Admittedly, the exact sense of QANAH in Prov. 8:22 is highly contested. But there appear to be good reasons for understanding the Hebrew word as "created" in this verse:
"Some scholars question whether the first verb mentioned in v. 22a (QANAH) means anything more than 'to acquire, possess,' but the evidence from Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew is clear that 'to create' is one of its meanings. In Ugaritic, the fivefold repeated epithet of Asherah, QNYT 'LM, can only mean 'creator of the gods.' In Phoenician, 'L QN 'RS (KAI 26.iii.18) can only mean 'El, creator of the earth.' A similar epithet appears in Gen 14:19, 22, where El Elyon is called 'creator of heaven and earth.' In Deut 32:6 QANAH is parallel to 'to make' and 'to establish.' Thus, the Hebrew verb QANAH, in addition to the meaning 'to acquire, possess,' can also mean 'to create'" (Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, p. 96).
On the other hand, BARA does not necessarily convey a sense of creating something EX NIHILO. A brief search in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament confirms this point. See TDOT 2:242-249.
TDOT notes that the LXX translates BARA by KTIZEIN ("to create") 17 times and POIEIN ("to make") 15 times. Other Greek terms that are used to render BARA are ARXEIN ("to begin"), GENNAN ("to beget"), KATADEIKNUNAI ("to show clearly, make known, establish"), DEIKNUEIN ("to show"), GINESQAI ("to become") and KATASKEUAZEIN ("to build, create"). But KTIZEIN is evidently not used in the LXX book of Genesis, though "the Hexaplaric translations choose KTIZEIN as a technical term" (2:246).
At any rate, BARA is certainly employed in Gen. 1:27 to describe a divine creation that is not produced EX NIHILO. Ps. 104:30 also does not allude to CREATIO EX NIHILO when it speaks of God creating animals through His emanative spirit of holiness. See also 1 QH 1:7; 1 QH 4:38; 1 QS 3:17-18. These Qumranic texts use BARA in a way that does not imply divine creation from nothing (EX NIHILO).
Additionally, Clifford (whom we quoted earlier) adds:
"In Biblical Hebrew, QANAH had two distinct senses--'to possess (by far the most common meaning) and 'to create, beget'" (Clifford, 96). Clifford himself seems to prefer the latter sense for QANAH in Prov 8:22 (94-96). But see the commentary on Proverbs by Michael V. Fox.
Sean, in that regard, see the comments by Fox at http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-v-fox-on-proverbs-822ff.html
ReplyDeleteHe backs the "produced/created" understanding.
Urgatic/phonecian witnessed are relatively late between 800 & 700 bce so the commentators argument only has weight for those subscribing to a documentary hypothesis on the book of genesis.
ReplyDeleteI am always suspicious of a double definition - KATASKEUAZEIN ("to build, create"). To equip or furnish fully.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_ri-5iaSUJsC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=KATASKEUAZEIN&source=bl&ots=HfdCc27oZi&sig=6yConf8lIJXxAboEtiRMyEvIE3c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bKaNVaLDN4ew7Ab2qJ-4DA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=KATASKEUAZEIN&f=false
From comments on Plato's Protagoras, a translation 317
kataskeuazein means to ‘set up’ as in, especially, to set up a piece of furniture or equipment. ‘Prepare a council’ sounds different.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RZ2ETH0AwpIC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=KTIZEIN&source=bl&ots=qzPfNuLptH&sig=U6rD59TMJz7O4FSW0VXm2ELbCL0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EamNVYDhEe2P7AaY8JGAAw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=KTIZEIN&f=false
ReplyDeletehttps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/dss/abstracts/hodayot/
ReplyDeleteDuncan, maybe I should make the 1 post, 2 posts, in order to lessen any confusion from the discussion. Originally, I was talking with someone about BARA and QANAH. But without the full context of that dialogue, it may be hard to follow the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, the commentator (Clifford) specifically is focusing on Prov 8:22 when he mentions Ugaritic, Phoenician and Hebrew. While it is difficult to date Proverbs, one scholar likes 700 BCE or maybe even 800 will work. Either way, if Clifford is working with one of these dates, he would have no problem invoking Ugaritic or Phoenician witnesses. So, to be clear, his mappeal to these sources is not based on the DH. However, I take the blame for any confusion resulting from this blog entry.
Secondly, words generally seem to mean something within contexts. Hence, they don't have one set definition, but the setting for a term determines what it means. The first link that you provided (from the Hebrews commentary) defines KATASKEUAZEIN as "construct," and points out that it refers to the activity of building something in Heb 3:3-4. Both KJV and NASB use some form of the verb "build" to render this verb.
The commentaary on Hebrews says that KATASKEUAZEIN means "furnish" in Heb 11:7, but there's no reason why it could not also mean "built" or "constructed" (NET Bible) there.
