While ἐκ + the genitive might be employed by a writer to "more sharply define" the partitive nuance of the head noun, this construction is by no means required for a particular construction to be partitive (or "wholative"). Daniel B. Wallace in fact shows that the partitive genitive "is a phenomenological use of the genitive that requires the head noun to have a lexical nuance indicating portion" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 84).
Example:
καὶ τὸ δέκατον τῆς πόλεως ἔπεσεν (Revelation 11:13).
There are a number of other factors involved when one is trying to identify which constructions are instances of the partitive genitive. See Wallace, pp. 84-86.
We also find an excellent discussion of the partitive genitive in David Aune's commentary on Revelation (pp. Volume 1: clxxi-clxxiii).
He demonstrates that John uses the partitive genitive as object of the verb in three distinct ways:
(1) With the simple genitive.
(2) With the preposition ἐκ + the genitive.
(3) Coupled with the preposition ἀπό + the genitive.
I also encourage you to consult C. F. D. Moule's discussion concerning the partitive genitive in An Idiom of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Vide pp. 42-43.
One example Moule provides in his short treatment of the partitive genitive is Romans 15:26: κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ.
My contention is that there's no doubt πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως could be an instance of the partitive genitive. Whether one chooses to understand Colossians 1:15 as such is another matter, but the use or non-use of ἐκ + the genitive does not wholly determine whether the construction is partitive or not. The context as well as lexical semantics must decide the question.
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (Colossians 1:15 W-H)
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων (Colossians 1:18 W-H)
Some want to make much of the fact that the Greek preposition ἐκ appears in 1:18, but not in 1:15.
ἐκ in 1:18 could be used to emphasize Jesus' resurrection from the dead, as one friend of mine has suggested; but there is another explanation that may also account for ἐκ without resorting to a Trinitarian alternative.
Petr Pokorny (Colossians. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991, page 84) writes in ftn. 153 concerning 1:18:
"MSS P46, Aleph (first hand), and others omit ἐκ = from. The sentence reads the same way in Rev 1:5. The meaning is not altered thereby."
Revelation 1:5 has ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν. It evidently means the same thing that Colossians' πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν does, as the MSS evidence indicates. It just seems that ἐκ is normally used when the resurrection of Jesus Christ is under consideration. See John 21:14; Rom 4:24; 6:4; 10:7; Col 2:12; Gal 1:1; 1 Pet 1:3, 21.
Meyer's NT Commentary on Colossians 1:18: "comp. Revelation 1:5, where the partitive genitive τῶν νεκρ. (not ἐκ. τ. ν.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially different."
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P46
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/
ReplyDeletehttp://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/papyrus-p46-colossians-116-20.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P46_Mich
ReplyDeleteThis is the relevant fragment.
Thanks, Duncan. So glad that we have these papyri online, and I've visited the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin before. One of my most cherished memories.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Edgar
Many thanks Edgar for such excellent help and availability and thanks also to Duncan for the link.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite welcome, Omar. Best to you.
ReplyDeleteHi Edgar, do you have information on Acts 3:15 and the word ἀρχηγὸν translated by Principal Agent?
ReplyDeleteIf you could also give me some lexical about this translation
Thanks in advance
Omar,
ReplyDeletehere is something that a friend researched and wrote. I hope this material assists you:
Friberg Greek Lexicon: 3719 avrchgo,j, ou, o` (1) strictly one who goes first on the path; hence leader, prince, pioneer (HE 2.10); (2) as one who causes something to begin, originator, founder, initiator (HE 12.2)
United Bible Society: 895 avrchgo,j , ou/ m leader, pioneer, founder, originator
Louw Nida: 774 avrchgo,j
avrchgo,j, avrchgo,n, adjective, leading, furnishing the first cause or occasion: Euripides, Hipp. 881; Plato, Crat., p. 401 d.; chiefly used as a substantive, o`, h`, avrchgo,j (avrch, and a;gw);
Thayer's: 1. the chief leader, prince: of Christ, Acts 5:31; (Aeschylus Ag. 259; Thucydides 1, 132;. The Septuagint Isa. 3:5f; 2 Chr. 23:14, and often).
2. "one that takes the lead in anything (1 Macc. 10:47, avrchgo,j lo,gwn eivrhnikw/n) and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter": th/j pi,stewj, of Christ, Heb. 12:2 (who in the prominence of his faith far surpassed the examples of faith commemorated in Heb. 11) (others bring this under the next head; yet cf. Kurtz at the passage). So avrchgo,j a`marti,aj, Micah 1:13; zh,louj, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 14, 1; th/j sta,sewj kai, dicostasi,aj, ibid. 51, 1; th/j avpostasiaj, of the devil, Irenaeus 4, 40, 1; toiauthj filosofi,aj, of Thales, Aristotle, met. 1, 3, 7 (p. 983{b} 20). Hence,
3. the author: Acts 3:15; th/j swthri,aj, Heb. 2:10. (Often so in secular authors: tw/n pa,ntwn, of God (Plato) Tim. Locr., p. 96 c.; tou/ ge,nouj tw/n avnqrw,pwn, of God, Diodorus 5, 72; avrchgo,j kai, ai;tioj, leader and author, are often joined, as Polybius 1, 66, 10; Herodian, 2, 6, 22 (14, Bekker edition)). Cf. Bleek on Heb. vol. ii. 1, p. 301f.*
Strong;s :747 archegos {ar-khay-gos'}
Meaning: 1) the chief leader, prince 1a) of Christ 2) one that takes the lead in any thing and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter, pioneer 3) the author
Origin: from 746 and 71; TDNT - 1:487,81; adj
Usage: AV - prince 2, captain 1, author 1; 4
How do you respond to a trinitarian that says the partitive genitive in Colossians is an assumption and that it is a Genitive subordination. How do you refute that?
ReplyDeleteIt's not used in a Partitive sense though, you're inferring that, it could be a genitive of comparison, which would exclude the prōtotokos from the same, it could be a genitive of place, defining the sphere of the firstborn’s authority, also "of" and "over" isn't in the grammar to make him part of the noun governing it, where exactly are you getting this from?
Many scholars are in favor of the comparative genitive view. Dr. Grillmeier writes concerning the passage saying: "It is used to describe the preeminent position of Christ in the whole world, therefore prōtotokos should not be read as a temporal definition"
“My friend, Frank, took me to the airport.” In the latter, it is clear that my friend and Frank are one and the same person. If, on the other hand, I would have said, “My friend and Frank took me to the airport” (separating “”My friend” and “Frank” with a conjunction), it would be clear that my friend and Frank are two separate people. By not including “and” or any other conjunction between the two phrases in Colossians 1:15, Paul helps us to see that he is describing the same thing in two different ways. So, to help understand what Paul meant by “firstborn of all creation”, we can consider the meaning of “image of the invisible God.”
They say Genitive of Comparison I believe
Please see the lengthy thoughts here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/question-from-omar-regarding-colossians.html
ReplyDeleteMy own view is that the verse is potentially a partitive genitive, but I understand that there are other possibilities according to Greek grammar. Could it be a genitive of comparison? It could be. But why think that?
There will always be disagreement about this passage because more than grammar is driving the discussions. Besides, grammar alone isn't going to help us ascertain the answer. But we can certainly say that some possibilities are more likely than others. For one thing, look at how "firstborn" is used in the LXX.
As for the example about "My friend" and "Frank," it just doesn't hold up when you consider actual examples in Greek from the NT. Asyndeton (zero anaphora) is found in the NT, but the non-use of a conjunction doesn't necessarily mean that two terms are similar or overlapping. For example, see Galatians 5:19-23 and 1 Cor. 3:12-13. I think 1 Timothy 1:17 is another instance where asyndeton does not indicate that terms mean roughly the same thing.
So why would someone like Ninc insist that Rev 1:5 and col 1:18 mean different things?
ReplyDeleteWhen people like Meyers (a well respected NT scholar) says " a form of conceiving the matter not materially different."
I mean I know why - but want your opinon
(refers to my request for the NA28 variant listing - tho is on Biblehub that is apparently not good enough and I need it for a papier im writing.)
I might have time later in the day to answer. Some of my days now are full with work, shepherding, grading, etc.
ReplyDeletehttps://justpaste.it/bx192
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that the genitive case in Greek *can* function in various ways, including partitive and comparative, the claim that PRŌTOTOKOS PASĒS KTISEŌS “must” be understood partitive is not a necessity. Scholars argue that context and meaning in the broader passage should guide interpretation. Some scholars, as you cited, propose a genitive of comparison. This would exclude Christ from being part of creation, emphasizing His preeminence or authority over creation. This reading aligns with Colossians 1:16-17, where Christ is clearly described as the agent of the creation of all things, including both the visible and invisible.
The firstborn title often refers to preeminence rather than chronological creation. In Jewish and biblical contexts, "firstborn" often signifies rank and status, not literal birth order. The term "firstborn" used elsewhere in Scripture, like Psalm 89:27, refers to authority and prominence.
The argument that ἐκ ("from") in Colossians 1:18 highlights Jesus' origin from the dead, but its absence in 1:15 means Jesus is part of creation, is problematic. The context of Colossians 1:15-16 shows that Christ is distinct from creation because He is the Creator. The lack of ἐκ in Colossians 1:15 does not prove partitive force but points to Christ’s role as preeminent, not included within creation.
The broader theological context in Colossians presents Christ as the Creator, not as a creature. The use of "firstborn" in verse 18 emphasizes preeminence in resurrection, further highlighting His divine authority and role in both creation and redemption.
The comparison with asyndeton in the NT is irrelevant here. Whether Paul uses a conjunction or not doesn’t affect the interpretation of PRŌTOTOKOS PASĒS KTISEŌS as referring to Christ’s preeminence over all creation. The absence of conjunctions does not force a partitive interpretation.
Answer me this Ninc, without copy-paste rubbish, without excuses or explanation - on pure linguistical grounds:
ReplyDeleteWhy would a scribe see fit in BOTH Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 to omit or add "ek" (respectively) if they did not mean the exact same thing?
the 3 scholars Edgar cites in the OP say it means the same.
Commentators on Biblehub say it means the same.
Paul even clears up what he means in Corin when he calls Christ "The Firstfruits" indicating temporal priority and in Acts it also says he is the first (protos) to be resurrected.
