Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Peter,

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my earlier post, because you respond
with points with which I strongly agree! So, I will not comment much in
return but will simply add a few clarifying notes.

> 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.
> 
That is why I distinguish possessive genitives from pure partitives. Still,
the possessive still *implies* the existence of a group in which the
prwtotokos is first in time. For example, the expression "her firstborn" is
an example that I qualify as a possessive genitive, but implies that the
firstborn is part of a group of sons that come from "her." The same is true
of proper names as "the firstborn of Jacob," which is semantically
equivalent to 'the firstborn [of the sons] of Jacob." 

We should also pay attention to the lexical properties of the noun in the
genitive, whether a collective noun ("firstborn of all creation") or a
generic noun ("firstborn of beast") or a plural noun ("firstborn of your
sons"). But none of the semantics changes the inherent lexical partitive
force of prwtotokos.

Therefore, I must respectfully disagree that "the firstborn of [singular] X"
takes away the inherent lexically partitive force of prwtotokos, as I
illustrated above. Your proposed suggestion, "born before the other children
of all creation" is possible, as long as the one 'born before' is part of
the same group. I must call attention to the lack of support where the
firstborn is not part of the group to which it is related.


> 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?
> 
I am confused. Why would you think I posit that PRWTOTOKOS of X means "born
before X" since I never stated that meaning in any of my posts? (I even went
back and reread). I am unclear as to why you require this since I do not
assert it in my position. Hopefully I clarified it above and perhaps a
re-reading of my previous posts will help. But I believe you may have
misunderstood my position since I apparently agree here with your
conclusion. "Born before the other children of X" means that the "one born
before" is also a child *in the same group* as other children.

> 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
> 
> 
Thank you Peter, for taking the time to make my very point! I see Exodus
13:15, 22:28, 34:20 as simple partitives regardless of how you interpret it,
so, either way.

Sincerely,
Wes Williams

> ______________________________ 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>