Granted, the word could mean "set up" in Plato, but we must examine the matter synchronically and contextually. For example, note how Aristotle uses MORFH, but then contrast Paul's usage in Philippians 2:6. As with English, Greek and Hebrew denotations and connotations morph over time.
Sorry about the mix up Edgar.
ReplyDeleteKATASKEUAZEIN I agree that it can mean built or construct but a definition in the commentary of create seems too large a shift.
I still have a problem with this whole idea of synchronic dating of anything from significant antiquity without a large data set for comparison.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteAs I read the original blog entry again, it's TDOT which states that the OG/LXX renders BARA with KATASKEUAZEIN. See Isa 40:28; 43:7. When used that way, it could then mean "to create," but not always. See https://books.google.com/books?id=JNaDupoSycMC&pg=PA314&dq=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%AC%CE%B6%CF%89&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iymOVcqmIIO9ggT2loCwAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%AC%CE%B6%CF%89&f=false
Compare Isa 45:7 in LXX.
I believe it's obvious that we have some large data sets for many words, but maybe not for others. I'm not sure how large the set should be, but I have looked at the data for words like MORFH, STAUROS or QEOS (THEOS). We seem to have plentiful examples for these words in specific periods.
Well for example, theos is a can of worms in first century data across the roman empire.
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fA2IF0s-tIcC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=first+century+theos+judge&source=bl&ots=vyZny01JCq&sig=5XDMAxidSkwKFMjzO4AhCzaVzvo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FEWOVZaOK-Xe7AaKnZT4AQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=first%20century%20theos%20judge&f=false
I would go as far as to say that the comments here do not go far enough. Theos meant Roman governors like pilot. Apotheos (appointed of gods) was exactly that, one who had the authority to set up governors based on the older Persian method of rulership. According to this history a translation of El into theos allows for the idea of judges in the hebrew also.
Stauros is quite strait forward as is morhpe.
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781107338364&cid=CBO9781107338364A013&tabName=Chapter
ReplyDeleteAs your first link brings out, it's no secret that QEOS meant different things to different audiences. That much seems true, but polysemy or homonymy are common features for most words. However, neither the former nor the latter (homonymy) threaten the synchronic approach. For example, the English word God/god" doesn't mean the same thing for all English speakers either. But I don't see how the polysemous nature of "God/god" would prevent us from learning what the word meant during the 20th/21st century some 2000 years later. After all, analyzing LOGOS synchronically teaches us that the word had at least 10 established senses before and during the Hellenistic era. Synchronism and ploysemy/homonymy can work hand in hand.
ReplyDeleteLinguists also differentiate sense from reference (Sinn und Bedeutung). There's a difference between what QEOS means/meant and what the word references in varying contexts. Philo uses the word to reference parents, but QEOS doesn't mean "parent." Elohim refers to judges, but it doesn't mean "judge/judges."
The huge debate about STAUROS is whether it signifies "A cross" or an upright stake. That heated discussion is still taking place within the scholarly world.
I would also respectfully submit that MORFH is not that straightforward if you examine the word diachronically and synchronically. Aristotle equates the word with OUSIA; Paul the Apostle apparently does not. In Homer, the word can reference someone's beauty, but I don't find that use of the word in the NT.
God means deity or supreme being of some form. When is God ever used for a judge? If we want to mean God like, then we say like a God in any version of modern English for any culture.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a fair comparison.
The irrelevant debate about stauros and crux will continue adnausium. Since neither should be venerated. Many hot debates are mis directions.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the synacism but I have just been watching this unrelated but IMO relevant video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMhsPnoIdy4
People sometimes use the word "god" for people like Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey. Or they speak about someone being the god of a particular sport/craft. We normally don't call jusges "god" in English and my point is that the Hebrews/Israelites didn't define elohim as judge or parent either, but they evidently thought the word could reference a judge or parent. I can use the word "god" to reference my dog; but that does not mean "god" signifies/denotes "dog."
ReplyDeletePhilo refers to parents as gods and he calls Moses a god. He does not just say that these personages are godlike, even if that is what he meant.
I'm also contending that what "God/god" means to one of Jehovah's Witnesses is not what it necessarily means to a Baptist or Hindu.
ReplyDeleteEl as mighty in authority fits all of the above. Elohim as mightiest in authority also fits. If theos comes from similar origins then theos would be mighty in a respective domain or occupation. I know you are not convinced as to this definition but it fits better than any other in a concrete language.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to cover old ground again, but if Elohim is applied to judges, angels, and parents, then I'm confused about defining the word as "mightiest in authority." But the major point I'm trying to make is that there's a difference between the sense of a word and its reference. So although Elohim could be applied to parents, or QEOI could refer to parents--neither word has that sense or meaning.