A.T Robertson says it means the same.
Who are you to go against these people? Why should I believe you over them? your a minority here. (infact the only catholic I know, I know about 8 - Who try to omit one of the meanings)
If you think you have a point please submit an essay for acedemic peer review.. (I would love to see actaul Greek experts opinions on this (no offense Edgar))
" Psalm 89:27, refers to authority and prominence." - tell me, was Christ "placed" as Firstborn of all creation? No, no such word exists
Was the One "placed" as Firstborn also himself a King, yes he was part of the group, the group being "Kings".
just like the Firstborn of the poor is not a descendant of the poor, but the poorest person (lxx )i.e First in terms of priority.
Was the king "First" temporally in some sense? ironically yes
"The argument that ἐκ ("from") in Colossians 1:18 highlights Jesus' origin from the dead, but its absence in 1:15 means Jesus is part of creation, is problematic." - only in your eyes.. because you refuse to believe it, on ligustical grounds - I am right.
Did the dead ressuect Jesus, no - but he is the First to be resurrected to eternal life (as Acts says)
What happens if we change the passive verb to active Ninc?
I want someone like Edgar to confirm but im pretty sure we dont get Christ as the creator.
(Heb 1:10 doesnt count - The verb would naturally be active in a quotation and wouldnt negate Christ only being an intermediatory agent)
Where is Christ explciitly called "Creator" Ninc?
(again no excuses or rubbish - Just one scripture, Like I have done)
"The context of Colossians 1:15-16 shows that Christ is distinct from creation because He is the Creator." - Origen disagrees, so does Justin martyr and Tetullian
Christ is the "agent" or "intermediatory" THROUGH whom The Father created - doesnt make him the creator
Justin says God begot himself a beginning before all creatures doesnt say anything about eternally. OR that he is the creator
Origen says it was the Father who created THROUGH Christ - using Upo and dia in their respective cases for "by" and "through" - never using upo of Christ (OR Wisdom as he deems it)
"Whether Paul uses a conjunction or not doesn’t affect the interpretation of PRŌTOTOKOS PASĒS KTISEŌS as referring to Christ’s preeminence over all creation. The absence of conjunctions does not force a partitive interpretation." - your the one who made it relevant, not I, or Edgar or any other person on this blog, YOU started in with "ek" - I simply did the research and asked the right questions to disprove you. It has backfired totally..
So prototokos twn nekron is not partitive ? - tho commentators and scholars abound basically admit it is..
Thanks Edgar - Thats all I have too say on this subject to Ninc, will look back for your answer.
The use of EK in Colossians 1:18 and its absence in 1:15 should not be taken as a decisive factor implying a partitive relationship in one and not the other. When EK is used in Colossians 1:18 ("firstborn FROM the dead"), it indeed clarifies that Christ is the first to rise from the dead, but this does not demand a similar understanding in Colossians 1:15. In verse 15, PRŌTOTOKOS PASĒS KTISEŌS operates within a context describing Christ’s supremacy over creation—not his inclusion in it.
ReplyDeleteConsiderations in ancient Greek literature also show that while EK *sometimes* clarifies membership in a group, its absence does not automatically signify partitive force. Instead, context drives interpretation. In Colossians 1:15, Paul’s immediate reference to Christ as the active agent through whom creation exists (Colossians 1:16) positions Christ outside the created order, with PRŌTOTOKOS implying preeminence over all creation rather than His temporal sequence within it.
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, "firstborn" is commonly used to signify rank and status rather than merely temporal priority. The title often indicates a special position of authority or honor, regardless of chronological birth. Psalm 89:27, which refers to David as "firstborn" despite him being the youngest son of Jesse, is a prime example of this. Here, "firstborn" is used to denote status and authority, establishing David as preeminent among kings without suggesting that he was the literal first king.
Similarly, Paul’s use of PRŌTOTOKOS in Colossians 1:15 should be interpreted within this framework of preeminence. His purpose is to emphasize Christ’s rank as supreme over all creation, not to indicate that Christ is part of the created order.
The immediate context in Colossians 1:15-20 supports the interpretation of Christ as distinct from creation. In verse 16, Paul specifies that "all things were created by Him and for Him," indicating that Christ is the agent of creation. This language is consistent with descriptions of divine agency and authority, emphasizing that Christ is the one through whom and for whom all things exist.
If Paul had intended to convey that Christ was part of creation, he would not likely position Him as the means of all creation’s existence. Additionally, the terms “visible and invisible” and “thrones or powers” emphasize Christ’s authority over every realm, supporting the interpretation that PRŌTOTOKOS denotes Christ’s preeminence rather than His inclusion within the created order.
Regarding early theologians, it’s true that Origen and Tertullian at times described Christ as an agent and mediator through whom creation occurred. However, their views should be understood within the developing framework of Trinitarian theology, which was clarified in later councils. Additionally, many early church writers, including Ignatius and later Athanasius, understood PRŌTOTOKOS in terms of Christ’s supremacy and eternality rather than a temporal or partitive interpretation. The historical consensus of the church from the Council of Nicaea onward affirms Christ as co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
The use of "ἐκ" in Colossians 1:18 and its absence in Revelation 1:5 does not imply they "must mean the exact same thing." The presence or absence of "ἐκ" serves specific contextual purposes in each passage. In Colossians 1:18, "ἐκ" emphasizes Christ's emergence from among the dead as the first resurrected to eternal life, whereas Revelation 1:5 uses a different structure to emphasize His status without focusing on the literal departure from death. Scribal variations in ancient manuscripts can often reflect efforts to clarify meaning, accommodate theological emphasis, or harmonize passages, but they don’t conclusively indicate identical meanings.
ReplyDeleteIt’s crucial to understand that scholarly consensus can vary widely over time and that theological and linguistic interpretations are open to debate. The claim that "many scholars agree" doesn’t inherently validate an interpretation, especially in areas of theology where minority views are often rigorously defended with sound evidence. Additionally, numerous Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars hold that "πρωτότοκος" (firstborn) in Colossians 1:15 primarily signifies preeminence rather than partitive inclusion within creation. This interpretation is supported by the immediate context where Christ is described as Creator, implying His authority over, rather than inclusion within, creation (Colossians 1:16-17).
The argument that "Christ is merely an intermediary" fails to account for the full range of biblical evidence and theological interpretation. The context of Colossians 1:16 ("all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him") places Christ in a role of direct creative authority. The phrase "in Him" (ἐν αὐτῷ) indicates that creation exists within His scope and purpose, pointing to a unique relationship as the Creator. While Christ is indeed described as acting with God the Father, the New Testament presents this agency as part of His divine role within the Trinitarian relationship rather than as a mere intermediary.
Early Church Fathers such as Origen, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian expressed nuanced views on the relationship between Christ and creation, but their language reflects the developing understanding of Christ’s divinity. They did not possess the precise Trinitarian vocabulary established later at Nicaea. Origen, for instance, describes Christ as eternally generated (not created) by the Father, and Justin speaks of Christ as preexistent, a view that aligns with the Trinitarian understanding of Christ as eternally divine and not part of creation.
In Colossians 1:18, "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (firstborn from the dead) signifies Christ’s unique status as the first to rise to eternal life, inaugurating the resurrection. This use is distinct from the genitive in Colossians 1:15, which denotes preeminence over all creation, not inclusion in it. Recognized Greek grammar does not require a partitive interpretation for PRŌTOTOKOS PASĒS KTISEŌS in Colossians 1:15, and alternative views like genitive of subordination or comparison remain more contextually appropriate given Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s supreme authority.
The appearance or omission of "ἐκ" in certain manuscripts (as noted in manuscripts like P46 and Aleph) highlights typical scribal variations without necessarily altering theological meaning. In Colossians 1:18, "ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" emphasizes Christ’s resurrection from among the dead as the first to rise to eternal life, which underscores His preeminence in resurrection rather than inclusion within creation.
ReplyDeleteMeyer’s commentary and others argue that the partitive sense of "τῶν νεκρῶν" without "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 expresses similar meaning, focusing on Christ’s status over the dead. This does not imply that Colossians 1:15—where "ἐκ" is absent—requires a partitive reading, nor that Christ is part of creation.
The grammar and context in Colossians 1:15–18, where Christ is described as the creator and sustainer of "all things," aligns with the interpretation of "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" as denoting supremacy over creation, not partitive inclusion. The lack of "ἐκ" here supports the idea that this phrase signifies Christ's preeminent status rather than implying He is part of creation.
"Answer me this Ninc, without copy-paste rubbish, without excuses or explanation - on pure linguistical grounds:
ReplyDeleteWhy would a scribe see fit in BOTH Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 to omit or add "ek" (respectively) if they did not mean the exact same thing?" - can you do this please... all I have spent th last 5 mins of my life is reading copy-paste rubbish - ANSWER the question please
"Meyer’s commentary and others argue that the partitive sense of "τῶν νεκρῶν" without "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 expresses similar meaning, focusing on Christ’s status over the dead. " - you sure about that? A.T Robertson acknowledges the First ressurected to eternal life meaning aswell (Acts 26:23)
ReplyDeleteThere is no linguistical justification to what you are saying :) you are just desperate, everyone can see it
and this "framework" you keep going on about is one you have invented for the ancients - it is not consistent with my finding from other trinitarian scholars and academics - so again I think you arent being 100% straight up (I will avoid my accusation to show my massive respect for Edgar and so he doesn't ban from his blog- but I personally still hold that sentiment towards you, until proven otherwise)
With all due respect Edgar, I do not mean to overstep and am not one to advocating banning just anyone because I disagree with them - but I agree with (I believe) JLM please ban Ninc from your blog - they do nothing but copy-paste (or AI generate text, Im unclear atm - i can find the (almost)exact same statements made on many JW leaning blogs with a reverse Google search of some of the statements - I would strongly advise doing the same if you have time) without actaully answering any question directed at them properly or assuming Catholic theology is correct.
ReplyDeleteand disrespecting modern scholarship to the hilt without submitting their own work for peer review (While that is not what this is all about) it ironic that Ninc claims to always be in the right, but the actaul experts in the field have not come to same conclusions and infact have come to the opposite
(just look at this blog entry for instance and Nincs claims)
Ninc: "Meyer’s commentary ... argue that the partitive sense of "τῶν νεκρῶν" without "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 expresses similar meaning, focusing on Christ’s status over the dead. "
Your original post: "comp. Revelation 1:5, where the partitive genitive τῶν νεκρ. (not ἐκ. τ. ν.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially different."
