"As the Gospel of John does, Revelation associates Christ with wisdom (3:14) and with the word of God (19:13). These terms are used quite differently, however, in Revelation. The risen Jesus is associated with wisdom in 3:14 as 'the beginning of the creation of God.' This epithet clearly implies preexistence, but nothing in the work requires the inference that he is eternal. Rather, the implication seems to be that he is God's first creature." (King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins), p. 211
[Supplied by a friend.]
Compare the entry in BDAG for arche.
39 comments:
What is worth observing here is that all the letter introductions draw on the wording and ideas of the initial introduction at chapter 1.
Compare rev 1:5 with 3:14.
https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/3-14.htm
Also https://biblehub.com/text/luke/20-20.htm for word usage.
"Ruler" is one possible rendering for arche, but see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-314-and-bdag-edited-for.html
The arche entry from BDAG.
Context?
Especially when combined with "the faithful and true Witness" - we could also say the foremost.
But the relationship with 1.5 must be noted.
I pointed you to the BDAG entry because of what you posted from BH regarding Luke 20. Arche could mean ruler in Rev. 3:14, but there are other things to consider as well per BDAG.
Yes, Rev. 1:5 must be considered when trying to understand 3:14. Also why was the verse written in the first place? What was John attempting to convey? BDAG states that the meaning "first created" in 3:14 is probable.
Net Bible slaps that down.
https://biblia.com/books/gs-netbible/Re3.22#footnote4
And round and round we go. Back to the circle.
You are going to need more than bdag and references back to John 1:2-4 to overcome the local context of 1:5. The connection between
Bdag using Job over local context?
ἄρχων & ἀρχὴ.
Footnote 54
BDAG trumps the NET Bible even though I like NET (for the most part). BDAG is the authoritative GNT lexicon and other lexicons would also support the position that arche could mean "ruler" in Rev. 3:14, but likely does not. NET says "ruler of God's creation" and "the beginning of God's creation" are linguistically possible, but notice that NET finally decides on "originator" as a translation for arche, not ruler. NET criticizes BDAG, but I would never expect the committee for NET to favor "first created" anyway because of their prior theological commitments.
It's not only Job that makes BDAG say "first created" is possible. Read the entire entry and you'll see what made Danker (et al.) incline that way. Besides this subject thread is primarily about how Rev. 3:14 should be understood, not 1:5. That is what the BDAG comments reference.
Besides, Rev. 1:5 and 3:14 are not exactly the same. 1:5 uses the construct, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. So "ruler" or "prince" is fitting here; however, 3:14 has arche + the genitive and no reference to "kings."
See here why "ruler" might not be best for 3:14: https://books.google.com/books?id=HNLF5T3AC6AC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=beckwith+revelation&source=bl&ots=gRIWsfgng1&sig=ACfU3U0FkurwuVD4eOjPPfWWiNKRGgnMaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh-6vQnffkAhURO60KHVqDDwkQ6AEwEXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20jerusalem&f=false
We probably should not overlook the fact that Gen. 1:1; Prov. 8:22; Col. 1:15-18 likely serves as a backdrop for Rev. 3:14, as Burney noted.
See the comment here about Rev. 3:14 for another interpretive possibility: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/egt/revelation/3.htm
This would not be the first time that BDAG was proven incorrect.
I am looking at the whole of 1:5 ahead of the whole of 3:14.
In a new creation setting what is wrong with originator?
We are also back to talking about which "God's creation" is the point of focus - old or new.
Just because these books use Genesis language doe not mean they are talking about the first creation.
One cannot know the relationship between Colossians & Revelation at the times they were written & Col. 1:15-18 can also be referring to the new creation.
Can't access the google books but I think this may be the same work:-
https://archive.org/details/apocalypseofjohn00beck/page/n6
Just need to know the page number?
I haven't seen BDAG proven incorrect yet :)
"Originator" is possible, which even BDAG would surely acknowledge, but one problem I find with any of these choices is how theologically driven they are. Additionally, the new creation suggestion is hardly accepted by any scholar, which doesn't mean it's wrong, but we can't just assume it's right either.
You're right that Rev. 3:14 or Col. 1:15 might not be referring to the Genesis account, but it's a lively possibility. 3:14 also resembles Prov. 8:22.
I'm not denying the possibility that the new creation might be the subject of Rev. 3 or Col. 1, but it's a possibility, not a definitive conclusion.
On the Google Book, I was pointing you to Beckwith's Revelation commentary and what he says about the "ruler" translation and so forth. I was pointing you towards pages 488-489.
https://www.academia.edu/37884019/Doubting_BDAG_on_Doubt_A_Lexical_Examination_of_%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89_and_its_Theological_Ramifications
Briefly, I'll reply that no Greek-English lexicon is perfect/free from defect. And you should read how Chrys Caragounis raked Porter over the goals, which I've blogged about.
But I've read similar critiques of LSJ, Lampe' lexicon and the Brill lexicon. However, BDAG is still the authoritative GNT lexicon.
See the review of BDAG here: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-06-01.html
Thanks for sharing. I see that quote in my copy of this great book.