ReplyDeleteNow if you limit the might to a specific domain, then I readily grasp what you're saying, whether I agree or not. But QEOS does not have the same linguistic origins as Elohim. Hellenistic Jews apparently made the semantic connection between the Hebrew and Greek word for God/gods.
Sorry if my explanation is not clear. El as mighty in authotity. Elohim as mightiest in authority. Like theos in comparative level to ho theos. I would not expect a parent to be referred to using ho theos. Do you know of any instance of such usage?
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI don't have an example of someone calling a parent "ho theos," but there is the passage from Philo of Alexandria, who speaks of parents as theoi. Please see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/02/philo-on-parents-as-gods.html
Grammarians also point out that we can't always draw a hard-and-fast distinction between the anarthrous and articular theos.
Finally, we know that some ancient rulers self-identified with the honorific title, ho theos.
The rulers aspect does not contradict my point. We know how apo theos became apotheosis over time. It's a story as old as gilgamesh, at least.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_(honorific)
We know how caesar was critisize at home for allowing this to mean rather more than an honour in the provinces.
I'm just trying to address your point that Elohim/ho theos mean "mightiest in authority." I don't find that to be the case when you have writers using ho theos and theos interchangeably (to mean the same thing). Context is king.
ReplyDeleteIt's even more apparent that Elohim does not have this meaning, if it's truly applied to angels and judges or it seems clearly applied to Melchizedek in the DSS.
Again the philo point does not contradict as parents being the mightiest in authority to children. Deut 21:18-21.
ReplyDeleteParents aren't mightiest in an absolute sense to their children (only God commands absolute respect)--nor are they usually mightiest in society (parents must subject themselves to laws and rulers). Only El Elyon YHWH is the mightiest in authority, universally or absolutely speaking.
ReplyDeleteContextually, Philo's point in calling parents "gods" is not to accentuate their authority per se, but he's emphasizing the respect that parents deserve for all they do and for the role they play in our lives. Furthermore, they have "created" us as it were as God created the world (ex nihilo).
ReplyDeleteOn another point with philo - Philo speaks of him (Melchizedek) as "the logos, the priest whose inheritance is the true God" ("De Allegoriis Legum," iii. 26).
ReplyDelete(1 Corinthians 15:24) ... when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power.
ReplyDeleteHow does a parallelism between god (gods) contradict me?
ReplyDeleteIs it directly calling the parents gods or just comparing a function?
Duncan, two points that I've tried to address in our discussion is whether Elohim/Theos means "mightiest in authority" and I've also tried to show that these Hebrew and Greek terms for "God/god" mean various things depending on the context of utterance, and furthermore, sense and reference should not be confused either term. Elohim is applied to God, false gods, judges, and angels. But it doesn't mean judge or angel or parent.
ReplyDeleteAs you say God (singular), gods (plural), judges (plural) & angels (plural). Elohim as a group of El or elohim as a single entity. I presume you know of the Akkadian en for the gods and the en.en.en.(en.) Of the anu.
ReplyDeletehttps://personal.sron.nl/~jheise/signlists/list3.html
The definitions are highly questionable but the near Eastern usage is not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu
It is interesting how the cannanites adopt en.lil but title him as El.lil.
This is as far as I can go on this particular discussion.
As for Eloah. Doesn't TWOT say "it is probably akin to the term EL"
ReplyDeleteMost reference works and studies come from the basis of the Hebrew roots as traditionally understood (three letter) but there are those who work with 2 letter roots and from this perspective this group of meanings come from EL. Might and authority, the essence of the pictographs within this root. Those who claim that the root (3 letter) being "fear" miss the possibilities of the 2 letter - that it is a fear related to might and authority & I think sometimes hairs are being split - there is no future work in a conclusion.
The discussion of Elohim and related terms can be found in TDOT at this link: https://books.google.com/books?id=znB4gOMlb3AC&pg=PA272&dq=eloah+related+to+el&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xbGSVfKUHMOrgwTi8o-YCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=eloah%20related%20to%20el&f=false
ReplyDeleteThe whole discussion is not tidy at all. A number of suggestions for how Eloah, Elohim and El are related have been proposed. The Dictionary of the Old Testament (not TDOT), says that while Eloah and Elohim are "clearly related," scholars still debate whether these words derive from El. Granted, this dictionary associates EL with power/authority, but even if that's correct, my point has been that the meaning of El (and related terms) did not remain the same at every period in Jewish history (i.e., he synchronic meaning).
