Matt. 4:3-used by Satan who asks Jesus to make some stones become loaves of bread: καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ Εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται.
John 1:3-The Apostle writes that all things (πάντα) came into being through the LOGOS (δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο).
John 1:12-Humans who exercise faith in Jesus and receive him are given the authority "to become" (γενέσθαι) God's children (τέκνα Θεοῦ ).
John 1:14-The LOGOS became flesh: Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
Heb. 11:3-τοὺς αἰῶνας came to be out of things that do not appear: Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι.
Cf. Matt. 5:45 and countless other examples.
Image from BDAG.
21 comments:
An interesting word with a wide semantic range depending on the context. Notice Epiphanius scathing comments on how Origen uses this word:
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (circa. 310-403 C.E.): “...[7.4] Now since without God there can be no good thing, most of all no understanding of the inspired scriptures, I ask you to approach the God and Father of all through our Savior and High Priest, [Page 141] the originated (γενητός) God, and pray that he will grant me, first, to seek rightly. For there is a promise of finding for those who seek; [but] it may be that there is no promise at all for seekers if God deems them to be proceeding by a road that does not lead to finding. SO FAR THE EXCERPT FROM ORIGEN [8.1] And first I need to discuss the term, “originated God,” with this braggart with his illusory wisdom, this searcher out of the unsearchable and exhibitor of the heavenly realms, who, as a greater man than I has said, has filled the world with nonsense. [8.2] And anyone can see that there are many equivalents and synonyms. [8.3] If the term were used by someone else, one might say that this too had been said with right intent. But since I have found in many instances that Origen wrongly distinguishes between the Only-begotten God and the Father’s Godhead and essence— and the same with the Holy Spirit—it is plain that by saying “originated God” he is pronouncing him a creature. [8.4] For though some would like to outwit me and say that “originated” is the same thing as “begotten,” < this > is not admissible. < The latter may be said only of God, but the former* > may not be said of God, but only of creatures. “Originated” is one thing, “begotten,” another...” - (Book 4, [Anacephalaeosis IV], Chapter 64:5.8-8.5(A), [44 but 64 of the series], Subheading: “Against Origen{1} also called Adamantius,” Pages 139-141, “Book II and III De Fide,” “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis,” Translated by Frank Williams 1987, Second Revised Edition in “Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies,” Vol. 79, Editors Johannes van Oort & Einar Thomassen Editorial Board J.D. BeDuhn, A.D. DeConick, W.-P. Funk I. Gardner, S.N.C. Lieu, A. Marjanen P. Nagel, L. Painchaud, B.A. Pearson N.A. Pedersen, S.G. Richter, J.M. Robinson M. Scopello, J.D. Turner, G. Wurst., Published by Brill, Leiden, Boston 2013.)
[FOOTNOTE 30, Page 139] Eusebius mentions this commentary at H. E. 6.25.1.
[FOOTNOTE 31, Page 139] Rev 3:7.
[FOOTNOTE 32, Page 139] Exod 28:36; Sir 45:12.
[FOOTNOTE 33, Page 139] Rev 3:7–8.
[FOOTNOTE 34, Page 140] Rev 5:1–5.
[FOOTNOTE 35, Page 140] Isa 29:11–12.
[FOOTNOTE 36, Page 140] Luke 11:52.
http://librarum.org/book/21615/154
And John of Damascus along similar lines:
JOHN OF DASMASCUS (circa. 675-749 C.E.): “...For one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον, (with only one 'ν'), signifies uncreate or not having been made, while ἀγέννητον, (written with double 'ν'), means unbegotten. According to the first significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreate, or ἀγένητον, (with one 'ν'), and another is create or γενητή . But in the second significance there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living creatures is ἀγέννητος but not ἀγένητος. For they were created by the Creator, being brought into being by His Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form like themselves from which they might have been born...” - (Book 1, Chapter 8, “Concerning the Holy Trinity : An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” Translated by E.W. Watson and L. Pullan. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
Here's another interesting consequence, surrounding the use of γένητος with the single "nu" - vs - γέννητος with the double "nu".
Justin Martyr and his Second Apology Chapter 7:5-6.