How do you marry these two statements up - unless I misunderstand Meyers statement - He takes the temporal and pre-eminece meaning of the two statements to mean the exact same things, and never specifies whether one or the other apply
and you have to take the temporal meaning because of Pauls other usage and the usage of Firstborn always having some sort of temporal priority
(and quite frankly Im sick of the misleaing claims, its just peeving me off)
"The grammar and context in Colossians 1:15–18, where Christ is described as the creator and sustainer of "all things,"" - Where is the word "creator used of Christ here Ninc?"
ReplyDeleteThe presence of "ἐκ" in Colossians 1:18 but not in Revelation 1:5 does not imply they mean the "exact same thing." In Greek, "ἐκ" serves to emphasize origin specifically from a set, as in "firstborn from among the dead" in Colossians 1:18, denoting Jesus as the first to rise to eternal life, inaugurating the resurrection. In contrast, the absence of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 does not necessitate a partitive interpretation; instead, it implies Christ’s status of supremacy over the dead.
ReplyDeleteThe scribe could have made a mistake for many reasons, and to assume that it meant the same thing to him is nothing more than speculation.
Ancient Greek usage varies significantly based on context. The presence or absence of "ἐκ" shifts the nuance but doesn’t necessarily change the entire meaning. Grammatically, "ἐκ" in Colossians 1:18 specifies source or emergence from within a group (i.e., "the dead"). In Revelation 1:5, however, the focus is on title and authority rather than sequence or origin. This difference aligns with the focus of each passage without necessitating identical meanings for these titles.
Meyer’s commentary indicates that while both texts convey the concept of Jesus’ priority over the dead, this doesn’t mean they use the term in the same way. Colossians 1:18 highlights Christ as "firstborn from the dead," using "ἐκ" to emphasize His pioneering resurrection, whereas Revelation 1:5 refers to His title and preeminence. A.T. Robertson’s recognition of "first resurrected to eternal life" supports the idea that "firstborn" here implies a unique, inaugurated status rather than only a chronological sequence.
Neither Meyer nor Robertson indicates that every instance of "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) mandates a strictly temporal interpretation. Instead, they recognize that πρωτότοκος can indicate status, authority, and rank depending on context. In the case of Colossians, the context strongly suggests preeminence over all creation rather than mere sequential order.
While the explicit term "creator" (κτίστης) is not used in Colossians 1:15–18, the passage attributes creative agency to Christ. Verse 16 states, "For by him all things were created... all things were created through him and for him." The Greek phrasing here uses ἐν and διά to indicate that all creation took place "through" and "for" Him, affirming His direct involvement in creation rather than His inclusion within it.
The context in Colossians 1 consistently depicts Christ as the agent through whom creation occurs, not as a product of creation. The language clearly emphasizes His sovereign role over creation rather than positioning Him as part of it.
you cant do it can you Ninc? You cant just discuss lingustics without bringing theology into it..
ReplyDeleteand your entire statement ignores:
" "comp. Revelation 1:5, where the partitive genitive τῶν νεκρ. (not ἐκ. τ. ν.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially different.""
Meyer literally admits BOTH are partitive genitives and are not "Materially different"
""MSS P46, Aleph (first hand), and others omit ἐκ = from. The sentence reads the same way in Rev 1:5. The meaning is not altered thereby."" - take note of the last 6 words Ninc and repeat them in your head until it sinks in...
"The scribe could have made a mistake for many reasons, and to assume that it meant the same thing to him is nothing more than speculation." - but too do it in both places? The scribe "making a mistake" is nothing more than speculation aswell, this argument doesnt stick - hence I am advocating for your ban
"Neither Meyer nor Robertson indicates that every instance of "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) mandates a strictly temporal interpretation" - I NEVER claimed this, I said they interpreted both ways to mean temporal priority and unique position
But BOTH link Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 and DO NOT comment on the meaning being different like you do, instead either explicitly or imply the meaning is identical.
"A.T. Robertson’s recognition of "first resurrected to eternal life" supports the idea that "firstborn" here implies a unique, inaugurated status rather than only a chronological sequence." - your just in denial (Acts 26:23 - literally idenitical) and obviously refers to chronological sequence...
You have to come up with this reasoning otherwise your whole belief falls apart.
You can be part of creation and still be selected by God to be his agent in it... God can do that if he desires (you cant say he cant, bcause thats untrue)
creative AGENCY and being the creator and 2 totally different things...
ReplyDeleteYou reference Meyer’s statement on Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 1:5, claiming Meyer considers both passages partitive genitives without "material difference." However, Meyer’s commentary does not imply that the two instances demand identical meanings. Meyer observes the structural similarity in the grammar, but he does not conclude that both phrases share the same theological implication. For example, in Revelation 1:5, "firstborn of the dead" highlights Jesus as the inaugural or preeminent one from the dead – the first to be resurrected to eternal life, which represents a unique, authoritative status rather than suggesting He’s merely part of the dead.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of "ἐκ" (from) in specific manuscripts does not force an identical interpretation of Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 1:5. Linguistically, the genitive construction in Colossians ("πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως") does not demand a partitive reading. Grammatically, genitive cases have diverse roles, including possessive, descriptive, and comparative, depending on context.
In Colossians, the surrounding verses (1:16-17) clarify that Christ holds preeminence over creation, as He is described as the agent and sustainer of creation. The absence of "ἐκ" does not make a partitive reading mandatory. Instead, it reflects Jesus’ unique, sovereign role as preeminent over creation, distinct from the created order.
Your interpretation assumes that if two texts use similar grammatical constructions, they must have identical meanings. However, Greek grammar and syntax do not operate on this principle, especially in theological discourse. In Colossians 1:15-17, the context unmistakably emphasizes Christ as the one by whom "all things were created." This language positions Christ as the agent of creation, not as a part of creation. The distinction in Revelation 1:5 – where Christ is called the "firstborn of the dead" – emphasizes His unique resurrection as the first to eternal life, without suggesting He belongs among the dead as a created entity.
Robertson does not reduce "firstborn" to mere temporal sequence in Colossians. Instead, he views it as indicating preeminence, denoting Christ’s supreme authority over creation. In Acts 26:23, where Jesus is referred to as "the first to rise from the dead," the phrase does not conflict with Colossians 1:15 but rather complements the understanding that Christ holds the supreme position in creation and resurrection.
You argue that "creative agency and being the creator are two different things," which is correct in certain contexts. However, in Colossians, Paul emphasizes that "all things were created through Him and for Him" (1:16). This language goes beyond merely attributing agency; it affirms Christ’s active and direct role as Creator. The comprehensive phrases "in Him," "through Him," and "for Him" indicate that He is not merely an intermediary, or a secondary, passive tool, but the ultimate source of all creation.
In Summary:
1. Colossians 1:15’s genitive structure does not mandate a partitive reading, as shown by contextual evidence. Meyer’s and Robertson’s commentaries recognize the distinction in context without concluding identical meanings between Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 1:5.
2. The absence of "ἐκ" in manuscripts does not alter the meaning in a way that makes Christ part of creation.
3. Contextual cues in Colossians emphasize Christ’s unique preeminence and role as Creator, distinct from His role as the "firstborn from the dead" in Revelation, which emphasizes His authority over death.
Your position imposes a rigid linguistic interpretation that doesn’t align with the broader textual and theological context in Colossians, where Christ’s supremacy as Creator and Sovereign over creation is clearly articulated.
* I assume you mean Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5? because I never linked Col 1:15 with Rev 1:5
ReplyDeleteIll note you have suddenly abandoned your scribe "mistake" position - why?
What are the odds the scribes made a mistake in both places where they would more likely want to correlate them? like in other textual variations where smaller changes were made, to seemingly call to mind another verse..
Do you have any evidence this was a "mistake"? any reputable sources that make this claim? any scholarly justification?
any reputable scholar who actually agrees with you?
anything besides seemingly avoiding the inevitable truth that "Ek" is not required for Christ to be apart of creation (as you claimed intially, I can quote you verbatum is I must and link the original thread)
You should note every example in the bible and manuscript variant has atleast one reason.
I can do the above regarding 1 Corin 2:16 and that pretty much proving the Tetra was in the New Testament at some point.. ill admit its not 100% proven but its the only logical explanation to explain the variant. unless you want to call the scribe stupid and not realise the obvious contradiction that he was writing...
(I wont even go into your nomina sacra claims regarding 1 Corin 8:5,6 - Which is another "avoiding the truth" claim)
Why isn't Christ ""placed" as Firstborn of all creation? if he is eternal (catholic meaning) then he should have been "placed" or "made" it
Why is God not called the "Firstborn of all creation" - Why only Christ - The Father being "the source" should also be called this because is he not also pre-eminent? (Which can also just be temporal priority)
quoting myself: "MSS P46, Aleph (first hand), and others omit ἐκ = from. The sentence reads the same way in Rev 1:5. The meaning is not altered thereby."" - take note of the last 6 words Ninc and repeat them in your head until it sinks in...
"2. The absence of "ἐκ" in manuscripts does not alter the meaning in a way that makes Christ part of creation." - Where did you get this from? How can firstborn of the dead mean being part of creation? If you think I meant this, your not actaully reading what I'm saying and doing your normal copy-paste rubbish.
I have plenty of other resources I can use to prove Christ "came into existence" (or begotten)
IDC what term - they are pretty much synonymous anyway.. (pre-nicea, which is what I care about - Nicea is aload of rubbish and not in the least bit biblical)
I have Sirach Cross ref'd with Proverbs 8:22,25,30 in MULTIPLE catholic Bibles, which also link to John 1:1,3 (I think this is more than mere typology)
also for instance here: https://intertextual.bible/text/proverbs-8.1-sirach-24.9
(NInc: "no one ever interpreted[Sirach] this way" - oh really Ninc, you well be unaware then that there are literally HUNDREDS of sources that do interpret it "this way", put proverbs 8:22 Sirach 24:9 into Google books, and see how many of these IDENTIFY Logos and Sophia and link these 2 with John 1:1)
I have other apochrya texts (Which I do not consider canon, but proving that this was widespread (What does "Birthright" mean ninc? look at the first part of the compound word aswell))
I have Atha's own words
Why does Robertson say the Father is "the source" (basically meaning creator) in 1 Corin 8:6? Daniel Wallace makes a similar claim.
