Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 12.19 31/03/99 -0500, peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:
>Rolf ended his long posting as follows:
>
>"...the only natural rendition would be "the firstborn of all 
>creation"."
>
>The problem is, that is not a natural rendition in modern English. For 
>a start, we would use "oldest child" rather than "firstborn".

There is nothing wrong with "first-born".

>But 
>suppose we do look at this phrase, apart from the context, as Rolf 
>suggests. In English, it certainly does not mean "the first part to be 
>created of all creation". It probably suggests that the one referred 
>to is the child, the oldest one, of "all creation". The only other 
>sensible meaning is to take "firstborn" in the sense of Psalm 89:28 as 
>"one in authority over", broadly equivalent to KEFALH in Col 1:18 
>where the genitive, as in the English "head of", implies authority 
>over. But there is no way that Rolf's English rendering makes Jesus a 
>part of creation; either he has authority over it, or he is born of 
>it.

To understand the tradition in which the sentence was written, you should
see that the either/or in the last sentence is not relevant. As the first
step in creation, the image of God is born first. Here's Theophilus (To
Autolycus 2,10):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
God, then, having His own logos internal within His own bowels, begat him,
emitting him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this logos
as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by him He made all
things.

This is Athenagoras, writing in the mid-second century:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Plea for the Christians Ch10:)
But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation;
for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father
and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in
the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason [nous
kai logos] of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing
intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will
state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having
been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the
eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct
with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and
energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without
attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up
with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements.
"The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works."


These are the heirs of Philo (whether they knew him or not is irrelevant,
for they clearly knew the tradition in which Philo could call the Logos,
"God's first-born").

One can't simply import theological issues that may not be reflected in the
text one is analysing (Col 1:15). Accordingly one should take note of the
cultural context, part of which I have alluded to here. There is no reason
to treat "first-born" any differently in this passage from its other
literary contexts, which all seem to belong to the one cultural complex.


Ian