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...But since God [in] the beginning MADE the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. AND THIS IS THE NATURE OF - ALL - THAT IS ( MADE ), to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]. And this also is shown by those men everywhere who have made laws and philosophized according to right reason, by their prescribing to do some things and refrain from others...” - (Chapter 7:5-6, 2nd Apology Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Compare Ibid 28, Dial. 141, 88, 102.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm
The Greek text:
GREEK TEXT: “...ἀλλ’ ὅτι αὐτεξούσιον τό τε τῶν ἀγγέλων γένος καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, δικαίως ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν πλημμελήσωσι τὴν τιμωρίαν ἐν αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ κομίσονται. 6. ( γενητοῦ ) δὲ παντὸς ἥδε ἡ φύσις, κακίας καὶ ἀρετῆς δεκτικὸν εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν ἐπαινετὸν οὐδὲν αὐτῶν, εἰ οὐκ ἦν ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα τρέπεσθαι καὶ δύναμιν εἶχε...” - (Chapter 7:5-6, 2nd Apology, “Justinus Apologia secunda,” Ed. E. J. Goodspeed, “Die ältesten Apologeten,” Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 78–89, 1915.)
Other printed texts, such as Migne's MPG, Ashton, Grundl, and in more recent times Miroslav Marcovich have γενητοῦ in verse 6. No big deal, right?
The main MSS, however, for this verse, the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), known as A in printed texts, actually reads γεννητοῦ.
The Tri{3}nitarians have tampered with this place, and have replaced the actual MSS reading of γεννητοῦ "begotten" with γενητοῦ "created/made".
Fortunately some have picked the change up in their translations, and recognize the MSS reading over and above the totally unjustified, unwarranted, and modern corruption.
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...But because God in the beginning MADE both the race of angels and of men with their own power{14} they shall justly receive retribution in eternal fire because of the things in which they may have erred. [6.] AND THIS IS THE NATURE OF - ALL - THAT IS ( BEGOTTEN ), to be capable of wickedness and of virtue; for neither would any one of them be praise-worthy, if they did not have the power to turn themselves towards both. [7.] And those who everywhere make laws and love-wisdom in accordance with true reason show this by commanding to do this thing, but to abstain from that thing. - (Chapter 7:5-6, 2nd Apology, Page 23-24, “The Second Apology of Justin Martyr: with Text and Translation,” By Kyle Pope, Ancient Road Publications, © 2001.)
[FOOTNOTE 14]: Or free will.
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...Because God MADE both the race of angels and of men [in] the beginning free agents, they shall justly be punished for their sins in eternal fire ; FOR THIS IS THE NATURE OF - EVERYTHING - ( BEGOTTEN ), that it is receptive of vice and virtue...” - (Chapter 7:5, 2nd Apology Page 281, Section XIV, “Christ,” Chapter III, “Justin Martyr,” Vol. II, “The Apologists,” in “A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, From the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council,” By James Donaldson, London, Macmillan & Co. 1886.)
Justin Martyr again, and γέννητος "begotten" - vs - γένητος "created/made".
His Dialogue, Chapter 61.
GREEK TEXT: “...[1.] Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἔφην, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς ( γεγέννηκε ) δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱός, ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ θεός, ποτὲ δὲ κύριος καὶ λόγος, ποτὲ δὲ ἀρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ φανέντα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ· ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονομάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει ( γεγεννῆσθαι ). [2.] ἀλλ' οὐ τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν γινόμενον ὁρῶμεν; λόγον γάρ τινα προβάλλοντες, λόγον γεννῶμεν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἐλαττωθῆναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον, προβαλλόμενοι. καὶ ὁποῖον ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινόμενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου ἐξ οὗ ἡ ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μένοντος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ οὗ ἀνήφθη. [3.] μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι ὁ λόγος τῆς σοφίας, αὐτὸς ὢν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννηθείς, καὶ λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις καὶ δόξα τοῦ γεννήσαντος ὑπάρχων, καὶ διὰ Σολομῶνος φήσαντος ταῦτα· Ἐὰν ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν τὰ καθ' ἡμέραν γινόμενα, μνημονεύσω τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀριθμῆσαι. κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν [ ὁδόν = MSS. A. = “a channel” ] αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι, πρὸ τοῦ τὰς πηγὰς προελθεῖν τῶν ὑδάτων, πρὸ τοῦ τὰ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων τῶν βουνῶν γεννᾷ με. 4 ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησε χώραν καὶ ἀοίκητον καὶ ἄκρα οἰκούμενα ὑπ' οὐρανόν. ἡνίκα ἡτοίμαζε τὸν οὐρανόν, συμπαρήμην αὐτῷ· καὶ ὅτε ἀφώριζε τὸν αὐτοῦ θρόνον ἐπ' ἀνέμων, ἡνίκα ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ ἄνω νέφη καὶ ὡς ἀσφαλεῖς ἐποίει πηγὰς ἀβύσσου, ἡνίκα ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς, ἤμην παρ' αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα. ἐγὼ ἤμην ᾗ προσέχαιρε· καθ' ἡμέραν δὲ εὐφραινόμην ἐν προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, ὅτι εὐφραίνετο τὴν οἰκουμένην συντελέσας καὶ εὐφραίνετο ἐν υἱοῖς ἀνθρώπων. 5 νῦν οὖν, υἱέ, ἄκουέ μου. μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς εἰσακούσεταί μου, καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὃς τὰς ὁδούς μου φυλάξει, ὑπνῶν ἐπ' ἐμαῖς θύραις καθ' ἡμέραν, τηρῶν σταθμοὺς ἐμῶν εἰσόδων· αἱ γὰρ ἔξοδοί μου ἔξοδοι ζωῆς, καὶ ἡτοίμασται θέλησις παρὰ κυρίου. οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐμὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες ἀσεβοῦσιν εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, καὶ οἱ μισοῦντές με ἀγαπῶσι θάνατον...” - (Dial. Chapter 61:1-4; “Dialogue with Trypho a Jew” Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (ed. E. J. Goodspeed) Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915.)
Continuing on with Justin's Dialogue 61, and γέννητος "begotten" versus γένητος "created/made".
Again, the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), known as A: in printed texts reads:
GREEK TEXT: “...[1.] Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἔφην, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς γεγένηκε [Not: γεγέννηκε ] δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱός, ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ θεός, ποτὲ δὲ κύριος καὶ λόγος, ποτὲ δὲ ἀρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ φανέντα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ· ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονομάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι [Not: γεγεννῆσθαι ]..." - (Dial. Chapter 61:1)
Saying God γεγένηκε, (with the single "ν" or "nu"), "created" "made" "brought into existence" "caused to begin to exist", (not "begot"), a certain rational being.
And that this one was γεγενῆσθαι, (with the single "ν" or "nu"), "created" "made" "brought into existence" "caused to begin to exist", (not "begotten"), from or by an act of His will.
This verse has been the Justin Martyr mantra by Tri{3}nitarian's, but turns out to be an outright fraud and Tri{3}nitairan corruption with no MSS evidence, justification, verification, or backing at all.
The Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), known as A: in printed texts reads:
[1.] γεγένηκε
[2.] γεγενῆσθαι
In both places, NOT: γεγέννηκε or γεγεννῆσθαι. These were conjured from out of thin air, because the Tri{3}nitarian's thought the MSS must be corrupted.
And this fits the surrounding context perfectly, for below this, in verse 2, you have:
GREEK TEXT: “...[2.] ἀλλ' οὐ τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν γενόμενον [ MSS A reads: γινόμενον ] ὁρῶμεν; λόγον γάρ τινα προβάλλοντες, λόγον γεννῶμεν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἐλαττωθῆναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον, προβαλλόμενοι. καὶ ὁποῖον ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινόμενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου ἐξ οὗ ἡ ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μένοντος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ οὗ ἀνήφθη..." - (Dial. Chapter 61:2)
"...But do we not see such a thing as this [Gk., ( γενόμενον )] being created even with ourselves? For when we project forth before us any word, do we [not] in fact cause the production of a word? [But] not according to the manner of an amputation, so as to suffer the [complete] loss of the word within ourselves when we project it forth. Also, this sort of thing is observed upon a fire, when another one is [Gk., ( γινόμενον )] caused to come into existence [Or: “created” “made”], this does not make the original One from out of which [Gk., ( γέγονεν )] it was created any inferior by igniting it, no, [for] this One remains the same, and that which derives it's existence from out of the One which caused it's ignition, even though it may seem to appear as if it exist's of it's own accord, does not make in any way inferior the One from which it was lit up..." - My Translation.
Gk., γέννητος "begotten" is interpreted by and as γένητος.
[1.] γινόμενον
[2.] γεννῶμεν = double "nu" = begotten yes.
