Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Proverbs 8:22-QANAH Possibly Means "Created"

I think that most, if not all, commentators are aware
of the Hebrew word that appears in Prov. 8:22. When they talk about
QANAH (QNH) being used, they are evidently referring
to the lexical form and not to what strictly appears
in Proverbs. Let us consider what Whybray's commentary
states:

"Created me (QANANI): the meaning of this word has
been disputed since very early times. LXX, Targ.,
Pesh. have 'created'; Vulg. 'possessed'. The verb
QANAH, which occurs frequently, together with its
cognates, in the Old Testament, almost always means
'acquire' or, more specifically, 'purchase' (and so
also 'possess'). In Proverbs, apart from this verse,
it occurs thirteen times" (Proverbs, 129).

Whybray then discusses the semantic range of
QANAH. He subsequently concludes:

"The meaning of QANANI here remains uncertain. Of the
three possibilities, 'begot, procreated' has less
evidence to support it than the other two. 'Acquired,
possessed' is perhaps more likely than 'created' in
view of the overwhelming number of passages in which
this verb has this meaning. But scholars who argue
that QANAH in the sense of 'acquired' must imply that
Wisdom is here seen as having pre-existed before
Yahweh acquired her (Vawter, 1980, pp. 205-16; de
Boer, 1961) are reading too much into the text. This
conclusion, however, is subject to the interpretation
of 8:22-31 as a whole" (Proverbs, 130).

C.H. Toy (ICC on Proverbs), who
definitely knows how the text reads (as shown on page
181 of his work) observes:

"The rendering formed (=created) is supported by the
parallel expressions in v. 23, 24, 25 (made or
ordained and brought into being); the translation
possessed (RV.) is possible, but does not accord with
the context, in which the point is the time of
Wisdom's creation" (Toy, 173).

Admittedly, the exact sense of QANAH in Prov. 8:22 is
highly contested, but there appear to be good reasons
for understanding QANAH as "created" in this verse:

"Some scholars question whether the first verb
mentioned in v. 22a (QANAH) means anything more than
'to acquire, possess,' but the evidence from Ugaritic,
Phoenician, and Hebrew is clear that 'to create' is
one of its meanings. In Ugaritic, the fivefold
repeated epithet of Asherah, QNYT 'LM, can only mean
'creator of the gods.' In Phoenician, 'L QN 'RS (KAI
26.iii.18) can only mean 'El, creator of the earth.' A
similar epithet appears in Gen 14:19, 22, where El
Elyon is called 'creator of heaven and earth.' In Deut
32:6 QANAH is parallel to 'to make' and 'to
establish.' Thus, the Hebrew verb QANAH, in addition
to the meaning 'to acquire, possess,' can also mean
'to create'" (Richard J. Clifford,Proverbs: A Commentary, p. 96).

Additionally, Clifford offers this explanation:

"In Biblical Hebrew, QANAH had two distinct
senses--'to possess (by far the most common meaning)
and 'to create, beget'" (Clifford, 96). Clifford
himself seems to prefer the latter sense for QANAH in
Prov. 8:22. See Clifford, 94-96.

Finally, this observation comes from Michael Fox:

"The word's [QANAH] lexical meaning, the semantic content it brings to context, is 'acquire,' no more than that. But one way something can be acquired is by creation. English 'acquire' implies that the object was already in existence, but this is not the case with QANAH. To avoid misunderstanding, the better translation in context is 'created.'

While both 'created' and acquired' are legitimate contextual translations of this verb, 'possessed' (Vul, KJV) is not. Though this mutes the theologically difficult implication that prior to creation God did not have wisdom, it does not really fit the context. The verbs in vv 22-25 relating to Wisdom's genesis describe a one-time action, whereas possession is continuous. Subsequent possession may be assumed, though prior possession is indeed excluded. God acquired/created wisdom as the first of his deeds. Wisdom was 'born' (vv 24, 25) at that time. She did not exist from eternity. Wisdom is therefore an accidental attribute of godhead, not an essential or inherent one" (Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York and London: Doubleday, page 279).



83 comments:

Duncan said...

Psalms 104:24

Duncan said...

https://www.academia.edu/1307031/A_Reassessment_of_Asherah_With_Further_Considerations_of_the_Goddess?auto=download

pg173 may be of interest.

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-xF8jqHEp_oC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Asherah,+QNYT+%27LM&source=bl&ots=02Hb2UVLQH&sig=PZlwFlO3nsOLYNhzs4HaP0BVfRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCmbmPwNHUAhXLAcAKHd41AdIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Asherah%2C%20QNYT%20'LM&f=false

Duncan said...

"can only mean":-

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WsFdSPBCLx4C&pg=PA102&dq=QNYT+%27LM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM38ChwdHUAhVDC8AKHUw6CsMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=QNYT%20'LM&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

Here is an article that everyone seems to cite in the discussions regarding Asherah: https://www.academia.edu/3375091/The_Elkunir%C5%A1a_Myth_Reconsidered

See also http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/yahweh-and-the-gods-and-goddesses-of-canaan-9780826468307/

That is a book written by John Day. He insists there is no doubt that Elkunirsa should be understood as a creator god in view of the etymological connections he discusses.

Furthermore, Day shows places where qanah appears to clearly mean "create."

Duncan said...

Ugarit had close connections to the Hittite Empire but was not Hittite.

Duncan said...

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/johnday.pdf

Edgar Foster said...

Day does not claim that Ugarit and Hittite are one and the same, but his book has a comparative discussion that connects Phoenician, Ugarit and Hittite philologically.

Alethinon61 said...

Hi Edgar,

Is there other Wisdom literature that can inform this topic by virtue of the term(s) and or context(s) used? In other words, the correct meaning of QANAH in a given context may be open to question, but if Wisdom is referred to as "created" using terminology that is reasonably certain in other Jewish literature, then this may bear on the use in Psalms.

~Kas

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Kas,

Like any other term, context will determine/shape how the word is to be defined or understood. I checked the occurrences of QANAH in the canonical Wisdom texts, and it usually has the meaning, "acquire." See Proverbs 1:5; 4:5, 7. However, the verb does not seem to have that meaning in Ps. 139:13, although Psalms is not Wisdom literature but poetry/song text. Cf. Ecclesiastes 2:7.

I am not sure we must limit comparisons with Prov 8:22 to Wisdom literature, but either way, our resources might be limited. See Sirach 1:4, 9.

