tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post8548021426327137117..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Proverbs 8:22-QANAH Possibly Means "Created"Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-44552265608774442112023-09-11T02:46:20.748-07:002023-09-11T02:46:20.748-07:00basically Im saying its not as cut and dry as what...basically Im saying its not as cut and dry as what is trying to be made out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-8017041884834296062023-09-11T02:43:55.100-07:002023-09-11T02:43:55.100-07:00Interesting find Edgar
1Jhn 4:14
https://www.yout...Interesting find Edgar<br /><br />1Jhn 4:14<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmahXPfpj_w&ab_channel=DailyDoseofGreek<br /><br />created me as the beginning of his way - would seem to me to be the most accurate (according to Wallace)<br />notice that the first part is paralleled with everything else in that verse and going forward.<br /><br />The whole context indicates "Wisdom" (Not God) is before the foundation of the earth (calls to mind Job 38:4)<br /> 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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-87919574782515744832023-09-08T10:29:22.808-07:002023-09-08T10:29:22.808-07:00The "created co-creator" in Proverbs 8:2...The "created co-creator" in Proverbs 8:22 Syriac?<br /><br />https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/download/69d146de415870787e259b12f59f1d64bf714fcd6b4ee8b1a8da3875305a0879/178890/OA_Moss_2003_Lady_wisdom_as_the_created_co_creator.pdfEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-39809597747613224662023-09-06T10:41:50.927-07:002023-09-06T10:41:50.927-07:00https://www.icatm.net/bibliotecabalmes/sites/defau...https://www.icatm.net/bibliotecabalmes/sites/default/files/public/analecta/AST_2/AST_2_357.pdfNincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-5108159173042646242023-09-02T09:15:14.007-07:002023-09-02T09:15:14.007-07:00https://catenabible.com/prv/8/22
https://www.answ...https://catenabible.com/prv/8/22<br /><br />https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_wisdom_created.htmNincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-88642210985249460592023-09-01T14:37:58.878-07:002023-09-01T14:37:58.878-07:00@ Nincsnevem
Please see for yourself how Athanasi...@ Nincsnevem<br /><br />Please see for yourself how Athanasius himself speaks about the proper translation and understanding of Proverbs 8:22 here:<br /><br />https://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse2-4.html<br /><br />For a study of the history of the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, please see here:<br />https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/24-3_099.pdf<br /><br />Yours,Βασίλειοςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753733842347485873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-61536383852162871572023-09-01T11:30:33.291-07:002023-09-01T11:30:33.291-07:00@Βασίλειος
"The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με...@Βασίλειος<br /><br />"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)."<br />(Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament)<br /><br />"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."<br />(Barnes' Notes on the Bible)<br /><br />"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)."<br />(Pulpit Commentary)Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-44851033043986488662023-09-01T01:54:19.843-07:002023-09-01T01:54:19.843-07:00Allow me to add that NET's comment is misleadi...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.<br />"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."<br /><br /><br />However, some other, later Fathers (maybe Basil, if I remember well) invoked alternative translations of Proverbs 8:22.Βασίλειοςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753733842347485873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-46914938251730484432023-08-31T22:30:43.841-07:002023-08-31T22:30:43.841-07:00There are numerous interpretive issues with Prover...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.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-86974197781674831182023-08-31T22:09:49.179-07:002023-08-31T22:09:49.179-07:00I mentioned the NET translation's note above, ...I mentioned the NET translation's note above, but here is what it states:<br /><br />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).<br />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 Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-55049251482157626612023-08-31T20:47:34.107-07:002023-08-31T20:47:34.107-07:00A good study on Proverbs 8:22:
https://docdro.id/5...A good study on Proverbs 8:22:<br />https://docdro.id/5scufme<br /><br />I did a little research, based on which Symmachus' translation managed to capture the idea best:<br /><br />Κύριος έκτήσατό με άρχειν όδών αύτοΰ προ τής τραφής αύτοΰ<br />(“The LORD acquired me *as* the first principle (arche) of his ways before his action”).<br /><br />So he interprets "qanani" as "acquired" and notices that it is a double accusative.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Revelation 1:6 (in the Greek New Testament) features a construction similar to what we were discussing.<br /><br />καὶ *ἐποίησεν* ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας {τῶν αἰώνων}· ἀμήν.<br /><br />Translation:<br />"And He has *made* us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In summary, even if we apply this literally to Christ, it cannot be applied to support Arian Christology.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-35664120938963304572023-07-27T21:06:28.654-07:002023-07-27T21:06:28.654-07:00Another informative source regarding ancient debat...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.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-40720840540026996992023-07-27T20:52:24.178-07:002023-07-27T20:52:24.178-07:00You might benefit from reading Bruce Waltke's ...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:<br /><br />"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 Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-17084010268496357372023-07-27T20:36:49.965-07:002023-07-27T20:36:49.965-07:00Dear Nincsnevem, maybe before making such bold cla...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 Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-62423135898016683082023-07-27T20:18:01.086-07:002023-07-27T20:18:01.086-07:00Dear Nincsnevem, here again, you're going in a...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." <br /><br />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 Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-63491409061978328862023-07-27T17:58:29.361-07:002023-07-27T17:58:29.361-07:00Philo of Alexandria used Prov 8:22–23 in 'De e...Philo of Alexandria used Prov 8:22–23 in 'De ebrietate' 31 in the wording different from that in the Septuagint:<br /><br />‘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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-33244124257665159892023-07-27T17:42:18.691-07:002023-07-27T17:42:18.691-07:00The book of Proverbs is part of wisdom literature,...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />* https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-27489123469935035852023-07-27T17:36:32.236-07:002023-07-27T17:36:32.236-07:00Jerome argues that the correct translation of &quo...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-68093404878621054612023-07-27T17:32:47.046-07:002023-07-27T17:32:47.046-07:00-1
It's meant as a type (see typology), could...-1<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-43830360464219669202023-07-05T14:13:04.503-07:002023-07-05T14:13:04.503-07:00"The Lord created me as the beginning of his ..."The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works" (NETS LXX). Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-6153216429274479962023-07-05T09:14:30.715-07:002023-07-05T09:14:30.715-07:00That was supposed to be, I don't think that Br...That was supposed to be, I don't think that Brenton is wrong per se.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-37116874268897210572023-07-05T09:12:19.685-07:002023-07-05T09:12:19.685-07:00U don't think Brandon is wrong per se, but I t...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 Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-64847116415838980832023-07-05T04:29:35.308-07:002023-07-05T04:29:35.308-07:00Edgar whats your take on Brentons rendering of Pro...Edgar whats your take on Brentons rendering of Prov 8:22<br />"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"<br /><br />Double accusativeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-39442887331137142372023-05-10T10:40:01.980-07:002023-05-10T10:40:01.980-07:00See the comment above from Michael Fox. You might ...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.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-59846475532340486062023-05-09T17:28:49.687-07:002023-05-09T17:28:49.687-07:00“Something similar is also read in Proverbs, of th...“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.”<br />(Jerome - Letter 140)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com