Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

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>