"Here is a list from the LXX of ARCHE denoting ‘government’ and ‘ruler’ without “…other expressions denoting “power” or “authority…”: Gen. 1:18, 40:13, 20,21, 41:13; Ex. 6:25; Deut. 17:18, 20; 1 Chron. 26:10; Neh. 9:17; Psalm 109:3, 138:17; Isa. 9:5-6, 10:10, 41:27, 42:10; Jer. 13:21, 30:2; Ezk. 29:15; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Hos. 1:11; Amos 6:1; Obad. 20; Mic. 3:1; Naham 1:6, 3:8. In Thucydides in historiae book 1 chapter 128 section 4 and line 1, there is an example of arch meaning beginning in the presence of words of authority....Based on these examples, arch can mean ‘ruler’ in Rev. 3:14. Actually, any nuance available to an author at any given point in history is possible. The question is what is probable."
"A few samplings of the usage as ruler are: Plutarch, Morals II.151F, “he held the greatest and the most perfect position as a ruler.” In Lives VIII, Sertorius 10, “They were altogether lacking in a commander of great reputation.” In Morals V.75.E, “For it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone.” In Diodorus Siculus II Bk.3.5.1, “him the multitudes take for their king.” In Philo, Alleg. III.58, “for the sake of being a ruler with governors”; 66, ”Amalek, the ruler of nations.” Ruler in Rev. 3:14 also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies Isaiah 9:5-6 where the LXX uses arch for Christ’s rule. I end with a quote from Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon page 779, entry 89.16, “one who or that which constitutes an initial cause – ‘first cause, origin.’ H ARCHE THS KTISEOS TOU THOU ‘the origin of what God has created’ Rev. 3:14. It is also possible to understand arch in Rev. 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’ (see 37.56).”
The reply from Danker to an enquiry regarding rev 3:14 and the upgrade from possible to probable:-
“My definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.” The gloss “beginning” is to be understood in that sense.”
You're welcome, Jim. I appreciate you confirming the quote and quality of the book.
Duncan, I acknowledged that "ruler" is possible for Rev. 3:14, but as the quote above states, is it probable? There are plenty of examples including Prov. 8:22 that support the rendering "beginning" for 3:14 as well.
Why not consider how John uses arche overall in Revelation and the context of each usage? Examine the LXX and GNT usages.
See also https://www.billmounce.com/greekvocabulary/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%87%CE%AE?page=1
Is that really nessasary as I am looking at it in the context of these introductions. If I am right it may shift the understandings elsewhere.
Isaiah 43:18 Μὴ μνημονεύετε τὰ πρῶτα, καὶ τὰ ἀρχαῖα μὴ συλλογίζεσθε·
From Robertson's word pictures pg2142:-
Rev 21:5
Behold, I make all things new (Ιδου καινα ποιω παντα). The first time since 1:8 that
God has been represented as speaking directly, though voices have come out of the throne
before ( 21:3) and out of the sanctuary (16:1,17 ), which may be from God himself, though
more likely from one of the angels of the Presence. This message is not addressed to John
(7:14; 17:7; 21:6; 22:6 ), but to the entire world of the blessed. See Isa 43:18f. for the words
(Ιδου εγω ποιω καινα). The idea of a new heaven and a new earth is in Isa 65:17; 66:22; Ps
102:25f . For the locative here with επ (επ τω θρονω) see 7:10; 19:4 (genitive more usual,
4:9f.; 5:1,7,13 , etc.). See 20:11 for the picture.
Rev 1:8
The Alpha and the Omega (το Αλφα κα το Ο). The first and the last letters of the Greek
alphabet, each with its own neuter (grammatical gender) article. This description of the
eternity of God recurs in 21:6 with the added explanation η αρχη κα το τελος (the Beginning
and the End) and of Christ in 22:13 with the still further explanation ο πρωτος κα ο εσχατος
(the First and the Last). This last phrase appears also in 1:17; 2:8 without το Αλφα κα το Ο.
The change of speaker here is unannounced, as in 16:15; 18:20 . Only here and 21:5f . is God
introduced as the speaker. The eternity of God guarantees the prophecy just made.
I Hebraic usage for eons we have beginnings and ends - this is a particular beginning and end. (start and completion).
I still see Rev. 1:5 in a different light from 3:14. While 3:14 has different interpretive possibilities, part of figuring out how it should be rendered normally involves, among other things, studying how LXX, papyri, and a book like Revelation uses a word.
Rev. 3:14 just refers to Christ as the arche without adding telos. One problem here too is that theology usually drives attempted exegesis of 3:14
Did you get chance to watch the logos institute videos. They seem in favour of authorship being John the elder as a separate individual. No one contested it.
I do see certain resemblances in a few verses of lxx but one problem is, like genesis language, it can be appropriated for different perposes than originally intended and this can be seen elsewhere in the nt.
It's the theology I am trying to avoid or at least the usual practice of trying to smooth everything out. Each author must be allowed to speak freely. Smoothing may obscure something really important.
