From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Wed Mar 12 1997 - 08:47:40 EST
Dear S.M.
Thanks for your  post of  6.3.97. After some extremely busy 
days I give some comments:
<(i.e., Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" 
<was the same old stuff to us when it burst on others like a
<bombshell.) In other words, I am keenly aware of the 
<importance of this thing you call "dogma" (why not 
<"theological convictions"?) in the exegetical process.
I know that the Westminster Seminary for a long time has 
been engaged in critical scholarship. I once subscribed to 
your journal and still enjoy reading it. My point, however, 
was that the trinity doctrine is a PARADIGM in the Kuhnian 
sense; it is used as an axiom and almost never questioned. 
The consequence of this is that  in an interpretation of Col 
1 it is taken for granted and it is read into the text.
When I started with Semitic languages I came from a study of 
natural science, and I brought with me the methodology of 
breaking down everything in the smallest possible entities, 
and study these, each at a time. As you know, if there are 
four variables in a system (say tense, aspect, mood and 
Aktionsart) and each may have 4 functions, there are 4x4x4x4 
= 1024 possible combinations. To interprete a phrase or a 
sentence all at once without breaking it down, really is 
hazardous. In my study of Hebrew I found that noone had ever 
produced a study where each of the four mentioned factors 
had been studied alone and in interaction with each other. 
As to Greek, I only found one such study on the thesis 
level, and that was Fanning. 
Sincere truth-seekers are dependent upon Bible translations 
and commentaries, and I find the same lack of systematic 
differentiation between different parameters to help the 
reader make his own decisions. He or she just  has to accept 
the opinion of the author. I have made a study of particular 
biblical passages, not to find the `correct` translation, 
but to see how the theology of the translators influence the 
readers. I use a three-stage approach: I (the most 
important): word studies, philology and lingustics, II: the 
immediate context  which may be the whole book, and III: the 
whole Bible, parallels, quotes and allusions, theology and 
knowledge of the world.
Let me apply this to Col 1:15
<I assure you, my interpretation of PRWTOTOKOS was and 
<always will be just as firmly based on sound philological 
<principles and as inevitably mixed with sound 
<presuppositions (= dogma) as yours. Let me show you; you 
<write:
<>But what about Col 1:15? As S M Baugh correctly pointed 
><out, the crucial point is the lexical meaning of ><PRWTOTOKOS.Because there is an overwhelming evidence for ><`the child who is born first` which suggests a partitive ><genitive, the rendering  `firstborn over all creation` , ><though grammatical possible, is based upon dogma.
<Now where is the "overwhelming evidence" you mention except 
<your own "dogma"? i.e., your own "basic conviction"?
Both you and I are biased as to our beliefs, and this will 
influence our collection of data and how we interprete it. 
If we, however, look at the situation from the point of view 
of the reader, with the intention of  making as few 
decisions as possible on the part of the reader, and arrange 
the material in order to help him make his decisions, we may 
perhaps achieve some calibration of our own bias.
How shall we help the reader to answer the question: `Who is 
Jesus Christ?` `Is he eternal and co-equal with the Father, 
or was he created by God and then used as a mediator in the 
creation of everything else?` (The preeminence of Jesus is 
not at stake). As a matter of fact, the first view was 
officially expressed 300 years after the days of Jesus, and 
it is important that it is not smuggled into the text of the 
Bible through translation, but that the reader is helped to 
see whether or not the Bible teaches a trinity doctrine.
Regarding Col 1:15, we know that Greek genitive is 
ambiguous. However, the rendering `the firstborn above the 
creation of God`  while grammatically possible, it leaves 
the reader without any choice. The only conclusion the 
reader can draw is that Jesus is separated  from PASHS 
KTISEWS, thus suggesting the trinity doctrine. And 
`firstborn` is used in a sense other than `the child who is 
born first`. Let me show you my `overwhelming evidence` 
against this: 
<Anyway, I dug out my old notes and can at least report that 
<Michaelis (in TDNT 6:476-81, with carefull lexical argument 
<agrees that PRWTOTOKOS was a 'hierarchical' term conveying 
<"rank" not just "birth" in the OT, NT, and later Judaism. 
