Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias
  • Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 11:13:44 -0500


Dear Ian,

Thank you for your clarification. It helps me to realise how many
different currents of thought there were out there in Hellenistic
times, each cross-fertilising one another in ways we can sometimes
only guess at. We clearly need to be careful in trying to label people
as gnostic, platonic, Christian or whatever - in those days before
councils tried to define what was acceptable Christian thought and
what was unacceptable.

But your quote from Theophilus even more clearly shows than Dan-Ake
was wrong to write of Athanasius: "He felt free to change the meaning
of words instantly, in order to use them in the creed about Jesus.
Thus the words "to create" and "to be born" which were synonyms before
Nicaea, were at the council at Nicaea changed to be antonyms."
Theophilus is clearly (assuming you have given a good concordant (!)
translation of his Greek) making a distinction between "[God] begat
him, emitting him" used of the Logos and "created... made" used of the
things in which God and the Logos cooperated. So Theophilus, in the
2nd century, agreed with Athanasius and with the orthodox
interpretation of Colossians 1:15 (and Proverbs 8:22,23, of wisdom)
that the Logos/firstborn was not created, not a part of creation, but
came into being in some other way ("begotten") before the beginning of
creation. Perhaps Theophilus' use of "begat" is connected with the
-TOKOS part of PRWTOTOKOS in Col 1:15 - perhaps Theophilus understood
PRWTOTOKOS THS KTISEWS as "one begotten first of God, with authority
over creation". If so, he probably read something into Paul (or
pseudo-Paul).

Or perhaps (to get back to some Hebrew) both (pseudo-)Paul and
(pseudo-??)Theophilus took the idea of the Logos or the Christ being
begotten from QFNFNIY of Prov 8:22. This verb QNH (often translated
"create") certainly can mean "give birth" as in Genesis 4:1, oddly
enough used clearly in this sense only of the literally firstborn
among all men, Cain; see also Ps 139:13 where the verb is used in the
context of birth, and Exo 15:16 where "give birth" would be
appropriate.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Translations and Arian Bias
Author: mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet
Date: 02/04/1999 15:58

<snip>

Here again is a cut from Theoph.2,10, which is more binatarian:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
God, then, having His own word internal within His own bowels, begat him,
emitting him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this word
as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by him He made all
things. He is called "governing principle", because he rules, and is lord
of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and
governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon
the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of
all other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justin makes the distinction between "the first-birth of God" (Apol. Ch21),
"His word and first-begotten" (Ch 23), and "the Unbegotten God" (Ch 49), a
distinction that should be plain: there was a time when the word was not.
Dan-Ake Mattson was clearly right when he pointed the finger at Athanasius,
for it is his manipulation of the text that has influenced later
interpretation, but prior interpretation does not support the arbitrary
translation sometimes found in Col 1:15.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page