"Robertson does not reduce "firstborn" to mere temporal sequence in Colossians." - quoting myself: "I said they interpreted both ways to mean temporal priority and unique position" (from what I can tell)
ReplyDelete"in Revelation 1:5, "firstborn of the dead" highlights Jesus as the inaugural or preeminent one from the dead – the first to be resurrected to eternal life, which represents a unique, authoritative status rather than suggesting He’s merely part of the dead." - literally identical to what Col 1:18 means... "The beginning" is in apposition to Firstborn of the dead (He cant be the First cause, this must mean what Acts 26:23 says)
Here are the verses the NIV cross refs with Acts 26:23 -1Co 15:20, 23; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, 2 of these are written by Paul, twice he calls Christ "Firstfruits" or "First" - Im pretty sure with the apposition in combo with all of that we can deduce this is what Paul meant
"This language goes beyond merely attributing agency; it affirms Christ’s active and direct role as Creator." - then why is the verb passive and not active? (like it EVERYWHERE else, except Heb 1:10 - Which I know you will cling too) Why does Origen (and the Church fathers) not call Christ the creator?
Why does the bible not call Christ "creator"? explicitly? One explicit text would have been nice, as you like to say to Jehovah's Witnesses
anyone can see you are desperate, I can cite hundreds of other commentaries who link these 2 verses and say they practically mean the same thing... I do not believe you one bit..
The claim that P46, Aleph (first hand), and other manuscripts omit "ἐκ" does not support your interpretation. Omissions in manuscripts can result from various factors, such as scribal oversight, differences in translation traditions, or attempts to harmonize verses. Even if some scribes did omit "ἐκ" in specific cases, the theological interpretation of "firstborn" as referring to preeminence or status rather than temporal sequence remains sound and well-supported by context.
ReplyDeleteYou challenge the notion of "preeminence" and equates "firstborn" with temporal priority, asserting that both Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 mean the same thing. However, a distinction must be made. Colossians 1:15 refers to Christ as "firstborn over all creation," emphasizing His authority and sovereignty, rather than His membership within creation. Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 use "firstborn of the dead," and "firstborn from the dead," focusing on His position as the first to rise in a glorified, eternal body, thus holding a unique and preeminent status in resurrection.
Equating these verses disregards the nuances in context and assumes that "firstborn" must always indicate temporal sequence rather than authority or supremacy. This assumption ignores the broader biblical usage where "firstborn" often denotes rank and honor, as seen with King David in Psalm 89:27 and Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9.
The assertion that Christ is not explicitly called "Creator" is inaccurate. While the exact term "Creator" (κτίστης) is not used, Christ’s creative role is clearly described in several passages:
John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This unequivocally attributes creation to Christ.
Colossians 1:16: "For by him all things were created... all things were created through him and for him." The Greek construction emphasizes that Christ is the origin and purpose of creation, aligning Him as Creator, not created.
Hebrews 1:2-3: "Through whom also he made the world." These passages consistently present Christ as the agent and purpose of all creation, underscoring His unique role within the Godhead as Creator.
Hebrews 1:10: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
The reference to Proverbs 8:22 and Sirach 24:9 as "evidence" of Christ's creation misunderstands the poetic and symbolic language used in these texts. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, and while early Christian writers often saw a typological connection between Wisdom and Christ, the text itself does not imply a literal creation of Christ. Instead, it highlights the preexistence and foundational role of Wisdom, paralleling the preexistent, eternal nature of the Logos in Christian theology.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Sirach 24:9 personifies Wisdom without implying Christ's literal creation. The context in Proverbs and Sirach is poetic and metaphorical, not literal. Importantly, the New Testament differentiates Christ’s unique relationship with the Father from the created order, emphasizing His eternal nature and role as Creator.
You imply that Colossians 1:18’s reference to "the beginning" alongside "firstborn from the dead" can only mean temporal priority, ignoring the broader theological framework. Colossians 1:18 uses ARCHĒ to indicate not just the first in a sequence but the origin or source, reinforcing that Christ holds a preeminent and foundational role in both creation and resurrection. In Revelation 1:5, "firstborn from the dead" does not imply that Christ is merely part of creation or the dead; instead, it marks His authority and inaugurates His preeminence in the new, eternal life. The language does not imply that Christ is "created" or "part of creation"; it signifies His unique authority and role as the inaugurator and leader in both life and resurrection.
Your emphasis on passive verbs and Origen’s use of "created" terms ignores the fact that many early Church Fathers were developing a nuanced understanding of the Trinity and Christ's nature. The Fathers, including Origen, sought language to express the mystery of Christ’s eternal generation from the Father, not His creation as a being. Origen, for example, speaks of the Logos as "eternally generated" by the Father, not created as creatures are. His language reflects the early Christian struggle to articulate Christ’s divinity before the formalized Trinitarian doctrine of Nicaea. The use of passive verbs reflects humility and submission within the Godhead, not ontological inferiority or creation.
The argument that pre-Nicene Fathers did not fully grasp Trinitarian concepts overlooks historical development. The early Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Athanasius, progressively articulated the doctrine of the Trinity in response to heresies, which ultimately led to the Nicene Creed. Their writings consistently affirm the Son’s eternal existence and divine nature, despite not having later terminology.
Tum sum up, the assertion that "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 and related passages makes Christ part of creation lacks support from both the immediate context and broader biblical theology. The textual and grammatical details, along with the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine, affirm that Christ is preeminent, not created. The term "firstborn" denotes rank, status, and authority rather than chronological sequence.
That’s a quote from the prongs post regarding P46 - it’s not my words… go argue with the guy who writes that is you think he is wrong.
ReplyDeleteNice excuses - now how about some actual dialogue? Now I’m going to give you nothing but questions to answer so you have no choice but to answer without copy pasting pre scripted garbage
“Firstborn over all creation” - oh this rubbish again… so would you render either col 1;18 or 1:5 the same way firstborn OVER the dead?
Genitives conveniently only mean “over” when it comes to col 1:15, no where else do they mean over except for when authority is clearly in view
There is NO other instance where any bible renders firstborn of with firstborn over
“ You challenge the notion of "preeminence"” - do I? I look back where I quoted myself
What does that quote say Ninc?
Why in Sirach does Wisdom go on about “my creator” similar to how in Rev Christ calls the father “my God”
Where do I negate his direct on creation involvement Ninc? Please quote me verbatim where I say Christ want involved in creation.
We will even get a second opinion if you are going to argue the meaning to MY OWN words
You argue that translating Colossians 1:15 as “firstborn over all creation” lacks precedent since genitives don’t typically imply “over.” However, in Colossians 1:15, context supports a preeminence reading, where “firstborn” denotes Christ’s supremacy in creation rather than His inclusion within it. Scriptural usage of “firstborn” (e.g., Psalm 89:27 for David) often signifies rank or authority, not merely birth order. The phrase "over all creation" captures the intended supremacy and aligns with Christ’s role as creator in Colossians 1:16-17.
DeleteYou question why translations don’t render “firstborn from the dead” similarly as “over the dead.” In addition to the fact that there is an "ek" in v18, while v15 does not have it, the context does change the nuance, Colossians 1:18’s emphasis is on Christ’s role as the first to be resurrected, indicating His unique, pioneering status. Unlike “firstborn from the dead,” Colossians 1:15 contextualizes “firstborn” alongside His role as creator, pointing toward authority over creation rather than temporal placement.
The term "firstborn" can signify rank and authority, as demonstrated in Colossians 1:15, where the context of verses 16-17 confirms Christ’s supremacy and creative authority over all creation. This interpretation is specific to this context and is linguistically valid, even if rare in other passages. In Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, “firstborn of the dead” pertains to Christ’s resurrection as the first to rise to eternal life. The preeminence here highlights His role as the inaugural, foundational figure in the resurrection, not His subordination to the dead.
Your suggestion that "firstborn over" is a forced reading fails to account for the flexibility of the Greek genitive, which is often context-dependent and can denote a wide range of relationships, including authority, not merely partitive inclusion.
The genitive in Greek is versatile and context-driven, which is why translations differ based on the surrounding text. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" is best understood within the immediate context of verses 16-17, where Paul describes Christ as the agent of creation, “by whom all things were created.” Given this description, translating "firstborn of all creation" with a sense of authority or preeminence is reasonable and contextually justified here, even if this approach isn’t standard across all instances of “firstborn.”
In Sirach, the personification of Wisdom is poetic, meant to represent the mind and plan of God in a way that connects with human understanding. Sirach is not a doctrinal statement about Christ’s nature but uses language reflecting God’s creative work and divine wisdom. Hence Sirach’s language is metaphorical, personifying Wisdom to communicate the divine origin of order and insight. Just as Proverbs 8:22 poetically depicts Wisdom’s relationship with God, it does not literally define the ontological nature of Christ but rather serves as a prefiguration. The New Testament consistently affirms Christ as distinct from creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), countering any implication of His creation.
DeleteChrist referring to the Father as "my God" in Revelation speaks to His incarnational role, reflecting His humanity as well as His submission to the Father in the economic Trinity. This does not diminish His divine essence or imply a subordinate origin; instead, it acknowledges the relationship between the Father and Son within the incarnational context.
Your response implies that I inaccurately interpreted your position on Christ’s role in creation. If I misrepresented this, the clarification strengthens the argument: Colossians 1:16 indeed positions Christ as the active agent in creation, supporting His divine authority rather than inclusion within creation. This agency reaffirms His supreme position as Creator, not a member of the created order.
Your questions aim to uncover whether my responses are merely repeated or mechanistic. However, each point made here directly addresses the theological, linguistic, and contextual basis for understanding Colossians 1:15. The context-driven interpretation that gives authority or preeminence to “firstborn” in this instance is not an excuse but a careful, text-specific understanding.
Block this comment if this is too personal Edgar - I am autistic, so I know the answer to this question and so will Ninc if his messages are not just AI
ReplyDeletejust out of curiosity Ninc once said he has Asperger’s
Alright - assuming this is the truth and not an excuse to get around the AI accusation
Ninc this question should be easy to answer for you: do you think in words or pictures?
