I see no reason for temporality, / rēʾšît̲ darkōw / (ראשיט דרקו, rey-SHEET dahr-KOHV) rather means "AS the beginning of his ways", than "AT the beginning of his ways".
The term 'reshit' comes from the word 'rosh', which means head, so 'reshit' can also mean chief, similar to the Greek 'arhe'.
In Aquila's Greek translation of the Hebrew text, the word "κεφάλαιον" (kephalaion) is used to render the Hebrew word 'reshit'. "Kephalaion" in Greek can be understood to mean "chief", "head" or "principal." In the context of this translation, it emphasizes the speaker as the "chief", "head" or "principal" of God's ways or works, highlighting their central and foundational role in God's creative process.
The Vulgate translates 'reshit' as 'initium', meaning "beginning" or "origin."
Someone can become something (in this case, Wisdom is made the Beginning [arkhe] of all things, as Eusebius explains, following Psalm 50:12 LXX — where the heart is made clean — and 1 Peter 2:13, where people become — or are invested as — kings and rulers).
Overall, I would translate it like this:
"The LORD acquired me AS his (first) principle."
or
"The LORD brought me forth (or gave me birth) me AS his (first) principle."
Otherwise, the text is sufficiently vague and figurative that it can hardly be used to support or refute any doctrine.
(Ill be having a break for a while after this comment (parents divorcing) - This person is beginning to really annoy me with their wilful ignorance Edgar, you can probably tell, I apologise about my tone as well if it comes off bad, that's generally the way I type though. I'm blunt in text)
I thought this couldn't be used to support doctrine.. So why does the translation of this verse matter to you? it seems it only matters when it threatens your beliefs more than anything else.
" it emphasizes the speaker as the "chief", "head" or "principal" of God's ways or works, highlighting their central and foundational role in God's creative process." - you forget siriach 1:4 - which conveys a similar message to Prov 8:22 A words origin does not nessacarily make this word in this instance mean what you claim, you would have to cite another Greek/ Hebrew text with "reshit" having that meaning. (NT or LXX) One philosopher doesn't really have a bearing, I find martyrs understanding of "begotten" interesting, kind of shuts down the eternal generation argument.
If we take Gen 49:3 from the Hebrew or Greek, would you apply that same meaning? if not why not? We have a direct parallel here and in Job 40:19. You will have to explain your way out of both of these.
I can further force your hand simply by citing Gen 14:19;22, Deut 32:6 (The reason in every other occurence of Proverbs it doesnt mean "create" is simply because teh context doesnt allow it.)
and once again you omit important information - to make it seem cut and dry.. when in reality its not.
I like this article, tho I disagree with his conclusion, similar to nincs, he is def more level headed in his approach (and honest): https://www.jstor.org/stable/23950320 https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/027_160.pdf
"Apart from the damage being done to doctrine, the archaeological discoveries from the nineteenth century onwards should have counseled caution. Indeed these discoveries showed that biblical history was being corroborated from unearthed buildings, artifacts and clay tablets that gave chronological data. They indicated the length of recorded biblical history to be no more than a few thousand years. They showed that the sacred texts talk of facts and not just symbols. Since all of Scripture is written as a guide to salvation, it seems legitimate to ask why suddenly the reader should be expected to treat all the texts preceding Genesis 12 as allegorical. Why suddenly instead of a continuum of history over relatively short periods of time is one expected to jump hundreds of thousands of years backwards without solid justification? " a myopic view. Material evidence does not dictate how an ancient text should be interpreted. The fact that a place existed does in no way prove accounts and specific events associated with it. This whole idea of "history" is rather late.
I would bet big money that there is a significant overlap between those translations which render this that way, and those who translate 'almah' as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 :-)
"I thought this couldn't be used to support doctrine.. So why does the translation of this verse matter to you?"
Because regardless of the fact that I don't think that this can be used to support or refute a doctrine, you think it is. Furthermore: regardless of its evidentiary value, it does not hurt if the Bible translation accurately captures the original idea.