This website marshals loads of data when discussing QANAH, but it is not the easiest study to read and according to the author, his work exists in draft form. Nevertheless, see http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com/?page_id=544

All the best,

Edgar



Edgar Foster said...

Check out Sirach 24:8.

Duncan said...

http://www.embarl.force9.co.uk/Apocrypha/Sirach/Sir_24.pdf

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Wisdom_and_Torah.html?id=bjQBngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Duncan said...

http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-wisdom-of-yeshua-ben-sirach.html

Alethinon61 said...

Hi Edgar,

Sorry, I meant to say:

"...but if Wisdom is referred to as 'created' using terminology that is reasonably certain in other Jewish literature, then this may bear on the use in Proverbs."

I've heard that Wisdom is referred to as "created" in other Wisdom literature, and I guess my question is: What term was used in that/those context(s)? Is QANAH used, which wouldn't help settle the question, or is some other term or terms used that are less open to dispute and which definitely convey that Wisdom was thought of as a created entity in some sense?

~Sean

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Sean,

The only places I know where creation language is applied to Wisdom are Sirach 1:4, 9; 24:8-9. Compare Wisdom 7:21-27. Prov 8:22 in the LXX also says Wisdom is created.

One problem is that Sirach was originally written in Hebrew, but preserved in Greek. Parts of a Hebrew Sirach were discovered among the Qumram materials, but I don't believe they are mush help with this issue.

I have not finished undertaking research on this subject, so there could be a Hebrew text I've not yet come across that states Wisdom is created. However, for now, these are the only passages I know that relate to this issue. And almost every time I read literature on Prov. 8:22, the writers will say the meaning of qanah 8:22 is contested. See the NET note on the verse.

Duncan said...

http://www.brill.com/hebrew-dead-sea-scrolls-and-ben-sira

Duncan said...

http://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=Qumran&PageNum=1

Duncan said...

Bensira 24 referring to Torah:-

Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, (wisdom 18:16)
and the One who created me assigned a place for my tent. (John 1:14)
And He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob,
and in Israel receive your inheritance.”
From eternity in the beginning He created me, (gen 1:1 John 1:1)
and for eternity I shall not cease to exist ….
So I took root in an honored people,
in the portion of the Lord Who is their inheritance.

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, Duncan. The Brill volume looks excellent for scholarly work although, as usual, it is expensive. Maybe I could obtain the book through interlibrary loan. This whole project is a side project for me--so it's not a big deal if I don't read the book, but might be nice to page through the tome.

As I mentioned earlier, we're disadvantaged because of not having the relevant Sirach (Ben Sira) texts in Hebrew. The DSS Sirach is important, but fragmentary. And I do not think it sheds light on QANAH. To be clear, I am not disparaging your efforts: they are appreciated. I am only pointing out why we're still left with questions about QANAH.

Sirach 24 is also dealing with Wisdom:

1 Wisdom will praise herself,
and will glory in the midst of her people.[a]
2 In the assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth,
and in the presence of his host she will glory:
(RSV)

Yet I admit Torah is at play here too.

Kas, I would consult K-D's long note on Prov 8:22 in their OT Commentary. An old source, but still informative.

Duncan said...

http://www.davidchristopher.net/2013/01/the-johannine-logos-3-logos-and-logic/

There are a number of scholars that seem to be moving in this direction but if wisdom was "created" then was there a time when Jehovah did not have it? Or is this all about when Jehovah's wisdom became apparent to man? I still think there is more to be found regarding chokmah and Torah (the word, not the books) in its true sense - teaching.

Edgar Foster said...

I don't believe the "Jehovah didn't have wisdom" objection works (I have heard it before) because we're talking about divine Wisdom personified--not an attribute. As you know, Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians have applied Prov 8:22 to the Lord Jesus Christ. Either way, I just do not see the objection as pertinent to the whole discussion.

I have no objection to understanding chokmah or Torah as teaching. However, as we've hashed out before, words usually change their meanings over time. The whole diachronic-synchronic discussion. Putting that issue aside, I do not believe the teaching idea for chokmah/Torah is problematic.

Concerning the link: one could make criticisms of the author's desire to flatten distinctions between Logos and sophia/logikos. The Romans generally understood the Greek Logos to mean ratio et ratio (reason and speech). In other words, they considered Logos to be internal and external speech. It is also interesting how Eastern Orthodoxy (particularly Greek Orthodoxy) has construed the Johannine Logos. There is probably a connection between Logos and sophia, but meaningful distinctions as well. Context again rears its head.

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6TwiY96cunQC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%27L+QN+%27RS+cilicia&source=bl&ots=FDEiXkOpTj&sig=17QaCRV_XK0iWtOc7Q7Nj7UL2B8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTudulxNfUAhXLa1AKHZ3uCxQQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q='L%20QN%20'RS%20cilicia&f=false

Duncan said...

divine Wisdom personified is the display of the attribute. When the attribute became apparent and the Hebrew term for beginning can also mean summit or pinnacle.

The author of the piece feels as I do, that the Roman understanding is not the only one and I have to come back to the point that the Hebrew language was still in use at least to Simon bar kokhba. There are multiple equally valid approaches to this as Alexandrian usage is not necessarily the same as Israeli as later comparisons of different Talmud demonstrate in principle. We know where the gospel was found but we do not know it's origin and more importantly it's target audience.

Edgar Foster said...

I'm aware that Prov 8:22 can be understood in different ways, so not trying to be dogmatic here, but God apparently possessed and displayed the attribute before his Wisdom was personified. In this case, I believe Wisdom became a person (a hypostasis) as the first creative act of Jehovah, but debating that point isn't necessary. I am only claiming for now that God showed wisdom (ironically) when he "personified" or hypostatized Wisdom.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the Roman understanding of Logos is the only viable one: I mentioned the Romans to illustrate how some have construed Logos. Notice that I talked about the Orthodox in the East, who use Greek in their liturgy. And to clarify my earlier remarks, I particularly had John 1:1 in mind and how we understand Logos in the Johannine Prologue since the author of the blog was discussing John 1:1.

Should anyone be dogmatic when it comes to translating Logos in the Johannine Prologue? IMO, no they should not be. But "wisdom" seems less probable as "reason" or word.

Edgar Foster said...

An article worth reading is A. N. Jannaris, "St. John's Gospel and the Logos," ZNW, 2 (1901), 13-25.