You won’t find the answer on the internet .. or in an Ai ( I have checked) I have seen multiple specialists about this sort of thing so I know the answer they have NEVER met an exception to this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"'Im like Spock, so I don't respond to your personal and snarky comments." - I mean you responded to this one... I dont expect a responce to the others because they are true... they don't need a response
ReplyDeleteIn waiting on my verbatum quotes..
ReplyDelete"Christ referring to the Father as "my God" in Revelation speaks to His incarnational role" - yet he was in his "heavenly" form? and in John he says to Mary "I am going to my father and our father and my God and your God" - if he meant these in 2 different sesne, it certainly wasnt made self evident to the reader
"Just as Proverbs 8:22 poetically depicts Wisdom’s relationship with God, it does not literally define the ontological nature of Christ" - except for Proverbs 8;25 I suppose?
Why dont they just use "begot" everytime instead of Ktizo? if you observe 23 -25 are temporal markers for 22 and all use a verb for "coming into existence"
The creeds (Atha and whoever else) are WRONG.. and can you prove its only poetical language
psalms 90:2 is poetical language - but closely corresponds to what literally happens
Observse "Before the mountains were born" quite literally means before they were created
and why does a combo of Mattg and Luke make a literal identification?
or Origen saying Christ is not by nature a different person to Wisdom?
I think you using this "estin" meaning to your advantage - Where did Atha dispute a literal identification? If it wasnt literal why try to change it to the incarnation?
The Witnesses only use it when literal identifcation makes no sense - i.e the bread being Jesus' literal flesh, that would have been canobolism..)
+ the link I pasted above would disagree, again searching Google books most reputable sources disagree with you, and catholic bibles...
How do you interpret Pauls saying Christ is the Wisdom of God?
Christs means the Wisdom of God?
Christ represents the Wisdom of God?
neither makes since - and the answering islam blog author tried that one on Stafford years ago and got crushed in 2 sentences.
"since the Power of God of is said to be eternal (somewhere in Romans, he doesnt provide a citaion) why do you not conclude Wisdom is"
Stafford "because the power of God is never personified as Wisdom is in the bible... so there is no need to go looking...."
- I can link to this specific exchange if you want the source,
"In addition to the fact that there is an "ek" in v18" - Okay - you missed Rev 1:5 tho
"The preeminence here highlights His role as the inaugural, foundational figure in the resurrection, not His subordination to the dead." - 1) it could mean both literal temporal and sovreign (the interpretation Witnesses go by, and I prefer) 2- Christ is not "suborditnate to the dead" rather the genitive shows he was part of the dead
(The others called firstborn (I have already answered about psalms) ar temporally first in some form)
e.g Jer. 7:12 - answers your question regarding Ephraim (or however you spell it) temporal priority of some sort...
There is another temporal explanation - but its "disputed" as too which one - BOTH are temporal priority tho.
"including authority" - What context does it denote authority? I know of one where its universally agreed to be rendered "over"
King of the people could be rendered King over the people - but the King is not exempt from being a person.
"Your questions aim to uncover whether my responses are merely repeated or mechanistic." - Nope - the intendtion is get you to actaully answer properly in a conscise comment rather than 3 comments worth of theological garbage (of which for the 100th I DO NOT care for)- Like others I have limited time
ReplyDeleteand have a life. Ill also reverse google search your answers to see if you have pasted them anywhere else, if you have, it proves you are not actaully doing proper dialouge. I know you have been rather insulting to one of Edgars sidebar blogs - hence my rhetoric towards you. specifially: E-homoreligiosus on his Collection of quotes post
How do I know this? reverse google searching one of your paste it's (or whatever its called) altering a few words here and there. Your posts are pretty standard and use common phrases or sentencing structure so its not hard to track down where you have been, I could produce a list, but wont due to obvious privacy reasons.
You also couldnt resist answering Kaz (or Sean) tho he asked you not too...
"Christ referring to the Father as 'my God' in Revelation" - Your argument that Christ's use of “my God” in both His incarnate and heavenly states implies His (ontological) subordination overlooks the incarnational theology that early Christian texts often employ. The resurrected and ascended Christ did not cease to be human, the hypostatic union was established at the Incarnation and will never cease. After His resurrection, Jesus retains His identity as both fully divine and fully human. In John 20:17, He speaks to Mary from the perspective of His humanity, emphasizing His relational role with the Father. This is not a denial of His divinity but rather an affirmation of the unique relationship within the Godhead, as shown throughout Scripture (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11).
ReplyDeleteWhile Christ indeed addresses the Father as "my God" in both earthly (John 20:17) and heavenly (Revelation 3:12) contexts, this does not denote ontological inferiority. Instead, it aligns with His unique role within the economic Trinity, where the Son’s mission is distinguished by His relational role to the Father and His role in salvation history, not by inferiority of essence. The resurrected and ascended Christ did not cease to be human, the hypostatic unity was established at the Incarnation and will never cease.
Further, the phrase “my God” emphasizes the relational aspect between the Father and the Son as part of His incarnate work (Philippians 2:6-8). Therefore, the titles Christ uses reflect His role and submission to the Father’s salvific plan, not His essential nature or status as created.
Your claim that Proverbs 8:22–25 is not merely poetic, but indicative of Wisdom’s literal creation, misinterprets the Hebrew word QANAH, which can mean "acquired" or "brought forth," not necessarily "created" or “made”. The text does not refer to the literal creation of a being but rather the establishment of divine wisdom in creation. Ancient Jewish and early Christian interpretations of QANAH often viewed it as “possessed” or “begotten” to underscore Wisdom’s preexistent role alongside God. This term does not require a literal creation in time; rather, it portrays Wisdom as integral to God’s creation process.
Early Christians, including Origen and Athanasius, saw Christ as the Logos (Word) or Divine Wisdom, eternally “begotten” of the Father. Athanasius explicitly rejected the idea that Wisdom (Logos) had a temporal beginning, asserting instead that Wisdom is eternally with God, derived from the Father’s essence. So the Church Fathers interpreted Wisdom as pointing TYPOLOGICALLY to Christ but did not consider this text to imply that He was a created being.
You claim Proverbs 8:22-25 uses temporal language, indicating creation. However, the text is poetic, personifying Wisdom to express divine attributes. “KTIZO” (create) in this context refers to a figurative act of divine order, not literal creation of a being. Proverbs 8’s usage of “creation” verbs (e.g., “KTIZO”) reflects its poetic context, which speaks to Wisdom’s role in ordering the world. The use of “begotten” vs. “created” in theological discussions reflects nuanced language to communicate the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father. Church councils like Nicaea clarified these terms, emphasizing the Son’s eternal generation („begotten, not made”) to counter Arian interpretations that Jesus was merely created. Dismissing the creeds as “wrong” ignores their historical role in unifying Christian belief.
The Hebrew Scriptures and Greek Septuagint are primarily addressing human understanding, and thus, verbs like “create” are occasionally applied metaphorically. Psalms and Proverbs use figurative language extensively to communicate profound truths. In Proverbs, Wisdom is personified, but the term KTIZO in Greek primarily means to "establish" or "appoint" in this context. Wisdom, as represented in Proverbs 8, indicates a figurative “coming forth,” symbolic of God’s own understanding and planning, which later Christologically points to the Son’s relationship with the Father.
You note that Psalm 90:2 is poetic but correlates with literal events, arguing that Proverbs 8 should be taken similarly. However, even in poetry with literal implications, metaphor and personification play central roles in conveying deeper truths. Proverbs’ poetic personification of Wisdom does not require a literal interpretation of Wisdom’s origin as creation, especially when later Scriptures present Christ as preexistent and uncreated (e.g., John 1:1-3).
ReplyDeleteEarly Christians interpreted this passage typologically, not as evidence of Christ’s literal creation. Analogously, Psalm 90:2 uses figurative language for creation but doesn’t imply direct ontology. The Fathers viewed Wisdom as prefiguring Christ’s eternal generation, not His creation (e.g., Athanasius). Origen indeed links Christ with divine Wisdom, but he also emphasizes that Christ is eternally begotten, not made. His writings must be read in light of early theological development, where terms like “Wisdom” were employed to describe Christ’s eternal nature in contrast to creation. Origen’s focus was on maintaining the distinction between the eternal Logos and created beings, even when using poetic language from Proverbs.
You critique the use of “ESTIN” (is) and argue that a literal identification is necessary. However, theological language often utilizes metaphor and analogy to describe divine mysteries. Athanasius and later Church Fathers clarified that terms like "Wisdom" in Proverbs prefigure Christ’s relationship with the Father without necessitating a literal interpretation of creation. Using figurative language does not diminish the doctrinal clarity provided by later theological reflections. Have you even heard about Asyndeton?
The idea that the early Church Fathers moved away from literal interpretations of Wisdom as a created entity is a response to Arianism and other heresies. The early councils were not “changing” the interpretation but rather safeguarding the truth about Christ’s divine nature against misinterpretations that threatened the core of Christian doctrine.
The use of PROTOTOKOS in Colossians 1:15 signifies preeminence rather than temporal priority. In Psalm 89:27, David is named "firstborn" despite not being the oldest, indicating his rank and not his birth order. Likewise, "firstborn" over all creation emphasizes Christ’s sovereignty and priority, not His being created. While "firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 includes temporal priority in resurrection, it does not imply temporal origin within creation.
You argue that the genitive in Colossians cannot denote “over” unless authority is explicitly mentioned. However, biblical Greek allows for flexibility in interpreting genitive relationships based on context. In Colossians, the immediate context of Christ’s role in creation (v. 16) naturally implies a status of supremacy and rule, fitting the interpretation of “over all creation.”
The use of “EK” in Colossians 1:18, “firstborn from (EK) the dead,” emphasizes His emergence from death, inaugurating resurrection, and establishing authority over it. In Revelation 1:5, while “EK” does not appear, the preeminence over the dead is still clear. The absence of “EK” does not alter Christ’s sovereignty over death, but rather the literary emphasis—His title of “firstborn” denotes status in both passages without partitive implication. The parallel doesn’t necessitate temporal priority alone, as it signifies Christ’s inaugurating role in resurrection.
You mention that there are limited contexts where “firstborn” clearly denotes authority. In biblical and Jewish tradition, however, the “firstborn” commonly denotes authority, rank, or inheritance, as with David in Psalm 89:27 and Israel in Exodus 4:22. The term is used in Colossians 1:15 to highlight Christ’s preeminence and supremacy over all creation. David, the youngest son, is called "firstborn" due to his royal preeminence. Similarly, Ephraim's “firstborn” status signifies his chosen rank over Manasseh, aligning with the biblical theme of firstborn as a title of supremacy.