[3.] γινόμενον
[4.] γέγονεν
Then in verse 3, Justin gives his scriptural reason by quoting Proverbs 8:22 LXX "...κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν [MSS. A. = ὁδόν “a channel” ] αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ..."
Gk., ( ἔκτισέ με ) "He [= gram. 3rd pers.] created me".
Notice the single Gk., "ν" or “nu” of Tatian, (Justins disciple), where he has Gk., γίνεται and his use of Gk., γέγονεν in the context of the Logos coming into existence as and at the beginning.
[5.1] Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις κατὰ μὲν τὴν μηδέπω ( γεγενημένην ) ποίησιν μόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναμις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν σὺν αὐτῷ, τὰ πάντα σὺν αὑτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησεν. θελήματι δὲ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος οὐ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ [MSS Variant: τοῦ πνεύματος ] πατρὸς ( γίνεται ). τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. ( γέγονεν ) δὲ κατὰ μερισμόν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτμηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν οἰκονομίας [5.2] τὴν διαίρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεποίηκεν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀπὸ μιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται μὲν πυρὰ πολλά, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ λαλῶ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀκούετε· καὶ οὐ δήπου διὰ τῆς μεταβάσεως τοῦ λόγου κενὸς ὁ προσομιλῶν τοῦ λόγου ( γίνομαι ), προβαλλόμενος δὲ τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ φωνὴν διακοσμεῖν τὴν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀκόσμητον ὕλην προῄρημαι καὶ καθάπερ ὁ λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ γεννηθεὶς ἀντεγέννησε τὴν καθ' ἡμᾶς ποίησιν αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ, τὴν ὕλην δημιουργήσας, οὕτω κἀγὼ [5.3] κατὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου μίμησιν ἀναγεννηθεὶς καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς κατάληψιν πεποιημένος μεταρρυθμίζω τῆς συγγενοῦς ὕλης τὴν σύγχυσιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ καὶ ὁ θεός, οὔτε διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναμος τῷ θεῷ, ( γενητὴ ) δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπὸ ἄλλου ( γεγονυῖα ), μόνου δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δημιουργοῦ προβεβλημένη...” - (Chapter 5:1-3, “Oratio adversus Graecos,”)
Note: θελήματι δὲ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος οὐ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ [MSS Variant: τοῦ πνεύματος ] πατρὸς ( γίνεται ). τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. ( γέγονεν ) δὲ κατὰ μερισμόν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν·
"...It was by His own singular will that a Logos springs forth. [The] exiting of the Logos was not of a manner [Lit., “according to”] that would leave an emptiness [Or: “of a manner of emptying”] but instead [Or: “rather”] [Gk., ( γίνεται )] he is created as a work, [the] first one to have been born of the Father [MSS Variant: Gk., ( τοῦ πνεύματος ) “of the spirit”]. This one, we recognize as the beginning of the world. But [Gk., ( γέγονεν )] his having been created [Or: “his creation”] was according to [Gk., ( μερισμόν )] a process of division, not according to the manner of [Gk., ( ἀποκοπήν )] things which are amputated..." - My Translation.
I can't wait until the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), goes online, when it's digitized.
The only other MSS of the two Apologies, and his, (i.e. Justin Martyr's), Dialogue, is the Codex Claromontanus 82, later known as the Mediomontanus, now known as the British Library MS Add. 82951.
At Justin's 2nd Apology Chapter 6.3, the Claromontanus has a variant reading to the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, and says that the Son:
Gk., ( γενόμενος ) "came into existence" [= Codex Claromontanus reading] instead of Gk., ( γεννώμενος ).
Thus, as, and along with the other texts we have seen thus far, from the Regius, the Claromonatus' reading of Gk., ( γενόμενος ) "came into existence" does actually fit the greater context of Justin's writings, and does not seem totally unjustified.
And in that same place, this is said to have happened at a temporal point in time = Gk., ( ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν ) “when at the beginning”.
The Codex Claromontanus is supposed to be a direct handwritten copy of the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, so I can't verify fully, (other than 'trusting' the Tri{3}nitarian commentators), if in fact, this is really a variant, (i.e. an in-accurate copy), from the text of the Regius.
But, going by my research both do read Gk., ( ὅτε ).
Gk., ( ὅτε ) = “when” or: “at the time when”.
