understanding of TA PANTA ("all
things" 1:16) that is in harmony with PASHS KTISEWS ("all creation" 1:15),
which resolves the "context problem."

Sincerely,
Wes Williams

Note: this understanding has nothing to do with the doctrines of Arius, but
with the text itself.

> >Rolf Furuli writes:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> 
> born first". And the reason for this quest is to be able to avoid using
> the
> word in a partitive sense in Colossians 1:15, a sense which is contrary to
> dogma. However, there are no examples in the Bible of bekor/prwtotokos
> with
> a meaning justifying the translations (TEV): "He is the firstborn Son,
> superior to all created things." or (C.B. Williams): "He is firstborn Son
> who existed before before any created thing." This is the reason why I so
> strongly stress that the core meaning of the concept signalled by
> bekor/prwtotokos is "the one who is born first", and advocate that
> language
> has priority over theology.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rolf
> 
> 
> Rolf Furuli
> Lecturer in Semitic languages
> University of Oslo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Bible translation, b-h dig.: March 20, 1999
> From: B Rocine <596547 AT ican.net>
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:19:05 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 7
> 
> At 12:55 AM 3/22/99 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> >
> >On the basis of the results of psykholinguistics, it can be shown that
> >meaning is connected with concepts in the minds of living people and not
> >with words uttered or written. Each written word is a semantic signal of
> a
> >particular concept in the minds of people speaking the same language and
> >having the same presupposition pool. Such concepts have a core meaning
> but
> >they become more fuzzy as their edges are approached. 
> 
> I don't buy it! ...unless you admit that *fly* meaning insect is a
> different
> word than *fly* meaning zipper is a different word than *fly* meaning
> tarpoline, etc.  I.e., all these *fly*s just happen to be homonyms, maybe
> with a shared derivation and maybe not.  And if they are indeed several
> words which happen to be homonymous, what help is your idea that a word
> has
> a single core meaning?  What's the difference between your idea and the
> idea
> that one word has several meanings?  
> 
> Shalom,
> Bryan
> 
> 
> B. M. Rocine
> Pastor
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206
> 
> (w) 315-437-6744
> (h) 315-479-8267
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> END OF DIGEST
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Wes.Williams AT echostar.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.