"you forget Syriac 1:4"
I don't forget it, but no one has referred to this verse in this regard. Again, the multifaceted meaning of the verb 'ktizo' should be understood here. By the way, the concept of created wisdom is also known, which can be acquired by a person, so it is not an actual person, but a quality. Augustine deals with this: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vi.XII.XV.html
"you would have to cite another Greek/ Hebrew text with "reshit" having that meaning."
Amos 6:1, Amos 6:6, Jeremiah 49:35, Daniel 11:41, Ezekiel 20:40, Deuteronomy 33:21, Samuel 15:21, Proverbs 4:7.
"I find martyrs understanding of "begotten" interesting, kind of shuts down the eternal generation argument."
You mean Justin Martyr?
"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God."
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race"
"God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was"
[Trypho to Justin] "...you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man"
After researching this whole issue of the double accusative/predicate accusative in Proverbs 8:22, I se that it's not a foregone conclusion that the double accusative narrows the meaning of qanah in the verse. That is simply untrue. Yes, it's a possible reading of the text but not the only one. A scholar even argues that it's not even the most likely interpretation of Proverbs 8:22. See Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, page 116ff.
See also https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/131._Apposition
Originally I was talking about the Greek, whether the LXX version of Proverbs 8:22 is to be meant as the Arians understood it, or as a double accusative as Athanasius. The point was "κτίζω" in Grk can take a double accusative to mean "to make somebody (into) something", like For example: "I make you king", "I make you free". The double accusative construction in Hebrew is somewhat limited and doesn't have as wide a range as in some other languages like Greek. However, it is indeed possible to use certain verbs with what appear to be two direct objects in Hebrew.
The structure of the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 isn't a classic example of the double accusative as seen in languages like Greek, where one verb governs two direct objects without a preposition, but in the context of this verse, the structure indeed does allow for an interpretation akin to the accusative of result seen in some languages.
'Qanani reishit darko' can be understood as an adverbial usage ("AT the beginning of His way"), but also as a quasi-accusative of result: "The LORD made/acquired me AS the beginning (principle/arkhe) of His way." In this interpretation, 'reishit' functions similarly to an accusative of result, indicating what the subject becomes or is made as a result of the verb. This interpretation is close to the double accusative construction in languages like Greek.
Thus you can interpret 'reishit' in a way that mirrors the accusative of result, where the action of the verb brings about a certain state or transformation for the object. In this reading, God's act of acquiring/creating results in Wisdom being "the beginning (principle/arkhe) of His way."
If the translators of the Septuagint had interpreted 'qanani reishit darko' as an adverbial usage, according to which it is interpreted as an adverbial phrase indicating when the action took place, they would have translated it like this:
' Kyrios ektisen me EN arkhe hodon autou ' = "The LORD created/made me AT/IN the beginning of his ways"
But it was not translated that way, there is no preposition 'en' (in/at) before 'arkhe' (as in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: "en arkhe..."), and the 'arkhe is in accusative (arkheN) and was rendered as:
' Kyrios ektisen me arkheN hodun autou ' = "The LORD made me (into/as/to be) the 'arkhe' of his ways"
So the translators of the LXX did not understand the Hebrew text of this verse to mean that 'chokmah' is the first creature that was created "in the beginning", rather, that through the act described by the verb 'qanah', the 'chokmah' became the 'arkhe' or 'reishit' of the the (creative) ways of Yahweh.
In the Hebrew text, the construct ' rē’šît darkô ' from Proverbs 8:22 does present some challenges in interpretation. Let's analyze the potential justification for the double accusative interpretation:
The Nature of the Verb: The 'qānāh' primarily means "to get, acquire," but in SOME contexts, it CAN have the meaning "to create." When it comes to transitive verbs like 'qānāh', the possibility exists for the verb to take two direct objects. This is especially true if one object specifies what is acquired/created, and the other provides additional information about the acquisition/creation.