The Claromontanus is now digitized online at the link below, see Folio 152r
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f152r
In the context of Justins 2nd Apology 6.3, Justin reasoned that the Father cannot have a proper name. Why? Because He, (according to Justin's logic), would have to have someone who is older than He is, in order for Him to be, (or have been), given such a name.
Yet, in comparison, (both in the Bible and in Justin's theology), the Son, does indeed have, and has been given a name.
What are the obvious implications of this reasoning?
Implications = Justin is effectively saying that:
[1.] There is no person that is Gk., ( πρεσβύτερον ) older than the Father.
[2.] This is because the Father is Gk., ( ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι ) translated either: “an un-generated (or un-begotten) Being” or perhaps: “by [reason of Him] being an un-generated [Person]”.
[3.] Therefore, there was, and is, no prior existing person who could have caused or
generated the Father's life or existence, (let alone a name), i.e. He is not “generated” or “begotten” out of, from, or of someone else.
[4.] Life only comes from, or is CREATED (of, from, out of, or by) pre-existing life, or a prior, (i.e. Gk., πρεσβύτερον "older"), living Person.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Father is older than the Son in Justin's reasoning.
Because, (to Justin), the Son, (= implied and/or in direct comparison), has, in fact, been given a name.
See the immediate context in:
2nd Apol. 6.4(A), Gk., ( Ἰησοῦς ) “Jesus”
2nd Apol. 6.6(C), Gk., ( τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ) “of the name of Jesus Christ”.
And to Justin, the Son is Gk., ( λεγόμενος κυρίως ) “rightly" or "legitimately" called” such.
If the context of the Claromontanus reading of Gk., ( γενόμενος ) is taken into account, and the Son really did Gk., ( γενόμενος ) “began existence” or “came into existence” or “was created”, then the following words that the Son came into existence at a temporal point in time Gk., ( ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν ) “when at the beginning”, makes sense. To me at least.
Gk., ( ὅτε ) = “when” or: “at the time when”.
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...But for the Father of all, being Un-Born, there is no set name; for whoever has a name - has an OLDER person who - gave them the name. But the word “Father,” and “God,” and “Creator,” and “Lord,” and “Master,” are not names, but designations drawn from His beneficial acts. But His Son, the only one rightfully called “Son,” the Logos, existing [ = present tense ] with Him and being brought forth before the things made – ( WHEN ) – ( HE ) [ = the Father ] – had created and arranged all things through Him, was called “Christ” with reference to His being anointed and God having arranged{12} all things through Him. The name itself holds an unknown significance, just as the title “God” is not a name but a notion about a thing hard to describe implanted in the nature of men...” - (Chapter 6:3, 2nd Apology, Page 23-24, “The Second Apology of Justin Martyr: with Text and Translation,” By Kyle Pope, Ancient Road Publications, © 2001.)
[FOOTNOTE 12]: Justin appears to suggest a two-fold etymology for the name Christ: 1. The word kechristhai meaning “to be anointed,” and (the unusual suggestion,) 2. The word kosmesai meaning “to have arranged.”
Emphasis added.
Greek text, then in the next my translation.
GREEK TEXT: “...[Codex Mediomontanus Folio 153r, Page 305 bottom] Ὄνομα [1.] δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν· ᾧ γὰρ [Codex Mediomontanus Folio 153v, Page 306 top http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f152r ] ἂν καὶ ὄνομά τι [ ὄνοματι = A ] προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα. [2.] τὸ δὲ πατὴρ καὶ θεὸς καὶ κτίστης καὶ κύριος καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. [3.] ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποι[(Parisinus Graecus 450 Folio 195A)]ημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ [Codex Claromontanus 82 now Mediomontanus Add. 82951 http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f152r [ γενόμενος ] [ γεννώμενος = A. ], [ ὅτι = Trinitarian corruption ] [ ὅτε = A. ] τὴν ἀρχὴν δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται. ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν, ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. [4.] Ἰησοῦς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει. [5.] καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς προέφημεν, γέγονε κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς βουλὴν ἀποκυηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῶν πιστευόντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν δαιμόνων· καὶ νῦν ἐκ τῶν ὑπ’ ὄψιν γινομένων μαθεῖν δύνασθε. [6.] δαιμονιολήπτους γὰρ πολλοὺς κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ πόλει πολλοὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀνθρώπων, τῶν Χριστιανῶν, ἐπορκίζοντες κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ σταυρωθέντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων ἐπορκιστῶν καὶ ἐπᾳστῶν καὶ φαρμακευτῶν μὴ ἰαθέντας, ἰάσαντο καὶ ἔτι νῦν ἰῶνται, καταργοῦντες καὶ ἐκδιώκοντες τοὺς κατέχοντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δαίμονας...” - (2nd Apology Chapter 6.3 MPG.)