<He really is very clear (and not overly dogmatic)
<on this and has some important things to say. (Footnote to 
<all: I know that since Barr's heavy-handed critique of 
<TDNT/TWNT scholars have been reticent with it. Yet it is 
<stuffed with valuable basic data and many of the 
<contributors were linguistically competent. Michaelis is 
<one.)
The discussion of Michaelis (TDNT 6:876-81) being 
theologically based, is strongly hit by Barrs criticism, 
and he does not give any conclusive evidence for another 
MEANING of PRWTOTOKOS than `firstborn`. His views of `word 
meaning` is antiquated (See previous discussion: ` 
PROTOTOKOS`, `More power to the reader` and `Sign, sense, 
concept an reference` in the Archives Feb/March 97). He 
builds on the questionable premise ( without telling the 
reader) that TA PANTA and PASHS KTISEWS have the same 
reference, and has a curious argument about synonymity 
whithout differentiating adequately between sense, concept 
and reference.  I still want to see one or a few examples of 
PRWTOTOKOS with another MEANING ( not reference, or 
connotation  or figurative use) than `firstborn. As long as 
this is not clearly establised, I feel the evidence for the 
one meaning is strong.
<Hence, "Shepherd of the sheep" (Heb. 13:20) does not denote 
<"the shepherd part of the sheep", but "the Shepherd over 
<the sheep." That the lead substantive and the genitive 
<substantive may be part of the same group (partitive) is 
<not indicated by some "basic meaning" of the genitive, but 
<determined by lexis and the specific contexts (I usually
<use "context" with a *very* broad meaning to include 
<author's style,linguistic conventions, regionalisms, social 
<background, as well as various textual contexts [the 
<pericope, the book, LXX, etc.).
Your observation about shepherd` is correct. Similarly the 
English word `firstborn` has an intrinsic partitive force. 
It is an adjective qualifying an implied substantive. `The 
firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the 
sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of 
Jacob`. I have been through all the occurrences of 
PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX with the following results.
 
27 examples of partitive genitive: Gen 4:4; 25:13;Ex 11:5; 
13:13,15;22:28;34:19,19;34:20,20; Num 
3:40,41,41;3:45,46,50;8:16;18:15,15; Deut 
12:6,17;14:23;15:19; Neh 10:37,37; Ezek 44:30.
42 examples of possessive genitive, such as `my 
son`,implying membership of the group of sons: Gen 49:3; Ex 
4:22; 4:23; 6:14;11:5; Num 1:20; 18:17,17,17;26:5;Deut 
21:15,16,17; 33:17;Judg 8:20;2 Sam 3:2; 2 Sam 13:21; 1 Kings 
16:34; 1 
Chr1:29;2:3,13;2:25,25,27,42.50;3:1,15;4:4:5:1,3;8:1,30,38,3
9;9:5,31,36,44;26:2; Psalm 134:8; Mica 6:7; Jer 38:9
There are no example of other genitives.
Stage I: Lexical semantics, therefore, sans theology, give 
one meaning to PRWTOTOKOS, and this meaning is intrinsic 
partitiv. Philologically speaking, all genitives with the 
word uphold the partitive meaning. This I find overwhelmin!.
Stage II. Nothing in the immediate context forbids that 
Jesus is a creature who mediated in creation, but he is not 
included in TA PANTA. Stage IIi: You believe that other 
passages speak for the trinity, I dont. 
In conclusion I will mention Phil 2:6. Lexical semantics 
strongly speaks for the meaning `seizure` for hARPAGMoS. 
Because of the context (stage II) and my view of the whole 
NT (stage III) I took hARPAGMOS  as direct object and the 
infinitive as an apposition, while Carl took the infinitive 
as direct object and hARPAGMOS as a predicate accusative. 
When it was pointed out that the classical use og double 
accusatives strongly supports Carls position, I got a 
problem. This is philology, stage I, and if a cannot show 
examples supporting my suggestion, it is tantamount to 
special pleading. I believe that this systematic way of 
thinking, putting word studies, lingusitics and philology 
high above theology, is the best way to help the reader of 
the Bible to decide for himself.
Greetings 
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate of Semitic languages
Onuversity of Oslo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:09 EDT