See https://books.google.com/books?id=Ao5ecZ0ZsG8C&pg=PA360&dq=eloah+related+to+el&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xbGSVfKUHMOrgwTi8o-YCg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=eloah%20related%20to%20el&f=false
I also like Marvin Pope's analysis of El. He paints a complicated picture of the word's etymology.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ns4UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA17&dq=el+means+power&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A7WSVZOPBYmWgwTU_4OYCw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=el%20means%20power&f=false
The TDOT states that the reason for the plural usage is unclear but I would have thought it quite obvious based on the Akkadian usage of bël bëli and the way it is inscribed. It runs all the way through near eastern culture cf Isaiah 6:3. repetitions of 2, 3 or 4 to indicate special-ness.
ReplyDeletehttp://thetorah.com/repetition-and-the-tabernacle/
This is far from unique to the Hebrew.
I do agree that you average Hebrew would not know the roots of the words but as to priests and scribes that may be another matter altogether, but we can only speculate.
Thanks for the links, although, I have probably already read them but I always hope for another snippet I have missed.
It's a pity that "El in the Ugaritic texts" does not have all the relevant pages available but just to clarify my thinking.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html
"The oldest Semitic word meaning "God" is El. Linguists believe its base meaning is strength or power. "El" is the Strong One, or the Deity (God). It occurs 238x in the Bible, and is first used in Genesis 14:18 in the phrase "God Most High" [El Elyon].
The Canaanites called their chief deity El, the Mighty Bull. After the Israelites entered Canaan, they adopted this generic word "El" for their God, though "Elohim" took precedence. In some Canaanite myths, one of El's sons was the notorious Ba'al, the nemesis of the true God throughout much of Israel's history."
"the mighty bull" & this is exactly what the proto-semitic symbols portray.
KJV Gen 49:24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)
NWT Gen 49:24 And yet his bow was dwelling in a permanent place, and the strength of his hands was supple. From the hands of the powerful one of Jacob, from there is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.
Litterally "the mighty bull of Jacob"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOW3rCmEzhU
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/3_lam.html
eloah has this two letter root and allon at Isa 2:13 the mightiest and strongest of the trees "the bull tree". The only tree that I have ever seen that looks significantly bigger is the giant red - which I doubt they would have seen.
YLT Num 23:22 God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the swiftness of a Reem is to him;
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re'em
Yeah, it is a shame that Pope's work is not more accessible online. The work is published by Brill and that means it's expensive.
ReplyDeleteI've allowed the last 2 posts because I believe they're informative. However, I will not be adding anything else to this thread. It seems that we've exhausted discussion about QANAH and BARA, et al. Thanks for your contributions.
weird quesiton: any good reading suggestions that cover aquila's Translation and Jeromes?
ReplyDeleteCheck out https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/st-jeromes-critique-of-aquilas-translation/
ReplyDeleteAnother perhaps weird one - what happens when we change the verb in 8:22 from active to passive?
ReplyDelete( look at Kaz’s blog for article)
From my limited understanding this pretty much obliterates the double accusative claim
@Anonymous
DeleteIn Hebrew, the verb qanah (קָנָה), which is used in Proverbs 8:22, is in the qal form (which is active), meaning "to acquire," "possess," or "get." The passive form of qanah would involve nifal or pual conjugations. But let's assume for a moment that you’re suggesting the change to a passive sense in how we interpret qanah.
In Hebrew poetry, and especially in Proverbs 8, the use of verbs in an active voice plays a key role in portraying God’s action and sovereignty. Changing it to a passive form could indeed shift the focus, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a double accusative construction. Even if qanah were understood in a more passive light (such as Wisdom "being acquired" or "being established"), the presence of a double accusative still holds in Hebrew when dealing with poetic and symbolic language like that in Proverbs.
Even if the verb is read in a passive sense, the double accusative concept still applies when a verb can have both a direct object and a resulting function. The direct object in this case is Wisdom, and the resulting function or status is the beginning of God's ways. This is a common structure in Hebrew:
"The Lord acquired me AS the beginning of His ways."
Even in a passive understanding, you could read it as: "I was acquired (or established) as the beginning of God's ways." This maintains the double accusative structure, where me is the object and the beginning (rēʾšît̲) is the resulting function or status.
Theologically speaking, the active or passive status of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 doesn’t change the essential interpretation of the passage. Whether Wisdom is seen as being acquired or actively existing as God's possession, the key idea remains the same: Wisdom is foundational to God's creative activity and is not a created entity in the sense of being brought into existence out of nothing. The poetic and metaphorical nature of Proverbs supports both readings, but doesn’t undermine the traditional interpretation that Wisdom (often understood as Christ in Christian thought) shares in the eternal nature of God.
If we look at Greek translations, such as the Septuagint (LXX), we see that the double accusative structure remains valid. The LXX translates qanah as κτίζω (ktizo), which can mean "create" or "appoint." Even if you argue that ktizo should be understood passively (as in "Wisdom was made to be the beginning"), the double accusative holds: Wisdom is still established as the beginning of God’s ways.