Absence of a Preposition: In Hebrew, if ' rēʾšît̲ darkōw ' were serving purely as a temporal adverbial modifier, one might expect a preposition like ב (b-, "in/at") to be present, making it "ברֵאשִׁית דַּרְכֹּו" (b-rē’šît darkô) which would clearly indicate "AT/IN the beginning of his ways." The absence of such a preposition leaves the door open for a double accusative reading.
Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry: Hebrew poetry, such as that found in Proverbs, often uses parallel structures. Later in the chapter, there are other references to Wisdom's primacy or precedence, such as in Proverbs 8:23, where Wisdom is described as being established "from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was." This primacy could support reading ' rēʾšît̲ darkōw ' as a description of Wisdom's chief or primary role, rather than merely a temporal starting point.
Resonance with ' rēʾšît̲ ' in Other Texts: The term "רֵאשִׁית" (rē’šît) also appears at the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 1:1, "ברֵאשִׁית" (B-rē’šît, "In the beginning"). While in Genesis, it is more clearly temporal due to the preposition, its prominence as the first word of the Torah might influence readings in other texts. Its use in Proverbs 8:22 could evoke not just the idea of temporality but also primacy or precedence.
Contextual Flow: Proverbs 8 is a personification of Wisdom speaking about her origins and significance. Given the context of the whole chapter, which underscores Wisdom's foundational role in creation and her intimate relationship with the Creator, the double accusative reading "as the beginning/chief of his ways" emphasizes Wisdom's inherent value and role in the divine order.
Given these factors, while both interpretations have their merits, the arguments for a double accusative reading in the Hebrew are compelling. Still, as with many ancient texts, certainty is elusive, and interpretations may vary based on theological, linguistic, or contextual considerations.
In defining the root meaning of the Hebrew verb - קָכָ (qana), scholars disagree among themselves. D. Cassel considers this verb to be primitive and having the meaning: bought, acquired, had. To support his opinion, he cites derivatives from the same root, which all retain the concept of acquisition in their meaning: קָוִן – acquisition (Genesis 4:3); הַקַוִן, קִובִו, קֵובִו – Kenites, the Canaanite people – merchants (Numbers 24:22), הַקַוִן – the name of a city (Joshua 15:57). (D. Cassel. Hebraisch-deutsches worterbuch. Breslau, 1871).
Steinberg, in the Etymological Dictionary of the Old Testament books, when listing the meanings of the verb - קָבָ, puts as primary meanings: to firmly embed, to set upright, to build, to create, although a series of his quotes after these meanings (Genesis 14:19; Psalms 139:13) does not indicate the concept of creation, especially creation from nothing.
The ancient Greeks also interpreted the verb - קָבָ differently. While in the commonly accepted translation of the Septuagint this word is translated by the verb - ἔϰτισε, others conveyed its meaning by the verb - ἐϰτήσατο. Philo knew such a translation; we find it in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; Origen had it at hand (Comm. in Matth. t. 17, op. t. 3, p. 788); it is preserved in some ancient lists of the Greek Bible (see Vet. test. Graec. ed. Holmissii, t. 3). St. Jerome obviously knew it too, as he translated the considered Scripture passage with the words: Dominus possedit Me, and firmly and fundamentally defended his translation in Letter 139 to Cyprian, pointing to the difference in meaning between the words - possessio and creatio. St. Basil the Great, in explaining the Scripture passage under consideration, followed the translation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion and said that the translation of these persons should be a major obstacle for the wicked to uphold the blasphemous expression: "The Son is a creature." "For to acquire in Scripture means the same as to beget, as this word is used about Cain: I have acquired a man with the help of the Lord - Adam said after the birth of Cain" (Genesis 4:1). Archpriest Eun. 2. The word - קָבָ was translated by the verb ἐϰτήσατο by Gregory of Nyssa (Archpriest Eun. book 1), Eusebius of Caesarea (De eccles. theol. c. 2) and Epiphanius of Cyprus (Epec. 69, chap. 25).
"to firmly embed, to set upright, to build, to create," - hence the analogy of a corner stone. To found. A founder. This is a more original and primary definition of the Greek term used to translate it. But the founder of one thing does not necessarily make them the founder of all. At the NT & OT talking of the same event?