I have already shared the journal article dealing with Jn 1:1 by Caragounis and Van der Watt. See https://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestamentaria/vol-21-2008/a-grammatical-analysis-of-john-1-1/525/article-p97.html

Edgar Foster said...

Here is a shorter and more pointed study by Caragounis: http://chrys-caragounis.com/My_New_WEBSITE/PDF_Folders/Research.New/Studies.New/The_Concept_of_Logos.pdf

Duncan said...

You last paper hinges its argument on 1:14 which is an ecco of the verse quoted from Ben sira 24. Is it johns own logos?

Edgar Foster said...

That is a vexed question in the literature. What is the origin of John's Logos concept? However one explains the Johannine Logos, I believe it is somehow rooted in Judaism--Hellenistic or otherwise.

Duncan said...

An interesting point has come up related to John 1:1 b.

Deuteronomy 31:26.

MT Hebrew translates as "in you" or "with you". LXX translates as "there to you" - "against" appears to be an insertion/interpretation which has been carries forward in this DSS "translation" (also used in Vulgate):-

http://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2031.htm

Also Exodus 25:11 use of צפה. IMO this term can mean more than overlay - something about observing. Does this mean like a mirror?

Βασίλειος said...

Hi to everybody!

Allow me, please, to your interesting interchange to add the thoughts below:

1) The Hebrew context uses a series of synonyms to denote the Wisdom's
beginning of existence (i use NWT because it is the most literal here):

produced me / the beginning of his way / The earliest of his achievements of long ago / I was installed / I was brought forth

so that the meanning qanah shouldn't be seriously debated.

2) Wisdom literature, as Edgar told, accepted the understanding of LXX. (To date, I have not searched other Hebrew exegetical sources - that would be an interesting task)

3) Early Christian literature re-produced the LXX translation (εκτίσατο) again and again in the case of Christ (I have once counted 150 times in TLG, but I not totally sure about this figure) during 2nd-4th centuries, and the meaning εκτίσατο was not even debated in the 1st Ecumenical Council. On the contrary, Athanasius accepted εκτίσατο but applied it to the human nature of Christ.

4) The well-known debate on created/procreated is out of topic in the Hebrew context.

Βασίλειος said...

A second thought on Caragounis:

I feel that Caragounis in exegesis is not as good as in linguistics. His statement: "From the above it must have become obvious that the rich and variegated characteristics and meanings of the concept of logos" in Greek thought constitutes the background to John’s logos" calls to my mind this 1900 scholarship which was so overly excited to explain everything in the NT according to the Greco-Roman context. Caragounis' thought on Johannine Logos is mostly a result of his Orthodox background (this is a general problem in his theological exegesis) and does not represent the latest scholarship, according to which the writer of John's Gospel is a humble Semite with no Greek paideia who uses Greek as a second language as bad as I use English, or ever worse than me.

Duncan said...

1Co 13:12 is also of interest in this respect.

Alethinon61 said...

"That is a vexed question in the literature. What is the origin of John's Logos concept? However one explains the Johannine Logos, I believe it is somehow rooted in Judaism--Hellenistic or otherwise."

Some have apparently tried to tie John's LOGOS to Wisdom, but I'm not sure how strong the connections are there. It seems more likely to me that the Evangelist was either (a) familiar with Philo, or with the same LOGOS traditions that Philo used to develop his own LOGOS concepts, and so borrowed from those traditions albeit in new ways, or (b) that he used LOGOS because it fit the implied context, i.e. Genesis 1, where God "spoke" creation into existence, which would tie in nicely with the MEMRA traditions.

It may be the case that the Evangelist used LOGOS precisely because of the multi-faceted potential connections to a variety philosophical speculations, hoping to thereby make the biblical LOGOS attractive to all.

~Kas

Duncan said...

Pro 8:9 παντα ενωπια τοις συνιουσι και ορθα τοις ευρισκουσι γνωσιν

This also has to be taken into account for context.

Duncan said...

ABP translates Pro 8:22 The lord created me the head of his ways for his works.

ראשׁית can mean beginning, first fruits, but also best, pinnacle (summit). All Hebrew words used temporally can also be used specially.

Edgar Foster said...

I will try to comment briefly on some of the points in this thread since other tasks await my presence today.

Duncan, on Deut 31:26, the Hebrew preposition will have to be read in context. For example, see Deut 28:21; 1 Sam 19:3; Isa 26:13; 49:3; Hosea 14:3.

Why see much more than overlay or possibly "gild" (LXX) in Exod 25:11?

Compare 1 Kings 6:20; 2 Chron 3:4.

From Rashi:

from inside and from outside you shall overlay it: Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood. Each one had four walls and a bottom, and they were open on the top. He placed the wooden one inside the golden one and the [other] golden one inside the wooden one. He covered the upper rim with gold, thus it is found that [the wooden one] was overlaid from inside and from outside [with gold]. — [from Yoma 72b, Shek. 16b]

מבית ומחוץ תצפנו: שלשה ארונות עשה בצלאל, שתים של זהב ואחד של עץ, וארבע כתלים ושולים לכל אחד ופתוחים מלמעלה, נתן של עץ בתוך של זהב ושל זהב בתוך של עץ, וחפה שפתו העליונה בזהב, נמצא מצופה מבית ומחוץ:

Not that I agree with his mythic account of Exodus, but he appears to understand the verb to mean "overlay."

Edgar Foster said...

Greetings Βασίλειος,

Funny that you mention Caragounis being more adept at linguistics than exegesis since I will never forget Randall Buth saying that Caragounis is a philologist, but not a linguist. In any event, I do like his exegesis of Matthew 16:18 and some other things he has done, including his work on Greek diachronics and aspect theory. One other thing: if I am not mistaken, GJohn's Greek is pretty good, but scholars often complain about Revelation. I could possibly dig up information later regarding GJohn.

Thanks,

Edgar

Edgar Foster said...

Kas,

Hellenistic Judaism would encompass Philo. I know some, who lean toward Philonic influence on John, and maybe that is true. However, questions remain about John's access to Philo, and how well he would have understood a Platonic/Stoic Jewish philosopher, steeped in Greek learning. I am still inclined to agree with John Burnet, who suggested that John's Logos is firmly planed in Hebrew Bible soil. Gerald Borchert (another Johannine scholar) presents similar evidence for this position. Often overlooked in this discussion, IMO, is William Barclay's John commentary. He thoroughly reviews potential antecedents for the Johannine Logos. Maybe I will post his comments one day, at least, in part.