Furthermore, other translations, such as Symmachus' and Aquila's, opt for ἐκτήσατο (ektēsato, meaning "acquired"), which emphasizes possession rather than creation. This linguistic choice supports the idea that Wisdom was appointed or established in a foundational role, rather than being passively created.
Proverbs, being wisdom literature, uses poetic and figurative language, meaning verbs can carry flexible meanings that reflect both literal and metaphorical truths. Whether the verb is active or passive, the emphasis remains on Wisdom’s relationship to God—as a possession or as a principle that stands from eternity, involved in God's creative work. Even if the verb were passive, the double accusative could still be interpreted to reflect the status or role of Wisdom as the beginning of God's ways.
While it's true that QANAH can sometimes carry the meaning of "to create" based on certain Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew contexts, it overwhelmingly means "to acquire" or "to possess" in the Bible. The most common understanding of QANAH in biblical Hebrew, especially in contexts related to God, refers to possession or acquisition. For example, in Genesis 4:1, Eve says, "I have acquired a man from the Lord," using QANAH to signify possession. Likewise, in Genesis 14:19, QANAH is used to refer to God as "possessor" (not creator) of heaven and earth, a consistent theme of God’s sovereign ownership.
ReplyDeleteProverbs 8 must be understood within the framework of wisdom literature, where "Wisdom" is often personified. Proverbs 8:22-31 poetically describes Wisdom's relationship with God, not as a literal creation but as an eternal, integral part of God's nature. Wisdom, as described in the book of Proverbs, is not meant to be a created entity, but rather something that emanates from God eternally. Translating QANAH as "possessed" here fits well with the literary context, which emphasizes Wisdom’s foundational and eternal role in God's work of creation, rather than Wisdom being a created entity itself.
The early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, interpreted QANAH in Proverbs 8:22 as meaning "appointed, "constituted", or "possessed" rather than "created." This was a significant part of their defense against Arianism. Athanasius, for example, argued that QANAH refers to Wisdom being "set over" or "appointed" as the head or principle (Greek: archē) of God’s creative works, rather than being created in the sense of coming into existence at a particular point in time. This interpretation emphasizes the co-eternality of Wisdom (or the Logos, who is identified with Christ in Christian theology) with God the Father.
In addition, the Hebrew structure in Proverbs 8:22 can support a reading that understands QANAH as "appointed" or "constituted." The phrase rēʾšît̲ darkô ("the beginning of His ways") can be seen as a double accusative, indicating a result or function rather than the act of creation. In this sense, QANAH would mean that Wisdom was "appointed" or "established" as the beginning or chief of God's ways, not that it was created out of nothing.
As mentioned, even early Jewish translators such as Aquila and Symmachus preferred to translate QANAH in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο (ektēsato, "acquired" or "possessed"), which supports the argument that the term in this verse does not denote creation. Similarly, Jerome, in his Vulgate translation, rendered QANAH as "possessed," emphasizing that Wisdom is eternally possessed by God and is not a created being.
While BARA is usually associated with divine creation, it is not exclusively used to denote creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). In fact, BARA can also refer to the act of shaping or fashioning from pre-existing material, as seen in Psalm 104:30, where it speaks of God renewing the face of the earth through His spirit. In Genesis 1, for instance, BARA is used for the creation of humanity, but this creation involves forming humans from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7), which is not creation from nothing.
The argument that QANAH means "to create" in Proverbs 8:22 overlooks the broader theological context of the Bible, which consistently presents the Logos (or Wisdom) as pre-existent and eternal. In John 1:1-3, Christ is described as the Word who was "in the beginning" with God and who was God, through whom all things were made. Similarly, in Colossians 1:16-17, Paul writes that all things were created through Christ, making Him the agent of creation, not a created being.
Theological motivation at its finest - hardly worth my time answering
Deletethe presence of a double accusative” - how long are you going to keep omitting information that is important?
Delete“Theologically speaking, the active or passive status of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 doesn’t change the essential interpretation of the passage.” - linguistically it does, that’s what I’m interested in - you alone have put me off theology for life.
“Wisdom is still established as the beginning of God’s ways.” - most likely as: the first thing “created”
( see BDAG)
“As mentioned, even early Jewish translators such as Aquila and Symmachus preferred to translate QANAH in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο (ektēsato, "acquired" or "possessed")” - you omit to mention these are also well known as slavishly literal translations.. So in essence would convey the literal meaning of the text on the page rather than the Hebrew understood meaning
“The phrase rēʾšît̲ darkô ("the beginning of His ways") can be seen as a double accusative,” - it can, this question was directed at Edgar not you for starters
Second- while it is possible, I have seen evidence indicating this isn’t a double accusative but rather a fake.