Mr. Foster, in th second link above, there is references for "ABP 1.411-16" and "ABP.1279-80, 411-12". Do you know what are these, and how can one acces them?
BTW, as I understand it, if we take Prov. 8:22 in the LXX as a fake double accusative, then "the Lord created me" would be correct. Moreover, verses 23-25 seem to support that understanding.
The footnote to Prov. 8:22 in the NET Bible says:
"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)."
In light of this, the NET Bible renders Prov. 8:22:
"The LORD created me as the beginning of his works"
And this is close to what the NETS LXX offers:
"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways"
It take it that the translator of Proverbs for NETS agrees that the LXX of Prov. 8:22 is an example of the fake double accusative.
Sean, Beetham thinks the syntax in Prov. 8:22 could be an accusative of time rather than a predicate accusative. You also likely remember Wallace's famous article about object-complements.
Observation: Amos 6:1, Amos 6:6, Jeremiah 49:35, Daniel 11:41, Ezekiel 20:40, Deuteronomy 33:21, Samuel 15:21 or Proverbs 4:7. none of these instances of "resit" mean authorship or "First-cause", but rather mean commencement (Barnes) or "best" (best = still part of their respective group) of something - So none of these examples prove anything.
none of these mean "chief", "head" or "principal" (though you could construe some to mean that, when taken in their contexts they never mean these 3 things)
start of the race = the start line beginning of the race = commencement of the race (though both could mean when the racers set off, only start of the race could mean the start line)
if We take Proverbs 4:7 for example "Wisdom" is not the "head" of acquiring "Wisdom" - rather its the commencement (or the start).
looking at Amos 6:1 - We certainly wouldn't say the "foremost" nation is the "chief", "head" or "principal" We would say the "First" or "Best" yes, not the three presented above.
These examples infact are only pulled because they don't have the traditional meaning, not because they mean what I asked for.
My point is it doesn't mean first-cause, ownership etc it rather seems to mean a commencement or as you say "First" (in a chain) in some way.
I would compare Proverbs 4:7 with Gen 49:3, Where it means start point (or first). - While I am not saying they are parallel(they are certainly not), its interesting to note, that acquiring Wisdom is the start point (or commencement) to Wisdom rather than the "First cause" of Wisdom.
However if you read back my original post, the challenge was (A. directed at Ninc) to cite a text which backs up ninc's claim - I can find no text in the NT or Lxx that have this meaning (with actual support from either scholars or other texts)
"Wisdom is supreme" is a good translation, ill admit.
After some heavy research Ninc has ommitted something as usual - 8:22 might not have a tempral marker - but 8:23 does- therefore pretty much eliminating the need for a temporal marker in 8:22 becaue 8:23 tell us when 8:22 happened. Game. Set. Match (citations available on request)
32 comments:
I see no reason for temporality, / rēʾšît̲ darkōw / (ראשיט דרקו, rey-SHEET dahr-KOHV) rather means "AS the beginning of his ways", than "AT the beginning of his ways".
The term 'reshit' comes from the word 'rosh', which means head, so 'reshit' can also mean chief, similar to the Greek 'arhe'.
In Aquila's Greek translation of the Hebrew text, the word "κεφάλαιον" (kephalaion) is used to render the Hebrew word 'reshit'. "Kephalaion" in Greek can be understood to mean "chief", "head" or "principal." In the context of this translation, it emphasizes the speaker as the "chief", "head" or "principal" of God's ways or works, highlighting their central and foundational role in God's creative process.
The Vulgate translates 'reshit' as 'initium', meaning "beginning" or "origin."
Someone can become something (in this case, Wisdom is made the Beginning [arkhe] of all things, as Eusebius explains, following Psalm 50:12 LXX — where the heart is made clean — and 1 Peter 2:13, where people become — or are invested as — kings and rulers).
Overall, I would translate it like this:
"The LORD acquired me AS his (first) principle."
or
"The LORD brought me forth (or gave me birth) me AS his (first) principle."