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “...But there is no name that has been adopted{1} for the Father of all persons, by the fact of His being un-generated{2}. For the reason that whomever it would be, that could be addressed by such a name,{3} He would [have to] have a person that is older than Him,{4} [in order] for Him to be given such a name. [2.] But the: “Father,” and: “God,” and: “Creator,” and: “Lord,” and: “Sovereign,” these are not names, but rather titles, that derive their origin from His beneficial deeds{5} and from the works [which He performs]. [3.] But the one who is His own Son,{6} he is the only one who can rightly{7} be called{8}: “a Son.” The Logos who, prior to{9} all of those things that have been made, and who is now{10} together with [Him], was created{11}, when{12} at the beginning,{13} He [i.e. the Father] caused everything{14} to be created, and [when] He [i.e. the Father] caused [all things] to be adorned{15} through his [i.e. the Logos] intermediate agency{16} ; [and he is called]: “Christ,” because of his anointing,{17} and [because of] the One who is definitively God having adorned{18} all things through him{19}...” - (Chapter 6.3, 2nd Apology Matt13weedhacker)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Or: “settled upon” “given”. Cf. 1st Apology 10:5-6.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Gk., ( ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι ) Or: “by reason of Him being without any generation” “by Him being an un-generated Person”. Gk., ( ἀγεννήτῳ ) = “un-begotten” “without generation” “un-generated” Cf. 1st Apology 14:7; 2nd Apology 12:15-16; 13:13. Compare Dialogue 126.2(C) ( τοῦ μόνου καὶ ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀρρήτου θεοῦ ).
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), reading is Gk., ( ὀνόματι ) singular, neuter gender, dative case.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Gk., ( πρεσβύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα ) Lit., “an-older-person to-be-having He to-be-given that name”
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Lit., “happy acts”
[FOOTNOTE 6]: Gk., ( ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου ) Lit., “but the Son of He Himself”
[FOOTNOTE 7]: Gk., ( κυρίως ) Or: “legitimately” “authoritatively”
[FOOTNOTE 8]: Gk., ( λεγόμενος ) Or: “spoken of as” “named as”
[FOOTNOTE 9]: Gk., ( πρὸ ) Or: “before”
[FOOTNOTE 10]: Gk., ( συνὼν ) Lit., "together-being" = present tense
[FOOTNOTE 11]: According to the MSS variant reading of Gk., ( γενόμενος ) “was caused to come [Or: “enter”] into [Or: “begin”] existence”, from the Codex Claromontanus, (now Mediomontanus).
[FOOTNOTE 12]: Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451), reads Gk., ( ὅτε ) “when”. Tri{3}nitarian editors have changed the text, changing the original MSS reading into Gk., ( ὅτι ) “because” [(quoniam) Lange] in the printed versions. [+ Scaliger Animadvers. In Eus. Chronol., p. 163.]
[FOOTNOTE 13]: Gk., ( τὴν ἀρχὴν ) Lit., “the beginning“ Or: “when as the beginning”
[FOOTNOTE 14]: Or: “all things”
[FOOTNOTE 15]: Or: “He caused them to be beautified” “He caused them to be systematized” “He caused them to be made orderly”
[FOOTNOTE 16]: Or: “through the intermediate agency of the Logos”
[FOOTNOTE 17]: Vs. 8 M. = Grabe tried to corrupt κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι to Gk., ( ἔχρισε ) “He anointed” here
[FOOTNOTE 18]: Gk., ( κοσμῆσαι ) Or: “having beautified” “having systematized” “having made orderly”
[FOOTNOTE 19]: Or: “through his agency”
Becoming?
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268633?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Duncan, I've bookmarked the JSTOR article. See my update to this blog entry as well: I've included the BDAG image for Ginomai.