“Likewise, in Genesis 14:19, QANAH is used to refer to God as "possessor" (not creator) of heaven and earth, a consistent theme of God’s sovereign ownership.” - you stole this from me, you omitted this last time..
How do most bibles understand and translate the word? How does the lxx understand and interpret the word? as “creator”
It is somewhat synonymous- you should look at actual academic studies on this issue..
@Anonymous
DeleteThis accusation suggests that my argument is driven by theological bias rather than objective analysis. However, theology and language are intertwined when interpreting sacred texts, and it’s essential to approach both aspects carefully. I didn’t omit important information but instead offered a coherent theological and linguistic argument about the interpretation of qanah in Proverbs 8:22. The relationship between theological understanding and linguistic interpretation is not a matter of bias but of recognizing the broader context in which biblical texts have been read historically and theologically.
Your emphasis on the linguistic distinction between active and passive forms of qanah is noted, but it fails to consider the nuances of Hebrew poetry, especially in wisdom literature like Proverbs. While it is true that verbs can shift meanings depending on their form, the active or passive status of qanah does not inherently change the theological point being made. In both cases, whether qanah is understood actively as God "acquiring" or passively as Wisdom "being acquired," the essence of the passage still aligns with the broader biblical witness that Wisdom is intrinsic to God's nature and not a created entity.
Furthermore, even if the linguistic shift changes the emphasis, it doesn’t necessitate that qanah must mean "to create" in the sense of something being made from nothing. The broader usage of qanah across Scripture overwhelmingly suggests meanings related to acquisition and possession, as I have already demonstrated with examples from Genesis.
The BDAG suggests that arche can mean "beginning," but this is not synonymous with "created" in the sense you claim. The idea of "beginning" (or arche) in biblical language often implies preeminence or priority in rank, rather than chronological sequence. For example, Jesus is called the "beginning" in Revelation 3:14, not because He is the first created, but because He is the source and origin of creation. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" is a title of preeminence, not of temporal birth.
In Proverbs 8, the phrase "the beginning of His ways" does not imply that Wisdom was the first created entity. Instead, it suggests that Wisdom holds a foundational role in God's plan and actions. Just as Christ is called the "firstborn" in Colossians to indicate His preeminence over creation, Wisdom is presented as integral to God’s work, not as something that came into existence at a specific point in time.
It is true that Aquila and Symmachus are known for their highly literal translations, but this does not diminish the relevance of their work in understanding how qanah was interpreted historically. In fact, their choice to translate qanah as "acquired" or "possessed" reflects a deliberate decision to align with the broader understanding of the term in its context.
The fact that these early translators preferred "acquired" over "created" strengthens the argument that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 does not imply creation in the ex nihilo sense. The literalism of Aquila and Symmachus serves to preserve the original meaning of the Hebrew text, which indicates possession or acquisition, not creation.
The discussion of the double accusative structure in Proverbs 8:22 was entirely relevant to the topic, as it demonstrates how qanah can be understood as "appointing" or "establishing" Wisdom as the chief or foundational element of God’s ways. Whether you find the argument convincing or not, it is important to note that biblical Hebrew often employs a double accusative structure to convey both action and result. The presence of this structure in Proverbs 8:22 does not invalidate the interpretation of qanah as "acquired" or "possessed."
DeleteFurthermore, the objection that the double accusative structure is "fake" is an unfounded claim unless backed by substantial linguistic evidence. I've provided a sound explanation of how the structure works and why it is relevant to the interpretation of qanah in this passage.
The discussion of the double accusative in Erickson's article applies primarily to Greek syntax, while Proverbs 8:22 is in Hebrew, not Greek. This is a crucial distinction because the rules of syntax and grammatical structures in Hebrew are not identical to those in Greek. The original Hebrew structure of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't involve the same kind of double accusative construct that Erickson is discussing, since it’s rooted in a different linguistic tradition.
In Hebrew grammar, double accusatives can still exist, but they are structured differently than in Greek. Hebrew often uses object-marking particles like "אֶת" (et) to indicate a direct object, and double accusative constructions in Hebrew are less common than in Greek. Instead, Hebrew tends to use parallelism, especially in poetic texts like Proverbs. Therefore, the argument based on double accusatives in Greek, while insightful, isn't directly applicable to interpreting qanah in Proverbs 8:22.
In the case of the "fake double accusative" in Greek, as explained by Erickson, the second accusative is not an argument of the verb but serves as a complement or predicate to the first accusative. This means that the second accusative doesn't represent an additional object that the verb acts upon but rather provides more information about the first accusative.