Otherwise, the text is sufficiently vague and figurative that it can hardly be used to support or refute any doctrine.
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/8613/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43712281
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265812
https://gospelstudies.org.uk/biblicalstudies/pdf/myers/landes.pdf
https://docdro.id/O5Rie3y
(correcting myself)
Overall, I would translate it like this:
"The LORD acquired me AS the (first) principle of his ways..."
or
"The LORD brought me forth (or gave me birth) me AS the (first) principle of his ways..."
"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works" (NETS LXX)
(Ill be having a break for a while after this comment (parents divorcing) - This person is beginning to really annoy me with their wilful ignorance Edgar, you can probably tell, I apologise about my tone as well if it comes off bad, that's generally the way I type though. I'm blunt in text)
I thought this couldn't be used to support doctrine.. So why does the translation of this verse matter to you? it seems it only matters when it threatens your beliefs more than anything else.
" it emphasizes the speaker as the "chief", "head" or "principal" of God's ways or works, highlighting their central and foundational role in God's creative process." -
you forget siriach 1:4 - which conveys a similar message to Prov 8:22
A words origin does not nessacarily make this word in this instance mean what you claim, you would have to cite another Greek/ Hebrew text with "reshit" having that meaning. (NT or LXX)
One philosopher doesn't really have a bearing, I find martyrs understanding of "begotten" interesting, kind of shuts down the eternal generation argument.
If we take Gen 49:3 from the Hebrew or Greek, would you apply that same meaning? if not why not? We have a direct parallel here and in Job 40:19.
You will have to explain your way out of both of these.
I can further force your hand simply by citing Gen 14:19;22, Deut 32:6
(The reason in every other occurence of Proverbs it doesnt mean "create" is simply because teh context doesnt allow it.)
and once again you omit important information - to make it seem cut and dry.. when in reality its not.
I like this article, tho I disagree with his conclusion, similar to nincs, he is def more level headed in his approach (and honest):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23950320
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/027_160.pdf
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/reshit_7225.htm
"Apart from the damage being done to doctrine, the archaeological discoveries from the nineteenth century onwards should have counseled caution. Indeed these discoveries showed that biblical history was being corroborated from unearthed buildings, artifacts and clay tablets that gave chronological data. They indicated the length of recorded biblical history to be no more than a few thousand years. They showed that the sacred texts talk of facts and not just symbols. Since all of Scripture is written as a guide to salvation, it seems legitimate to ask why suddenly the reader should be expected to treat all the texts preceding Genesis 12 as allegorical. Why suddenly instead of a continuum of history over relatively short periods of time is one expected to jump hundreds of thousands of years backwards without solid justification? " a myopic view. Material evidence does not dictate how an ancient text should be interpreted. The fact that a place existed does in no way prove accounts and specific events associated with it. This whole idea of "history" is rather late.
I would bet big money that there is a significant overlap between those translations which render this that way, and those who translate 'almah' as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 :-)
Brenton's LXX translation correctly captures the meaning of the double accusative:
"The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works."
Dear anonymous, sorry to hear about your parents. Thanks for supplying those links.
"I thought this couldn't be used to support doctrine.. So why does the translation of this verse matter to you?"
Because regardless of the fact that I don't think that this can be used to support or refute a doctrine, you think it is. Furthermore: regardless of its evidentiary value, it does not hurt if the Bible translation accurately captures the original idea.
"you forget Syriac 1:4"
I don't forget it, but no one has referred to this verse in this regard. Again, the multifaceted meaning of the verb 'ktizo' should be understood here. By the way, the concept of created wisdom is also known, which can be acquired by a person, so it is not an actual person, but a quality. Augustine deals with this: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vi.XII.XV.html
"you would have to cite another Greek/ Hebrew text with "reshit" having that meaning."
Amos 6:1, Amos 6:6, Jeremiah 49:35, Daniel 11:41, Ezekiel 20:40, Deuteronomy 33:21, Samuel 15:21, Proverbs 4:7.
"I find martyrs understanding of "begotten" interesting, kind of shuts down the eternal generation argument."