The Memra tradition is also a good possibility. I just think that John was no philosopher: nor did he possibly know the works of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria.

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan, also compare Job 40:19 and Numbers 24:20.

Edgar Foster said...

Proverbs 8:23 also lends itself to the temporal understanding of Prov 8:22. Wisdom is established in the beginning.

Duncan said...

Edgar, context cannot insert a word that is not in the text. It can only be an interpretation.

As for the gild issue first see rev 21:21. Now for the science.

http://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/bible/acacia.php a dark red wood in finish.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/gold/eureka/gold-fun-facts/ beaten "pure" gold can be hammered so thin as to become translucent.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AldrinLEVA1.jpg

Now see Psalms 66:7 "observe" is the same word in paleo Hebrew.

I have no problem with all the gold in the tabernacle acting as mirror.

Rashi is clearly referring to the construction method - overlaid inside and out. But why put the tablets at the side - what does it signify for the ark and for the tablets?

Duncan said...

Just a small point here . Rashi translated into English in this case is a little like the interpretation of the dimensions and details of Noah's ark translated into English.

When reading the description in Hebrew it is so loose that finkel's Assyrian description does not actually contradict the possible shape and arrangement in any major way.

Duncan said...

http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/deuteronomy/31.html clearly an insertion/interpretation.

Duncan said...

Your comment regarding the Hebrew prep. does not answer the LXX interpretation:-

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=5&page=31

Edgar Foster said...

My comment was intended to address the Hebrew, not the LXX take on the verse. But, with all due respect, I did not/do not see a major issue with the LXX translation of 31:26. Sometimes the LXX is being interpretive, but at other times, there are good lexical reasons why we have a particular lectio in the LXX--whether it is right or wrong. Furthermore, the LXX/OG itself has numerous variants.

Looking at the LXX use of ἐν in Deut 31:26, I still do not see a problem. The Greek ἐν can sometimes mean "in," whereas other times it can mean "among" like the Latin "in." The link you supplied has "among" in 31:26: it does not say "there to you."

I am sorry, but LXX is not clearly an insertion or translation: the wording accords well with one understanding of the Hebrew preposition. Now the KJV/DSS handling of the Hebrew is a separate question, but I do not think the LXX can be faulted in this case. The fact of the matter, having done further research, is that ἐν could mean "among" or "against." See Jeremiah 42:5; Micah 1:2 (LXX/OG).

I prefer the original languages, but the point is that Rashi possibly understands the verb to mean "overlay." I quoted both English and Hebrew for Rashi.

If you don't mind, please explain how Rev 21:21 fits into this discussion. Is it the fact that John mentions a street made of gold?

Sorry for my mental slowness, but I'm also lost about this whole mirror suggestion. Who is arguing/suggesting that tabernacle/temple materials functioned like a mirror? Additionally, the idea seems a bit hasty.

That expression in Deut 31:26 is far from being clear. Where did Israel place the tablets? At one side, both sides or somewhere else? Answers to these questions don't appear to be all that lucid. Finally, the OP was about Prov 8:22 and we segued to Jn 1:1. I don't mind meaningful digressions, but time and my wife place constraints on how far I can allow these discussions to go afield. :)


Βασίλειος said...

Dear Edgar,

Thank you very much for your informative and interesting comment on Caragounis. Paradoxically or not, in Greece the department of Linguistics is under the umbrella of the Philology faculty. Theology, of course, is a separate faculty. Whatever is the case, I feel that Caragounis is mostly known for his contribution in the understanding of the development of Greek, which is a linguistic subject, rather than for his expertise in NT theology. Interestingly, at his web-page Caragounis himself puts his linguistic interstates above his theological.
http://chrys-caragounis.com/My_New_WEBSITE/PDF_Folders/About.New/Research_Interests.pdf

Of course, I do not mention all this having the intention to undermine his entire theological work, of which I am not adequately familiar. Still, Orthodox NT commentators usually (but, happily, not always) are excited in connecting the NT Logos with the Greek philosophical Logos, in order to ‘biblically’ justify the Fathers who had the bad habit of reading the Greek biblical text under the lens of Greek philosophy, mostly Platonic and Stoic.

It is easy to prove the absence of philosophical language in John or even of trends of vulgarized “popular Platonism”. The fact is that Johannine Logos does not even mean Reason; but Word. Ancient translators of John never understood Logos as Reason. Generally, Logos never carries the meaning of Reason in NT because, I suppose, of the Hebrew linguistic background of the NT writers: davar can not mean reason.

As for the Greek of John’s Gospel, the Semitic background is so evident, that once Charles Torrey claimed that the Greek text is a translation of an Aramaic original. A typical example Torrey evoked was the bad structure of 13:1.

However, as you mentioned, Revelation and the Gospel of Mark are considered to have worse Greek.

Duncan said...

ABP translates as "to you." which is a polyglot & there must take some account of variants.

χρυσιον καθαρον ως υελος διαυγης. IMO this is referring to something mirror like as the description is not just gold.

http://www.mirrorhistory.com/mirror-history/first-mirrors/ - note - gold.

Where I said " insertion/interpretation", I was referring to the Hebrew (see associated link).

My comments are coming too thick and fast. I will stick to one point at a time in future.

I also made an error - the tablets were in the ark. It is the book of the law that was next to the ark & it is this point that I find fascinating in relation to John 1:1 - "προς".

You may see this as a stretch but I see some striking possibilities - Like the description of the ark itself - was it a throne with the stones in the base? Is this the model for the "Moses seat", a later interpretation of it.

I just have difficulty with the logos of Philo - IMO it does not fit the Hebrew speaking culture of Isreal. If the apostle John is the author, regardless of where he wrote this work, we have to look at where he was from, his upbringing and culture.

ABP:- Jer 42:5 And they said to Jeremiah, Let the lord be to us for a [witness just and trustworthy]! if we do not according to every word which ever [should send you the lord your God] to us thus we will do.

Mic 1:2 Hear, O peoples, all the words! and take heed, O earth, and all the ones in it! Even [will be the lord God] among you for a testimony the lord from out of [house his holy].

On can interpret as against.

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=znB4gOMlb3AC&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=canaanite+empty+throne&source=bl&ots=Tq1y5UlW9s&sig=oeHLnQ2pxtbw-SXWLBQaeK5n5Dg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO9K3J2t3UAhXJKMAKHQ23AnoQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=canaanite%20empty%20throne&f=false

I will leave it at that - quite a bit of supposition but I believe it has some foundation.