If we try to apply this concept to Proverbs 8:22, we would be misapplying a Greek grammatical concept to a Hebrew text. The structure of Hebrew poetry in this passage does not reflect a verb taking two accusative objects in the same way that Greek verbs do. Rather, it reflects a subject-verb-object relationship, where God (YHWH) is the subject, qanah is the verb, and Chokmah (Wisdom) is the object. The verb qanah (in the active form, "acquired" or "possessed") refers to Wisdom, but the poetic structure does not imply that Wisdom was "created" in the same way that an object might be produced.
The argument that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 means "create" relies on a simplification of the Hebrew language and ignores the broader biblical and theological context. As you’ve pointed out, even though qanah can sometimes mean "create" in certain contexts, the predominant meaning in biblical Hebrew, especially when referring to God’s relationship with Wisdom, is more accurately "to acquire" or "to possess." This interpretation aligns with how Wisdom is portrayed throughout Proverbs as an intrinsic aspect of God's eternal nature, not a created entity.
Erickson's argument about double accusatives applies to Greek syntax, particularly in New Testament texts, but Proverbs 8:22 is a Hebrew text. The Hebrew structure doesn’t involve a double accusative the way it does in Greek. While Greek and Hebrew share some grammatical similarities, applying Greek grammatical rules (especially around double accusatives) directly to Hebrew poetry is a mistake.
DeleteProverbs 8 is a poetic text, using personification to describe Wisdom. The passage is not intended to provide a technical or literal description of Wisdom being "created" but is rather a metaphorical way of expressing Wisdom’s relationship with God. The use of qanah in this context leans more towards the idea of "possession" or "acquisition" rather than literal creation.
As noted, Christian tradition has long interpreted this passage in line with Wisdom being co-eternal with God. The early Church Fathers understood Wisdom (identified with Christ) as existing eternally with God, not as a created being. The distinction between "begotten" and "created" is crucial here, and the double accusative argument in Greek grammar doesn’t alter the theological interpretation that Proverbs 8:22 refers to Wisdom being "acquired" or "possessed," not created.
The accusation of "stealing" an argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. More importantly, the claim that most Bibles translate qanah in Genesis 14:19 as "creator" is incorrect. The majority of translations, including the LXX (Septuagint), render qanah as "possessor" or "owner." For example, the LXX uses the word ktistes, which can mean "founder" or "possessor," but not in the sense of a direct creator like bara (create) in Hebrew.
The broader semantic range of qanah allows for both "possessor" and "acquirer" interpretations, but it does not necessarily mean "creator." Even if some translations interpret it as "creator" in certain contexts, the dominant and consistent use in Genesis 14:19 refers to God's ownership of the heavens and the earth, reinforcing His sovereignty rather than implying that He created them from nothing.
The arguments provided misunderstand the linguistic, theological, and contextual nuances of qanah in Proverbs 8:22. While you assert that qanah MUST mean "create" and reject the double accusative structure, the broader context of Scripture and the linguistic evidence both point to qanah meaning "possess" or "acquire" in this case, with Wisdom (or Christ) being understood as eternally existing with God rather than being a created being. Your reference to double accusatives is misapplied when discussing Proverbs 8:22. The double accusative constructions in Greek grammar are not relevant to the Hebrew structure of this passage, and trying to use Greek syntactical rules to interpret Hebrew poetry leads to a misunderstanding. The theological point remains that Wisdom, as personified in Proverbs, is described as an eternal possession of God, integral to His nature, and not a created entity. Therefore, the argument about the "fake double accusative" has no bearing on the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22.
ReplyDelete“I've provided a sound explanation of how the structure works” - so omitting information to suit a theological agenda is “sound” now? Sure
Spamming a witness blog with information that is not 100% true or correct is “sound” ok sure
“the LXX uses the word ktistes, which can mean "founder" or "possessor,"” - really? Why does every site that I have checked have “ektisen”?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G2936&t=LXX&ot=LXX&word=ἔκτισεν
I can read Greek you know, and I have checked ( I fact check you all the time) I may ask Edgar things but I’m competent on my own.. you can’t lie to me about what the lxx says.. nor can you mislead me over textual variants… which you have tried to do before.
“The early Church Fathers understood Wisdom (identified with Christ) as existing eternally with God, not as a created being.” - oh so now it’s identification.. funny when I said this 3 weeks ago it wasn’t
I will quote this next time you try to say otherwise..
And iv read a lot of the church fathers and only a select few say this explicitly- the others it debatable if they mean what you claim..
“the dominant and consistent use in Genesis 14:19 refers to God's ownership of the heavens and the earth, reinforcing His sovereignty rather than implying that He created them from nothing.” - so would calling him “maker” or “creator”reinforce his sovereignty…
I can accept the rendering possessed - I’m more forcing you to concede that “tradition” is not nessacarily correct..