ReplyDeleteYour argument suggests that “firstborn of all creation” implies inclusion within creation; however, the genitive case in Greek functions flexibly and contextually. Colossians 1:15 uses the genitive to emphasize supremacy, as in titles like “Lord of lords.” The phrase PROTOTOKOS PASES KTISEOS can grammatically and contextually denote Christ’s rank over creation, not partitive inclusion.
The term “firstborn” in some instances (e.g., Jeremiah 7:12) may involve temporal elements, but this does not necessitate a purely temporal interpretation in all cases, such as Colossians 1:15. The context of Christ’s role in creation allows for a reading that emphasizes His supremacy rather than His chronological sequence as a created being. So it’s the context of Colossians 1:15-20 what establishes Christ's supremacy over creation, not mere membership within it. The use of "firstborn" signifies authority, as Colossians 1:16-17 describes Him as the creator and sustainer of all things. When Paul states that "all things were created through Him and for Him," he emphasizes Christ’s sovereignty, aligning with traditional Christian doctrine that affirms His eternal and divine nature.
Your example that a “King of the people” remains part of the people does not necessarily translate to Colossians 1:15, where Christ is portrayed as distinct from creation by virtue of being its creator. The analogy of kingship does not fully apply because the passage emphasizes Christ’s creative agency and preexistence, which sets Him apart from created beings.
Iv reversed google searched some of this Edgar - can confirm it’s copy pasted but slightly altered.
ReplyDeleteI’m not interested in your rubbish Ninc either answer the question with short concise answers that are too the point and don’t manipulate what I said or don’t answer me at all ( and I will take Sean’s stance)
“ arguing that Proverbs 8 should be taken similarly.” - where? Direct quote please
“ The use of “begotten” vs. “created” in theological discussions reflects nuanced language to communicate the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father. Church councils like Nicaea clarified these terms, emphasizing the Son’s eternal generation („begotten, not made”) ” - I don’t give a crap about these councils… so you can stop giving me that rubbish.
Prov 8:22 is not a double accusative as the temporal markers you are looking for are in 23-25
Where the verbs created, established, appointed and begotten all mean the same thing.
Deut 32 where Israel is also begotten by God.
For the last time:
“ In Psalm 89:27, David is named "firstborn" despite not being the oldest” - don’t know how many times I have to address this
- David was a king ( part of the group)
- he was temporaly first in a certain sense.
“ Origen indeed links Christ with divine Wisdom, but he also emphasizes that Christ is eternally begotten, not made. His writings must be read in light of early theological development, where terms like “Wisdom” were employed to describe Christ’s eternal nature in contrast to creation. Origen’s focus was on maintaining the distinction” - he literally establishes the eternal generation from prov 8:25
You insist this is typology but from reading the church fathers and other ancient texts it doesn’t seem likely
Due to the following reasons:
Atha trying to say 8:22-30 doesnt refer to creation ( which is interesting considering others use in the creation narrative correlating it with j 1:3)
Rev 3:14 has an interesting variant looks at codex sin where creation is replaced with church
This cannot just be put down to an error
The words are to different
So the question comes to mind: Why was it changed?
“ The use of “EK” in Colossians 1:18, “firstborn from (EK) the dead,” emphasizes His emergence from death, inaugurating resurrection, and establishing authority over it. In Revelation 1:5, while “EK” does not appear, ”- was he not also the first to be resurrected to eternal life as Paul states?
So both meanings are to be applied..
same with firstborn of the world
Temporally God is first
God is also pre-eminent
Both apply..
temporally Christ was the first to be raised
Christ is also pre- eminent over the dead
Both apply ( with or without ek)
You’re asking for a direct quote indicating that I’m treating Proverbs 8 in the same way as Psalm 90. The point being made here is that both passages employ poetic and metaphorical language to convey deep theological truths. Proverbs 8’s portrayal of Wisdom is a personification intended to express God’s eternal wisdom and order, not a literal creation of Wisdom as a being. In Psalm 90:2, while metaphorical language is used to depict creation, this does not imply that every element must be understood literally, especially when the context is poetic.
DeleteYou may disregard the councils, but they were crucial in clarifying theological language in early Christianity. Their discussions on terms like "begotten, not made" were designed to address the exact issue you raise with Proverbs 8:22. The term "begotten" was selected specifically to distinguish Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father from temporal creation. The councils addressed early misinterpretations that conflated "begotten" with "created" in a temporal sense, affirming instead that the Son is eternally generated, not made as part of creation. Ignoring this historical context overlooks centuries of linguistic and theological refinement by early Christians who understood and defended these terms within their scriptural framework.
Your insistence that Proverbs 8:22 uses “created” in a literal sense ignores how this passage has been understood as a personification of Wisdom in Jewish and early Christian thought. The terms "created," "established," "appointed," and "begotten" in verses 23-25 reflect various poetic ways of expressing the divine order through Wisdom, not a literal creation. The focus here is on God’s eternal wisdom in creation, with Wisdom personified as an agent through which creation operates, aligning with early interpretations that saw this passage as symbolic rather than literal.
You argue that David was "temporally first in a certain sense" because he was the first king of his line. However, this is a misunderstanding. David was called "firstborn" despite being the youngest son of Jesse, and he was not the first king of Israel. His designation as "firstborn" indicates his preeminence among kings due to his unique relationship with God and his established lineage as the ancestor of the Messiah. This “firstborn” title refers to status, not temporal order, which aligns with how "firstborn" is applied to Christ in Colossians 1:15, highlighting supremacy rather than chronological origin.
Proverbs 8:22–25 uses poetic language to depict Wisdom, personified, as a participant in God’s creation, emphasizing its foundational role rather than implying a literal, temporal beginning. You insist on reading it as literal creation language, but ancient Jewish and Christian scholars typically interpreted “Wisdom” as emblematic of divine attributes rather than as an independent, created entity.
Origen and other early Fathers do reference Proverbs 8:25, but not as proof of Christ’s temporal origin. Instead, they use it to illustrate Christ’s relational and distinct role within the Godhead, emphasizing His unique emanation from the Father (not creation ex nihilo). The terms used, such as “begotten” and “established,” are understood within a framework that differentiates eternal generation from creation. Athanasius, for example, firmly opposes the idea that Proverbs 8 indicates creation, insisting instead on the Son’s consubstantial and eternal relationship with the Father.
You claim Origen bases Christ’s eternal generation on Proverbs 8:25, but this is an oversimplification. Origen interprets Proverbs 8 typologically, viewing it as an allegorical description of Christ’s relationship with the Father rather than a literal, time-bound creation. He uses Proverbs to speak to the relational aspect of Wisdom as proceeding from God, but he clarifies that this “generation” is eternal, not a created event in time. Later theologians, like Athanasius, reinforced this view by emphasizing that Wisdom is co-eternal with the Father, derived from His essence, and thus not created.
DeleteOrigen understood Proverbs 8 to typologically describe the Logos' relationship with the Father. His use of the term “begotten” in discussing Proverbs 8:25 was a foundational point, not of creation, but of eternal generation. Origen sought to defend Christ’s divinity and distinct personhood, and to oppose views that positioned Christ as a created being. He emphasized that the Son’s “begetting” was an eternal act—distinct from creation—illustrating an internal relational characteristic of God rather than a beginning point in time.
Athanasius’ attempt to explain Proverbs 8:22-30 is not an effort to redefine it but rather to prevent misinterpretation by those like the Arians, who argued that it implied Christ’s creation. Athanasius and other Church Fathers used Proverbs 8 typologically to illustrate Christ’s relationship with the Father without suggesting He was created. This approach, refined in later theological discourse, safeguards the understanding that Christ is eternally begotten, emphasizing His preexistence and divinity.
You dismiss typology too quickly. For early Church Fathers, typology was a well-regarded method of connecting Old Testament motifs to New Testament revelations. Typology, rather than literalism, pervades Christian interpretative methods when it comes to understanding the Logos and divine Wisdom. For instance, Athanasius and Basil both treated Proverbs 8 not as a literal creation text but as a prophetic foreshadowing of Christ’s role and divine nature. They saw Proverbs’ Wisdom as a poetic prefigurement of the Logos, not as a doctrinal statement on the Son’s origin.
You point to a variant in Codex Sinaiticus where "creation" is replaced with "church," but textual variants like this do not redefine doctrine. Variants can occur due to scribal adjustments or errors, especially in early manuscripts, and scholars analyze these differences to determine the most authentic reading. The overwhelming manuscript tradition supports "creation," affirming Christ’s primacy over all created things. The existence of a variant does not negate the consistent witness of Scripture and early church interpretation that affirms Christ’s role as the agent and purpose of creation. Textual scholarship on Revelation 3:14 doesn’t indicate a meaningful variant in major manuscripts, and the word "church" does not appear in any ancient Greek variants as a replacement for “creation.” If this were a genuine variant, it would still fail to undermine the overall interpretation, since Christ as the "beginning" (arche) signifies His originative and foundational role in creation, not His inclusion as a created entity.
You argue that Christ’s title as "firstborn from the dead" should incorporate both temporal and preeminent meanings. Indeed, both meanings can coexist, as Christ is the first to rise to eternal life and holds authority over death. However, this does not extend to Colossians 1:15’s “firstborn over all creation,” where the context focuses on His supremacy over creation due to His divine nature and role in creation, not His inclusion within it. The presence or absence of “EK” emphasizes His unique role in inaugurating eternal life, without suggesting He is part of the dead in the same sense.
While it’s true that "firstborn" can signify BOTH temporal AND preeminent meanings, the context determines its primary application. In Colossians 1:15, Paul’s language clearly highlights Christ’s status as Creator, thus making a temporal reading inappropriate. He is "firstborn over all creation," which signifies His sovereignty rather than implying He is created. This aligns with other uses of "firstborn" in the Bible, such as in Psalm 89:27, where David’s designation as “firstborn” denotes status, not temporal birth order.
Delete“Firstborn” (prototokos) conveys status—authority over creation and death alike—rather than a chronological beginning within creation. Paul’s emphasis here is on Christ’s authority and primacy, mirroring the usage of “firstborn” for David in Psalm 89, where it signifies royal preeminence rather than birth order.