You mean Justin Martyr?
"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God."
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race"
"God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was"
[Trypho to Justin] "...you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man"
After researching this whole issue of the double accusative/predicate accusative in Proverbs 8:22, I se that it's not a foregone conclusion that the double accusative narrows the meaning of qanah in the verse. That is simply untrue. Yes, it's a possible reading of the text but not the only one. A scholar even argues that it's not even the most likely interpretation of Proverbs 8:22. See Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, page 116ff.
See also https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/131._Apposition
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/117._The_Direct_Subordination_of_the_Noun_to_the_Verb_as_Accusative_of_the_Object._The_Double_Accusative
Originally I was talking about the Greek, whether the LXX version of Proverbs 8:22 is to be meant as the Arians understood it, or as a double accusative as Athanasius. The point was "κτίζω" in Grk can take a double accusative to mean "to make somebody (into) something", like For example: "I make you king", "I make you free". The double accusative construction in Hebrew is somewhat limited and doesn't have as wide a range as in some other languages like Greek. However, it is indeed possible to use certain verbs with what appear to be two direct objects in Hebrew.
The structure of the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 isn't a classic example of the double accusative as seen in languages like Greek, where one verb governs two direct objects without a preposition, but in the context of this verse, the structure indeed does allow for an interpretation akin to the accusative of result seen in some languages.
'Qanani reishit darko' can be understood as an adverbial usage ("AT the beginning of His way"), but also as a quasi-accusative of result: "The LORD made/acquired me AS the beginning (principle/arkhe) of His way." In this interpretation, 'reishit' functions similarly to an accusative of result, indicating what the subject becomes or is made as a result of the verb. This interpretation is close to the double accusative construction in languages like Greek.
Thus you can interpret 'reishit' in a way that mirrors the accusative of result, where the action of the verb brings about a certain state or transformation for the object. In this reading, God's act of acquiring/creating results in Wisdom being "the beginning (principle/arkhe) of His way."
If the translators of the Septuagint had interpreted 'qanani reishit darko' as an adverbial usage, according to which it is interpreted as an adverbial phrase indicating when the action took place, they would have translated it like this:
' Kyrios ektisen me EN arkhe hodon autou '
= "The LORD created/made me AT/IN the beginning of his ways"
But it was not translated that way, there is no preposition 'en' (in/at) before 'arkhe' (as in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: "en arkhe..."), and the 'arkhe is in accusative (arkheN) and was rendered as:
' Kyrios ektisen me arkheN hodun autou '
= "The LORD made me (into/as/to be) the 'arkhe' of his ways"
So the translators of the LXX did not understand the Hebrew text of this verse to mean that 'chokmah' is the first creature that was created "in the beginning", rather, that through the act described by the verb 'qanah', the 'chokmah' became the 'arkhe' or 'reishit' of the the (creative) ways of Yahweh.
In the Hebrew text, the construct ' rē’šît darkô ' from Proverbs 8:22 does present some challenges in interpretation. Let's analyze the potential justification for the double accusative interpretation:
The Nature of the Verb: The 'qānāh' primarily means "to get, acquire," but in SOME contexts, it CAN have the meaning "to create." When it comes to transitive verbs like 'qānāh', the possibility exists for the verb to take two direct objects. This is especially true if one object specifies what is acquired/created, and the other provides additional information about the acquisition/creation.
Absence of a Preposition: In Hebrew, if ' rēʾšît̲ darkōw ' were serving purely as a temporal adverbial modifier, one might expect a preposition like ב (b-, "in/at") to be present, making it "ברֵאשִׁית דַּרְכֹּו" (b-rē’šît darkô) which would clearly indicate "AT/IN the beginning of his ways." The absence of such a preposition leaves the door open for a double accusative reading.
Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry: Hebrew poetry, such as that found in Proverbs, often uses parallel structures. Later in the chapter, there are other references to Wisdom's primacy or precedence, such as in Proverbs 8:23, where Wisdom is described as being established "from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was." This primacy could support reading ' rēʾšît̲ darkōw ' as a description of Wisdom's chief or primary role, rather than merely a temporal starting point.
