Some modern English versions of Colossians 1:15 translate it according to what some scholars call the "genitive of subordination," i.e., "firstborn over all creation. This attempts to remove the firstborn mentioned here from among the creation of God. By this means the verse is used by some to "prove" that the Firstborn, Jesus Christ, is not a part of the creation of God.
However, not all New Testament scholars agree that Colossians 1:15 in the Greek is representative of a "genitive of subordination," but rather, a partitive genitive, "firstborn of all creation," including the firstborn mentioned there as part of the creation.
The Sahidic Coptic translators performed their work with a background of 500 years of Koine Greek history, and at a time when Koine Greek was still a living, spoken language.
So it is instructive to note what the Coptic translators saw when they rendered the Greek text into Coptic. Did they see a "genitive of subordination," or a partitive genitive?
The Sahidic Coptic translators rendered the Greek text's πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως as ΠϢΡΠΜΜΙСЄ ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜ.
The use of Ν.СШΝΤ marks this clearly as a partitive construction in the Coptic.
"N- marks...partitive relationship (the relationship of individual to class...)" --Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, p. 164
Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic text of Colossians 1:15 says "the firstborn of all creation." -- George W. Horner, volume 5
"Over" is expressed in Sahidic Coptic with the use of ЄϪΝ-, which is not used at Colossians 1:15 in the Coptic text.
the "genitive of subordination" requires that verbal action be implicit in the head noun. The only idea implicit in 'firstborn' is "being born first" compare Col 1:18 where the -tokos element is clearly present considering the application of Psl. 2:7 to Jesus in his resurrection (which also shows firstborn is not being used figuratively).
ReplyDeleteJesus is 'placed as firstborn' in his resurrection, notice the three fold allusion to Psl. 89:27,37 in Revelation 1:5.
I would also point out that PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS would be the only gen. of subordination with an anarthrous head noun in all the examples given by GGBB.
Excellent points, showing the fallacy of rendering this as "firstborn over all creation."
ReplyDeleteThat translation is an obvious case of special pleading.
Thanks.
Do you think 2 Cor 4:4 and Acts 13:17 are examples of the Gen. of Subordination "the god over this age" and "the god of...Israel" or something closer to a possessive genitive.
ReplyDeleteWallace (GGBB 104) tries to cite these as counter to "most examples... involve a verbal head noun," and to my knowledge there is no cognate verb for theos or prwtotokos
I'm late to the party here (almost a full five years since the above comments and original post). I agree that Colossians 1:15 contains a partitive genitive, and I think the information you present above about the Coptic translation and how they marked the genitive type is fascinating. I was not aware of any of this before tonight. To read more about the research I did to argue for a partitive genitive in Colossians 1:15, please visit https://nealmatt.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/colossians-115-firstborn-of-all-creation/.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that the Sahidic Coptic translation of Colossians 1:15 necessarily supports a partitive genitive reading and excludes a genitive of subordination is flawed for multiple reasons. First, while Coptic grammar has distinct ways of marking partitive relationships, it does not automatically override the broader interpretative and theological context of the Greek text. The Sahidic Coptic construction using Ν.СШΝΤ can indeed indicate a partitive relationship, but this does not mean that it always excludes a relational or hierarchical nuance, especially when dealing with titles of preeminence such as prototokos. Greek, unlike Coptic, is more flexible in its use of genitives, and the claim that the Coptic translation settles the matter ignores that Greek usage of prototokos in both biblical and extrabiblical literature supports a meaning of rank and supremacy rather than mere inclusion in a group.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the attempt to use Coptic as a definitive argument misunderstands the nature of translation. The Coptic version reflects the interpretative choices of translators working centuries after the original Greek text was written. Even if the Sahidic translators preferred a rendering that implies some sort of partitive nuance, this does not mean that this was the original or only correct understanding of the Greek. Coptic translators were working within their linguistic framework, and while their work provides insight into how early Christian communities may have read the passage, it does not dictate the original intent of the Greek text itself.
Furthermore, the context of Colossians 1:15-20 overwhelmingly supports the interpretation of prototokos as a term of supremacy rather than inclusion within creation. Paul’s use of prototokos in Colossians 1:18 ("the firstborn from the dead") clearly indicates preeminence in status rather than mere chronological sequence. The parallel structure of verses 15-18 shows that Christ's title as prototokos is not about being part of the thing described but rather about having authority and precedence over it. The phrase pantes ktiseos is best understood in a genitive of subordination sense, as many respected scholars acknowledge, because Paul immediately follows with the explanation that Christ is the one through whom and for whom all things were created. This is inconsistent with the idea that Christ himself is part of creation.
Finally, the argument that the absence of the Coptic preposition ЄϪΝ- (which would mean "over") disproves the hierarchical sense of prototokos is an argument from silence. The Greek construction does not require an explicit preposition to convey superiority, as demonstrated by other uses of prototokos in a hierarchical sense, such as Psalm 89:27 (LXX), where David is called prototokos, meaning he is given preeminence over all kings. The fact that the Coptic rendering does not use ЄϪΝ- does not mean the underlying Greek text must be interpreted partitivally.
In conclusion, the Sahidic Coptic translation does not definitively prove that Colossians 1:15 should be read as a partitive genitive. The Greek context, the immediate literary structure, and the broader biblical use of prototokos overwhelmingly favor the interpretation that Christ is being described as supreme over creation, not as a part of it. The argument based on the Coptic text is at best an interesting translational observation, but it is not decisive in settling the Greek meaning of the passage.