I have also noticed that Trinitarians use similar arguments to me regarding 3:14 to try and say that Jesus had no beginning. Thing is it could say what they want it to say but not mean what they think it does.
I did not finish the video, but saw a good portion of it. The suggestion about John the elder is old. Revelation states that "John" wrote the book. It does not elaborate on whether it was the apostle or some other writer although tradition says it was the apostle. Dionysius of Alexandria (I believe) contested the authorship of Revelation in ancient times. His words are on this blog.
Speaking of things being familiar in the academy, Moses Stuart commentary on the Apocalypse is interesting. I don't agree with his take on Rev. 3:14, but the suggestions he makes sound like those made today.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/13-10.htm
Note the aleph-tav here.
Gomorrah and Sodom "aleph-tav" - total completeness. In this case complete destruction.
This is lost in the LXX.
The ending is inherent to the beginning - a cycle.
1 Corinthians 15:24 may be relevant. Particularly, "after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.". Relinquishing rulership.
A very important point is the way the aleph-tav in the account of Jacob and Esau is used. Follow its usage with both names and where the usage disappears from Esau but continues with Jacob.
"Another perfect example of the placement of the Aleph/Tav את Symbols is in the Book of Ruth. Ruth’s name is used 12 times in the book. The first 10 times there is no Aleph/Tav את Symbol in front of her name. After she is redeemed by Boaz the next two times her name is used an Aleph/Tav את Symbol is in front of her name each time."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9266/04ff69dd8c883493205410ada059f5221f77.pdf
Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse
IAN BOXALL
I would like to read this book.
Regarding John & John the Elder:-
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003) page 49.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006)
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Wm B. Eerdmans Publications) page 10.
Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 355
Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468.
Thanks for the sources on John the Elder. I've got Hurtado, Bauckham, and Mounce and can easily get Ehrman if I want it. But in this regard, one has to read David Aune's Revelation commentary and G. Beale's.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/06/analyzing-grammatical-and-ungrammatical.html
Robert Mounce on Revelation 3:14:
The final designation, “the ruler (archē) of God’s creation,” is undoubtedly linked to Paul’s great christological passage in Col 1:15ff., where Christ is designated “the beginning” (archē; v. 18) and “the firstborn over all creation” (v. 15). The close geographical proximity of the two cities and Paul’s instructions to Colossae that they exchange letters make it all but certain that the writer of Revelation knew the Colossian epistle.480 Although Wisdom’s declaration in Prov 8:22, “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old,” is often mentioned as a background for the NT use of the expression, as applied to Christ it carries the idea of “the uncreated principle of creation, from whom it took its origin.”481 The Arian meaning, “the first thing created,” is at variance with the Colossian passage that declares that “by him and for him” all things were created (Col 1:16). This self-designation is the most explicit allusion in the Apocalypse to the preexistence of Christ.
Well, at least he got the first part right even if for the wrong reason. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Once one uses geography to try an prove a point. Where was revelation written? Beyond tenuous. We do not know who wrote it or where. The vision of Patmos does not equal written on Patmos.
http://ntwrightpage.com/2018/10/08/how-greek-was-pauls-eschatology/
Problem here is that much of the Greek comes from the Hebrew. Just like there alphabet.
I can find many parallels between Greek mythology and tanakh accounts. There is more Hebrew in Greek than is given credit.
I'm certainly not trying to defend R. Mounce, but to ask where Revelation was written (its provenance) is a fair and standard question for any NT book. Maybe we cannot say with 100% certainty where the book was written or which "John" wrote it, but there is a case to be made for positing some provenance for the book and we have reasons why the apostle John has long been identified as the author of Revelation. But history normally doesn't deal with certainties.
Certainly wouild not deny Hebrew influence on the NT. On the other hand, the NT is not reducible to Hebrew, but was also shaped by Graeco-Roman culture and some of us believe it's also inspired like Tanakh. :)
It would be useful to have a solid biblical definition of what "inspired" actually means and it's implication for the texts?
An interesting list here from the targums and verses like genesis 6:6 are of particular interest.
https://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
I think the focus should be on ὠφέλιμος. Just how forceful is it?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YK1XDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%E1%BD%A0%CF%86%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82+useful+but+not+essential&source=bl&ots=qaL0wTzJdc&sig=ACfU3U0l3E00ZFd9Slqs6nyRCcPKq6IsbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyz4y4xZflAhVEolwKHY28B2cQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E1%BD%A0%CF%86%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82%20useful%20but%20not%20essential&f=false
It has a very limited usage and some things are more useful than others.
From my experience, and I could be wrong, but the Bible hardly ever defines key terms. Heb. 11:1 defines faith. However, other terms are not defined by biblical writers and that includes inspiration. We have the Greek term in 2 Tim. 3:16, but the Bible itself does not define inspiration, faith, understanding and a host of other terms.
Yes, the Targums are helpful in some respects.
The inspired texts will be useful for teaching, reproving, etc. Of course, we have different genres in scripture. Yet prophecy, history and poetry are beneficial for teaching us how to fear and please Jehovah.
Post a Comment