Resonance with ' rēʾšît̲ ' in Other Texts: The term "רֵאשִׁית" (rē’šît) also appears at the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 1:1, "ברֵאשִׁית" (B-rē’šît, "In the beginning"). While in Genesis, it is more clearly temporal due to the preposition, its prominence as the first word of the Torah might influence readings in other texts. Its use in Proverbs 8:22 could evoke not just the idea of temporality but also primacy or precedence.
Contextual Flow: Proverbs 8 is a personification of Wisdom speaking about her origins and significance. Given the context of the whole chapter, which underscores Wisdom's foundational role in creation and her intimate relationship with the Creator, the double accusative reading "as the beginning/chief of his ways" emphasizes Wisdom's inherent value and role in the divine order.
Given these factors, while both interpretations have their merits, the arguments for a double accusative reading in the Hebrew are compelling. Still, as with many ancient texts, certainty is elusive, and interpretations may vary based on theological, linguistic, or contextual considerations.
https://biblehub.com/text/proverbs/3-19.htm
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205/npnf205.viii.i.iv.x.html
https://t.ly/NTJvI
https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/pdf/10.1484/J.REA.5.101085 page 20-22
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Fathers-OR/Eusebius_Caesariensis__De_ecclesiastica_theologia.gr.html&chunk.id=00000093
In defining the root meaning of the Hebrew verb - קָכָ (qana), scholars disagree among themselves. D. Cassel considers this verb to be primitive and having the meaning: bought, acquired, had. To support his opinion, he cites derivatives from the same root, which all retain the concept of acquisition in their meaning: קָוִן – acquisition (Genesis 4:3); הַקַוִן, קִובִו, קֵובִו – Kenites, the Canaanite people – merchants (Numbers 24:22), הַקַוִן – the name of a city (Joshua 15:57). (D. Cassel. Hebraisch-deutsches worterbuch. Breslau, 1871).
Steinberg, in the Etymological Dictionary of the Old Testament books, when listing the meanings of the verb - קָבָ, puts as primary meanings: to firmly embed, to set upright, to build, to create, although a series of his quotes after these meanings (Genesis 14:19; Psalms 139:13) does not indicate the concept of creation, especially creation from nothing.
The ancient Greeks also interpreted the verb - קָבָ differently. While in the commonly accepted translation of the Septuagint this word is translated by the verb - ἔϰτισε, others conveyed its meaning by the verb - ἐϰτήσατο. Philo knew such a translation; we find it in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; Origen had it at hand (Comm. in Matth. t. 17, op. t. 3, p. 788); it is preserved in some ancient lists of the Greek Bible (see Vet. test. Graec. ed. Holmissii, t. 3). St. Jerome obviously knew it too, as he translated the considered Scripture passage with the words: Dominus possedit Me, and firmly and fundamentally defended his translation in Letter 139 to Cyprian, pointing to the difference in meaning between the words - possessio and creatio. St. Basil the Great, in explaining the Scripture passage under consideration, followed the translation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion and said that the translation of these persons should be a major obstacle for the wicked to uphold the blasphemous expression: "The Son is a creature." "For to acquire in Scripture means the same as to beget, as this word is used about Cain: I have acquired a man with the help of the Lord - Adam said after the birth of Cain" (Genesis 4:1). Archpriest Eun. 2. The word - קָבָ was translated by the verb ἐϰτήσατο by Gregory of Nyssa (Archpriest Eun. book 1), Eusebius of Caesarea (De eccles. theol. c. 2) and Epiphanius of Cyprus (Epec. 69, chap. 25).
"to firmly embed, to set upright, to build, to create," - hence the analogy of a corner stone. To found. A founder. This is a more original and primary definition of the Greek term used to translate it. But the founder of one thing does not necessarily make them the founder of all. At the NT & OT talking of the same event?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03090892211032244
https://www.biblia.work/bible-commentary/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-proverbs-822/
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/027_160.pdf
https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/8c622ea2-f8bd-40f5-a900-7615373f434a/content
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=jats
https://books.google.com/books?id=9XP2BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA156
Mr. Foster, in th second link above, there is references for "ABP 1.411-16" and "ABP.1279-80, 411-12". Do you know what are these, and how can one acces them?