Βασίλειος said...

As regards the issue Duncan raised,

My Hebrew knowledge is poor, however I think that the Hebrew text of Pr 8:22 shows that the phrase “beginning of his ways” is not adverbial (as it is falsely translated in KJV) but an object to qanah. LXX also render it as such using simple accusative: Kύριος εκτισέ με αρχήν οδών αυτού “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways”. Since in Hebrew the next phrase has exactly the same meaning, instead of making a repetition that would seem to be a tautology to them, they merged the two last phrases into one: “the beginning of his ways as regards his works”.

PS: I mistakenly wrote εκτίσατο in my previous messages influenced by εκτήσατο. Interestingly, it was not such a tragic mistake:
ὁ γὰρ Ἑβραῖος, εἴ γε βούλοιτο τὴν ἑαυτοῦ λέξιν Ἑλληνικώτερον ἐπ[…]εῖν, ‘ἐκτίσατο’ ἂν εἴπῃ ἢ ‘ἔκτισεν’· οὕτως γὰρ οἱ μεταγενέστεροι τὴν λέξιν μετωνομάκασι· ‘κύριος γὰρ [ἐκτί]σατό με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ’ Michael Psellos Opusculum 10, 113

Duncan said...

Regarding:- davar

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/002.html

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sy8DBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=tautology+in+hebrew&source=bl&ots=yZYSxdsDJb&sig=czaQMw2xuNzmHmJjya3MhrzoEVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijmaLwst7UAhUiJMAKHc-ZCuoQ6AEIZzAI#v=onepage&q=tautology%20in%20hebrew&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

Greetings Βασίλειος,

Thanks for letting me know how disciplines are classified in Greece. The word "philology" can be nebulous, and I have noticed that North America even uses the term differently from the British, it seems. We distinguish between linguists and philologists, but that point aside, I agree that Caragounis' specialty appears to be how Greek developed historically (diachronics). However, I have also benefited from some of his exegetical work like the book on Peter and his "Son of Man" work. Nevertheless, I concur with your overall statements about Caragounis. I think his name was brought into this discussion because of his recent journal article on Jn 1:1. Whether I agree with his theology or not, I did find the article to be informative at certain points.

I also agree when you state that John was not philosophical. That is what causes me to look for the source of his Logos somewhere besides Philo or the Middle Platonists. I tend to accept the "Word" understanding of Logos, but when discussing the matter with Duncan, I was trying to show the manifold ways that people (Romans and Greek Orthodox) have understood the term historically. Clement of Alexandria could be another interesting writer to examine along these lines along with Origen. Your input is appreciated, and I do not want to sound argumentative, but one other point I tried to make was that "wisdom" is not the best translation for Logos in John 1:1 either.

I will just make two brief points regarding Prov 8:22:

Not defending KJV, since it has lots of mistaken renderings, but it translates 8:22 this way: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old."

Of course, NWT has "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,
The earliest of his achievements of long ago."

However we describe the Hebrew grammar, I believe רֵאשִׁית may be used to denote someone or something first in time or first in rank.

All the best,

Edgar

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan,

We have plenty to learn about scripture and God. Paul wrote that we behold things in a hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but one day, it will be face to face: I will know even as I am known--presumably by God.

For προς, I will just encourage you to read the Caragounis article I referenced earlier, and BDAG has an entry for προς like other lexicons do.

I have researched Philo before. He possibly did not know Hebrew or knew very little. Additionally, he was a Platonic/Stoic philosopher steeped in Greek learning. Very different background from John.

We may not extensively know John's background, but I am almost certain he was not reared like Philo, and he certainly was no philosopher. Moreover, almost every proposed scenario I've read for the origin and background of John's Gospel has been shot down. I will post a link that explains what I mean.

Best regards,

Edgar

Edgar Foster said...

More on davar: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1697

To see how some have approached a study of the 4th Gospel, see Paul Anderson's _Foreword_to_The_Gospel_of_John_A_Commentary_by_Rudolf_Bultmann_Johannine_Monograph_Series_1_Eugene_Wipf_and_Stock_2014_i

Duncan said...

Deut 5:4 has always stuck in my mind when thinking of pros and what it might mean when applied to communications with jehovah and the principle of agency. A subject for another time.

Βασίλειος said...

Dear Edgar,

Thank you again for sharing your fruits of your copious study with us.

Some last thoughts on the connection of Pr 8:22 and Logos.
Similarly to what you and others have already said above, commentators usually mention the connection of ‘word’ and ‘wisdom’ in the context of divine creation:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made (Psalm 33:6, NIV)

By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations (Proverbs 3:19, NIV)

Before all things wisdom has been created […]. Wisdom’s spring is God’s word in the highest (Wisdom of Sirach 1:4, 5, NETS, Palestine c. 180 BCE)

Who made all things by your word and by your wisdom formed human beings (Wisdom of Solomon
9:1, NETS, Alexandria, c. 1st cent. C.E.)

I personally feel that the last two citations indicate that there was a Jewish speculation on the true meaning of Proverbs 8:22 and its connection with the creative word of God (in Genesis and elsewhere). Word does not mean wisdom, but divine word is an expression of divine wisdom. Of course, contrary to Proverbs 8, the other verses in Psalms and Proverbs seem primarily to speak about something impersonal, and thus such expressions cannot give definite answers per se.

I think that the most crucial question is why John used the name Logos in his prologue. Was it just a device for kerygmatic purposes, to draw the attention of his audience? I don’t think so, because Logos is also a part of a vision in Revelation (again in a purely biblical context).

Edgar Foster said...

Dear Βασίλειος,

Thank you for contributing to this thread and sharing thoughts, which connect Logos with Wisdom. Discussing the background or motivation for John's Logos would make for an interesting future exploration. As usual, there is a wealth of information on that subject too. In this regard, Barclay, Raymond E. Brown and A.N. Jannaris have some interesting thoughts.

All the best,

Edgar

Anonymous said...

“Something similar is also read in Proverbs, of the personification of the Wisdom, who is the Christ: »The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled and before all hills, he begets me.« Here, the word »created« should not confuse us, since in the Hebrew text, there is no »created«, which is expressed with BARA, but »possessed«. For it is written: »ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO«, which in our language means: »The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways«. However, there is a great difference between »possession« and »creation«. Possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. But creation is the beginning of a new state of that, which did not exist before.”
(Jerome - Letter 140)

Edgar Foster said...