“Your reference to double accusatives is misapplied when discussing Proverbs 8:22. The double accusative constructions in Greek grammar are not relevant to the Hebrew structure of this passage, and trying to use Greek syntactical rules to interpret Hebrew poetry leads to a misunderstanding.” - you are obviously either wilfully ignorant or can’t work out when I refer to the Hebrew and when I refer to the lxx…
Obviously I can’t apply Greek linguistical rules to a Hebrew text… what do you take me for?
@Anonymous
DeleteYou accuse me of omitting information to suit a theological agenda. However, this claim lacks substance. My explanation was based on linguistic and theological grounds, drawing from multiple sources, including ancient translations and church tradition, to provide a coherent argument. The fact that I approached the discussion by balancing theology and linguistics is not “omitting information” but carefully contextualizing the term qanah in Proverbs 8:22.
Furthermore, I acknowledged multiple meanings of qanah across various contexts, showing how the term often implies possession rather than creation. Therefore, my approach isn’t biased or deceptive—it’s about providing the most accurate interpretation within the biblical and theological context. My approach offered various possibilities, which shows I am providing a balanced view rather than selectively omitting anything.
You dismiss my argument as “spamming” the blog with incorrect information. However, I haven’t spammed anything. I presented a well-structured argument rooted in biblical scholarship. Assertions like this one sidestep the actual content of your argument and don't refute it logically. Dismissing an argument as spam without providing substantive rebuttals to my points doesn't negate the validity of your reasoning.
You claim that the LXX uses the word ktizo (ἐκτίσεν, meaning "created") rather than ktistes (creator/founder). I noted that ktistes can also mean “founder” or “possessor.” In Greek, ktizo does indeed mean “to create,” but the word can also imply “to found” or “to establish” in a broader sense, especially when dealing with divine creation. In theological contexts, the difference between "founding" or "creating" and "possessing" can become nuanced. However, my argument doesn't hinge solely on the LXX rendering but on the consistent biblical usage of qanah in contexts that imply ownership or acquisition.
While ktizo can mean “create,” that doesn’t automatically make the case that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 refers to creation from nothing (ex nihilo). The Greek translation is trying to convey the idea of something fundamental about Wisdom’s role in creation, which aligns with the broader metaphorical context. The nuances of the Hebrew word qanah still point more toward possession or acquisition than to outright creation in this specific context. This is why the argument about the term qanah being best understood as “acquired” remains valid. Moreover, different translations and scholars approach these terms with different emphasis, supporting my claim that qanah should not be oversimplified as “created.”
You attempt to turn your own argument back on me, claiming that I previously disagreed with the identification of Wisdom with Christ. However, this misrepresents your position. Throughout the discussion, I've maintained that Christian theology has traditionally applied the Wisdom in Proverbs 8 to Christ, without claiming a one-to-one identification (equivalency). The Hypostatic Union and the Logos theology of John 1 make it clear that Wisdom—identified as Christ in later Christian thought—is co-eternal with God, not a created being. Other Church Fathers have not made explicit statements about the identification of Wisdom with Christ. Figures like Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria defended this application to combat Arianism, which argued that Christ was a created being.
You challenge my statement about God being the "possessor" of heaven and earth in Genesis 14:19. You argue that calling God "maker" reinforces His sovereignty. This is a strawman argument. The idea of possession and creation are not mutually exclusive. God can be both the creator and the possessor of heaven and earth. My emphasis on qanah meaning "possessor" in Genesis 14:19 is valid because it highlights God’s ownership over all things.
DeleteThe question here isn’t whether God created the heavens and the earth (which the Bible affirms in Genesis 1:1), but whether qanah always means "create." In Genesis 14:19, qanah is better understood as referring to God’s possession of all creation, not to His creative act per se. This meaning is consistent across various translations, and while the concept of creation might be present, qanah here points to God’s role as the owner or ruler of creation. Thus, it aligns with the context of God’s sovereign rule rather than directly implying creation from nothing. Qanah in Genesis 14:19 can mean "possessor" without negating God’s role as creator, and the two concepts complement each other rather than contradict.
You accuse me of not knowing when to apply Greek or Hebrew grammatical concepts. However, I’ve already made it clear that double accusatives in Greek and Hebrew operate under different linguistic rules. I pointed out that Erickson’s article on double accusatives is about Greek syntax, and I wasn’t trying to apply Greek rules to a Hebrew text. My argument was centered on Hebrew poetry and how it uses certain structures to convey meaning.
The clarification on double accusatives in Hebrew and the distinction between Hebrew and Greek structures are entirely accurate. The claim that I was misapplying double accusative structures is baseless since I clearly separated the Greek linguistic discussion from the Hebrew context of Proverbs 8:22.