Nincsnevem, ABP is the Anchor Bible Commentary for Proverbs. Michael Fox wrote it.
ABP is in college libraries but can also be found online here and there.
For those who might be interested, here is a link to an article about fake double accusatives:
https://ntgreeketal.com/2021/09/16/double-trouble-on-double-accusatives-in-greek-both-real-and-fake/?fbclid=IwAR0cFK9htiMtwd_goH_L49bUUq3xI9DfEeCjXvyJbREstrBygWJUm3MZwAE#:~:text=true%20double%20accusative.-,True%20double%20accusative,Argument%201%20is%20the%20subject
BTW, as I understand it, if we take Prov. 8:22 in the LXX as a fake double accusative, then "the Lord created me" would be correct. Moreover, verses 23-25 seem to support that understanding.
The footnote to Prov. 8:22 in the NET Bible says:
"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)."
In light of this, the NET Bible renders Prov. 8:22:
"The LORD created me as the beginning of his works"
And this is close to what the NETS LXX offers:
"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways"
It take it that the translator of Proverbs for NETS agrees that the LXX of Prov. 8:22 is an example of the fake double accusative.
Sean, Beetham thinks the syntax in Prov. 8:22 could be an accusative of time rather than a predicate accusative. You also likely remember Wallace's famous article about object-complements.
https://www.bsw.org/biblica/vol-80-1999/nursling-advisor-architect-nwm-and-the-role-of-wisdom-in-proverbs-8-22-31/329/article-p393.html
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/27024/Strawn%2C%20be-reshit%2C%20with%20Wisdom%20%28JSOT%29.pdf?sequence=2
Observation:
Amos 6:1, Amos 6:6, Jeremiah 49:35, Daniel 11:41, Ezekiel 20:40, Deuteronomy 33:21, Samuel 15:21 or Proverbs 4:7.
none of these instances of "resit" mean authorship or "First-cause", but rather mean commencement (Barnes) or "best" (best = still part of their respective group) of something - So none of these examples prove anything.
none of these mean "chief", "head" or "principal" (though you could construe some to mean that, when taken in their contexts they never mean these 3 things)
start of the race = the start line
beginning of the race = commencement of the race
(though both could mean when the racers set off, only start of the race could mean the start line)
if We take Proverbs 4:7 for example
"Wisdom" is not the "head" of acquiring "Wisdom" - rather its the commencement (or the start).
looking at Amos 6:1 - We certainly wouldn't say the "foremost" nation is the "chief", "head" or "principal"
We would say the "First" or "Best" yes, not the three presented above.
These examples infact are only pulled because they don't have the traditional meaning, not because they mean what I asked for.
There is no reason that Proverbs 4:7 must mean beginning, and there are plenty of translation that demonstrate this. It can mean "summit"/"pinnacle".
I like the translation -"wisdom is supreme".
Duncan
My point is it doesn't mean first-cause, ownership etc it rather seems to mean a commencement or as you say "First" (in a chain) in some way.
I would compare Proverbs 4:7 with Gen 49:3, Where it means start point (or first). - While I am not saying they are parallel(they are certainly not), its interesting to note, that acquiring Wisdom is the start point (or commencement) to Wisdom rather than the "First cause" of Wisdom.
However if you read back my original post, the challenge was (A. directed at Ninc) to cite a text which backs up ninc's claim - I can find no text in the NT or Lxx that have this meaning (with actual support from either scholars or other texts)
"Wisdom is supreme" is a good translation, ill admit.
After some heavy research Ninc has ommitted something as usual - 8:22 might not have a tempral marker - but 8:23 does- therefore pretty much eliminating the need for a temporal marker in 8:22 becaue 8:23 tell us when 8:22 happened.
Game. Set. Match
(citations available on request)
Post a Comment