See the comment above from Michael Fox. You might have also seen Burney's study: "possessed" does not seem like a good fit for Proverbs 8:22.

Anonymous said...

Edgar whats your take on Brentons rendering of Prov 8:22
"The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. 23 He established me †before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth"

Double accusative

Edgar Foster said...

U don't think Brandon is wrong per se, but I think the translation would be better if he used "as" to make the predication clearer. It would be interesting to see how NETS LXX handles it.

Edgar Foster said...

That was supposed to be, I don't think that Brenton is wrong per se.

Edgar Foster said...

"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works" (NETS LXX).

Nincsnevem said...

-1

It's meant as a type (see typology), could be applied to him. First of all, Proverbs is a wisdom book, that's how it shall be interpreted. The Hebrew Bible, from which the Book of Proverbs comes, does not include the concept of God the Father begetting God the Son, as this is a concept from Christian theology, which was developed later.

Arius' view was summarized in their phrase "there was a time when the Son was not." As you've noted, they interpreted Proverbs 8:22, and specifically the verb ἔκτισέ με in the Greek translation (Septuagint), to support this view. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father and is co-eternal with the Father.

It should be highlighted the complexity of Greek and Hebrew words that are often translated into English as "created." In the original languages of the Bible, these words often carried a range of meanings, and their interpretation can greatly influence one's understanding of the nature of Jesus.

Even Jewish translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." In the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew verb 'qanah' (קָנָה) is often translated as 'get', 'acquire', or 'gain' in many English translations, in the Book of Proverbs in all instances, 'qanah' denotes the act of obtaining or acquiring wisdom or knowledge.

But even the translation of the LXX is not suitable to justify Arianism. For instance, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." ἔκτισέ in the context of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't mean that Wisdom (interpreted as the Son or Christ) was created, in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather that the Son was appointed or established as the beginning of God's ways. Furthermore, discussing the nature of biblical language, especially focusing on the meaning of the term ἔκτισέ (ektise) which is often translated as 'created', it can be argued that in the context of passages such as Proverbs 8:22, this term does not denote creation out of nothing, but rather a form of making or establishing. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με (He created me) as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus (son not begotten, but made), i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο (He acquired me), and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε (He created) of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum (God created me as king or head of his works); Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum (He did not create me according to substance, but established me as the beginning and foundation of the whole universe)). Thus, the Son is not a created being, but rather eternally begotten, sharing the same divine essence with the Father.

This is further supported by differentiating between the concepts of "made" and "begotten." In Christian belief, "made" implies creation from nothing or from pre-existing materials, while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning, between the Father and the Son. So, Christ is considered "begotten, not made", which means he shares the same divine nature with the Father and wasn't created at a certain point in time.

Nincsnevem said...

Jerome argues that the correct translation of "קנני" (qanani) in Proverbs 8:22 is "possessed" rather than "created." He bases his argument on the distinction between the Hebrew words for "create" (ברא, bara) and "possess" (קנה, qanah). The verb 'bara' (בָּרָא), which means 'create' in Hebrew, is indeed used throughout the Bible to denote the divine act of creating. This verb is exclusively used for divine creation in the Hebrew Bible. It conveys a sense of the initiation of something new, bringing something into existence that was not there before.

The JWs use this verse to support their doctrinal claim, even though according to the established exegesis, the Chokhmah of the Old Testament is not literally the Logos of the New Testament, but at most a type, a foreshadowing. The wisdom literature of the Old Testament, which also includes the book of Proverbs, cannot be used to support doctrinal teachings, taking into account its genre characteristics. Wisdom is personified. It is a quality within a Person, and the quality, itself, is personified. That Person is not yet revealed. "From everlasting was I poured" is an everlasting begetting. It is not a creation, it is a begetting, everlastingly. 'Time' has no meaning in this context.

Also, translations of Proverbs 8:22 in the Septuagint, word κτίζω can mean with a double accusative "to make somebody something", e.g., "to make/set somebody free" (cf. Aeschylus "Choephori" 1060), that is to say, cause somebody's getting free. In this last meaning the adequate literal translation of the Septuagint will be: "Lord caused/made me (brought me forth) to be the beginning of His ways towards His deeds", for there is not an "ἐν ἄρχῃ" in the text, but a double accusative ("[ἔκτισεν] με ἀρχήν"), like in the abovementioned quote from Aeschylus ("ἐλεύθερόν σε [κτίσει]"). Therefore, the translation "He created me in the beginning of his ways" is totally misleading, while "He caused/made me to be the beginning/principle" is grammatically more plausible with the double accusative construction. Thus, the Septuagint suggests that God was necessitated to bring forth, bring about, or cause something to be the principle ἀρχή for doing His deeds (ἔργα); therefore, by logic of this, this something is not included in those ἔργα but is outside of them as the God-derived principle for their coming into being.

Later in theology, through the Arian controversy, there happened a clear technical division between "creation" (κτίζω) and "begetting" (γεννάω). However, Septuagint translators did not yet have this terminologically tense agenda and thus put the verb in a looser sense of "making somebody something" or "bringing forth", not at all investing this term with a necessity of a contingency and createdness,i.e. non-eternity, of a being that God has brought about (ἔκτισεν).

Nincsnevem said...

The book of Proverbs is part of wisdom literature, and during the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, the context, the role of the given book in the whole revelation, and its genre characteristics must always be taken into account. In Proverbs 8, if you read it all the way through, it cannot be evaluated as a definitive revelation of doctrinal truth at all, but rather a literary twist, and nowhere is there any indication that this happened in time. The following text lists a number of other verbs which also indicate that the statement "CANANI BRESITH DERCHO" here does not prove the Arian thesis that there was a time when Wisdom did not exist. This is personification and a literary genre. It is also an absurd statement that God was not always wise and was not always Father, which follows from the principle of immutability of God.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles identified the Wisdom in Proverbs 8 with the Son by letter. Moreover, Proverbs 8 is nowhere cited in the New Testament. This is a typology that occurs frequently in the New Testament. If you were to take the countless statements about the "Wisdom" in the Old Testament and apply them all to Jesus, you would probably come up with quite absurd conclusions.