Throughout the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, "firstborn" frequently signifies rank and status. Israel is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, indicating special status rather than literal birth. Similarly, Colossians 1:15 uses "firstborn" to express Christ’s authority over creation. Your interpretation imposes a strictly temporal reading, disregarding the broader theological context that highlights Christ’s unique role as Creator, a role incompatible with being part of the created order.
Hence the term “firstborn” in biblical and Jewish tradition frequently implies status, rank, or preeminence, particularly in a royal or familial context (e.g., Israel as God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, David as “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27). Paul’s usage in Colossians 1:15 is consistent with this cultural and theological background. It points to Christ’s supreme role over creation, as the One through whom all things were made, rather than indicating a temporal beginning.
“You may disregard the councils, but they were crucial in clarifying theological language in early Christianity.” - i do, so I respectfully ask you to stop citing them as justification for your fictitious trinity..
ReplyDeleteAnd DIALOGUE properly
“because he was the first king of his line.” - so he is still firstborn but temporally first and “His designation as "firstborn" indicates his preeminence among kings due to his unique relationship with God and his established lineage as the ancestor of the Messiah”
Point is both meanings apply and he was “placed” as such.
Doesn’t matter that he is youngest he is still part of the group he is “firstborn” of
The group being kings - you CANNOT nullify this via him not being born first
As king he is temporarily first in some sense.. ( of which I think you know)
“Athanasius, for example, firmly opposes the idea that Proverbs 8 indicates creation, insisting instead on the Son’s consubstantial and eternal relationship with the Father.” -conveniently one of about 3 who do not cross ref prov 8 with John.. interesting
Justin martyr cross references proverbs 8:30 with John 1:3
Atha also goes against biblical doctrine quite often.. like Rufinus who admits to tampering he can’t be trusted..
“Origen understood Proverbs 8 to typologically describe the Logos' relationship with the Father. “ - prove it cite one reputable scholar who actually agrees with you ( unbiased)
I’ll just point you to “intertextual bible” and their commentaries on proverb 8 and Sirach..
“The overwhelming manuscript tradition supports "creation," “ - so if it wasn’t a threat - why was it changed? Why the variant you can’t tell me this is an error..
shall we point out that a codex website Points that the Catholic Church HID manuscripts…
That’s not suspicious at all.
“Textual scholarship on Revelation 3:14 doesn’t indicate a meaningful variant in major manuscripts, and the word "church" does not appear in any ancient Greek variants as a replacement for “creation.” “ - this is untrue.. codex Sinaiticus is quite an important manuscript and happens to have this variant and there are other that have this variant as-well ( is also written in Greek)
Again if this wasn’t a threat why the variant? Interesting to note that it’s one of the texts that linguistically if proven in other places could legitimately be interpreted to mean Gods first creation ( compare Job 40:19)
“but textual variants like this do not redefine doctrine.” - this would change the meaning significantly.. creation is not the same as the church and is never used as a synonym in the bible..
“Variants can occur due to scribal adjustments or errors” - this is a ( fraudulent) adjustment not an error
If I’m mistaken or wrong anyone who can provide reliable sources ( so anybody but Ninc) please do so.
While you may choose to disregard the historical councils, it's essential to understand their role in establishing theological clarity. These councils did not "invent" doctrines but clarified the language around them to counter early heresies. The Trinity is not a "fictitious" concept conjured by the councils; it is rooted in Scriptural interpretation, as early Church Fathers like Athanasius, Justin Martyr, and Origen elucidated. The councils merely formalized these understandings in response to teachings that contradicted the established Christian understanding of God's nature, particularly regarding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
DeleteDismissing the ecumenical councils does not negate their historical significance in shaping Christian doctrine. These councils, attended by the foremost theological minds of the early Church, were convened specifically to address misunderstandings like those surrounding the nature of Christ. Their decisions were based on extensive scriptural and theological analysis, not arbitrary invention. While you may not accept them, their conclusions regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son represent the consensus of early Christianity and have shaped doctrinal understanding for centuries. Engaging with this context is crucial to a proper theological dialogue, as it allows us to consider how these issues were historically understood and resolved.
The term firstborn (Greek: prototokos) does not always signify temporal origin or birth order. In Hebrew culture, firstborn often denotes rank, privilege, or authority. When referring to Christ as the “firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15), Paul emphasizes Christ’s sovereignty over creation, not that He is part of it. Psalm 89:27, which describes David as the “firstborn” among kings, uses the term similarly to highlight status and preeminence, even though David was not the first in birth order. This application is consistent with Colossians 1:15, where Paul uses firstborn to assert Christ’s supremacy, not His temporal origin.
The idea that David was "temporally first" in some sense is not supported by the text. David was not the first king of Israel (Saul was), nor was he the firstborn son of Jesse. His title of "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 does not imply chronological precedence but signifies a position of honor, authority, and preeminence. This is a common biblical usage where "firstborn" often conveys a special status or role rather than literal birth order. By calling David the "firstborn," Scripture emphasizes his preeminence among kings, not a temporal sequence. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" conveys Christ’s supremacy over creation, not His inclusion within it.
Proverbs 8’s portrayal of Wisdom is widely recognized as a personification—a poetic way to express God’s wisdom as integral to His creation, not as a created being itself. Origen, Athanasius, and others interpreted this passage typologically, seeing it as a prefiguration of the Logos rather than a literal creation account. This is in line with how early Christians often used typology to connect Old Testament motifs with New Testament revelations about Christ. Justin Martyr and others may refer to Proverbs 8 in relation to the Logos, but they do not view it as proof of Christ’s creation. Instead, they see it as a way to understand the Logos’ role in the order of creation, not as part of creation.
Origen indeed interpreted Proverbs 8 typologically, viewing Wisdom as symbolizing Christ’s relationship with the Father, not as a literal creation. You reference Justin Martyr, but it's important to note that early Christian thought evolved over time, with theologians like Athanasius providing refined explanations in response to emerging heresies such as Arianism. Athanasius was not alone in his interpretation; rather, he represented the orthodox position that became foundational for Christian doctrine.
While Justin Martyr indeed makes connections between Proverbs and John, he does not argue that Wisdom is created in the same way as a creature. Instead, he acknowledges the mystery of the Logos as eternally proceeding from the Father, a theme developed further by Athanasius and other Church Fathers to counter misunderstandings. Athanasius’ focus on consubstantiality (the Son sharing the Father’s essence) became essential for distinguishing Christ from created beings, which aligns with the scriptural portrayal of Christ as uncreated. Thomas Aquinas argued that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 signifies God's eternal nature and Christ’s role as the divine Logos.
DeleteMany respected modern scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, affirm that Proverbs 8 does not imply temporal creation but reflects on divine wisdom’s role within the Godhead. Many other reputable scholars, such as J.N.D. Kelly and Christopher Stead, highlight how Origen saw the Logos as eternally begotten, emphasizing His divine origin rather than temporal creation. This interpretation is grounded in Origen’s emphasis on Christ’s divinity and eternal nature, which contrasts with created beings. Origen’s approach to Proverbs 8 aligns with a symbolic understanding of Wisdom as prefiguring the Logos, reflecting the early Christian method of typology, where Old Testament texts foreshadow New Testament revelations.
The variant reading in Codex Sinaiticus you mentioned does not alter the fundamental doctrinal stance. While some early manuscripts may contain variations, mainstream textual scholarship agrees that these variants do not compromise core doctrines. Codex Sinaiticus contains an extensive collection of books, and while it is valuable, it is only one of thousands of manuscripts, and scholars base doctrine on the broadest possible manuscript tradition, not a single source. In Revelation 3:14, "arche" (beginning) indicates Christ's foundational role in creation rather than suggesting He was created.
Textual variants in ancient manuscripts often arise from various factors, including scribal error, regional differences, or theological interpretations. The variant in Codex Sinaiticus where "creation" is replaced with "church" does not alter the established doctrine of Christ’s preeminence over all things. Variants are common in textual transmission, and scholars analyze them to determine the most authentic reading. The presence of this variant does not imply that the original meaning was threatened; rather, it reflects the natural evolution of textual transmission. Furthermore, this variant is not widely attested in other manuscripts, suggesting it was not seen as authoritative by the broader Christian community. So textual variants often arise from scribal adjustments or regional dialects rather than intentional doctrinal changes. In this case, the variant in Codex Sinaiticus does not substantiate that the Church hid or altered doctrine. These differences do not undermine the Trinitarian doctrine, which is consistently upheld across the vast majority of manuscript evidence.
Codex Sinaiticus is indeed a significant manuscript, but the variant here is not broadly supported by other manuscripts. The overwhelming majority of ancient texts preserve "creation" rather than "church," indicating that "creation" is the more likely original reading. This does not reflect a "fraudulent" adjustment but a minor variant that does not impact the overall doctrine. Textual criticism aims to reconstruct the original wording based on the evidence, and the lack of support for this variant from other sources suggests it was not considered doctrinally significant by early Christians.
DeleteThe presence of a textual variant does not inherently alter doctrine. The doctrine of Christ’s role as Creator is established through a multitude of passages, not solely on a single variant. For instance, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 clearly affirm Christ’s agency in creation. Even if a variant reading existed, the overwhelming scriptural testimony affirms Christ’s preeminence over all creation. Variants are common in ancient texts, and they are carefully analyzed to assess their doctrinal impact. This variant does not redefine Christ’s role as Creator, which is consistently attested throughout the New Testament.
Variants in ancient manuscripts are well-documented and occur for numerous reasons, including regional usage, interpretative notes, or accidental substitutions. Labeling this variant as “fraudulent” without evidence is an unfounded assumption. Textual criticism is a rigorous field that assesses these variants, and the overwhelming textual tradition supports the reading “creation” rather than “church.” The presence of a variant does not indicate malfeasance but reflects the complexities of ancient manuscript transmission. Scholars have concluded that "creation" is the original term in Revelation 3:14, and there is no evidence of widespread or intentional tampering by the Church.
interesting to note this alteration is in a FOURTH century manuscript!
