Firstborn Omitted in Catholic translations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kleary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kleary

Guest
Hello,

In talking with a Fundamentalist he accused the Church of changing the words of Scripture to support her “unbiblical” teaching on the Virgin Mary.

He noted to me that the newer translations omit the word “firstborn” in Matt 1:25.

Does anyone know the true reason why they omitted that word in the NAB and the RV, ASV and RSV versions?

Ken
 
40.png
kleary:
Hello,

In talking with a Fundamentalist he accused the Church of changing the words of Scripture to support her “unbiblical” teaching on the Virgin Mary.

He noted to me that the newer translations omit the word “firstborn” in Matt 1:25.

Does anyone know the true reason why they omitted that word in the NAB and the RV, ASV and RSV versions?

Ken
Click to expand...
Simple. The Greek doesn’t have the word “firstborn”.

Mt 1:25a
“kai ouk eginosken aute heos hou eteken huion”

“And he knew her not till she had brought forth (eteken) [a] son (huion).”

So who’s adding to the Word of God now, huh? You can turn the tables on him with this one.
 
How about what they call “textus receptus” manuscripts compared to ours? I am sure he will say that the Greek word for Firstborn is in there.

My DR version has "firstborn"in there.

Ken
 
40.png
kleary:
How about what they call “textus receptus” manuscripts compared to ours? I am sure he will say that the Greek word for Firstborn is in there.

My DR version has "firstborn"in there.

Ken
Click to expand...
<foot_in_mouth>
Oops. Did a double-check on the TR. Prototokon [firstborn] is indeed there.
</foot_in_mouth>

However, it is not in the latest critical editions of the Greek New Testament (but I’m sure he’ll also say they’re “corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.” There’s no reasoning with Fundamentalists.)

In any case, the presence of prototokon [firstborn] is irrelevant. Firstborn is a legal title in Judaism, and is the one who breaks his mother’s womb. The firstborn was one entitled to a double-share of a family’s inheritance, and was a transferrable right. Examples of these are Isaac (who was named Abraham’s heir over Ishmael), Jacob (who deceitfully, but validly obtained a blessing to be given to Esau), and Josepn (who was given the rights stripped from Reuben after the latter slept with Jacob’s concubine).

A man who was an only child is legally firstborn, Jesus no exception. Jesus being the firstborn is not proof that he wasn’t an only child. It’s just that he opened Mary’s womb (as the Hebrews would say).
 
Hi Kleary,

As said above, the consensus of the manuscripts is that “firsthborn” is not in the original text. (The Nestle critical edition, a Protestant work, does not accept the reading “firstborn”.)The Latin Vulgate was translated from manuscripts that did have “firstborn” and thus it has it. That is why Douay-Rheims and other old English versions have it, since they were translated from the Latin.

The Church does not fear to use the term “firstborn”, since Catholic translations use it in Luke 2,7. It is quite possible that, in one or several manuscripts the term “firstborn” slipped in because of this quotation from Luke.

Verbum
 
Does " first born " always imply she had other children ?
Suppose a woman dies in child birth. The child is still her first born.
Fundamentalist always use this " first born " to " prove " Mary had other children.
 
Hi Tom,

The term firstborn NEVER implies that there were other children. In Jewish law the firtsborn had rights and privileges that others did not have. It was important for people to know that he held the title firstborn, whether he had sibblings or not. And if the “firstborn” was a girl, it didn’t count. The first boy would have been the “firstborn.”

Verbum

Verbum
 
Technically the girl would still be the firstborn, she just wouldn’t be the firstborn son. Being the firstborn son carries specific weight in Judaism.

That being said, let’s just look logically at what the term “first born” is really saying. It is saying that no children came before that person, hence first. When someone wins first place, for example, it means that no one else was above them; it says absolutely nothing about the number of people below them. When we say that Sir Edmund Hillary was the first to summit Mt. Everest, it’s the same thing that was said the day it happened, without any subsequent trips to compare it to.

Basically, all Jesus being the firstborn indicates is that Mary was indeed childless before he came along.

Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
kleary:
Hello,

In talking with a Fundamentalist he accused the Church of changing the words of Scripture to support her “unbiblical” teaching on the Virgin Mary.

He noted to me that the newer translations omit the word “firstborn” in Matt 1:25.

Does anyone know the true reason why they omitted that word in the NAB and the RV, ASV and RSV versions?

Ken
Click to expand...
The 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) and the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) are Protestant versions of the Bible. Why is the word “first-born” in Matthew 1:25 missing from these Protestant versions? Certainly, not to exalt the Blessed Virgin Mary. A Protestant source says:
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects [of the King James Version] are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.
In Catholic versions of the Bible, the word “first-born” appeared in Matthew 1:25 as late as the 1941 Confraternity Version.

The word “first-born” does appear in the New American Bible (NAB) in Luke 2:7:
She [Mary] gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the place where travelers lodged.
The word “first-born” does not necessarily imply that there were later children. Consider this passage from Numbers:
And the LORD said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names” (Numbers 3:40)
It is unlikely that many one-month-old first-born males had siblings.
 
Matthew 1:25

and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. (ASV)

And he had no connection with her till she had given birth to a son; and he gave him the name Jesus. (BBE)

and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. (DBY)

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS. (WBS)

but did not live with her until she had given birth to a son. The child’s name he called JESUS. (WEY)

and did not know her till she brought forth her son – the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. (YLT)

firstborn does not demand that there was a second born unless they were twins. Speaking of twins, there was a set of twins born in the OT, and due to deception on the part of the second born he was given the father’s blessing for the firstborn. And, at that time the one who was born first became the servant of the second born. First born does not always refer to birth order, but can refer to birthright or rank — Jacob blessed instead of Easu - Genesis 27.

Ask them to explain Rev 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; (ASV)

We know that Jesus was not the first person ressurrected from the dead.
 
Look at Luke 2 around verse 7 for the word firstborn.

The NIV does not have firstborn in Matthew 1:25, but does have it in Luke 2.
 
Which of the Reformers firmly believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity? (references and quotes helpful)
 
40.png
christcnection1:
Which of the Reformers firmly believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity? (references and quotes helpful)
Click to expand...
In Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham’s Beginning Apologetics 1: How to Explain and Defend the Catholic Faith, pub. by San Juan Catholic Seminars, in 1998, on page 20, it gives the following references to “the three fathers of the [Protestant] Reformation”, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, “affirming” the perpetual virginity of Mary:
Martin Luther:
Works of Luther, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6, p. 510.

John Calvin:
Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.

Ulrich Zwingli:
Zwingli Opera, [Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp.] v. 1, p. 424.
(The info in the square brackets appeared in an earlier citation on the same page and may apply.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top