Thanks for posting the material on created/uncreated, weedhacker. I may not get to fully interact with your comments, but I will save them to my "weedhacker" email folder :)
Wow! This one really got Matt13's attention! I think I'll have to start my own "Matt13" file;-)
Perhaps he'll find the following (rather ridiculous) argument that's been floated by one "Rivers" about GENESQAI on Dale Tuggy's Trinities blog worthy of comment:
BEGIN QUOTE
McKay's translation of John 8:58 [i.e. "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born"] has been proven to be critically flawed at every point of grammar available for analysis in John 8:58. Please let me reiterate a summary of the evidence. If you have an exegetical response to each of these points, please put it forward:
1. GINOMAI is not the word for being "born." When the writer of the 4th Gospel spoke of someone who "was born" he used the verb GENNAW. Thus, translating GENESQAI as "was born" is incorrect.
2. GENESQAI is an Aorist Infinitive form. The writer of the 4th Gospel used the Infinitive form of verbs to speak of things which had not happened yet in the historical sequence of the story. Thus, Jesus could not have been speaking about anything that happened to Abraham in the past in this text.
3. GENESQAI is in the Middle voice. The writer of the 4th Gospel always used the Passive voice or a Perfect Indicative to speak of someone who was born. Thus, Jesus could not have been referring to the "birth" of Abraham.
4. Since GENESQAI is not a past tense verb, John 8:58 cannot qualify for the PPA idiom. Thus, Jesus could not have been suggesting that he had been existing since before the time of Abraham.
5. PRIN is an adverb that the writer of the 4th Gospel always used to speak of something "before" it had happened from the perspective of the speaker. Thus, Jesus could not have been using "before" to refer to anything that happened prior to the birth of Abraham or even the present conversation he was having with the Jews in John 8 [Kaz: LOL, PRIN appears 3 times in John, which is hardly a sufficient sampling for offering arbitrary restrictions].
6. EGW EIMI was never used as an "Historical Present" with an Aorist Infinitive main verb. Thus, there is no reason to translate it "I have been" in this passage. It should be translated "I am" just like every other place it appears in the 4th Gospel.
END QUOTE
I think that this is one of the most contrived arguments against a valid understanding of any Greek clause that I've ever encountered.
Alethinon61,
Besides the lexical evidence that exists for understanding GENEQAI as "to be born" or "to become" (etc), I was thinking about John 1:12 throwing a wrench in Rivers' second argument. The verse uses the infinitive GENESQAI, but the event being discussed is a past occurrence.
Hey Edgar,
Good point. I suspect that Mr. Rivers would argue that the becoming children of God was "had not happened yet in the historical sequence of the story", i.e. when "gave them the right" the "to become children" was still future.
On the other hand, it's interesting that the becoming "children of God" implicitly involves "birth", i.e. it refers to being "born again".
The one problem I see with taking that approach, if he wants to argue that way, is that it would conflict with 1:11. The Apostle is reporting that Christ had already been rejected by "his own," but as many as received him (again, not a future act), to them he gave the authority to become children of God. So the giving is also a done deal. He's got to play with the context and tenses in 1:11-13 to make his argument fly.
I was also thinking along your lines that 1:12-13 deals with birth, but it's spiritual rebirth like John 3:3ff.
Best!
More good points. However, if I place myself in Rivers's shoes, I think he'd argue that GENESQAI was still referring to a future result in the context of the unfolding of the story. In other words, while the authority and the becoming children were both past occurrences, the "to become" was still to occur after the granted authority.
In case you're interested, I did find that the late Abner Kneeland agreed with Rivers:
https://books.google.com/books?id=sj4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=genesthai,+past+tense&source=bl&ots=Z6YN4E_-Zg&sig=8-zu2Nc3IvG0BKrHp9hIhTtMtNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BeSFVebwCqbnsAT3sIOwBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=genesthai%2C%20past%20tense&f=false
I don't find Kneeland's rendering any more plausible (contextually) than the one Rivers offered, but I apparently did overstate my case when I said that Rivers is the only one to promote a solution to the grammatical issues that's attended by such inconcinnity.
While it probably would not do much good, I might still press him on the past reference of John 1:12-13, and also emphasize that while "to become" follows the granted authority, I don't see it as necessarily depicting a future action grammatically speaking.
In the Greek, the infinitive is aorist, as we've already discussed. Aorists can be used to delineate future action or grammaticalize such, but they have the basic function of being the default "tense" in Greek: i.e., the aorist usually depicts an action as a whole rather than focusing on inception or telicity.
I don't often recommend wikipedia--I never tell students to use it--but the "ego eimi" article there might interest some readers of this blog. I'm mainly recommending the wiki entry for the references it gives.
Post a Comment