The Greek-speaking ancient Christians also didn't have problem with the Proverbs 8:22, since ἔκτισε of the LXX still not the same as ποιηθέντα, which was the term condemned by the Nicene Creed. Pope Dionysius explained that ἔκτισε has many shades and meanings in the Greek language, does not mean what Arianism asserts. None of the Ante-Nicene Christians interpreted Proverbs 8:22 as the Arians did, or the JWs do today, as a proof that the Logos is a created being. How then? You can read it from Dionysius' epistle Against The Sabellians from 262:

* https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm

Secondly, the Wisdom of Proverb 8:22 is not the Logos himself, it does not identify and equate with the Logos per se, but a literary form allegory applied, attributed to the Logos according to the rules of typology, and not to identify (equate) the two, so this could not be used to support a doctrine anyway. Proverbs 7:4–5 indicates clearly that the writer of Proverbs intended Wisdom to be presented as a woman. So the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is nothing more than the poetically personified, gradual realization and manifestation of eternally existing, divine, uncreated wisdom in the created world, starting from the embryonic state of chaos up to the crown of the completed world, the son of man.

Check this too: https://www.academia.edu/29454891/Parys_Trinitarian_Exegesis_and_Theology_Prov_8_22_according_to_the_Cappadocian_Fathers_an_English_translation_from_the_French

I maintain that Proverbs 8 is not literally the Son, but a personification in a characteristic style of Old Testament Jewish wisdom literature. As a type, the Son can be used, but this is not an identification, but a typology. It cannot be used to support doctrine, especially since the terminology of the text does not strive for doctrinal precision at all, but praises wisdom in a characteristic style.

Do you believe that Christ is a woman who cries in the streets? (Proverbs 1:20,21) Was there a time when God had no wisdom? No. Wisdom is eternal as God. Messianic references in the Old Testament are either completely clear (e.g. Isaiah 53), or even if they are not completely clear, the New Testament clearly refers them to Christ (e.g. in Acts 2 in Peter's speech, etc.). However, nowhere in the New Testament did anyone apply Proverbs 8 to Jesus, nor does Solomon suggest that we should see more in the chapter than the description of wisdom. That is why, although the identification with Jesus seems like a nice parallel, it definitely lacks a strict biblical basis.

Nincsnevem said...

Philo of Alexandria used Prov 8:22–23 in 'De ebrietate' 31 in the wording different from that in the Septuagint:

‘God _acquired_ me as the first of all of his works, and before the age he founded me’ (ὁ θεὸς _ἐκτήσατό_ με πρωτίστην τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἔργων, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με).

Hence the translation of 'qanah' as 'ktáomai' was a well-known and established Jewish reading, since ALL Jewish translators and interpreters after the LXX (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) rendered it this way. And Jerome did not invent it himself, but while learning Hebrew from the Jews in Bethlehem took this reading from them, which was unknown before among the Greek and Latin speaking Christians, who had to defend the Nicene "begotten, not made" principle of the Son based on translation using the verb "ktizo" from the LXX.

"Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I have gotten [qanah] a man child with the help of the LORD.' (Genesis 4:1)

It doesn't suggest that Eve 'created’ anything. No, rather, it says that she had received, gotten, or acquired a child with the [help of the LORD]. Thus saying, it was through the LORD which she had acquired a child.

"But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought [qanah] and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter." (2 Samuel 12:3).

If 'qanah' = 'create,' then did the poor man "create" his little lamb? The poor man did not "create" the little lamb, rather he owned it. So overall the verb 'qanah' used in reference of 'creating.' It is always used in terms of receiving, getting, acquiring, possessing. Words translated from the Hebrew term 'qanah' are words such as, acquire, acquired, acquires, bought, buy, buyer, buying, buys, formed, gain acquisition, gained, get, gets, gotten, owner, possessed, possessor, purchased, purchaser, recover, redeemed, sold, and surely buy.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance ['ktisis'] of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;..." (1 Peter 2:13).

In addition, the verb "created" also has a meaning that is not used much in English, but was fully used back then, and this is referring it not to the actual existence, but to to appoint to a position, place. For example, some church writer quoted Revelation 1:6 by heart, saying "creavit" instead of "fecit" (made, ie. here: appoint), thus "has also CREATED us kings and priests", this also shows what the verbs "to create" meant for the ancients.

In modern English, this use of the verb "create" is very rare, but surely known. The English word 'create' can also potentially mean 'ordain,' though its more familiar use is to bring into existence: "create...To originate or cause; to bring into being; to cause to exist; to make or form, by investing with a new character; to constitute; to appoint ( to create a peer)..." (Webster's International, 1965). Also used when the Pope "creates" cardinals. So I can still say that yes, let's say for the sake of theory that he "created", but the word "created" here actually does not mean "ex nihilo bringing into existence", but "set up", "appointed", "installed".

Edgar Foster said...

Dear Nincsnevem, here again, you're going in all kids of directions when my focus in the OP was lexical and I did not insist that qanah means "to create" or "to create out of nothing," but the post shows clearly that the Hebrew word can have that meaning "to create" in certain settings but some of the writers I quoted specifically decried the meaning, "to possess."

Lastly, it's rather self-serving to define qanah at Prov. 8:22 as "to ordain" or to establish. Create and most other words require a context to understand their denotation: nobody is claiming that qanah has the same meaning in all literary settings.

Edgar Foster said...

Dear Nincsnevem, maybe before making such bold claims, you should read pages 416-417 of Takamitsu Muraoka's "A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint" published in 2009.

Edgar Foster said...

You might benefit from reading Bruce Waltke's commentary on Proverbs 1-15: I'm not saying he supports the meaning "to create" in Proverbs 8:22, but his discussion is informative. In one of his footnotes, we read:

"The notion that Wisdom is eternally being begotten is based on Christian dogma, not on exegesis. Verses 22-26 represent Wisdom’s origin as a one-time event and action, not as an eternal birth and/or an eternal coming into possession. Augustine, Calvin, et al. erred in that they wrongly interpreted Wisdom as a hypostasis of God that they equated with Jesus Christ and not as a personification of the sage’s wisdom."

Edgar Foster said...

Another informative source regarding ancient debates about Proverbs 8:22 is Paul Blowers' book, Drama of the Divine Economy. See pages 203ff. The situation is much more complex than you portray. Moreover, the ancients developed the idea off creatio ex nihilo, so they had a more nuanced understanding of "create" than you imply.

Nincsnevem said...