ReplyDeleteand one study brings up:
"The change eliminates the possibility
of placing Jesus within the created order and is conspicuous against the backdrop of the
fourth century, defined as it was by its pitched theological battles over the precise nature
of the Son. In fact, it is remarkable how close the Apocalypse’s original title comes to
Arius’s own musings about the Son. In the Thalia fragments, one of the few primary
sources believed to preserve Arius’s authentic words, we encounter the following asser-
tion: ‘The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures’"
source: https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex_Sinaiticus_An_Early_Christian_Commentary_on_the_Apocalypse
footnote 31 of this very paper says: The harmonization in Revelation 3:14, however, is not merely an anti-Arian redaction, but
perhaps even an early scribal example of scriptura scripturam interpretatur, ‘scripture interpreting
scripture’. After all, the scribe did not simply expunge the problematic reading from his text — he
replaced it with another reading from elsewhere in scripture. Perhaps it is also worth noting that in Colossians 2:10, the clause ‘who is the head of every ruler and authority’ (ὅ ἐστ εφαὴ σ
ἀῆ αὶ ἐσα), is similarly replaced with ‘who is the head of every ruler of the church’ (ὅ ἐστ
εφαὴ σ τῆ ἀῆ ἐσα) in Codex Sinaiticus — another harmonization to Colossians
1:18. See Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 86
still call this an error? How much more proof do you need? honestly, talk about theologically motivated..
(unlike yourself I will provide my sources to back up my claims - showing that there are experts who agree with me - I see none from your side.. - this is a fact, so no need to respond.)
"there is no evidence of widespread or intentional tampering by the Church." - you sure about that? I don't think you want to have this debate with me Ninc, I have a list of sources (even catholics) who say tampering did happen... if you really want this debate fine.. but you will lose.
ReplyDeleteDon't go there with me.
The existence of a textual variant in Codex Sinaiticus around the fourth century does not necessarily indicate deliberate tampering. As noted, textual critics often see such variations as "scripture interpreting scripture" rather than deliberate theological manipulation. Variants were frequently intended to clarify understanding, not alter doctrine. This approach—allowing one passage to illuminate another—was a common scribal practice. As the footnote you shared suggests, this harmonization may well reflect an early attempt to align the text with broader scriptural teachings rather than a revision driven by a specific anti-Arian agenda.
ReplyDeleteVariants from early manuscripts provide valuable insights into the textual history but do not automatically discredit other readings found in the majority of manuscripts. Scholars evaluate these variants within the broader manuscript tradition, which overwhelmingly supports the reading "creation" rather than "church" in Revelation 3:14. This single instance of variation does not redefine doctrine, especially when weighed against the consistency of other manuscripts.
Manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus reveal occasional variants, but scholars recognize these as part of the natural transmission process rather than evidence of systematic theological editing. Textual variants typically arose from regional or interpretative factors, and very few, if any, were doctrinally motivated. Also, Codex Sinaiticus is just one among thousands of manuscripts. The primary methodology in textual criticism compares readings across a vast corpus, making it highly unlikely that isolated changes in Sinaiticus would impact core doctrines.
The suggestion that this variant was a reaction to Arianism is speculative. While the fourth century was indeed a period of intense theological debate, not every textual variant can be conclusively attributed to anti-Arian motives. Codex Sinaiticus contains various unique readings, some of which appear to be harmonizations or interpretative choices by scribes rather than deliberate theological alterations. The field of textual criticism recognizes that scribal practices could involve harmonization efforts, but such variants are assessed within the broader manuscript tradition. The absence of this "church" variant in the majority of ancient manuscripts suggests it was not the original reading and does not impact the established understanding of Christ’s role in creation.
The footnote you reference indeed discusses the possibility of harmonization. However, harmonization is a known scribal practice that does not necessarily indicate doctrinal tampering. The concept of SCRIPTURA SCRIPTURAM INTERPRETATUR ("Scripture interpreting Scripture") reflects a scribal attempt to clarify meaning through parallel texts, not an effort to suppress or alter doctrine. Codex Sinaiticus shows occasional harmonizations and interpretive adjustments, but these are not considered authoritative changes to core Christian doctrine. The vast majority of manuscripts support the original wording "creation," and this isolated variant in no way undermines the reliability of the broader manuscript tradition.
The term ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 is often translated as "beginning," but it does not necessarily denote a created beginning. Scholars like Richard Bauckham interpret ARCHE as Christ being the source or ruler of creation, rather than a created being. The Greek concept of ARCHE aligns more closely with “origin” or “source” than with a temporal starting point. Thus, even if one reading aligns with Arian interpretations, the majority of manuscript evidence and scholarly consensus affirm that ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 points to Christ’s supreme authority rather than creation status.
It’s crucial to distinguish between intentional tampering and natural variations in manuscript transmission. While certain texts contain unique or regional wording, the overwhelming consistency across ancient manuscripts demonstrates that no single agenda dominated textual transmission. Scholars, including Catholic ones, recognize that minor variations do exist but do not support the idea of systematic tampering. For instance, J.N.D. Kelly and Bruce Metzger, affirm the fidelity of New Testament manuscripts across the centuries.
ReplyDeleteThe textual variant in Colossians 1:18, where "church" replaces "creation," similarly reflects an interpretative adjustment rather than deliberate doctrinal distortion. Variants like these are often understood as "harmonizations" or scribal adjustments to align passages with similar themes in Scripture. Textual critics evaluate such adjustments rigorously, and these isolated cases don’t alter or contradict central doctrinal affirmations.
The term “error” in textual criticism can encompass both unintentional mistakes and interpretive adjustments by scribes. In this case, even if the variant in Codex Sinaiticus was a deliberate harmonization, it does not alter the established reading. Theological motivation cannot be conclusively ascribed to every variant; instead, scholars examine the context, manuscript evidence, and consistency across textual witnesses. Theologically motivated readings are assessed critically, and the textual tradition as a whole supports the doctrine of Christ as the agent of creation. This isolated variant does not substantiate a claim of doctrinal manipulation.
Claims of widespread tampering by the Church are not supported by textual scholarship. Textual criticism has not revealed systematic efforts by the Church to alter doctrine across the vast manuscript tradition. Instead, scholars have observed that most textual variants in early manuscripts are minor and do not affect core doctrines. The existence of individual variants or harmonizations, such as those in Codex Sinaiticus, does not imply an organized effort to alter doctrine. Instead, they reflect the natural process of textual transmission over centuries. The consistency of doctrine across diverse manuscript traditions underscores the reliability of the New Testament text as it has been passed down.
Mainstream scholarly consensus, including Catholic and non-Catholic scholars, does not regard these variants as proof of doctrinal manipulation. Instead, they represent natural manuscript transmission practices that arose from scribes working with what they believed to be clarifications or stylistic alignments. The overwhelming textual consistency and the broad attestation of key doctrines across the New Testament manuscripts support the reliability of the biblical text.
“ The Greek concept of ARCHE aligns more closely with “origin” or “source” than with a temporal starting point. ” - not according Barnes
ReplyDeleteWho also states that if it could be demonstrated elsewhere that Christ was created - there is NO reason not to understand 3:14 that way in light of job 40:19
But Christ isn’t the source or Origen of the church is he?
ReplyDeleteHe is the head of the establishment…
The head of Christ is God.
There are too many things that line up and too much information you are on omitting - this is a FACT Ninc
You over time have omitted so much information that I have either added for context or told others about..
Why is anyone on here going to be convinced you are correct when you yourself are probably the biggest hypocrite on here?
While some commentators, like Albert Barnes, may offer alternate views on ARCHĒ, it’s essential to remember that interpreting any word in Scripture must consider the broader biblical context, not only one commentary or interpretation. The Greek term ARCHĒ does indeed have a semantic range that includes "origin" or "source" as well as "beginning" in a temporal sense, and context is crucial in determining the intended meaning. In Revelation 3:14, Christ’s designation as the ARCHĒ of God’s creation aligns with passages that describe Him as the Creator (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), making "origin" or "source" a more consistent interpretation than "first created."
ReplyDeleteThe hypothetical nature of this statement from Barnes highlights an interpretive possibility, not a definitive conclusion. Just because one could interpret ARCHĒ as “first created” does not mean this is the most accurate interpretation, especially in light of other New Testament texts. Job 40:19, which refers to Behemoth as “the first of the ways of God,” is a description of a creature, not of the divine Logos. Christ is repeatedly depicted as distinct from creation itself, being the agent through whom creation came into existence (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), so applying “first created” here conflicts with the broader Scriptural witness of Christ as Creator rather than a created being.
Christ is indeed depicted as the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18), but this does not negate His role as the source or origin of all creation. In Colossians 1:16-17, Christ is described as the one through whom all things were created, and He is before all things. This role encompasses not only His authority over creation but also His active participation as its source. Saying "the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3) refers to relational hierarchy within the Trinity in terms of roles, not Christ’s essence or ontological status as Creator. This relational role does not diminish Christ’s co-equality with the Father in divine nature and creative authority.
"There are too many things that line up and too much information you are omitting - this is a FACT." - This assertion is vague and lacks specific examples of omitted information. The interpretation of ARCHĒ as "origin" or "source" is based on the consistent New Testament presentation of Christ as Creator, not part of creation. If there is specific information that challenges this interpretation, it should be cited and discussed directly, rather than making a broad accusation of omission.
"You over time have omitted so much information that I have either added for context or told others about." - This statement lacks specific examples of what has been allegedly omitted. In theological debates, it's important to address particular arguments with concrete references rather than general accusations. For instance, if there are relevant counterarguments from other scholars or passages, they should be presented and examined within the broader scriptural and historical context.
"Why is anyone on here going to be convinced you are correct when you yourself are probably the biggest hypocrite on here?" - This statement shifts the discussion from the topic at hand to an ad hominem attack, which does not address the substance of the theological debate. Convincing others in a theological discussion depends on providing sound arguments, clear evidence, and respectful engagement with opposing views. Labeling someone a "hypocrite" does not refute the argument but instead distracts from meaningful dialogue.
In summary:
* The Greek term ARCHĒ has a range of meanings, including "origin" or "source," and context determines its specific application. In Revelation 3:14, given the broader context of Christ’s role in creation, interpreting ARCHĒ as "origin" is consistent with His identification as Creator.
* Barnes's hypothetical statement does not mandate interpreting ARCHĒ as "first created," especially when Scripture as a whole presents Jesus as the uncreated agent of creation.
https://t.ly/9fL_C
ReplyDelete