A good study on Proverbs 8:22:
https://docdro.id/5scufme

I did a little research, based on which Symmachus' translation managed to capture the idea best:

Κύριος έκτήσατό με άρχειν όδών αύτοΰ προ τής τραφής αύτοΰ
(“The LORD acquired me *as* the first principle (arche) of his ways before his action”).

So he interprets "qanani" as "acquired" and notices that it is a double accusative.

So even translating "qanani" as "created" does not cause problem theologically, because the use of a double accusative with the verb "create" can change the nuance of the verb's meaning. In this context, the double accusative could imply a more specific role or function rather than the act of bringing something into existence by the divine act of creation "ex nihilo".

In many languages, including Hebrew, double accusatives can bring about a shift in meaning, especially when used with certain verbs. The direct object becomes the recipient of the action, and the secondary object becomes the result or product of the action. So, in the case of Proverbs 8:22, if we read the verb "create" with a double accusative, it could indeed suggest that Wisdom was not so much "created" in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather "ordained", "constituted", "installed" or "appointed" to a specific role or function as the "arche" of God's (creative) works.

Thus, the translation "The Lord ordained/appointed me as the beginning (arche) of his works" would capture this nuance, emphasizing Wisdom's unique and foundational role in God's actions, without necessarily implying that Wisdom was created in the sense of coming into existence. This rendering maintains the primacy and importance of Wisdom without delving into the theological intricacies of its eternity versus created nature.

While the verb 'qanah" itself MIGHT imply "creation", the double accusative structure nuances that creation towards a more specific role, designation, or function. This can provide a safeguard against any theological implications that Wisdom (often equated with Christ in Christian interpretations) was a creation in the traditional sense. Symmachus' translation does seem to capture this nuance very well, indicating a specialized role or function rather than just existence.

Revelation 1:6 (in the Greek New Testament) features a construction similar to what we were discussing.

καὶ *ἐποίησεν* ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας {τῶν αἰώνων}· ἀμήν.

Translation:
"And He has *made* us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

In this verse, the verb ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen) can be translated as "created", "made" or "constituted". The direct object is "us" (ἡμᾶς) and the resultative secondary objects are "a kingdom" (βασιλείαν) and "priests" (ἱερεῖς). The function of these believers is defined by their relationship "to His God and Father" (τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ).

This structure, similar to the double accusative in Hebrew, indicates that believers are made both a "kingdom" and "priests". It isn't just that they were created, but they were appointed or designated for a specific role or function, which is in line with the nuance of "ordain" or "appoint" that we discussed earlier.

Therefore, the construction in Revelation 1:6 is not merely about existence, but about designation to a specific role or status in relation to God.

In summary, even if we apply this literally to Christ, it cannot be applied to support Arian Christology.

Edgar Foster said...

I mentioned the NET translation's note above, but here is what it states:

Proverbs 8:22 tn There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.” The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation “create.” Athanasius translated it, “constituted me as the head of creation.” The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire,” but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.” Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish” (R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, “Where Will Wisdom Be Found?” JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).
Proverbs 8:22 tn Verbs of creation often involve double accusatives; here the double accusative involves the person (i.e., wisdom) and an abstract noun in construct (IBHS 174-75 §10.2.3c).

Edgar Foster said...

There are numerous interpretive issues with Proverbs 8:22-23, even whether it's a double accusative or not. See Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in Letters to Colossians, pages 115-117.

Βασίλειος said...

Allow me to add that NET's comment is misleading as regards Athanasius. As far as I remember, during the 1st Ecumenical Council and the early debate, Athanasius did not reject κτίζω (create) because that was the standard reading of the Early Church for Proverbs 8:22 (see Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. 1). Athanasius, having no linguistic argument against Arius' position, merely claimed that this verse speaks about the incarnation, about the created human body of Jesus.
"For the Word of God is not creature but Creator; and says in the manner of proverbs, 'He created me' when He put on created flesh."


However, some other, later Fathers (maybe Basil, if I remember well) invoked alternative translations of Proverbs 8:22.

Nincsnevem said...

@Βασίλειος

"The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus, i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum)."
(Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament)

"Athanasius receiving ἔκτισεν ektisen, took it in the sense of appointing, and saw in the Septuagint a declaration that the Father had made the Son the "chief," the "head," the "sovereign," over all creation."
(Barnes' Notes on the Bible)

"Fathers generally adopted the rendering ἐκτήσατο, possedit, "possessed;" and even those who received the translation ἔκτισε, explained it not of creating, but of appointing, thus: The Father set Wisdom over all created things, or made Wisdom to be the efficient cause of his creatures (Revelation 3:14)."
(Pulpit Commentary)

Βασίλειος said...

@ Nincsnevem

Please see for yourself how Athanasius himself speaks about the proper translation and understanding of Proverbs 8:22 here:

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse2-4.html

For a study of the history of the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, please see here:
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/24-3_099.pdf

Yours,

Nincsnevem said...

https://catenabible.com/prv/8/22

https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_wisdom_created.htm

Nincsnevem said...

https://www.icatm.net/bibliotecabalmes/sites/default/files/public/analecta/AST_2/AST_2_357.pdf

Edgar Foster said...

The "created co-creator" in Proverbs 8:22 Syriac?

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/download/69d146de415870787e259b12f59f1d64bf714fcd6b4ee8b1a8da3875305a0879/178890/OA_Moss_2003_Lady_wisdom_as_the_created_co_creator.pdf

Anonymous said...

Interesting find Edgar

1Jhn 4:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmahXPfpj_w&ab_channel=DailyDoseofGreek

created me as the beginning of his way - would seem to me to be the most accurate (according to Wallace)
notice that the first part is paralleled with everything else in that verse and going forward.

The whole context indicates "Wisdom" (Not God) is before the foundation of the earth (calls to mind Job 38:4)
Q: If Jesus was recognised as God - Why are the writers putting so much effort into establishing so? The Father and Spirit have barely anything like what's said about Jesus regarding "eternity" seems odd.
Hebrews 1 especially, The audience knew God was superior to the Angels.. What was the point in proving Jesus was? if he was already God.
I fail to see the point, some point to it being "a revelation" but that makes no sense considering they apparently already knew he was God.

Revelation 1:6 note that the parallel cited, the object still "came to be" what is defined, not negating the implication of the verb, The kingdom and priests "came into existance" and obtained a new status.

Anonymous said...

basically Im saying its not as cut and dry as what is trying to be made out.